Junkers Ju288 as four engine bomber

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
...
With that said, if it were production ready in 1942 and effectively able to outrun the existing fighter opposition at altitude might it be utilized for strategic bombing missions?

Using it for any other purpose defeats it's purpose.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Using it for any other purposes defeats it's purpose.
Well, it was being considered to replace just the medium bombers currently on hand and to supplement the He177. Plus it isn't as if the Luftwaffe didn't have a bad habit of cancelling strategic bombing plans to operationally or tactically bomb when pressed in the east. However, since it consumed four DB601/5 engines each I'm wondering if that might not give them a reason to keep them focused on particular bombing projects that didn't put them at front line risk; for example in 1943 bombing Gorky only cost the Luftwaffe a couple of bombers, while bombing Kursk cost them dozens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Gorky_in_World_War_II
 
Well, it was being considered to replace just the medium bombers currently on hand and to supplement the He177.

With 5360 L (1180 imp gals) of internal fuel, and option to carry 1800 L (~400 imp gals) in drop tanks for it's 4000 HP installed, the Jumo-222-powered Ju 288 was very much a strategic bomber; drop tanks will reduce bomb load. Avro Manchester carried 882 imp gals normal, 1160 imp gals for max fuel case; total 3900 HP.
German medium bombers (He 111, Do 17 and 217, Ju 88) have had strategic role as priority, same as British Whitley, Wellington or Hampden.

Plus it isn't as if the Luftwaffe didn't have a bad habit of cancelling strategic bombing plans to operationally or tactically bomb when pressed in the east. However, since it consumed four DB601/5 engines each I'm wondering if that might not give them a reason to keep them focused on particular bombing projects that didn't put them at front line risk; for example in 1943 bombing Gorky only cost the Luftwaffe a couple of bombers, while bombing Kursk cost them dozens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Gorky_in_World_War_II

Never underestimate propensity of commanders to make costly mistakes?
 

Deleted member 1487

With 5360 L (1180 imp gals) of internal fuel, and option to carry 1800 L (~400 imp gals) in drop tanks for it's 4000 HP installed, the Jumo-222-powered Ju 288 was very much a strategic bomber; drop tanks will reduce bomb load. Avro Manchester carried 882 imp gals normal, 1160 imp gals for max fuel case; total 3900 HP.
German medium bombers (He 111, Do 17 and 217, Ju 88) have had strategic role as priority, same as British Whitley, Wellington or Hampden.
We're talking about the DB606/10 equipped version now though, which is heavier, but more powerful. Perhaps the drop tanks won't decrease payload capacity with the 288C due to that extra power and JATO?

Never underestimate propensity of commanders to make costly mistakes?
Especially the Luftwaffe, but since we are supposing that they are much more rational here in terms of development and production, since the He177 resources go into it due to being ready in 1942 and it uses the same engines, is it wrong to suppose they might use the new tools more effectively, especially with the HE177 sized gap in production? I wonder if it might cover the long range recon/naval recon role as well given that it would have a large spare cargo capacity without bombs. It would certainly remove the need for the Ju88H.
 
We're talking about the DB606/10 equipped version now though, which is heavier, but more powerful. Perhaps the drop tanks won't decrease payload capacity with the 288C due to that extra power and JATO?

JATO certaily helps with high take-off weights, so does the increase in horsepower.
Seems like the Ju 288C was planned to carry 7160 L of fuel (1575 imp gals) internally, that gives ~1975 gals with drop tanks. Lancaster carried 1625 imp gals (range of 1660 miles with 14000 lbs of bombs) up to 2550 imp gals (range of 2680 miles with 7000 lbs of bombs); no bombs meant 2950 gals can be carried. Granted, Lancaster was outfitted with a much bigger wing - good for payload, not so much for speed.

Especially the Luftwaffe, but since we are supposing that they are much more rational here in terms of development and production, since the He177 resources go into it due to being ready in 1942 and it uses the same engines, is it wrong to suppose they might use the new tools more effectively, especially with the HE177 sized gap in production? I wonder if it might cover the long range recon/naval recon role as well given that it would have a large spare cargo capacity without bombs. It would certainly remove the need for the Ju88H.

4 engined aircraft are much better as MPA than 2-engined types, since they usualy carry more fuel and/or ordnance per HP installed, and engine-out situation are much more manageable.
OTOH, if our 4-engined Ju 288 is not hittingSoviet and/or British factories, refineries, oil fields, marshalling yards, and hitting them hard, then it will not be helping the Axis war effort that much. In order to fly above the UK, a sizable fighter escort is needed.
 

Deleted member 1487

In order to fly above the UK, a sizable fighter escort is needed.
As Steinbock showed that isn't necessarily true if the right tactics are used; the much slower He177 was the most survivable aircraft during the operation. Since the Ju288C would be much faster than the He177, Ju88/188s, Do217s, etc. it could well be very hard to catch at night and with the use of Düppel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177#Operational_history
While Steinbock was unsuccessful, the He 177 did achieve some successes. During Steinbock crews typically carried two 1,800 kg (3,970 lb) and two 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) bombs. Climbing to 7,000 m (22,965 ft) while still over German territory, the He 177s approached the target in a shallow dive, both engines throttled back, the pilot putting his aircraft into a gliding descent to take it across the bomb release-point at about 4,500 m (14,760 ft). After releasing the bombs the pilot re-opened the throttles, but continued the descent at approximately 200 m (656 ft) per minute. The bombers typically re-entered German airspace at an altitude of 750 m (2,460 ft), and headed back to base. By such means, the He 177s were able to keep up speeds of about 600 to 700 km/h (370 to 430 mph) during their withdrawal phase. The higher speed and constant change of altitude made interceptions difficult, increasing the survivability of the aircraft, but decreased bombing accuracy and concentration.[65] With an average loss rate of 60% for bomber aircraft types used in Operation Steinbock, the He 177's loss rate below 10% made it the most survivable bomber in the campaign.

Of course the next part of the entry does offer some interesting options for the Eastern Front:
On the Eastern Front, the most notable action by the He 177 was a mass raid of some eighty-seven aircraft against railway targets in the Velikiye Luki area, about 450 km (280 mi) west of Moscow on 19 July 1944. The participating Staffeln flew in three large attack wedges of about thirty aircraft, each loaded with four 250 kg (551 lb) or two 500 kg (1,102 lb) bombs.[66] During this action, carried out in daylight at altitudes in excess of 6,000 m (19,690 ft), losses were relatively light. The Soviet Air Force, equipped mainly for low-level interception and ground-attack roles, could do little to hinder the high-flying bombers.[67][68]

If the Ju288C is ready with the pressurized cockpits and altitude performance, which it probably would be given it would be using the same engines as the He177, a high flying Ju288 might well be nearly invulnerable to the VVS due to the PVO getting the high altitude fighters.
 
As Steinbock showed that isn't necessarily true if the right tactics are used; the much slower He177 was the most survivable aircraft during the operation. Since the Ju288C would be much faster than the He177, Ju88/188s, Do217s, etc. it could well be very hard to catch at night and with the use of Düppel.

Yes, a fast bomber going in the night will be a tough target for a defender. The defender needs to have a good speed advantage to catch it, not granted in this case.
 
Some comments on adding an additional engine to an already in-production aircraft. Where the fuselage forward cross section is comparable in area to the adjacentprop disc, surprisingly little additional thrust is gained (Jack Norris IAAA paper. If interested I'll look up the number). Ideally the third engine would be located in the accelerated boundary layer at the rear of the fuselage, but ground operation and CG location make this modification impractical.

If charged with adding a third engine to the Ju 288, I'd simply add a stub wing section with nacelle and landing gear (as already being produced) on the side which would be least destabilizing (This is a function of direction of prop rotation- I'd have to run some numbers).
Possibly a reduction in span of the single engine side wing, and increase in size of the vertical stabilizer, or addition of a dorsal would be desirable. The perfect consultant was Blohm und Voss's Dr Richard Vogt, who successfully developed much more assymetric aircraft than my proposal.

Dynasoar
 
...
If charged with adding a third engine to the Ju 288, I'd simply add a stub wing section with nacelle and landing gear (as already being produced) on the side which would be least destabilizing (This is a function of direction of prop rotation- I'd have to run some numbers).
Possibly a reduction in span of the single engine side wing, and increase in size of the vertical stabilizer, or addition of a dorsal would be desirable. The perfect consultant was Blohm und Voss's Dr Richard Vogt, who successfully developed much more assymetric aircraft than my proposal.

Dynasoar

Please, do tell.
 
Getting back to the original topic, I suppose, having looked into the details of the development program, that the best option would have been to simply have gone for the Ju288C (i.e. the model with the DB606/10 engine) in 1940-1 instead of waiting on the Jumo 222 or redesigning it for four separate engines. Unlike the He177, the Ju288C doesn't seem to have had the engine fire problem AFAIK.

With that said, if it were production ready in 1942 and effectively able to outrun the existing fighter opposition at altitude might it be utilized for strategic bombing missions?

my understanding the Dornier DO-217 was the only aircraft that could deploy Fritz-X bombs? although technically the HE-111 could carry it they were never employed?

so that might be your effective combination? JU-288 with guided munitions.

do recall from book Luftwaffe over America the KM was scrambling to find any viable type, seems as though even if not mass produced, the JU-288 would not be a rare bird like JU-290?

does this scenario sort of butterfly away the JU-388? for a high altitude recon aircraft? that was also certainly a grievous shortcoming until AR-234 came along.
 

Deleted member 1487

my understanding the Dornier DO-217 was the only aircraft that could deploy Fritz-X bombs? although technically the HE-111 could carry it they were never employed?

so that might be your effective combination? JU-288 with guided munitions.

do recall from book Luftwaffe over America the KM was scrambling to find any viable type, seems as though even if not mass produced, the JU-288 would not be a rare bird like JU-290?

does this scenario sort of butterfly away the JU-388? for a high altitude recon aircraft? that was also certainly a grievous shortcoming until AR-234 came along.
No, the He177 did as well. The Do217 was just cheaper to use in most cases. If more survivable the Ju288 would be probably the best option to use it. Yeah the Ju290 was shoehorned into service, IIRC it was the militarized version of the civilian Ju90...which was the civilian version of the Ju89.
This scenario would butterfly the Ju188, as it was the response to the failure of the Ju288 program before 1944. The 388 though might have some utility even for the recon role, as the Ju288 might be too much aircraft at shorter ranges and some missions like that of a heavy fighter/night fighter. Still, the 288 would probably meet a lot of the need the 388 covered, but it would still allow the Ju88 production lines to be used with limited upgrades, which was an important factor in figuring out what would likely be produced in WW2 Germany, which was falling behind in production output.
 
Please, do tell.

First, propeller efficiency loss installed at the nose of a relatively large cross section fuselage, compared with that propeller on a test spindle, based on flight test, is about 25%; considerably more than for a smaller circular nacelle. Please see "Zero-Thrust Glide Testing for Drag and Propulsive Efficiency of Propeller Aircraft"
AIAA Paper 90-0233, which appeared in Journal of Aircraft, July-August 1993. You can probably find it on the Internet. Its' author was technical director for propulsion for the Rutan Voyager non-stop world flight.

As for assymetric aircraft, take a look at Vogt's BV-141.

Dynasoar
 
Last edited:
Skimming though this thread again I'm skeptical any technical improvement are visible at all. Between declining manufacturing quality, and declining training the advantages of the several well designed aircraft the German AF did possess were offset significantly. Operations like STEINBOCK or BODENPLATTE were degraded by undertrained aircrew among other things. Would bigger faster aircraft make enough of a difference, or just bigger take off and landing accidents?
 

Deleted member 1487

Skimming though this thread again I'm skeptical any technical improvement are visible at all. Between declining manufacturing quality, and declining training the advantages of the several well designed aircraft the German AF did possess were offset significantly. Operations like STEINBOCK or BODENPLATTE were degraded by undertrained aircrew among other things. Would bigger faster aircraft make enough of a difference, or just bigger take off and landing accidents?
Depends. Introduction in 1942 is quite a bit before the worst of the loss in quality control and crew training/experience, plus they might well put their best pilots in the Ju288 rather than the freshest ones. Steinbock was also partly a function of it being a rushed operation on Hitler's orders before sufficient training could happen, especially as the crews were being trained/assembled for Eisenhammer in the East and had to adapt to very different conditions in the West suddenly. Bodenplatte was at the end of the war, well after the Luftwaffe was effectively smashed. In 1942-43 there was still a lot of excellent bomber crews around as evidenced by what was able to be achieved against Gorky in mid-1943, but they were severely attritted by early 1944. Also the majority of aircraft used in 1944-45 were badly outdated compared to their opponents and the defenses they had to deal with, so that was certainly a large part of the huge losses they suffered.

Of the bombers used for Steinbock landing accidents weren't really that much of an issue, the landing accidents were more with fighters due to the higher landing speeds and the tricky landing gear of the Bf109, as well as the higher loss rates in combat and consequently reduced training cycles. Plus since bombers were considered harder to handle and the primary offensive weapon so the best crews were reserved for that branch, while fighter pilots got the left overs.
 
When a twin-engines airplane loses on engine, it loses 1/2 its thrust and develops a massive yaw problem. Some older twins could barely climb on one engine.
When a tri-motor loses an engine, it loses 1/3 of its power and may or may not have a yaw problem.
When a four-engined airplane loses an engine, it loses 1/4 of its power and develops a smaller yaw problem.
So more engines keep the flight engineer busier, but provide more docile engine-out handling for pilots
..... ergo reducing the risk of crashing on take-off.

Finally, four engines allow for a lighter wing structure than twins. Consider that hard landings severely strain the wing roots. But extra engines - outboard of the main wheels - tend to balance the load. Installing the third and fourth engines well onboard also distributes loads more evenly along the wing spars. This is the same structural logic as installing fuel tanks in the outer wings. The outer wing panels “carry” outboard engines and fuel, so wing roots don’t “feel” their weight.
 
Skimming though this thread again I'm skeptical any technical improvement are visible at all. Between declining manufacturing quality, and declining training the advantages of the several well designed aircraft the German AF did possess were offset significantly. Operations like STEINBOCK or BODENPLATTE were degraded by undertrained aircrew among other things. Would bigger faster aircraft make enough of a difference, or just bigger take off and landing accidents?

not disagreeing with your points however there was some upside potential for Germany in the Atlantic, where they were clamoring for anything.

on paper they had over 1,000 of the HE-177, but the reality no more than a handful available for maritime patrols, and none prior to 1943.
 
What is as a backup project in case the He177 or the Jumo 222 engine didn't work out the Ju288 was also developed into a four engine version starting in 1940 using existing Jumo 211 engines? It's performance wouldn't have been as great as that projected for the Ju288, but it would likely have been production ready by 1942 and considerably better performance than the Ju88/188/388 and Do217 using existing mass produced engines. IOTL the Luftwaffe did try this approach too late with the Ju488 and relied on using the Jumo 222 for it, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't have been viable with four lower powered engines. It could retain the playload of the Ju288, which was considerable, though not quite as good as the He177, but be lighter, use some parts from the Ju88 developments, while the Ju288 was designed around being a mass produceable, assembly line product.
http://www.flugzeug-lorenz.de/index.php?id=109

If operational in 1942 as a fast, high altitude long range bomber and recon aircraft what sort of impact could it have had?
Would it be the same like the Messerschmitt Me 264.
 
not disagreeing with your points however there was some upside potential for Germany in the Atlantic, where they were clamoring for anything. ...

I'll take a look at Costello & Hughes BoA & see whats possible. As I recall most of the submarine operations in 1942 were in US/Carribean waters or further south in the Central Atlantic.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
If used in significant numbers over the Atlantic it might prod the Allies into providing more VLR ASW aircraft sooner & in larger numbers.
This gives me the glorious vision of Ju-288s being hunted over the Atlantic by roving pairs of YB-40 (with engines upgraded to the R-1820-74W, giving them 1,500hp per engine compared to the -65 1,200hp) creating the most bizarre dogfights in the history of powered flight.
 
Top