Ju 88 A family

[Baron]

Clint! Thank you for the note. Maciek here are photographs of that section:
http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com...%200880119.jpg
http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com...088_881203.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7261/7...25fab177_z.jpg

[Clint Mitchell]

I would exercise some caution when using the restoration in the second photo. Although mainly complete the forward fuselage area was left considerably warped and damaged in the forced landing. The above photo shows 4N+EH worth this area completely rebuilt.

[Maciej N]

It seems You have absolutely right Clint. Small subtle detail.

[Skyraider3D]

I understand what you're saying about that panel, Clint, and I am sure you're right, but I am not 100% convinced just yet!
That front panel does look a tad wider at the front end... A perfect side shot eludes me but this is a different angle and it still feels slightly tapered to me. Perhaps it's optical illusion, but then why would it have five screws at the front and four in the middle. Perhaps to conform to stronger curvature? The spacing does look smaller... tricky one this!

[Skyraider3D]

Another few interesting shots...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/69430322@N04/7536880272 (this confirms the top is straight)
Ju 88 and colleague | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[Maciej N]

Still searching at my photos and think however that it's not 100% rectangle.
Especialy photo of simon (which I know)
http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com...088_881203.jpg
It shows tha this panel could be a very little "angled"

[Clint Mitchell]

Discussion is healthy. I just knew I was walking straight into an intense headache inducing one though as soon as I posted my comment.

Right, again I have worries about that particular Hungarian restoration. My reasons are below. No matter what photo you look at, that panel looks no where near as angled as they have rebuilt it. Now we know that no factory blueprints survive of the Ju88. So what do these restoration guys do... they have to make educated guesses (from photos...) and sometimes it works out and sometimes it don't. This is evident in some of the Bf109E abortions that have been created in the past. (They even had blueprints for those as well...) Below is 4D+EH lying as it crashed before being recovered. As you can see this particular area is badly smashed, warped with even all the stringers and frames having been cut out when the emblem was removed so this area has been completely rebuilt from scratch...



They may be doing a good job I don't know but for this discussion that particular area of that Ju88 is not original so therefore cannot in my mind be relied upon.... Anyway that's another story.

I totally agree that every single photo makes this panel appear angled and if it wasn't for this specific detail being brought up when I was drawing mine I would have probably drawn it angled also, but I was told specifically by someone who would know that this detail is always depicted wrongly on all known drawings. I was told that it is not angled at all....

I've been searching for photos but like you say none I can find show this area perfectly for our needs. I myself in the past put this optical illusion down to the fact that the long panel has to conform to just a slight curve at the back end but then at the front end it's almost rounded with the bottom corner having to twist in under itself where the fuselage goes from round at the front to almost flat at the back therefore this and the perspective in photos makes it appear angled. It's only when you start drawing some guidelines over some photos that you notice the panel is not as strangely angled as it looks. Using the bottom of the cockpit framing as a guide which should run perfectly horizontal to the line of flight..



You notice how the lines seem parallel and this time it's the bottom of the panel that appears angled....

The red outline of the panel in the photo below was created by tracing a path along the top edge of the panel. I then copied that path and moved it down onto the bottom edge of the panel. The top edge path conformed perfectly to the bottom edge of the panel. Then all I did was join them with a curved path for the vertical edge at the front. (I do hope that makes sense?). Now my reasoning is that if any side of that panel was angled then surely both horizontal paths would not be able to be identical?



Do you see what I mean? I don't mind what you do it's your drawing and you need to go with what you feel comfortable with but my reason for arguing this case is because I had this exact same discussion with a very well informed guy and he told me so. (Do you ever wish you could find an email from 3 years ago on the server...) I want to go to Hendon now and actually measure it. It's a difficult one but at the time I was comfortably persuaded.

[Skyraider3D]

Now my reasoning is that if any side of that panel was angled then surely both horizontal paths would not be able to be identical?

My reasoning was quite the opposite. I too discovered the top and bottom conform to identical paths and wondered how this could be possible, seeing as the fuselage cross-section changes and the photo has a relatively wide perspective (probably using a standard 50mm lens). And as curvature increases towards the front and the perspective makes the front look "smaller", this could only mean that in reality the front has to be wider...
I know your contact worked on an actual Ju 88, so I will take your word for it. But I still find it a mighty strange effect

[Clint Mitchell]

Don't take my word for it as I can't physically prove it yet. It's merely secondhand words at the moment but my curiosity needs to be quenched now so I will endeavour to get my ass up to Hendon to see if I can actually measure the panel. Or ask someone nicely to do it for me.

[Maciej N]

Wow! What a thread I'm really frapped of it.
My friends... look at this photo:

Surce: All rights reserved by mrkyle229
In my opinion it's not paralel.
another proof is that in front there are 5 vertical rivets, in the middle 4 vertical rivets. I'm sure they are divide in the same distance.