Junkers Ju 188

[Denniss]

Your drawing made the impossibility of this gunpod clear as the prop goes through the mid of the inner wing station.
The four-gun image with the rounded glazed nose is of a Ju 188 (or Ju 88B).
The Z19 image is a prototype installation or unit hack.
I belive they could use the downward firing WB 81 gunpack on the inner station but only with the top gun removed (prop limits again), the full 3-gun WB 81 could be used at the outerwing station.

http://i588.photobucket.com/albums/ss321/CruverCollecter/Ju88FighterNeatPaintScheme-1.jpg
->Later-war Ju 88C with fake noze glazing and twin cannon in streamlined gondola. Most likely a day-fighter version used in France or Russia.

[chris3]

hi

the secret is the position of the guns in the pood.



sure it will be not much space but it schould work, also i relativly sure that it were no big deal to use the magnetick control to stop the gun fireing if the probeler goes thrue the bulets way. Keep in minde that in the 88 are much hightech is implemented.

yes its a ju88 B.

cu christian

[Denniss]

They never developed an interrupter mechanism for the Jumo 211 so impossible to use synchronized guns with these engines. It is therefore impossible to install any straight forward firing gunpods on carriers between fuselage and engine. They could be installed in the outer wing position only.
The WB 81B is downward firing, not straight as shown in your image.

[chris3]

moin

so you are saying these drawings are wrong?! Trojika is very famouse in technickal research thay have done alot of literatur in all technickaly aereas. so im sorry but i think i belive more the drawing of troijka as your opinion.

Also werd did you get the information that there is not interupt mechanism on the jumo 211.  i think in the that time periode every technickaly crew member were able to desinge somthing easy like that, and of cores the enginerers of junkers would be implementing this easy. Exspezialiy if thay remodel a ju88 from a bomber to a destroyer. The jumo 213 did have this so why not the 211.

 But how i tried out to explain, the position of the gun in the gun pood will put it in that place were the bullet dont get true the propeler. its not much but it must work. how ever with a interupt mechanism or with out.

Or show me that these drawings are wrong.

cu christian

[Karnak]

moin

so you are saying these drawings are wrong?! Trojika is very famouse in technickal research thay have done alot of literatur in all technickaly aereas. so im sorry but i think i belive more the drawing of troijka as your opinion.

Also werd did you get the information that there is not interupt mechanism on the jumo 211.  i think in the that time periode every technickaly crew member were able to desinge somthing easy like that, and of cores the enginerers of junkers would be implementing this easy. Exspezialiy if thay remodel a ju88 from a bomber to a destroyer. The jumo 213 did have this so why not the 211.

 But how i tried out to explain, the position of the gun in the gun pood will put it in that place were the bullet dont get true the propeler. its not much but it must work. how ever with a interupt mechanism or with out.

Or show me that these drawings are wrong.

cu christian

I think he is saying the guns were angled downward for use in straffing while the aircraft flew low and level over the target.  That they were not fixed forward for use as a fighter.

[chris3]

hi

ah, yes thats true.

this 2omm gun pod  shows 2 diverent angels, for forwar fiering and strafing.  i dont knew if that were ajustable in flight, i will will not wonder if





cu christian