FuG Radar for Ju 188

[Yank in the RAF]

I am interested in building 1H+GT (aircraft #2) on the Third Group Decals sheet (48-061).  But the instructions say that FuG 217 Rostock aerials are fitted to both wings (though not shown on the plane inthe instructions).  

 

I've looked for any image of a Ju 188 (and even a Ju 88) with this radar on the wings, but I cannot find anything online, and I don't have the reference material cited on the decal sheet.  And most importantly, Does anyone know of an aftermarket kit for this radar?  

[G.R.Morrison]

In the '1945' section of Steenbeck's Die Spur des Löwen (KG 26 unit history) there are photos of several Ju 88A-17 and Ju 188 with the wing-mounted vertical aerials.  This has a simple mount beneath the leading edge, with a vertical antenna that extends only a bit above the wing.  The above-wing antennae, located outboard, is a single slanting dipole on two fore-and-aft vertical mounts, the taller mount in front.  Examples: Uffz. Josef Mang's (Ju 88A-17) "1H+GN", and "1H+BN", but most of their Ju 88s and Ju 188s do NOT have this fitted.

 

The "1H+GT" WNr.190327 was one of those taken to England in August 1945 where it became "AM113"-- most of those in Norway were burnt / scrapped.

 

GRM

[Yank in the RAF]

11 hours ago, G.R.Morrison said:

In the '1945' section of Steenbeck's Die Spur des Löwen (KG 26 unit history) there are photos of several Ju 88A-17 and Ju 188 with the wing-mounted vertical aerials.  This has a simple mount beneath the leading edge, with a vertical antenna that extends only a bit above the wing.  The above-wing antennae, located outboard, is a single slanting dipole on two fore-and-aft vertical mounts, the taller mount in front.  Examples: Uffz. Josef Mang's (Ju 88A-17) "1H+GN", and "1H+BN", but most of their Ju 88s and Ju 188s do NOT have this fitted.

 

The "1H+GT" WNr.190327 was one of those taken to England in August 1945 where it became "AM113"-- most of those in Norway were burnt / scrapped.

 

GRM

Thanks for the respomse.  But finding out that this book costs $325 US dollars means it won't be on this years Christmas list (or next year's, either). ☹️

[dov]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neptun_FuG_217.pdf

If you look at the pages 3 or 5 so you will find enough information to make a proper installation! Save your money! If you need more, let me know!

My father was active in developement of these units!

Happy modelling 

[Yank in the RAF]

10 hours ago, dov said:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neptun_FuG_217.pdf

If you look at the pages 3 or 5 so you will find enough information to make a proper installation! Save your money! If you need more, let me know!

My father was active in developement of these units!

Happy modelling 

Your link is the most I've seen so far.  Thanks for sharing.  However, I'm still not sure of placement or where any aftermarket for this is.  

[dov]

No worry Sir.

Firstvof all iI made the pdf download. Secondly I speak German.  Thirdly I have much time after a surgery in my leg.

I will provide know with all information to model your kit.

The Ju 188 and 88 I know very well, built many of them.

Happy modelling 

[SafetyDad]

This might help. Pics of 1H+GT

 

 

 

both from here on P75.

 

 

The FuG 217 fit is very hard to see and more complex than I thought. The link posted by @dov to the handbook for FuG 217, and the information provided by @G.R.Morrison are both slightly different in terms of the aerial fit. This is compounded by the poor quality of many photos, where the aerials are not easy to make out. I'm struggling to see them on the photos here of 1H+GT. FuG 217 was not fitted to all aircraft in a given unit just to confuse us further, although the evidence seems to point to it being carried by your chosen subject,

 

Look here - four vertical rods under the wing, in this case next to the letter 'N'. 

 

 

This drawing shows it better - three rods in front, with a fourth somewhat behind.

 

 

And here its fitted to a Ju 388

 

 

Also worth mentioning that 1H+GH doesn't seem to have the regulation mud guard on the tail wheel.

 

HTH

 

SD

[SafetyDad]

Righto. I think I'm getting somewhere.

 

Martin Streetly in Confound and Destroy has a very useful set of appendices describing the radar and ECM fits of both sides during WW2. On PP 179 to 180 he describes three distinct versions of FuG 217. One was for single seaters, such as the Fw 190, but the other two versions could be used by multi-engined aircraft. These were

 

FuG 217 Neptun R2, a tail warning set (which I think is the one on the drawings above)

 

FuG 217 Neptun VR, a combined AI and tail warning set for multi engined aircraft. 'This set could use rod or dipole and support aerial arrays'. This sounds like the array fitted to 1H+GT. Unfortunately there's no pictures of any aerial fittings in this section, but P6 of @dov's link shows a possible candidate that also is not so far from @G.R.Morrison's description.

 

SD 

[dov]

Hallo

 

Here is a transcript of the main issues of the manual:

 

Horizontal and vertical antennas have been developed for the “FuG 217”.

Vertical antenna has been installed in the aircraft initially, while for the future only horizontal antennas should also be installed.

The horizontal antenna also allows targets to be detected when flying low over the sea, and 

searching distances greater than the flight altitude, while with the vertical antenna only a detection of aim at a distance smaller than the altitude possible.

The antenna device exists of a horizontal or a vertical unit.

It is necessary to obey, that the FuG 101 (T shaped electrical ALT) is not allowed to be installed at the same wing as the transmitter antenna of the FuG 217.

If installed, never operated at the same time!

They interfere.

The antenna device exists of a transmitter and a receiver.

The horizontal antenna there is one unit on one side the transmitter and on the other side the receiver.

Each vertical antenna unit consists of a radiator or transmitter, a reflector and two wave directors.

 

Installation inside the fuselage:

Two boxes close to the pilot’s dashboard.

The indicator screen is in the center, the main switch good to handle, for tuning the indication.

The other four boxes somewhere in the fuselage so that maintenance has easy access.

The manual by itself was prohibited to be taken on flight.

The FuG 217 is a warning device against enemy a/c.

Range was for horizontal antennas 3,5 km to the rear, 300m below and sideward.

Resolution was 300m. Approx.

ALT also.

 

With the vertical antennas, the forward detection range is approximately 800 - 1000 m.

A flight destination that is perceived to be less than 1 km can also be in front of your own aircraft.

In order to determine where the perceived flight target is, the speed is used of your own aircraft increased.

The vertical antennas were less efficient.

If the target character is away from the Zero character, is located the destination is behind your own aircraft.

If the target character approaches this Zero sign, the destination is in front of your own aircraft.

Vertical polarized antennas have no good use over sea for ship tracking or coastline tracking.

 

As far as I know, there was so much secrecy in radio research, that many good equipment were not used in operative units!

The same idea of secrecy has to be understood when watching photos on this matter!

Misleading, contradiction on photos is a permanent issue on war photography yesterday and today!  

 

What would I do: On my model:

I would scratch horizontal antennas, they are usefull.

Not install vertical antennas one (Misleading!)

I would eventually omit the FuG 101 antennas (misleading also!)

My further conclusion: The censor forgott to delete the antennas on the photos or put the less efficient verticals on it for misleading purpose only!

Mabe you @SafetyDad & @Yank in the RAF may think about this matter!

 

Happy modelling

[Stickleback]

For those fellows who are lucky to own the  following 1/72nd kits: the horizontal antennas are provided by the Special Hobby Ju 388 (No. 72021, p1+p2), the vertical antennas can be found in the Revell kits of the Ju 290 (No. 04340 and No. 04285, parts 115).

So long!

Howard

[SafetyDad]

As a footnote to this thread I've just realised that the reference I used for the pictures of 1H+GT is one of the two primary references for the Third Group sheet you have. Now I normally hold these sheets in high regard, having a few myself, but I have my doubts in this case about FuG 217 being fitted to your airframe. Notice that there is no sign of any overwing (or underwing) masts or dipoles of any sort in the two pictures I uploaded of 1H+GT. I also possess the other part of this 2 part publication cited by the decal makers, and there's no photos there either. So the primary references cited do not support this equipment being fitted to this specific aircraft.

 

So I've trawled through my references for pictures of KG26 Ju 88s and 188s. The best source for photos I have is the Classic Publications volume on the Ju 88 - Junkers Ju 88 - Volume Two - The Bomber at War Day and Night - Operational and Service History William A. Medcalf - Luftwaffe Classics Nr. 24. This has a considerable number of big, clear shots of KG26 aircraft at war's end, taken in both Norway (Gardermoen) and Germany (Lubeck). I can't see any Ju 188s fitted with FuG 217. And some pictures show a lot of aircraft. I can only see three Ju 88s fitted with the overwing aerial fit - and its exactly as described by @G.R.Morrison above, namely a sloping dipole mounted near each wing tip and pointing forwards and outwards with the forward end of the aerial mounted higher than the rear. As illustrated in the handbook posted by @dov. Sadly in none of the pictures of these Ju 88 aircraft fitted with the desired equipment can unit codes be seen. It is worth noting that these few aircraft also carry additional FuG 200 dipole arrays outboard of each engine at mid span as well as in the more conventional mounting spot on the aircraft nose.

 

I don't dispute the premise that some of the unit's Ju 188s carried FuG 217 - GRM has already given examples - only that 1H+GT appears not to be so equipped.

As always, open to change my mind when that crucial definitive photograph is uploaded in the next few minutes!

 

SD

[dov]

@SafetyDad, this is an excellent approach to this topic. Scientific level! Exactly my favor!

Thank you, because it is important for our Forum!

Happy modelling 

[dov]

One more thing:

From operation diaries: If you want to attack a Britisch convoy on sea, the German bombers need to fly few meters (8) above sea level.

1943 from Netherland on Do-217 for example. With a Ju-88 no difference at all!

ALT by FuG 101 only. So, in both directions. For what need of FuG 217? This would interfere the FuG 101!

Just a logic operation briefing shows this!

@SafetyDad, you may be right with your conclusion!

Happy modelling 

[Stickleback]

Talking about Ju 88’s and Ju 188‘s of KG 26 in Norway in 1945, does anybody know the look and the radar equipment of the Ju 188 A-3 W/Nr. 190335 or 190355 (varied informations in literature), code 1H+AT, 9./KG26, which defected intact with a German Luftwaffe crew to Scotland and landed in Fraserburgh on May 2nd, 1945? Pilot Olt. Rolf Kunze. Are there any known fotos of this a/c?

[SafetyDad]

1 hour ago, dov said:

 

ALT by FuG 101 only. So, in both directions. For what need of FuG 217? This would interfere the FuG 101!

Just a logic operation briefing shows this!

@SafetyDad, you may be right with your conclusion!

Happy modelling 

 

Strange that you should mention this - I was thinking exactly the same this morning, namely that the radio altimeter would be a more useful piece of kit than FuG 217. In this case I was reading a Luftwaffe Im Focus describing the missions of 1.(F)/120 against Scapa Flow. These missions were flown at less than 50 M to avoid radar detection. You'd have to have confidence in your altimeter to accomplish this!

 

SD

[Graham Boak]

I've read in one of my books on the air war  in the Mediterranean, that Beaufighters intercepting Ju.88s found that the Junkers evaded them apparently by turning tighter at low altitudes because the wing tip position of the radar altimeter permitted them to fly lower than the fuselage mounting of the altimeter on the Beaufighter.  Memory suggests that this was also a radar altimeter rather than just a  conventional one, otherwise there's be little surprise in the '88 flying lower.  But would that difference,, less than the semi-span of an '88 and so around 30 ft, actually make a worthwhile difference?  I doubt it,  One possibility was that this was simply a face-saving excuse at a fighter being out-manoeuvred by a bomber.  The other may be a difference in the fan width of the transmission - if the '88 possessed a wider fan than the Beau, then the '88 could pull a greater angle of bank and hence a tighter turn before the radar lost track of the surface.  Can anyone produce a comparison of the transmission characteristics of the respective altimeters?  Or just the turn rates of the two aircraft at sea level?

[tempestfan]

31 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

I've read in one of my books on the air war  in the Mediterranean, that Beaufighters intercepting Ju.88s found that the Junkers evaded them apparently by turning tighter at low altitudes because the wing tip position of the radar altimeter permitted them to fly lower than the fuselage mounting of the altimeter on the Beaufighter.  

Would the altitude difference between them have been such that "thicker air" a couple of feet lower down permitted the 88 a tighter turn? Sounds to me rather more like knowledge of the effect of 4 closely-grouped 404s and the desperate wish to avoid it, in conjunction with "we'll get him next time around if he dares to come back, and we have gin, tonic and ice at base".

[Graham Boak]

The air isn't that thicker.  I suspect that a Ju.88 probably can turn just about as well as a Beaufighter anyway, but it is an interesting little snippet linked to the thread.

[dov]

The ALT FuG 101 permitted regular flying in 1943 onward down to 10 feet above Sea Level! Over time lap of hours. Valid for all Kampfflugzeuge. Of the Luftwaffe. 

This is a fact.

How are the counterpartd equiped?

This is a topic for a new thread, please.

Since if the topics are pointing, clear, explicit, we can use it as a lexica! Otherwise confusing!

Happy modelling 

 

[Graham Boak]

Probably not 10ft but maybe 3m?  However I suggest that if the radar aerial was 3m or 10ft above the surface the prop blades would be hitting it.  Not counting for waves.  So I'm not sure about the "permitted regular flying" part of your "fact".  The Luftwaffe equivalent of the instructions to the pilot would quote something higher, whatever the accuracy of the equipment might suggest.

[Yank in the RAF]

Thanks for all of those who have sommented and shared in this thread.  Always great to have a post answered adequately.  

 

The pictures of 1H+GT from flickr are very helpful!  The reveal a lot of other details about the plane- the weight of the RLM 76 squiggles; the starboard engine features no squiggles (a replacement cowling?); and no spirals on the spinners.  Also, I agree with SafetyDad that the plane may never have had the FuG 217 wing radar after all.  However, it appears that in one picture, it has FuG 200 in the nose in one picture, but not in the other.  The top turret gun is also missing from one of the pictures as well.  Quite the mystery. 

[SafetyDad]

15 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

The air isn't that thicker.  I suspect that a Ju.88 probably can turn just about as well as a Beaufighter anyway, but it is an interesting little snippet linked to the thread.

 

A captured Ju 88G-1 -4R+UR was being test flown from Farnborough during its evaluation by, I believe, Bee Beaumont (or Roly Falk - I can't recall precisely at the moment) when it was approached by a Mosquito piloted by Bob Braham. A mock combat was perhaps inevitable. I think we can assume that both pilots were well matched. Apparently the result was that the Ju 88 could turn inside the Mosquito. It was only Braham's greater familiarity with the limits of the Mosquito's flying envelope, combined with the understandable reluctance of the JU 88 pilot to loose a valuable airframe, that prevented the Junkers gaining a firing position on the tail of the Mosquito. 

 

Surprised me too. I've never thought of the Ju 88 as being that nimble. I think this tale is contained within the last Classic book on the Ju 88.

 

SD

[SafetyDad]

1 hour ago, Yank in the RAF said:

Thanks for all of those who have sommented and shared in this thread.  Always great to have a post answered adequately.  

 

The pictures of 1H+GT from flickr are very helpful!  The reveal a lot of other details about the plane- the weight of the RLM 76 squiggles; the starboard engine features no squiggles (a replacement cowling?); and no spirals on the spinners.  Also, I agree with SafetyDad that the plane may never have had the FuG 217 wing radar after all.  However, it appears that in one picture, it has FuG 200 in the nose in one picture, but not in the other.  The top turret gun is also missing from one of the pictures as well.  Quite the mystery. 

 

I noticed the engine difference. I can speculate that the radar was removed by the British - I think that picture may have been taken at Farnborough. Armament removal could also be argued as desirable on weight grounds if the aircraft was to be ferried from Norway to the UK. But why then leave the defensive MG131 at the rear of the canopy? On the other hand, the Wellenmuster camouflage is much denser in the second picture, but this is taken from the other side of the airframe. So, could be different painters applying the camo, or AJ Press are mistaken with their caption, and this is not  1H+GT?

 

I'll check Phil Butler's book for other captured Ju 188s as both carry underwing British roundels.

 

SD

[SafetyDad]

So, having looked in War Prizes, I found this:

 

 

It's captioned as 1H+GT, and the 0327 on the fin would seem to confirm that. Here's the AJ pic as comparison

 

 

Infuriatingly the two photographers, while taking pictures of the same side of the aircraft, seem to have conspired to carefully avoid overlapping almost no parts of the painted airframe! However the Butler picture does confirm that the Wellenmuster was significantly heavier on this side of the aircraft. I can't see the cannon in the turret in the Butler pic (it's a tiny photo in the book, and I've enlarged it as much as practicable). No evidence of any overwing aerial fit either.

 

I've just noticed that the Wellenmuster on the port side of the fuselage doesn't match in the two pictures. Compare the three 'flat topped balloons' directly below the canopy sill in the AJ picture with the two 'sausages' somewhat lower down from the canopy sill in the Butler photo. I think that's two different aircraft. 

 

So, recalling the RAF roundels, that seems to leave two candidates

 

 

 

or

 

 

HTH

 

SD

[Stickleback]

From my point of view I would rule out that these two Ju 188‘s are one and the same aircraft. Inspecting  my own copy of monografie lotnicze No. 34 from close range I‘m quite sure to see a black or dark-grey „A“ with a thin light coloured (yellow?) border on the rear fuselage of the Junkers with the gun in the upper turret, and after that I guess a „T“. Or am I victim of a certain bias occupying my mind? Anyway, I ‘d just like to put up my consideration for discussion.

Cheers!

Howard