# WWII MISTERIES: What happened with the JU390?



## Pepe Sanchez (Nov 10, 2005)

Anyone knows what happened to the 2 JU390's?

Do you know which type of german bombers can flow to Brazil?


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 10, 2005)

Rumors are, that the Germans destroyed them so the Russians wouldnt capture them. The Bombers were intended to drop the atomic bomb on a major city like London or even New York in the U.S. That was the bombers main purpose but seeing it too late for a nuke, they destroyed them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

No P-38. The main purpose of the Ju-390 was not to bomb New York or London. It was actually intended to be used as a heavy transport and maritime patrol aircraft. It was just later proposed to be used as a heavy bomber and possibly for the Amerika Bomber program because of its 32 hour endurance. The Ju-390 is just a development of the Ju-290 transport.

I am on duty right now till tomorrow morning but when I get home I can tell you what happened to the aircraft that were flown by KG 200. I have a book on them.

However they were not intended to drop nukes on anyone they were heavy transports. KG200 used them to fly personnel on secret missions. They were also intended to be used in the U-Boot war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 11, 2005)

bit excessive for secret agent work weren't they  how much equiptment did these guys need


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 11, 2005)

Maybe they were carrying a large amount of secret agents, and making a cargo drop at the same time...


----------



## Pepe Sanchez (Nov 11, 2005)

Or..... Kapo's exodus tranport to Amerika? In this case would not to be an excesive vehicle. It would be the most appropiate.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

KG200 used a lot of there heavy transports with civilian Lufthansa marking for secret flights to Spain and so forth.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2005)

Okay I have some info here for you since looking it back up in my book.

*Ju-290s*

The Ju-290s not the Ju-390s were actually used to fly to Spain and only 2 were known to actually have flown there. The first one was Ju-290A-3 W.Nr. 0161, Identification code: 9V+DK and it crashed in Spain on Dec. 26, 1943.

The other was Ju-290A-5 with Civilian Lufthansa markings D-AITR. It was flown to Spain on April 6, 1945 by Flugkapitaen Suzalek. There was a manifest for this flight that included Hitler, Himmler, there families and several other high ranking Nazi officials. None got on the plane and it is believed to have carried valuables for safe keeping.

This Ju-290 overshot the runway in heavy fog and ended in a rice field with very little damage. It remained there until it was sold to the Spanish Airforce on April 29, 1950.

There 13 Ju-290's in service with KG200 (I can give you W. Numbers if you wish and Ident numbers) Of these thirteen Ju-290s, 2 crahed in Spain as told above, 1 was bombed and destroyed in Tours on Feb. 5, 1944, 1 went missing in action on the Russian Front on June 16, 1944, 1 was destroyed on the ground at Dessau on Aug. 16, 1944, 2 were destroyed on the Eastern Front on 11 June 1944 and 23 May 1944 respectivly.

Of the 6 that survived the war (not including the one that crashed in Spain and was later used by Spain) one was sent to England with the markings of AM 6 on May 5, 1945.

*Ju-390's*
There were 2 known Ju-390s used by the KG200. There is very little information on them though. Ju-390V-2 just being noted in Oblt Joachim Eisermanns logbook. According to his logbook he flew the Ju-390V-2 at Rechlin in February 1945. There is no known W.Nr. on it though and no identification numbers.

The other Ju-390 was a Ju-390V-1 with tail identification markings of GH+UK. It was not used very much and was destroyed at Dessau in 1945. I have a picture of it in my KG200 book in Prague-Ruzyne sometime in the winter of 1944-1945.

If anyone would like to read up on this and other KG200 aircraft and operations the books is:

_KG 200 The Luftwaffe's Most Secret Unit by Geoffrey J. Thomas and Barry Ketley_


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 13, 2005)

I always thought it would be used as a transatlantic bomber to drop a nuclear bomb. Thats pretty interesting...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

That is what it was proposed for after it was allready built. That is not what they designed it for. They did not go lets build a transatlantic bomber and then designed the Ju-290 and Ju-390. They built the aircraft and then the RLM put a requirment out for them and then Junkers proposed to use these aircraft. The only aircraft that was purpose built for the long ranger bombing inluding the Amerika Bomber was the Me-264 and the Me-264/6m. The 264/6m was just a 6 engined versoin of the Me-264.


----------



## hartmann (Nov 14, 2005)

Why was the nuke too late? (I am not very convinced about this, but I have started to research about the statements  ) In recent investigations, It seems that Germany could have succesfully detonated a nuke near Ohrdruf on March 4 of 1945 (some, even before in Rügen the 11 October 1944). There has been an very intersting debate in a BBC special program sometime before concerning the author of the book and his theories (Rainer Karlsch, Book = Hitlers bombe). even there are some scientist taking samples of the soil to corroborate the possible theory. I don´t know if this is a new revisionist point of view, but... it´s very intersting to speculate about this. It may be the nuke to be carried by the Ju 390, or by the He 177 V38 to New York.
Just my two cents (of Euro, hehehe 8) )


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2005)

That stuff about he Nuke detonation has not been confirmed yet. We have an interesting thread here somewhere where we discussed it and put all the new info out about it.

If they had successfully been able to drop a Nuke somewhere it would have either been done by a Ju-390 or more than likely the Me-264/6m which was designed from the outset as a heavy bomber rather than the Ju-390 which was just a transport that would have been modified as a bomber. He He-177 was quickly removed as a prospect for the nuke or Amerika bomber programs.


----------



## me262 (Nov 14, 2005)

...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2005)

That is still unconfirmed. According to accounts from KG200 which flew the plane, that is unconfirmed.

Wolf Baumgart who served with the Fernaufsklaerungsgruppe5 (FAGr5) talks of this flight and can only confirm flights over the Soviet Union to Japan lasting 33 hours in specially modified Ju-290A-9's not Ju-390's. I used to be a firm believe that this flight happened but the more I actually read on the subject I am sceptical.

Read the books: _Luftwaffe Over America The Secret Plans to Bomb the United States in World War II by Manfred Griehl _and _KG200 The Luftwaffes most Secret Unit by Geoffrey J. Thomas and Barry Ketley_


----------



## hartmann (Nov 15, 2005)

Sorry,where is this threat about the German A-bomb? I am interested about the comments, but I don´t find it.


----------



## Erich (Nov 16, 2005)

the Ju 390 was first used as a test bed with FAGr 5 as Adler tried to point out before the a/c were sent over to KG 200 for agent dropping work. the Ju 390 was not suited for FAGr 5's maritime recon work or was it ??

the unit is so bloody stealth even now, and I luv It  a/c 9v+DK was from 2./FAGr 5 so equipment was on hand although briefly.

Until a full account in book form on the 3 staffels of FAGr 5 can be written there will be endless questions and the complete KG 200 tome cannot be written either as the latter FAGr 5 was absorbed in some respects by KG 200. wish I could give you my vet friends acct from KG 200 but it is still secret after these many many years....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2005)

Thanks for the info Erich.

I will try and find that thread for you hartmann.


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 16, 2005)

Fro what I've read, a He177 was discovered in Berlin, adapted to drop nukes


----------



## hartmann (Nov 17, 2005)

Acording to almost all sources, the He177 V38 was discovered by American forces in Praha (or Pilsen, I don´t remember well), but It was in Czchekia, not in Germany. If there was other more Heinkel 177 adapted to nuke London and New York, I don´t know, but, I hope it will be useful to you, mosquitoman.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 17, 2005)

The Ju290 was originally a Lufthansa airliner, converted for WW2 use IIRC?

(Like the Dakota and Condor)

The Ju390 may have been intended for the nuke? 

- If so, it would have been shrouded in secrecy, even from Germans.

It would have been a pathetic bomber IMHO as it was very easy to shoot up, though it did carry extremely heavy armament IIRC?


----------



## hartmann (Nov 17, 2005)

Pathetic?  , Why? It was allmost as fast as a B17, carried a decent defensive armament, and It was not as weak as the Fw200. Evidently, It was not hte best, but pathetic?. IMHO, It would have been a decent to good ultra-range bomber. Even it had a lot of engine power (6 BMW801 E with 1980 hp).
In other things, It was succesful in aerial refuelling to the Ju 290? I saw some of this.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 17, 2005)

the same could be said for any heavy bomber to a cirtain extent, New york's right on America's east coast and the germans wouldn't have to fly over britiain so they stand a good chance of making it across the atlantic undetected, perhaps taking a more southerly route, although i'll be the first to admit i don't know what the US's home defence was like, i mean their radar system and their east coast fighter units ready to scramble..........


----------



## hartmann (Nov 17, 2005)

In fact it seems that they made a 32 hours non stop fly until some 10- 20 Km of distance from the East coast undetected, and returned, and it was in the year 1944¡¡¡, so It looks like they didn´t waited visits from the Germans, hehehe


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 17, 2005)

as erich said, KG200 don't record any such mission......


----------



## Erich (Nov 17, 2005)

Hartmann, as lanc said no Gemran a/c made any flight towards the USA. It is myth that started back up in the 1960's in William Greens A/C of the Third Reich in multiple printings. Almost every web-site and book covering the Ju 290/390 has the statements that it did happen and the info was taken as truth. there is no confirmation of any evidence to support the claim in the histories of FAGr 5 and KG 200 to support this notion ........ although quite interesting had it indeed happened.

v/r E ~


----------



## hartmann (Nov 17, 2005)

I didn´t knew  , I just remembered what I saw in a book, but... If I remember well it didn´t make reference to the KG200, just only a mission with a trials pilot, and so one.


----------



## Erich (Nov 17, 2005)

FAGr 5 has been mentioned as the unit doing a stealth flight towards New York and then returning without being discovered. it did not happen as during the time of this flight the units two staffels were helping the depleted U-boot arm discover Allied shiping lanes to attack. Truly the Ju 290 was one of the best all time maritime a/c to be flown during the war, much better in my eyes than the proven Fw 200 Kondor.


----------



## hartmann (Nov 17, 2005)

a lot of thanks Erich, I just saw this in a book and I posted  . There must be a lot of inacurate data  , which needs to be correct and revised. And, where did it happened this flight with the FAGR 5, It is very interesting


----------



## Erich (Nov 17, 2005)

I had heard some 5 years ago from a German contact who was friends with several survivng members of FAGR 5, that the vets themselves were writing the history of their Gruppe. I wish them a huge success becuase once it is written we will then be able to put the New York flight story to rest and find out about other very stealth operations the gruppe was involved in besides their prime mission of suporting the Kriegsmarine U-boot arm.

did you know the unit flew recon ops in the Arado 234 towards wars end in the spring of 1945. so as many books have said that FAGr 5 was dissolved and obsorbed by KG 200 and disbanded this is not quite true

E


----------



## hartmann (Nov 17, 2005)

Very interesting¡¡¡¡, I have a lot of interest about these secret flies over the east coast. It is truth that there was a very large range bomber group based in Norway in last moths of war somewhere in Kristiansand, with some 40 long range bombers and recconaisance airplanes, Erich?
A lot of thanks in advance


----------



## Erich (Nov 17, 2005)

ok hartmann, maybe I am not making myself too clear. There were no flights over the east coast of the USA by any Luftwaffe unit. Units talked of it but never put it into application.

Several units flying the Ar 234 were based out of the north, and Norway was one of the countries......yes, but no long range bomber groups. The fuels were not there and long range bombers were brining agents and high third reich officials to safer areas from the Ost front - Berlin, etc. there was even talk of escorting Hitler out of Berlin in april of 45 to Argentina in a Ju 290


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 17, 2005)

> just a little note:
> the ju 390 v2 managed to fly to a point 12 miles north of new york and returned succesfully



Ummm, there are a few problems with this story . . .

According to William Green (Warplanes of the Third Reich), the usual source for the mission claim, it went thusly: 
. . . “In January 1944, the Ju 390 was assigned to Fernaufklaerungs-Gruppe 5 (Long-Range Reconnaissance 
Group) at Mont de Marson south of Bordeaux, for operational evaluation. The Ju 390 carried sufficient fuel for an 
endurance of 32 hours, and after a few short-distance flights, the aircraft flew from Mont de Marson to a point some 
12 miles from the US coast, north of New York, returning successfully to its base.” I understand the story; Green’s 
source was an interrogation transcript in an intelligence report from 11 August 1944, detailing the questioning of 
captured German personnel. A prisoner, who claimed having been photo assistant in Mont de Marsan, made the 
New York flight claim during his interview. A second prisoner, in the same report, said that the Ju 390 had an 
endurance of 32 hours. 

Let’s look at a flight from Bordeaux to New York. Such a flight is, approximately, great circle route and not 
allowing for any navigational detours to avoid Allied maritime patrols, 5795 kilometers (3129 nautical miles) one 
way, so figure 11,590 km or 6,258 nmi, give or take, round trip. But according to the information I can find, the 
range of the Ju 390 was rated as having a maximum range of between 8,000 km (4320 nmi) and 9,700 km (5,238 
nmi). My theory on the difference between these two figures is based (1) on counting a safety factor in the lower 
number into the higher number, typically calculated as .20 x fuel for range plus fuel for 45 minutes, and (2) 
any additional auxiliary fuel tanks which could have been installed. In either case, the 9700 km maximum range 
is somewhat fatally short of 11,590 km round trip.

So, that’s interesting. Now let’s see ... IF the Ju 390 could travel 11,590 km and the rated cruise speed was 347 
km/hr, that works out to about 33 hours at cruise which slightly exceeds the 32 hours cited by Green. Further, that 
little calculation doesn’t begin to address fuel consumption, especially expended climbing to altitude. Don’t forget, 
also, that the first half mission, from the vicinity of Bordeaux to the vicinity of New York, means bucking headwinds 
(or even the jet stream if high enough) most of the way … doesn’t exactly do much for the fuel consumption, and 
can rob you of an average 20 percent efficiency in the right (or wrong, depending on your point of view) conditions.

The BMW 801 engine, at cruise, as I understand it, burned about 570 liters (150 gallons) of fuel per hour, or for 
the 6 engine Ju 390, about 3,420 liters (900 gallons) an hour. For Green’s declared 32 hours of flight, not counting 
climb out consumption, headwinds, and other such inconvenient vagaries, that’s a requirement for some 109,440 
liters of fuel. And of course, 109,440 liters of fuel is in the neighborhood of 28,795 gallons (US), which would 
weigh about 215,000 pounds.

But wait ... empty weight of the Ju 390 was 36,900 kilograms (81,350 pounds) and the fully loaded weight was 
75,500 kilograms (166,448 pounds); and I presume that includes POL, crew and ancillary equipment.

So, figure: 166,448 pounds rated max weight versus 215,000 pounds in fuel, equals: 48,552 pounds over weight. 
How do you suppose they got all that off the ground? Was there really a crew with enough gonads to attempt to 
takeoff at almost 30% over rated weight limits? All in fuel? With the only one of the aircraft type in 
existence? For some sort of navigational stunt?

And to pull off their stunt they're going to fly into a hostile coastal area that had near it some of the enemy’s 
more important aircraft production facilities, Grumman comes to mind, that had radar coverage and they're not 
going to be detected? Maybe, but only if they run the last hundred miles or so, in and out, at about 150 feet (that 
would do wonders for their fuel consumption, wouldn't it). And if you strip out defensive armament, cut crew size, 
remove any armor, and self-sealing tanks, all in the name of weight savings (not that such could come close 
to accounting for all the 48,552 over weight pounds), what happens when you just happen to run into a patrolling 
PB4Y loaded for bear? PB4Ys knocked down about 343 Japanese planes, included 95 twin and multi engine types, 
and five German planes (a Do 217, an He 177, and three Ju 88's). One PB4Y would be perfectly capable of chasing 
down and ruining a stripped down Ju 390's day. Are you willing to take that chance for what is essentially a one 
time stunt? 

Then there's the small matter of geography. Look at a map. The New York coastline runs roughly from ENE to 
WSW. "North" of New York, city or state, is over land. Jeez, you think if they managed to get some 510 nmi (half 
the distance in the above maximum range variance) beyond their rated roundtrip range and ended up somewhere 
west of Long Island Sound it would make a much better story. If they took pictures of the coast, they would have 
had to turn around to do so. 

And what about Reichs Marshall Fatty or Herr Goebbels? Don't you think they would trumpet such a feat to the 
all the world? Yet, there is no record of such a propaganda coup.

Also, remember, there were only two of these airplanes, V1 and V2. According to "Die großen Dessauer. 
Junkers Ju 89, 90, 290, 390. Die Geschichte einer Flugzeugfamilie" ("The Big Ones from Dessau. ... History 
of an aircraft family") by Karl Kössler and Günter Ott, during the time period of this feat was supposedly 
accomplished, the lone Ju 390 V1 was in Prague, arriving there on November 26th 1943. While at Prague, 
V1 was involved with a series of flight tests, flying on Nov. 30th, and Dec. 2nd and 3rd. The flight on the 3rd was 
to Merseburg. V1 returned to Prague on Dec. 10th. More flights were made: on 17th, and again on 30th and 
31st of December. Still more flights in January 1944, on the 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 8th. From January 17th to the 23rd, 
in-flight refueling tests were conducted with a Ju 290. More tests for aerial refueling took place in through 
February and March in the Prague area. The preoccupation with flight tests in the December, January, February 
and March time period would seem to knock single prototype Ju 390 V1 out of contention for four weeks duty 
in FAGr 5 culminating in a side trip to New York..

And the Ju 390 V2? Well, there’s some question as to whether or not that particular aircraft was ever actually 
completed. If it was, as near as I can find, it would not have been completed before September 1944, s
ometime after the mission in question. Further, FAGr 5 evacuated from Monte de Marsan on August 20, 1944. 
So, probably built too late and could not have possibly launched from Monte de Marsan.

With the wrong information even an otherwise reputable historian can make a mistake. Take a look at Eric 
Hammel's Pacific Air War Chronology for the TF-38 strike casualties on 28 July 1945. Absolute hogwash. Similar 
error appears in Clark Reynold's The Fast Carriers ... could they be feeding each other? Did someone mis-read 
information published elsewhere? I have a TF-38 report for the period, it is way, way different than either Hammel’s
or Reynolds’ writing. Similarly, a recently published book by popular oral history genre writer, Gerald Astor, entitled
Wings of Gold, on the US naval air war in the Pacific devotes whole pages to fabrications from folks claiming to have 
been involved in actions they were no where near, performing feats of daring-do that never happened. Checking 
facts would have prevented mistakes. Maybe Green should have looked a little deeper.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, so maybe someone else ought to run the 
numbers and see how they come out. I'm willing to be wrong, but I just don't see how this flight could have 
happened the way it is described. Nor does the historical record bear it out. I'd suggest that there may have 
been a plan to try to see how close they could get. A plan with a lot of wishful thinking involved (not unusual
for some of those folks, especially as events became more and more unpleasant and more and more desperate 
for them) that never got off the ground when the rational thinkers on the pointy end of the stick looked at it.

Regards,

Rich


----------



## evangilder (Nov 17, 2005)

Excellent analysis, Rich.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 17, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Excellent analysis, Rich.


Agreed


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2005)

Yep - it don't add up. One thought - if this was done the crew could of reached a calculated altitude and shut down 2 of the engines, but it still don't explain the 30% over-gross take off situation. I think the whole this is a myth!


----------



## Erich (Nov 17, 2005)

as I have been saying for I do not know how many years, FAGr 5 was not involved and the operation did not take place, the two staffeln 1 and 2 did not have time nor really the means to put such an operation together as they were too busy taking over for KG 40's Kondors over the Atlantic.

Rich I must agree with your statements as it makes literal sense, not to mention the radar aerial fittings and the weight of equipment plus an extra crew member to operate the FuG 200 radar set thus reducing again the spped of a big overtaxed machine

E


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 18, 2005)

On FAGr 5, agreed, Erich. There was a gent, Peter something or other, I don't remember, who researched FAGr 5 operations in laborious depth and at one point had a web site. I ran across it once years ago and thought it interesting, but, as you guys know I tend to stick to the Pacific, so I didn't bookmark it and now can't find it. So, anecdotally, as I recall he came down firmly on the "Never Happened" side of the issue.

Regards,

Rich


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

I have explained all this already hartmann. The Ju-390 was not intended to drop a nuclear bomb. Please read all the info that I have posted. The Ju-390 was a heavy transport derived from the Ju-290. When the topic came up about a heavy bomber the Ju-390 was decided as a possible aircraft to modify into a heavy bomber. When the whole Amerika bombing thing came up it was a consideration to use the Ju-390.

As for the He-177 as I said it was already thrown out of the picture from the very beginning. It did not have the range to reach the United States therefore the Ju-390 was decided as a possibitlity. 

Please get the 2 books that I told you about up there hartmann they will explain a lot. Dont get all your information off of the internet, most of it is not true.


----------



## Erich (Nov 20, 2005)

looking through too many google searaches on the Ju 390 and the supposed Amerika bombing or recon incident, Wikpedia in all their glory seems to tak a grat big (?) look at this. wonder whom their so-called experts are that they quote stating it could or did not happen... ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Agreed there Erich. While it is an interesting what if. It did not happen. The only really long range flight that happened and is recorded was one to Japan. The Japanese though quickly halted these flights because they feared that the Soviets would declare war on them.


----------



## Erich (Nov 20, 2005)

yep one of FAGr5's Ju 290's :


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

There is a lot of crap out on the internet right now that a lot of people take for gold. They need to read some true accounts from the people that flew the planes.


----------



## Erich (Nov 20, 2005)

problem is and we have all discussed this.............too much of the internet is taken as fact with no questions asked. Find some good resource materials like books and esepcially for the a/c in this thread, German language. R.Leonard mentioned Dr. Kössler/Ott's famous and OOP book on the subject matter and there are a couple others on the air recon war over the Atlantic, sadly way too few though ...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

I am willing to translate things that are in German. If they are really long it might take me a while but I am willing to translate things. Just not whole books or anything like that.


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 25, 2006)

Firstly the Ju-390 mission to New York in original accounts cited in the Hugo Junkers website, an acknowledged authority on Junkers aircraft, refers to a two aircraft mission to New York, which may be a hint about possible air to air refuelling en-route by another aircraft ? 

It may have even been recorded in the squadron records as an air to air refuelling trial rather than "mission to New York". 

I do not know that for a fact and neither does anyone else, so let us put that thought aside for a moment and look at the other facts... 

*BMW 801E Fuel Consumption:* 

The Ju-390 used six BMW 801E engines which were identical to the BMW 801D except the E version was geared for better performance at altitude. In all other regards one can consider them the same. The E version had about a 100hp superiority at altitude. 

The BMW 801E had a boost function for take off, by injection of a water methanol mixture into the left supercharger inlet. This could only be used for 10-15 minutes. Only at these boost settings does the fuel consumption rise to 221 US Gals PH. 

This take off boost raised power to 2,000hp at a manifold pressure of 1.56 atmospheres and 2700 RPM. Usual fast cruise settings (on the FW-190A BMW 801D) were 2100 RPM at 1450hp and 1.1 atmospheres of manifold pressure. 

A climb to 19,000 feet for an FW-190A fighter with a single BMW 801D engine consumed about 16 US gallons of fuel and took about 8 minutes to reach altitude. Let us assume double that for the Ju-390. That's 192 US gals to reach 19,000 ft. 

Once at altitude, the BMW 801D will use 90-103 US Gallons Per Hour (GPH) if it is used at maximum cruise speed, but the Ju-390 would not have been flown at max cruise power to New York. 

Any pilot will tell you, for over water flights, you do not use maximum cruise settings. Commercial airliners will use an intermediate Economical Cruise setting, but for a military plane one uses the long range cruise setting. In the case of the Ju-390 this was 45-55 US Gals PH at around 1600-1700 RPM per engine.. 

This falls falls way short of the 150 US Gals Per Hour which Richard claims. 

Evanglider said:


> Excellent analysis, Rich.



Erich said about experts:


> looking through too many google searaches on the Ju 390 and the supposed Amerika bombing or recon incident, Wikpedia in all their glory seems to tak a grat big (?) look at this. wonder whom their so-called experts are that they quote stating it could or did not happen... ?



*The Real Facts*

Using six engines at long range cruise of 55 US Gallons Per Hour for 32 hours equates 63,360 pounds of fuel, plus 1,152 lb for take off and climb to 19,000ft. That makes for a total of 64,512 lb fuel. 

The round trip distance Richard Leonard cites (7900nm) would take a Ju-390 29 hours, or just 57,420lb of fuel plus 1,152 lb for climb to altitude. 

A total of 58,572lb. Add a 10% safety buffer of 5,640lb and you get a total around 64,429lb. So this is the actual fuel weight for a mission of 7,900nm with a 10% reserve. 

Add this mission fuel uptake (64,429lb) to the Operating Empty Weight of the Ju-390 gives you 151,329 lb. 

Subtract 151,329 lb from the Maximum Take Off Weight (166,100 lb) leaves a payload ability to New York of 14,771 lb/6,706kg. Enough for an A-bomb. 

*Payload for extra Range *

So we have a payload capability from Mont de Marsan to New York taking the longer route Richard perfers of 6,706kg. 

There is only one type of bomb worth carrying all that distance and we know what that was. We know the equivalent used at Hiroshima weighed about 5,000kg as I understand. 

*Range Calculations* 

Richard Leonard cited the maximum range of the Ju-390 as 9,700km, 6027sm (or 5,288nm). That is wrong.

He starts by subtracting fuel reserves from the lesser maximum payload range and then proceeds to get it wrong about fuel consumption by the engines. 

A round trip mission of 7,900nm was well within the maximum fuel range of 8,710nm. 

Incidentally the direct distance is only a mere 6,230nm, but to save argument I have worked from Richard Leonard's overly conservative 7,900nm which is 1,670nm more than necessary. 

If you want to explain the discrepancy, first start with correct facts. That way you might find the discrepancy does not even exist!

Nothing in the posts up to this one disproves the ability of a Ju-390 to fly to New York with a bombload. It only advertises a poor grasp of the facts.

The claim incidentally arises from interrogations of two captured members of FernAufklarangsGruppe Nr.5 by US millitary intelligence. 

Now if one were contemplating a highly top secret mission to drop an A-bomb on Manahatten, then one would not advertise the fact by keeping records of trial flights, nor for that matter, sharing the fact with all the members of FAGr5. 

There was a Nazi nuclear project to build the bomb. Heisenberg was involved with the civil programme by Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft to build a reactor... Not a bomb.

The Nazi A-bomb was under Dr Kurt Diebner for the Heerswaffenamt. He relied upon another project by Dr Paul Harteck to enrich uranium with gaseous centrifuges. The uranium came from mines at Jac-y-camor Czechoslovakia.

The second Ju-390 was flown to Uraguay at the end of the war and was seen there being dismantled by a Polish diplomat. You might want to contact author Nick Cook (author of Zero Point) and ask him if Igor Witowski was that man... 

I provide a link to photos of the two Ju-390 prototypes.

Axis History Forum :: View topic - Ju 390 Help!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 25, 2006)

Interesting read. I would not call the posts up until now a bad grasp of the facts though.

I have several books on the KG200 and the Amerika Bomber program with copies of documents in them and interviews with the pilots. That is where I get my facts from...

If you would like to check out the books here they are:

KG 200 The Luftwaffe's Most Secret Unit by Geoffrey J. Thomas and Barry Ketley 

Luftwaffe Over America The Secret Plans to Bomb the United States in WWII by Manfred Griehl.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 25, 2006)

Actually the thread is in ww2general section. You have to go back to almost one year (don´t ask me..)
It´s called: "New evidence for a german nuclear project?"

The author is not 100% correct at all but he did made some good historical archive research in Russia. So far, only the detonation at Ohrdruf delivered trace elements, which do point toward a nuclear event. Wether or not this may be called "Nuke" is a matter of debate. The amount of fission is too low (only a fraction) for a sustained nuclear chain reaction. The conditions of nuclear activities were very shortlived and provided only temporarely (if even) reactions. Still a very capable weapontest but not the Nuke You might have in mind. A very, very dirty bomb, however.

The only plane of the Luftwaffe to undergoe structural modifications to carry a nuclear weapon (or an unusually heavy single bomb) is said to be a He-177, modified in march 1945 at Prague plant. There are no hints what happened to the plane, though.


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 25, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet and other apologies for ruffling feathers. I post on LEMB and Axis History aswell, but I am new here. I find that every forum on WW2 has a treasure trove of information unavailable somewhere else.

To be fair Richard Leonard did say:



> I'll be the first to admit I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, so maybe someone else ought to run the
> numbers and see how they come out. I'm willing to be wrong, but I just don't see how this flight could have
> happened the way it is described.



We all get things wrong from time to time, but if unchallenged then it becomes established as fact, or as a lawyer would say, like an estoppel.

I do accept his right to question if the New York flight took place. 

The performance of an aircraft however is not a little thing to trifle with. The Reichs Luft Ministerim during the war employed test pilots to establish and certify the Ju-390's performance, including it's endurance. 

Albert Speer is the source of a further claim that a Ju-390 flown by a civil test pilot flew from Norway to Tokyo "by the Polar route."

Author Nick Cook ("Zero Point") advised me in correspondence that he knows a former Polish Diplomat whom he is loathe to name, who witnessed a Ju-390 being dismantled in Uraguay at the end of the war. I suspect he is talking about Igor Witowski, but can not be certain.

During the war a General Stuedemann (apparently an artillery construction engineer) Built a long runway at Cordoba in northern Argentina with German emigres there. (source book "Nazi Eagles")


I have not read "Luftwaffe Over America The Secret Plans to Bomb the United States in WWII" by Manfred Griehl. I'd be interested to know what he says.

I am convinced the nazis were building an A-bomb and could have done so bu enriching uranium with gaseous centifuges. Indeed I known that a big contract was let in 1944 for manufacture of these centrifuges. 

South Africa used this same process to build a nuclear weapon.

I am less convinced by the blast at Ohrdruf and feel it is capable of other explanations, such as fuel air explosives. 

The Japanese successfully test blasted an atomic weapon off Korea's east coast two days after Hiroshima. This is detailed in the Snell report for the Manhatten Project. Snell was a millitary criminal investigator who became a journalist after the war.

See Suitland archives Records Group 331, Box 7419, bid sheets 564353, 564354 and 564356, plus R.G. 319, Box 3635, bid sheet and military Intelligence Section report #403527, plus R.G. 319 Box 91 739.

There are other reports in corroboration however the list would be too long.

If you check the Farm Hall summaries of Dornberger's conversations you will learn that he and Werner von Braun went to Lisbon in October 1944 with the blessings of the SS to negotiate the handover of nazi nuclear, aviation and rocket scientists to ALSOS (BEFORE THE WAR HAD ENDED).

This to me at least is why the germans never finished an A-bomb.


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 25, 2006)

The He-177 V38 aircraft and two sisters were completed at Ruysne near Praugue in 1942 as nuclear capable bombers. They had especially elongated bomb bays which interestingly would have accomodated the bomb dropped on Hiroshima too.

By late 1944 the He-177 could not overfly Britain because of that country's air supremacy. 

The Ju-287 V1 jet bomber however was test flown from October 1944. It had the nose and mid section of an He-177 grafted to the tail of a Ju-388. It was a very hasty modicication and not intended for serial production either. 

It was vastly different to the Ju-287 V2/V3 or EF132 which became the Soviet Tu-16.

The Ju-287 V1 hoever was also distinguished by the fact it had a bomb bay identical to V-38's bomb bay. Indeed it may have been built from one of He-177 V38's two sister aircraft at Ruysne. 

Ju 287 X-Plane aircraft by RTT Uwe Reitter

The significance of this is clear. V38 and her two sister He-177s were always intended to carry the Nazi A-bomb. In 1944-45 an He-177 could not survive over Britain but the jet powered Ju-287 could, was fast enough, had the range and importantly could carry a very heavy bombload.


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 25, 2006)

Back to the Ju-390 topic, all flights to Japan, or Ninghsia in China were performed by aircraft in civil markings with civilian registrations. This included a Bv222 which reached Japanese Sakahlin Island, various Ju-290 aircraft and the Ju-390. The Ju-390 visit to Japan resulted in a license production deal. These flights were performed in the guise of DLH or Deutsche Luft Hansa. The Ju-390 flown to Japan was registered D-AZIL.


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 25, 2006)

> If you check the Farm Hall summaries of Dornberger's conversations you will learn that he and Werner von Braun went to Lisbon in October 1944 with the blessings of the SS to negotiate the handover of nazi nuclear, aviation and rocket scientists to ALSOS (BEFORE THE WAR HAD ENDED).



Sadly everybody who died in WW2 after October 1944 did so in vain because the German surrender was agreed months in advance.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 26, 2006)

Uh where do you get that from that the German surrendure was agreed in 1944. That is not true. Hitler never would have agreed to surrendure even in 1945. He would have let Germany be completely destroyed before allowing that. 

There were those that were involved in the plot to kill Hitler that had sent correspondance to the allies in the summer of 1944 that they would surrendure as soon as Hitler was killed but as we know this never happened.


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 28, 2006)

At the end of WW2 all the german nuclear and some of the Rocket scientists etc were held in a British Manor house called "Farm Hall."

Every room was bugged with microphones. Lengthy transcripts were made, some of which are still classified top secret. many however have been published.

The most sensitive classified transcipts have either been entirely witheld or published as summaries. You guys need to Google "Farm Hall Transcripts" and see what turns up. I don't make this stuff up you know.

One of the sensitive summaries was between General Walter Dornberger, head of the V-2 rocket project until the SS took over in August 1944. he was recorded talking to another German general and disclosed the secret negotiations at Lisbon in October 1944.

This was a surprise to Churchill because USA double crossed the British and cut a secret deal which excluded the British. When Churchill found out on 27 April 1945, he broadcast details of the deal on the BBC, to alert Hitler that Himmler was part of a plot with the US to surrender Germany.

Hitler became enraged and ordered the arrest of Himmler and Goering. Himmler's deputy in Berlin and a spy for the US, Lt Gen Hans Feiglein was executed before Berlin fell.

Stalin learned about it from the BBC and nearly declared war on the US.

You should also Google "Operation Sunrise" or "Allen Foster Dulles" + Switzerland or Sunrise. 

There were secret surrender talks with the SS from late 1944. The US cut a deal to excuse key members of the SS for war crimes and set up an escape line with the help of the Vatican for fleeing Nazis, providing them shelter and false passports. 

In return the SS provided USA with it's spy network in the Soviet nion and surrendered all it's top scientists in "Operation Paperclip."

Google "Operation Paperclip" or "Overcast" to learn more. 

I have done a huge amount of research on this and I am not making this stuff up.

Operation Sunrise

The Secret Farm Hall Transcripts

http://http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p11a.htm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2006)

Yes you are correct that they met and tried for a negotiations but no agreements were made. All negotiations failed and nothing came about them. The surrendure of Germany was not sealed in 1944 as you say.

Himmler met the Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden at Lübeck, near the Danish border, and began negotiations to surrender. He was hoping that England and the US would fight allong side the Germans to defeat Russia. No agreement was made.

Hitler found out about this the day before he commited suicide and had Himmler stripped of all ranks and titles and positions the day before he commited suicide.

After this failed he:

He sent corrispondance to Eisenhower saying he was willing to surrendure all German forces in exchange for being spared war criminal status and that he wanted to be Head of German Police in Post War Germany.

Eisenhower as well wanted nothing to do with this and declared him a war criminal.

While trying to evade capture and in disguise he was arrested and then committed suicide on May 22, 1945.

As for Goering. Hitler had Goering arrested on April 25, 1945 because he sent a telegram proposing that he be named the Fuehrer when Hitler is incapacitated. Hitler found this to be High Treason and had him arrested and stipped of all titles and expelled him from the party.

2 days before Hitler commited suicide he ordered Behrnhard Frank to kill Goering and his family which he refused to do.

He later surrendured to the allies and commited suicide. 

Goering had nothing to do with the failed negotiations to end the war in 1944 and 1945 and was staunch Nazi unti l his death.


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 29, 2006)

Hitler never agreed. Hitler was trying to deal with the russians right up until his suicide when he sent SS Gen Wilhelm Mohnke under a white flag to negotiate with Marshall Zuhkov. 

Hitler offered to surrender all of Northern Germany and Denmark to Stalin in return for his escape to Tokyo.

Himmler was exasperated and plotted to overthrow Hitler and succeed as the peace time leader of Germany. The Americans refused to deal with Himmler, however himmler clung to a delusion that he could still retain power.

The SS negotiators not only had to deal with a dangerous and irrational Hitler, but also manipulate and massage Himmler's ego to please the Americans. 

The SS stalled and stalled because Himmler would not accept an unconditional surrender. There was substantial agreement long before May 1945 however. There was a discreet agreement for the surrender of scientists and scientific data aswell. A train was loaded with rocket test data, engineering drawings etc at Peenemunde in mid March 1945 and sent south to Bavaria by Kammler so the Americans could capture it.

The ALSOS mission drove right up to Mittenwalde where Werner von Braun and the nuclear scientists were in "hiding" without a shot fired to stop them. This was deep inside the so called Nazi redoubt. 

von Braun's brother Sigsmund who was a Nazi diplomatic attache at the Vatican arranged with the full knowledge of Martin Bormann to create the so called Rat Lines long before 1945, so that nazis could flee the collapse of Germany. The OSS assisted these nazis to escape and fully participated in the creation of these Rat Lines because they inserted OSS spies behind the Eastern Front with Nazi help, before the war ended.

There is an official version of the surrender and then there was a discreet understanding between the SS and OSS which predates that.

When Stalin found out about Sunrise, he was furious and demanded that there be a second surrender ceremony. Sunrise was exposed and no longer secret, but a cover story was spun to placate the Soviets. 

There was a surrender made on 2 May, 7 May and on 8 May 1945. There was a secretive surrender to American forces even earlier. Why do you think US forces drove into Germany with so little resistance ?


----------



## Twitch (Oct 30, 2006)

Yeah the Germans could have deployed a radiation spreading device at any time from 1943 on. As Kiwi mentions they were also using centrifuges as the Japanese had since 1936 to enrich materials so the big heavy water sabotage was more drama for the cinema than denying of materials. Shipments to Germany had been ongoing and there was hevy water in Germany found at the end of the war.

The Me 264 had the range with plenty to spare had wacky Adolph given the word to nuke New York. Also we must realize that at the time the Allies had absolutely no idea the status of nuclear weapons in Germany. There were several US War Dept. memos warning of V-1s with nukes and other possible scenarios with U-boats and missiles.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 31, 2006)

I am going to have to read up on this some more Kiwi because I think you are getting facts mixed up with a bit of post war myth.


----------



## Kiwikid (Feb 21, 2008)

Yes sometimes I have gotten my facts mixed up, but there was also a huge effort by the Nazis to conceal evidence, witnessed by the month long orgy of Luftwaffe files being burned at Linz Austria in April 1945.

Since posting here I have found out that the second Ju-390 was flown to Argentina in May 1945 from Bodo Norway, in Sweedish airline markings. 

There is evidence of this from multiple sources, but include declassified Polish files and Argentine economic files from 1945 about Nazi flights to Gualeguay, Entre Rios province.

Polish evidence suggests it was flown from Gualeguay to an airstrip on a German owned ranch at Paysandu province, Uruguay. there it was witnessed by a Polish diplomat being dismantled.

The Ju-390V1 was flown to Junkerswerke Dessau in November 1944. there it was stripped of propellers and left derelict until burned in April 1945 to prevent it's capture.


----------



## Kiwikid (Feb 27, 2008)

These links are for photos of Bodo in Norway where the Ju-390 appeared to operate to in March/April 1945:

Panoramio - Photo of Bodø Airport

Panoramio - Photo of norway bodo from the air

Bodo was home to Stukas mostly during WW2, but in the Berlin Records Centre there is evidence of Ju-390 flights at Bodo.

A service course sheet available at Berlin Document Centre for the interrogation of SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Rudolf Schuster attached to SS-WVHA Amt-V zbV. 

Schuster stated that in the second half of April 1945 a Junkers Ju 390 attached to KG 200 was at Schweidnitz (an airfield SW of Breslau) where it loaded materials from a secret project coded "Cronos/Laternentraeger." 

The Ju-390 was painted pale blue and had Swedish AF markings. It was guarded by SS and concealed beneath tarpaulin. It is known to have taken off for Bodo in Norway, but nothing further is known of its activity.

Dr Wilhelm Voss, head of the Skoda works in Prague and part of Kammler's staff told British journalist Tom Agoston after the war that a Ju-390 flew from Bodo to Tokyo on 28 March 1945. 

Schuster sighted it near Breslau after this flight.

Declassified Argentine and Polish Intelligence files have recently suggested it's last flight was from Bodo to Gualaguay Argentina and then to Paysandu Uruguay where the aircraft was observed being dismantled.


----------



## Kiwikid (Mar 1, 2008)

I though members might be interested to make comparison of the two known Ju-390 aircraft. The Ju-390 V2 had the longer fuselage. The Ju-390 V-1 bomber modified from a Ju-90 had a shorter fuselage.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 2, 2008)

interesting.... 

1946:

I can imagine a squadron of those being intercepted over the Atlantic by F8F Bearcats and Tiger cats...

A beautiful site... 

.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 2, 2008)

Was there any connection between the Ju 390 and the Bloch 161? They look awful similar.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Was there any connection between the Ju 390 and the Bloch 161? They look awful similar.



How do they look similiar? 

They dont look anything alike! 

Here is a Ju 390:


----------



## Njaco (Mar 2, 2008)

Yeah, you're right. I was looking at the nose and tail and totally forgot about how many engines.


----------



## Soren (Mar 2, 2008)

Awesome a/c the Ju-390 was, absolutely awesome.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 2, 2008)

R Leonard said:


> Ummm, there are a few problems with this story . . .
> 
> .
> 
> ...



Excellent analysis Rich - and to add to the equation, load another 10,000 pounds as a payload - and take 10,000 pounds of fuel off the table for the 'nuke' part of the story.


----------



## Kiwikid (Mar 2, 2008)

Now that you've read Richard Leonard's figures... here's the true figures:

The Ju-390 used six BMW 801E engines which were identical to the BMW 801D except the E version was geared for better performance at altitude. The 801E was geared for lower engine revolutions. 

In all other regards one can consider fuel consumption the same or slightly superior fuel consumption for the 801E. The E version had about a 100hp superiority at altitude. 

The BMW 801E also had a boost function for take off, by injection of a water methanol mixture into the left supercharger inlet. This could only be used for 10-15 minutes. Only at these boost settings does the fuel consumption rise to 221 US Gals PH. 

The B-29 which had 80% higher wing loading and less power, took 25 minutes to reach 20,000ft.

So run six engines at boost for 15 minutes is 331.5 US gallons (1989lb)

Normal max operating consumption is 90-103 US Gal per hour per engine so let's keep climbing for another 10 minutes at 90 US Gal/engine...(54lb)

Okay so to reach 20,000ft the Ju-390 needed 25 minutes roughly and about 2043lb of fuel.

In cruise the BMW801D in long range cruise setting used 45-55 US Gals per hour at around 1600-1700 RPM per engine. I suspect with the 801E engine it used only 45 US Gal, but hey let's be pessimistic and call it 55 US Gal/hr per engine time 31 hours flying is 61,380lb plus 2,043 lb to reach 20,000ft for a grand total of 63,423lb. The Ju-390 is known to have capacity for 65,000lb fuel.

It had a maximum take off weight of 166,100lb and an empty weight of 86,900lb. Subtract empty weight and maximum fuel weight together (151,900lb) from 166,100lb still leaves the aircraft with a whopping payload capability of 14,200lb over 6,000 nautical miles.

If it was impossible then maybe Richard Leonard needs to come back here and share with us why not. It follows that if the Ju-390 with 10,380 horsepower could not do the mission then neither could the B-29 with 8,800 hp but then we all know the B-29 not only could, but did.  

In fact it is already known that Richard Leonard's figures are bogus because Ju-390 test pilot Hans Pancherz has already published the Ju-390 range payload figures. Pancherz also flew to South Africa in his Ju-390.


----------



## Soren (Mar 2, 2008)

Gotta agree with Kiwikid


----------



## drgondog (Mar 2, 2008)

Kiwikid said:


> Now that you've read Richard Leonard's figures... here's the true figures:
> 
> The Ju-390 used six BMW 801E engines which were identical to the BMW 801D except the E version was geared for better performance at altitude. The 801E was geared for lower engine revolutions.
> 
> ...


*

Because the B-29 could carry a 20,000 pound load farther than a Ju 390 could in Recce config (according to above link), was 40 mph faster and could climb to nearly 2x the ceiling of the Ju 390, I suspect it is safe to say two things.

1. The Ju 390 had a lot more drag than a B-29. Very unlikely that its loaded cruise speed was anywhere close to the B-29.
2. Its range with 20,000 pounds was far less than a B-29
3. Its endurance with 20,000 pounds was far less than 30 hours.

I might be driven to conclude that the Ju 390V2 could range out 3,000 miles and back if you could show that it could cruise at 200mph with fuel consumption of 50 gallons per hour at that speed... with no payload, just crew and fuel.

I'm don't know if it had an internal bomb bay. If not, then whatever you hang on the wings will take 10-20 mph off the optimal cruise.

Regards,

Bill*


----------



## Soren (Mar 2, 2008)

The bomber version of the Ju-390 had a bomb bay. 

The range of the Ju-390 was 400 miles longer than the B-29's, and the Ju-390 could carry a larger payload as-well. The B-29 was faster and had a higher ceiling though.

The Germans did produce both an equal and superior bomber compared to the B-29 though. The Me-264 was the equal, being nealry as fast with less power, and a much longer range and slighty higher payload. Superior to both however was the He-277, with a very high ceiling, cruise speed, payload good range, plus a respectable 570 km/h top speed this was the most advanced bomber of WW2.

*He-277*





This a/c could be loaded to over twice its empty weight!


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 2, 2008)

R Leonards makes perfect sense to me , you'd have to strip that Junkers down to the walls , remove all radios ,oxygen systems and safety equipment to cut down on the weight even find crew that were skinny . Just doing a simple D=RxT a 27hr trip at 210 mph for 6000mile+/- at his fuel rates not including the headwinds you'll get at some point


----------



## drgondog (Mar 3, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> R Leonards makes perfect sense to me , you'd have to strip that Junkers down to the walls , remove all radios ,oxygen systems and safety equipment to cut down on the weight even find crew that were skinny . Just doing a simple D=RxT a 27hr trip at 210 mph for 6000mile+/- at his fuel rates not including the headwinds you'll get at some point



Pb - at one time I looked for specs on the Ju 390 that were not speculation, and to this day I haven't found any load/speed/range data for either the A1 or A2. Too many people confuse Max Range, Max Payload, Max Ceiling data as one and the same test flight conditions.

Absent that data anything I say is pure speculation on my part. 

I seriously doubt that either the Ju 390A1 or A2 could cruise an average of 180mph with just the fuel load of 10,000 gallons. If it could then it would have slightly more ferry range than the B-29 if you stripped the reserve from the published figure for the 29.

Speculatively I also doubt that either could range 3300 miles with a 20,000 pound bomb load, even if either one had internal bomb bays.. and so far I have only seen reference to wing racks for the 3900 pound bomb load/guided missle capability


----------



## Kiwikid (Mar 3, 2008)

I was interested because of Bodo's short runway to discover the Ju-390's performance. Bodo was home to Ju-87 Stukas which were fighting a Russian invasion of northen Norway. 

The airfield was built much like US airfields were in the Pacific from matting, but in this case planking over quite boggy flat ground. 

To cut a long story short I was amazed to find that the Ju-390 for all it's size and weight had a ground footprint similar to a DHC-4 Caribou, a 19 seater Dornier Do-228, or less than the ground footprint of a DC-3 which could use Bodo. The Ju-390 had an ACN range of 3.5-3.7.

The B-29 in standard air at 120,000lb can take off over a 50 foot obstacle in 5,100 feet. The Convair B-36 at MTOW can take off in 1,500 metres (no screen obstacles).

The Ju-390 has superior power to weight ratio and less wing loading than either the B-29 or B-36. 

In fact the Ju-390 has just 55% of the B-29's wing loading and just 73.4% that of the B-36. The Ju-390 has 85% better power to weight ratio than the B-29 and 14% better than the Convair B-36.

The B-29 had a total of 8,800hp, the B-36 had 21,000hp and the Ju-390 had 10,380hp. 

One could fairly confidently predict therefore that the Ju-390 could lift off in less distance than the B-36 (1,500m) and nearer to the 1000 metres which a DC-3 is capable of. It's not entirely scientific, but I would not be surprised if a fully laden Ju-390 in standard conditions could take off in 1200-1300 metres.


----------



## Kiwikid (Mar 3, 2008)

> Pb - at one time I looked for specs on the Ju 390 that were not speculation, and to this day I haven't found any load/speed/range data for either the A1 or A2. Too many people confuse Max Range, Max Payload, Max Ceiling data as one and the same test flight conditions.



Operational notes for the Ju-390 including payload range charts, from one of it's test pilots, Han Pancherz have been published in a couple of books including the autobigraphy of Pancherz who lives in Barcelona. From time to time Pancherz gives interviews about the Ju-390 to Spanish newspapers. 

If you're not prepared to accept the data from the aircraft's test pilot then you're unlikely to accept any amount of evidence.

Incidentally since you ask drgndog the Ju-390 had a service ceiling of 20,000 feet.



> Where is the reference? however if so that means 9579 gallon to start a journey at altitude perhaps 70 miles along the way.



A any pilots will know the take off and climb are always the most thirsty part of a flight whether it's a WW2 Ju-390 or Boeing 737. Most aircraft burn a lot of fuel climbing to cruise altitude and then generally fuel flow reduces to around 30% but that is variable according to the type of aircraft and it's specific engines. 

References ? 
Because I don't speak German I have not read his autobiography, but there is a book called FlugPancherz. Pancherz's figures and charts are also published in "Target America, Hitler's plan to attack the United States" by James P Duffy, Pub 2004 by Greenwood Press ISBN 0275966844

There are numerous other references so I only refer you to those from the test pilots own notes.

Yes I fumbled some figures from the climb. As I recall when I calculated it I rounded some of the numbers because you can't be precise about the climb f you don't know the exact time to climb. In general my figures are more real than Leonards which I suspect are based on Kossler and Ott's figures.

55 US gals per hour is per engine incidentally in case that was not clear.

As a pilot drgndog I do understand the difference between long range cruise and economical cruise. I also understand the difference between ferry range and max payload range thank you.

Seek and ye shall find. The fuel consumption figures for BMW801 engines are well known and widely published for all to see.


----------



## Kiwikid (Mar 3, 2008)

> pbfoot wrote:
> 
> R Leonards makes perfect sense to me , you'd have to strip that Junkers down to the walls , remove all radios ,oxygen systems and safety equipment to cut down on the weight even find crew that were skinny . Just doing a simple D=RxT a 27hr trip at 210 mph for 6000mile+/- at his fuel rates not including the headwinds you'll get at some point



Well sad to say Richard leonard got the calculations grossly wrong because he assumed 150 US gals per engine for the cruise and then multiplied that by 6 engines.

The truth is that the true figure is 45-55 US Gals per hour x 6 engines. 

You have to start with the right consumption assumption.  Sorry couldn't resist that.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 3, 2008)

Kiwikid said:


> Well sad to say Richard leonard got the calculations grossly wrong because he assumed 150 US gals per engine for the cruise and then multiplied that by 6 engines.
> 
> The truth is that the true figure is 45-55 US Gals per hour x 6 engines.
> 
> You have to start with the right consumption assumption.  Sorry couldn't resist that.


I used your numbers and did some quick math with the available weight , weight of gas and 55 gph per engine overall rounded off to take account of climb etc. Its all rough numbers but so would the flight planning be without proper consideration for winds aloft and other factors that would affect things the 390 wouldn't have knowledge of , considering it would be tough to climb over weather with the low service ceiling


----------



## Kiwikid (Mar 3, 2008)

Hi Pb, 

All I did was calculate take off and climb to 20,000ft and then the fuel needed for 31 hours of flight. 

The endurance would easily permit a return Atlantic mission. Jetstreams would not figure much at 20,000 feet. I have to pop out for an appointment, but will be back later to discuss it.

There is a rumour which I am unable to substantiate that the flight may have been from Norway to Michigan then past new York on it's return to Mont de Marsan, but I can't contact the source for this.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 3, 2008)

Kiwikid said:


> Operational notes for the Ju-390 including payload range charts, from one of it's test pilots, Han Pancherz have been published in a couple of books including the autobigraphy of Pancherz who lives in Barcelona. From time to time Pancherz gives interviews about the Ju-390 to Spanish newspapers.
> 
> If you're not prepared to accept the data from the aircraft's test pilot then you're unlikely to accept any amount of evidence.
> 
> ...



Back to your point about the Ju 390 ceiling at 20,000 feet. 

As a pilot isn't it curious to you that an aircraft with greater horsepower and lighter wing loading than a B-29, as presented above....

but can barely climb to 60% of the ceiling of the higher flying, faster B-29 which has less power and a higher wing loading (according to the 'published data)? 

As a pilot, wouldn't you want to know more about the flight test data gathered before an alleged flight to New York, so that you had a lot of cofidence in matching a landing on land with a take off on land?

Wouldn't you want to know the specific altitude and rpm and boost and fuel flow to optimize your range - and what that cruise speed was? And wouldn't you be more confident in your beliefs if you had that data?


I look at the widely varying data available on the Ju 390 and keep asking myself fundamental questions.

Why would an aircraft like this, with 6 x 2000 hp and a wing loading less than a B-29 attain such poor performance unless the aircraft was seriously dirty, aerodynamically speaking. Particularly when you have made the point that this engine was one of the very best the LW had in Hp/wt ratio and performed well up to 40,000 feet. So it couldn't be that the engines would not perform.

So either the specs as given are wrong, or the aircraft was an enormous hog and NEEDED that much hp just to get it to 20,000 feet.

As a pilot, what conclusions do you draw?


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 3, 2008)

Kiwikid said:


> Hi Pb,
> The endurance would easily permit a return Atlantic mission. Jetstreams would not figure much at 20,000 feet. I have to pop out for an appointment, but will be back later to discuss it.
> .


That is an extrodinary time aloft if my recollection is correct I believe the record for that amount time aloft without refuelling goes to the CP 07 Argus at 31 hours using the same powerplants as the B29 but much uprated to 3700 hp and thats a record only surpassed by Bert Rutans Voyager


----------



## Soren (Mar 3, 2008)

The ceiling of the Ju-390 was low because of the very poor high alt performance of its BMW-801 engines. At SL it climbed allot faster than the B-29.

Hence the short take off landing roll of the Ju-390 Kiwikid.

At any rate the He-277 was a much better bomber, with a payload capacity larger than that of the British Lancaster, an amazingly high service ceiling, cruise speed and a good defensive armament top speed, it was technically the best bomber of WW2.


----------



## Kiwikid (Mar 3, 2008)

Soren raises a valid point that the Ju-390 was in response to an RLM specification for the so called Amerika bomber issued about 1942 and it was dated by 1945.

Better aircraft were available by 1944/45 including the He-177 with many engine overheating issues and the French built He-277. A conventional four engined version of the He-177

Soren you may have heard of the airport built near Oslo in the middle of a forrest called Gardermoen ?

At the end of the war 40 large bombers were found at the airfield in preparation for a mission to attack the United States. They were described as He-177 but may have included about 6 or 7 missing He-277. There is little accurate information available about Gardermoen, except that it had a very long purpose built runway for attacks on USA.

Re earlier Ju-390 posts, I can't recall the source at present but I understand the Ju-390 had a cruise around 240 knots. The maximum speed is often cited, but maximum speed is unhelpful.

Warbirds Resource Group refer to the Ju-390 with external bomb load at 267 knots cruise. The Ju-390 V1 coded RC+DA had a bomb aimer's gondola and appears to have been the maritime patrol bomber.


----------



## Kiwikid (Mar 3, 2008)

> drgndog asked:
> 
> So either the specs as given are wrong, or the aircraft was an enormous hog and NEEDED that much hp just to get it to 20,000 feet.



The wing loading is easily calculated from the Ju-390's wing area and MTOW, both of which are well known and documented with corroboration by the test pilot after the war. 

The issue is limited engine performance at altitude. The B-29 for it's faults had massively supercharged air intakes optimised for high altitude. 



> And why is that? Did Leonard fumble his figures also? And what assumptions that you made are any more valid than his. So far this whole discussion including mine, are laced with 'assumptions' - said assumptions leaning to one side or the other in the debate - but assumptions nevertheless?



I slightly rounded down the climb figures. The Ju-390 could undoubtedly reach 20,000 feet much faster than a B-29 with 18% more power, 55% lower wing loading and 85% better power to weight ratio than the B-29

You should note that even by including the slightly extra fuel for climb which you calculated the total fuel still does not exceed the Ju-390's known fuel capacity of 65,000lb. 

On the other hand Richard Leonard's miscalculation is gross and excessive. He calculated fuel burn for the cruise at 500% more than was correct.

Thank goodness Richard Leonard is not a pilot, least I hope not.

The same is true of modern jet aircraft that you can optimise aircraft and engines for high or lower altitudes. The Rolls Royce Tay engine is built on the same core engine but has different versions with different fan sizes. 

As an example the Fokker F-100 airliner used the Tay 650 engine with a wider Low pressure fan for shorter flights at lower altitudes has a service ceiling of just 35,000 feet.

The Gulfstream IV private jet designed to fly higher and for longer range uses the Tay 611 with a much narrower LP fan, but it can reach 45,000 feet service ceiling on basically the same engines with similar thrust and similar gross weights.







At Nationwide Air we flew ATL.98 Carvairs. They had astonishingly good fuel consumption. People who have never flown old radials just don't understand how much more fuel efficient a piston radial is over turboprops.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 3, 2008)

Kiwikid said:


> The wing loading is easily calculated from the Ju-390's wing area and MTOW, both of which are well known and documented with corroboration by the test pilot after the war.
> 
> *Yes if the data is correct, the wing loading is easily calculated*
> 
> ...


I honestly don't know who is correct. You haven't showed any engine performance data, no fuel consumption vs altitude or output horsepower

No cruise speeds as function of Gross weight for either max range or max endurance.

Why are you more believable if you can't produce optimal cruise speed and altitude? 

I don't doubt your intelligence, or flight experience, but you are trying to suspend belief in this discussion by pointing to an alleged personal account which to this day has never been cooroborated by either surviving Junkers test data or another series of credible witnesses.

I am really agnostic on this subject but how in heck do you expect to prove your thesis? BTW your figures for 40-55 is about right for lowest cruise fuel consumption on a Packard Merlin 1750-7 at 48gal hour. 

Is the same 'flawed' BMW801E that low on fuel consumption, and if it is what is the rated hrosepower and altitude for 40 gallons (or 55) gallons per hour.


----------



## Soren (Mar 4, 2008)

Kiwikid,

The He-277 is like the He-177 a German built a/c made designed by the Heinkel Flugzeugwerke, the French had nothing to do with it. 

As for the He-177 or He-277 attacking the US, well that would've been a one way trip seeing that max range was 6,000km. 

If any bomber was going to bomb the US it would've been either the Me-264 with its 15,000 km range, or the Ju-390 with its 9,700 km range. (Would've been some VERY tiring missions though, flying for that long)

Bill,

The Ju-390 used the BMW-801D series engine, NOT the E series as in the FW-190 A-9. And the performance of the D-2 engine as we know fell off VERY sharply at high altitudes, hence the Ju-390's low ceiling.


----------



## Kiwikid (Mar 4, 2008)

This is pretty tiresome hairsplitting Drgndog. You yourself refer to the Mustang having hi fuel flow on take off and dropping to quite low fuel flow in cruise.



> I'm quite well aware of that, but thanks for helping me further understand. The fuel flow from max power to optimal cruise varies quite a bit. For a P-51D the max is around 240 Gallons per hour and minimum cruise fuel consumtion was approx 48gph at 18K/1800rpm and 23" for a combat load



Bit of an own goal don't you think ?



> Kiwi - data from a single source, and a personal one at that, unmatched by other sources would lead me to at least hold belief in suspension. I'm glad you aren't a cynic like me



A single source ?

Hans Joachim Pancherz and his wartime notes which are published only happen to be the single most authoritative source in the world on the Ju-390 and you say the aircraft's test pilot is not a good enough source.

You just seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. 



> Or the data is wrong.



Drawing a long bow based on nothing more than your conjecture.



> BTW if the BMW801E was failing to deliver its rated hp at 20,000 feet, where else was it 'short' and why would any data regarding performance be believable? If the engines couldn't deliver the Hp at 20,000 feet, where did it fall off from design specs?



More conjecture by you. Who said the BMW801 failed to deliver it's rated hp at 20,000ft ?

It was limited to that altitude and could not blow enough air into the cylinders above that altitude. It was a known fault of the engine. You're trying to build a thesis that the Ju-390 could not reach USA because you personally don't accept an aircraft with limited engine performance could fly that far.

May I remind you of the giant Dornier Do X which flew the Atlantic pre war never climbed much above 1500ft ? 

the flying boats



> So you are willing to say that the BMW801E essentailly 'stopped' performing at 20,000 feet. the same engine used in the Fw 190A-9 and you believe this why? And did the personal account of a former test pilot have anything to say about this curious characterisic of an otherwise fine engine?



I wouldn't dare say it myself. Just to prove to you drgndog that this is not just what I say let me refer you to what others say about the BMW801 characteristics. 

The BMW801 was well known for limitations at altitude because of it's engine driven superchargers. This was addressed late in the war with the BMW801G and that model's hydraulically driven 4 stage supercharger, but that engine was not fitted to the Ju-390 in early 1944. 

BMW 801: Information and Much More from Answers.com



> The supercharger was rather basic in the early models, using a single-stage two-speed design directly geared to the engine (unlike the DB 601's hydraulically-clutched version) which led to rather limited altitude performance, in keeping with its intended medium-altitude usage.





> With the engine now being used in higher-altitude fighter roles, a number of attempts were made to address the limited performance of the original supercharger.



The BMW 801 Radial Engine



> The BMW 801 twin row radial engine formed the basis of the Focke Wulf fw190 design. This engine has the reputation as being among the better engine designs of WW2 regardless of limitations in German supercharger technology which lead to some failings at high altitude.



I don't know some of the facts you demand answers to. The warbirds resource group is the only reference point which i can point to from off my head that refers to a cruise speed as opposed to maximum speed for the Ju-390 and that was 267 knots which i find a bit excessive. 

The DC-4/Carvair cruised about 220 knots. I recall reading somewhere that the Ju-390 cruised at 240 knots but can't give you the source.

I expect the Ju-290's cruise was similar to a Ju-290's so that may be a starting point for investigation.

I'm not trying to close down debate Drgndog. If Rich's claim were subjected to the same scrutiny it would be obvious that he overestimated the fuel consumption.

Take some equivalent aircraft like the DC-4 and look at their fuel consumptions because you'll find the same applies.


----------



## Kiwikid (Mar 4, 2008)

> The He-277 is like the He-177 a German built a/c made designed by the Heinkel Flugzeugwerke, the French had nothing to do with it.



Hiya Soren, I can't quote a source at the moment but before the invasion of france He-177 airframes were sent to a French aircraft manufacturer and had the wings modified for a conventional 4 engine installation.

I stand to be corrected but I am pretty confident that I have read an authoritative source on this. No arguments that it was the best German bomber.

Had Ernst Udet not persuaded Goering to drop the 1936 specification for a Urals bomber after Webel's death and instead focus on tactical dive bombers like the Do-17 and Ju-87, Germany would have had a fleet of strategic bombers in 1939.

I have read that the Ju-390 was originally fitted with the BMW 801D and at some point later was fitted with the BMW 801E, but the altitude issues were not fully solved until the BMW 801G and BMW 801R.

I have no idea which engine type was fitted in January 1944 and you may well be correct Soren.

My fuel calculations and comparison with the B-29 incidentally were based on the BMW 801D of 1730hp per engine.


----------



## Soren (Mar 4, 2008)

The He-277 is completely German Kiwikid, designed in Germany by the Heinkel design team as a further development of the He-177. The aircraft itself was built in Austria.

Regarding any French involvement you must be remembering wrong Kiwikid, cause the French didn't get a hold of any He-177, and by the time the invasion was over the French completely ceased designing a/c. The He-177 first entered service in 1942. Another a/c, the He-274, was however built by Heinkel in France, but the design was completely German, the labor being only thing French. It was simply a case of the Germans utilizing captured production facilities instead of spending funds on building them themselves.

As for the Ju-390, it was powered exclusively by BMW-801 D-2 engines.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 4, 2008)

The French Air Force had one He 177 - after the war.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 4, 2008)

Kiwikid said:


> This is pretty tiresome hairsplitting Drgndog. You yourself refer to the Mustang having hi fuel flow on take off and dropping to quite low fuel flow in cruise.
> 
> *Yes I did. I gave them to you in the conditions and altitudes and rpms and boost for a very efficent in line engine which has 15-20% less hp than the 801E. You have given me zero in return for a very large and powerful radial engine*
> 
> ...



If we go to trying extrapolate the performance against the DC-4, we have to establish the baseline for Both ships to determine actual reasonableness

1. Either the Test Cruise curves for altitude, sfc, rpm, boost, TAS as a function of payload, or 

2. Published data for optimal cruise speed for a.) endurance or b.) range

But as a pilot you know that you need far more than fuel consuption data for the engine - you have to know how the aircraft as a SYSTEM performs with respect to engine, payload, aerodynamics and altitude.


----------



## Soren (Mar 4, 2008)

Listen are you guys interested about knowing the truth or do you just want to argue ??

For the last time the Ju-390 was equipped with the BMW-801 D-2 series NOT the E series!

And here's the power curve of the BMW-801D2, as you can see performance decreases rapidly at high alt:


----------



## Soren (Mar 4, 2008)

Compare the above to the power available to the B29 at that altitude and you'll quickly realize why there was such a big difference in service ceiling.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> Listen are you guys interested about knowing the truth or do you just want to argue ??
> 
> *Interesting question Soren - what is the 'truth' - your truth or the sketchy details provided by other equally vague sources?*
> 
> ...



And yet another 'truth' to lay on top of so many 'truths' on this subject

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/ju390.html

*Type: Long Range Bomber or Reconnaissance aircraft.
Origin: Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke AG
Models: V1 to V3 and A-1
Crew: N/A
First Flight: Prototypes only
Final Delivery: None
Number Produced: V1 and V2 Only

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine: 
Model: BMW 801E
Type: 18-Cylinder two-row radial
Number: Six Horsepower: 1,970 hp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions:
Wing span: 165 ft. 1 in. (50.30m)
Length: 112 ft. 2.5 in. (34.20m)
Height: 22 ft. 7 in. (6.89m)
Wing Surface Area: N/A

Weights: 
Empty: 81,350 lb. (36,900 kg)
Loaded: 166,448 lb. (75,500 kg)
Performance:
Maximum Speed:
Clean: 314 mph (505 kph)
With Max. Eternal Weapons: 267 mph (430 kph)
Initial Climb: N/A
Service Ceiling (Typical): N/A
Range in Recce configuration:
6,027 miles (9700 km)
Endurance in Recce configuration: 32 Hours

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armament:
Eight 20mm MG 151.
Eight 13mm MG 131.

Payload:
Transport (V1): 22,046 lb. (10,000 kg)
Bomber (V3): 3,968 lb. (1800 kg)

Avionics:
FuG 200 Hohentwiel Radar.*

So, once again - what are the facts? what is the truth?

Where will anybody get a clue regarding the Ju 390V1 or V2 with respect to facts.

I'm willing to believe any performance figures based on either well founded calculations based on exhaustive wind tunnel results with at least one test flight to reference areas of agreement versus differences from the theoretical.

None of those factors are present here. Period.

Now - what is YOUR source for BMW810D for the Ju 390(either V1 or V2) so that Kiwi and I shall know the 'truth'? What is your source for bomb bay existence vs wing racks?

What is the source for internal fuel of 65,000 pounds? If true, were there special mod for Recce Version to get the loiter? What was the cruise speed to attain 32 hours endurance? what was the cruise speed to get 6000-6200 miles of range? was the range an actual or a theretical? what would a flight profile and loading look like to a.) make a 32 hour Recce, b.) fly 6200 miles with a bomb load - or no bomb load? or what?

You believe a Truth but you don't have any of this to demonstrate you have an assembly of relevant facts? Nor does Kiwi.

I got involved because I saw an analysis that seemed reasonable to me based on the numbers presented. I got into this in more detail when Kiwi posed that nobody knew what they were talking about and proceeded to a.) get the math wrong by nearly 20% on his own figures and assumptions - much less any assumptions based on a referencable source that applied to the case in question.

I AM NOT an expert on the Ju 390 but I damn sure know how to plan an IFR flight plan at the outer range of my airplane's limits - you should also as well as Kiwi - but I didn't see either of you asking fundamental questions to test or demonstrate your own belief.

Now - just suppose that the BMW801 E WAS used on the Ju 390 - what are the performance figures for that? Then Soren we have one leg of the analysis that you and I could do together.

After that we need to know how much actual fuel could be loaded onto this beast and safely take off.

After that we would like to know where the best altitude and speed is for a.) minimum fuel consumption, and b.) best altitude and cruise speed for best cruise mile per gallon consumed.

Then we could figure out what mission we want - Recce with no payload, Recce with payload, Ferry with no payload, Bomb mission at max range and the payload which could be carried to max range.

If then, the payload must draw from fuel (if max fuel - max gross weight), then we have another set of condition for range.

etc, etc.

So, where do you suggest we get facts for a mission profile?


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

The V1 V2 were equipped with the D-2 engines, the A-1 was supposedly to be equipped with the E engine.

Junkers Aircraft of WWII

Now since you're not aware of it, the E engine was no better at high alt than the D-2 engine, the extra power only giving the FW-190 A-9 a service ceiling some 200m higher than that of the D-2 powered A-8.

From German Leistung charts:
FW-190A-8, service ceiling: 10.6 km
FW-190A-9, service ceiling: 10.8 km

Wow! What an improvement! 

Now if you still don't understand that the BMW-801 was the reason for the lower ceiling then I must say you've lost your touch in this area quite abit Bill.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 6, 2008)

No Soren it is not 

He is only asking what everyone else asks for and that is a source...


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 6, 2008)

did the 390 actually fly for 32 hours or is that a should number


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No Soren it is not



I just dislike the suspicious tone, that's all...



> He is only asking what everyone else asks for and that is a source...



Which he has now recieved.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> I just dislike the suspicious tone, that's all...



It only mirrors yours...


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

I don't recall being suspicious about anything like this.

It's a quite simple and well known fact that the BMW-801 didn't perform well at high altitude, the FW-190A suffered from this throughout its service life. So that the Ju-390, which is powered by BMW-801 engines, has a low ceiling is a no brainer really. However despite this Bill somehow comes to conclusion that the airframe was draggy


----------



## drgondog (Mar 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> The V1 V2 were equipped with the D-2 engines, the A-1 was supposedly to be equipped with the E engine.
> 
> Junkers Aircraft of WWII
> 
> ...



Well, obviously you have confused me Soren. You said the BMW 801E had well known altitude problems but you point out it still enabled a higher service ceiling for the Fw 190A-9, over the service ceiling of the Fw 190A-9 with the 801D. What did I miss? Did it run into it's "well known altitude problems" with the Ju 390 at 6 Km, but somehow struggle up to 10.8Km with the Fw 190A-9.

You are an aerodynamicist, correct? 

Then what is your explanation for this paradox of an alleged aircraft that has a lower wing loading, much higher base Hp with Six BMW 801E engines, but can only climb to 6 Km - when a slug of an aircraft like a B-29 with a 10% higher wing loading and 40% less power can climb to 10Km with a 20,000 pound bomb load.?

It must be clear that I have lost my touch in this area quite a bit Soren.. could you please help me find the way back to reality?


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

The FW190A-9 is a fighter for crying out loud, and its power-loading is significantly lower than that of the Ju-390, as-well wing loading, hence the higher ceiling. 

Also the increased horsepower provided by the E series over the D-2 series only increased the ceiling of the FW-190 a mere 200m! Therefore there'd be no difference between a Ju-390 equipped with D-2 engines and one equipped with E series engines! Is that so hard to understand ???

Furthermore the V1 was the only one to ever fly, and it was equipped with the D-2 series engine. The A-1 was the version which was to have the E series engine, but IT NEVER FLEW!

Finally the B-29 featured four 2,200 HP *turbo-supercharged* engines, with excellent high alt performance, hence the higher ceiling!

If you still don't understand that the BMW-801 engines were the reason behind the Ju-390's low ceiling, then yes, you have lost your touch.


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

Perhaps we need to look at the P-47's service ceiling and compare it to the FW-190 A-9 for you to understand ? 

The P-47 is turbo-supercharged fighter with a higher wing power-loading than the FW-190A, yet it still has a higher ceiling. 

Again ENGINE PEFORMANCE at altitude is the reason behind the difference in service ceiling.


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

Btw, 

4 x 2,200 = 8,800 HP

6 x 1870 = 11,220 HP

That's barely a 22% difference in power.

Have no clue how you got that to be 40%.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> Perhaps we need to look at the P-47's service ceiling and compare it to the FW-190 A-9 for you to understand ?
> 
> *Perhaps you need to state what the BMW801E rated hp is for rated boost as a function of altitude to make me understand?
> 
> ...



Why, yes I believe you are right, although apect ratios, power loading, wing loading are important factors?

Facts, reports, flight tests - you apparently were wrong about the BMW 801D-2 being used on the Ju 390. 

You have yet to show a bomb bay for the Ju 390A1 (or V1 whichever was actually built)

You have yet to demonstrate the performance chart for the 801E in any form to use as comparison for a polite discussion on why the Ju 390 had a low service ceiling in comparison with the more heavily wing loaded B-29. 

Now, I haven't seen the power charts for the R-3350-29A either. All I have for it are from Joe Baugher's website which gives 2200hp at Take Off power and 2300 at Max Power for 25,000 feet. 

If you could prove that the Hp for the BMW 801E was 1800hp or less at say 15,000 feet and down to about 1200hp each at 18,000 feet we might be on our way to understanding why the Ju 390 couldn't 'get it up'. 

By extrapolation however, the Fw 190A-9 with the BMW801E under those performance conditions would be sorely pressed to make 25,000ft ceiling.

This is speculation, I don't have facts on the 801E. Apparently you don't either but that doesn't stop you from drawing conclusions?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> Btw,
> 
> 4 x 2,200 = 8,800 HP
> 
> ...



Now please demonstrate the 'severe power loss of the BMW801E' with facts rather than statements? 

With the Ju 390 ~15% advantage in W/L for Max Gross Weight you would have to be delivering significantly less than 1500 hp at 19,600 feet to not be able to climb higher. At 1533 hp for each of the 6 engines it should be able to exceed the B-29 for rate of climb at 25,000ft based on Baugher's data.

Is that your thesis?


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

LoL, you're the one not providing any facts Bill, not me! And your ongoing accusations of me not providing any facts and your continuous suspicion is what makes me turn rude towards you, cause like most people I don't take kindly to being slapped in the face.

But show me your sources which state that the Ju-390 V1 or V2 was equipped with the BMW-801E engine. The A-1 (Which was never built, only designed) was the version meant to have the E series engine.

Anyways..

Here's the performance gain of using the BMW-801F (Superior to the 801E at all alts) over the BMW-801D-2: (From FW Leistung chart already posted *Shall I post it again to easen your suspicion ?)*

FW-190 A-9, Service Ceiling: 10.8 km
FW-190 A-8, Service Ceiling: 10.6 km

A whopping 200m in difference!

With the BMW-801F it takes the A-9 19.6 min to reach 10km, the poor high alt performance significantly decreasing performance above 23,000 ft.

Yeah, the BMW-801E certainly was going to help allot on high alt performance


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 6, 2008)

Soren and kiwi you giuys are making unsubstantiated claims 32 hours aloft in the 390 is that number actually proven or is it should be able to number . The record for unrefuelled flight prior to Rutans Voyageur was 31 hours and that was with a combat load and 2 crews .


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

I haven't claimed anything Pbfoot. The proven range was 9,700 km. What'ever that is in hours I don't know and I have never claimed to know either.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> I haven't claimed anything Pbfoot. The proven range was 9,700 km. What'ever that is in hours I don't know and I have never claimed to know either.


187 knots at 32 = 6032nm


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

Where did you get the 187 knot figure from ?


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

The cruise speed might have been 400 km/h, which would equal 24.25 hours. 

Anybody know the cruise speed ?


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

Bill,

If you cease being suspicious I'll cease being rude, deal ?

I really hate being rude or having to get rough, I loath it, but it's hard not to when provoked. I like you Bill, I have from the start and still do, but we have a habbit of provoking each other (Similar mindset perhaps). Anyway lets quit it now.

You might be busy with other things, which is why you overlooked some of the things I posted (There are after-all things in real life to attend to), so perhaps I shouldn't have been as harsh as I was but my points still stand; The ceiling of the Ju-390 was as low as it was because of the poor high alt peformance of the BMW-801 engine (Wether it be th D-2 or E, doesn't matter)

Anyway this is a truce offer, so we can continue the debate in a orderly fashion and not ruin a thread.

This is for every'ones best..


----------



## drgondog (Mar 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> LoL, you're the one not providing any facts Bill, not me! And your ongoing accusations of me not providing any facts and your continuous suspicion is what makes me turn rude towards you, cause like most people I don't take kindly to being slapped in the face.
> 
> But show me your sources which state that the Ju-390 V1 or V2 was equipped with the BMW-801E engine. *See your own reference below!*The A-1 (Which was never built, only designed) was the version meant to have the E series engine.*Your reference below states just the opposite*
> 
> ...



You roll your eyes often. Good simple facts would serve you better.

*So far you are quite skilled at slinging insults and writing words. You have demonstrated that you will say one thing and reference a link that directly contradicts not only what you said but used as support for what you said!!

Why?*

Soren - if you don't have BMW 801E performance data for Hp at 19,600 feet to help us understand if a.) the Ju 390 was underpowered at this altitude, or b.) had a reasonable power reserve at that altitude - we will never be able to determine analytically what it's capabilities were.

Soren, if you don't have Specific Miles per Gallon of Fuel at Best Cruise settings (as a function of altitude and payload) for the Ju 390/BMW 801E system - we will never be able to realistically determine its range potential!

If we don't stop waving around and pointing to contradictary web sites to prove statements about the Ju 390, what sources CAN be believed?

If we don't stop making bold statements like "everyone knows" and one can't point to a reference which at least proves "Someone knows", why are You believeable in this debate?

The crux to believing ANYTHING about the Ju 390 other than it doesn't exist anymore, is a.) reliable specs about the aircraft or version if more than one was actually built and flown. That would include fuel capacity, Performance data citing Top Speed, Top Speed with a load, Cruise Speed (with same load) for max endurance, Cruise Speed (with same load) for max range..

or b.) Drag figures for the airframe plus comprehensive performance data for the BMW801E engines plus correct fuel capacity and Gross Weight at takeoff including fuel and payload for the Gross Weight in question.

In other words, what do you KNOW versus what do you 'think'?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> I haven't claimed anything Pbfoot. The proven range was 9,700 km. What'ever that is in hours I don't know and I have never claimed to know either.



Ah, there seems to be a difference in "proven" versus "Claimed" versus "stated" versus "I think" versus "this is what the link said" versus.. well you get the idea. So, what exactly is "proven" relative to the Ju 390 (any version)

Unless it is Flight test data from a reliable source (like the Luftwaffe) that demonstrates reasonable veracity it wouldn't be "proven" to me.

You have alternatively claimed "everyone knows the 801E had altitude performance problems", you have claimed that the Ju 390 used 810D-2's, when your source said it was 801E's, you have claimed "the Ju 390 had bomb bays" when I posted my only reference of bomb carrying ability was an external load of 3900 pounds.

So, what is your definition of "proven"?


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

I know the BMW-801D-2 has poor high alt peformance, I know the BMW-801F which featured better performance than the BMW-801E across the board didn't prove much of an improvement, providing an extra 200m in service ceiling over the BMW-801D-2.

Because of this we can quite safely assume that the engines were the reason behind the low service ceiling, I mean what else could it be Bill ? Seriously.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> The cruise speed might have been 400 km/h, which would equal 24.25 hours.
> 
> Anybody know the cruise speed ?



No, Soren. This has been one of the key issues in this debate. No one seems to have a clue regarding a.) Actual verified specifications for maximum fuel capaciy, b.) cruise speed for maximum endurance and the specific fuel consumption at that speed as a function of payload, c.) cruise speed for maximum range and the specific fuel consumption for that speed as a function of payload, d.) performance of the BMW801E as a function of Hp, boost, specific fuel consumption, etc as a function of altitude.

To summarize - nobody "knows" anything about this aircraft. Everybody has OPINIONS. Few OPINIONS have been validated as yet.

There is ZERO fact base on BMW 801E performance

There is ZERO fact base concerning any version of the Ju 390 versiosn with respect to detail design specifications

There is Zero fact base concerning any flight test data for the Ju 390. 

I have HEARD from Kiwi that the former Test Pilot included tables in his book. I have not seen them, so far nobody has presented them, so far nobody has authenticated them, so far nobody has produced Luftwaffe data on them.

There is ZERO fact base concerning any flight that 'travelled" 6200 miles or stayed aloft 32 hours. 

Does this accurately summarize what we KNOW about the Ju 390?

Do you wonder why I am suspicious? or wonder why I can't understand why you aren't suspicious?


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> Where did you get the 187 knot figure from ?


rate= distance over time


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

You'd need to know either the time or cruise speed along with distance to establish this Pbfoot.

So where did you get the 187 knot figure from ?


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

Bill,

No we don't have the specific power chart for the BMW-801E, but we do know that the BMW-801F which was a superior engine across the board didn't improve high alt performance by any significant margin, providing a mere 200m extra in service ceiling.

In short knowing the exact performance of the BMW-801E is irrelevant to this discussion.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> I know the BMW-801D-2 has poor high alt peformance, I know the BMW-801F which featured better performance than the BMW-801E across the board didn't prove much of an improvement, providing an extra 200m in service ceiling over the BMW-801D-2.
> 
> Because of this we can quite safely assume that the engines were the reason behind the low service ceiling, I mean what else could it be Bill ? Seriously.



Soren - by the same logic LW leaders could not believe a single engine fighter like the Mustang, with extremely high performance, could escort daylight bombers past Berlin..

They had to accept the proof of their eyes, but only when they understood the drag characteristics and internal fuel capacity did understanding become complete. Realistically they knew the fuel capacity but had no reason to believe the range was comparable to the P-38

So, no I don't accept that the engines were the problem until someone shows me a BMW 801E power and fuel consumption profile that demonstrates that the 801E had less than 800 Hp at 25,000 feet and less than than 1000 hp at 20,000 ft. For 15% less W/L than a B-29 that might represent a power range that is inadequate to get to 20,000 feet.

Further complicating the question is the continuous statements that the "810E was the high altitude version of the 801D". What kind of High altitude versions of any high performance Radial had 1/2 the SL Hp at 20,000 feet? or even a reduction of Hp at 20,000 feet (from sea level).

Why do you believe it?


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

Btw, the figures from U-boat.net are interesting, noting a top speed of 515 km/h at 6,200m. Now top speed is never anywhere close to the service ceiling so somehing aint right.

Sources are very different on this bird...


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

> Soren - by the same logic LW leaders could not believe a single engine fighter like the Mustang, with extremely high performance, could escort daylight bombers past Berlin..



I've never heard of the Germans displaying any disbelief on that subject, esp. seeing they had captured quite a few examples of this a/c and thuroughly tested it in both flight and windtunnel tests. The tests ending with the conclusion the airfoil was disadvantaguous in all other aspects but drag reduction in straight flight.

The range of the Mustang was mostly due to its fuel capacity, a/c with similar fuel capacities flying similar distances.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> I've never heard of the Germans displaying any disbelief on that subject, esp. seeing they had captured quite a few examples of this a/c and thuroughly tested it in both flight and windtunnel tests. The tests ending with the conclusion the airfoil was disadvantaguous in all other aspects but drag reduction in straight flight.
> 
> The range of the Mustang was mostly due to its fuel capacity, a/c with similar fuel capacities flying similar distances.



You took me a little too literally.

On the other hand the Luftwaffe didn't capture a Mustang until 3 months after the first Berlin escort mission. June 6, Cambrai. So they performed zero wind tunnel tests on the airframe until after June, 1944. The first one crashed and both the pilot and a/c were lost after Lerche flew it for some time. Look to pages 117-119 of his book.

Note his comments that of all the Me and Fw series of piston engine fighters flown by Luftwaffe aces in comparative tests, only the Dora and the 109G-10 'could more or less keep up with it.

As to the analogy I used. It was only after wind tunnel tests that they had a true understanding of the extremely low drag of the Mustang.

May I also draw your attention to the flat plate and wetted drag comparisons you showed a couple of weeks ago? The range was Definitely not Only due to fuel capacity. 

Look to P-38, P-47 and F4U internal fuel capacity versus Mustang and re-think the point?

As to 'quite a few'captured, the number was IIRC two or three B's and one or two D's... the very first example on D-Day as noted above. The one picture I have seen of the first P-51D before LW colors were applied indicated September-October timeframe based on the Invasion stripe scheme and lack of nose cowl/rudder color scheme assigned to each fighter Group


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> You'd need to know either the time or cruise speed along with distance to establish this Pbfoot.
> 
> So where did you get the 187 knot figure from ?


32 hours 6000 miles


----------



## drgondog (Mar 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> Btw, the figures from U-boat.net are interesting, noting a top speed of 515 km/h at 6,200m. Now top speed is never anywhere close to the service ceiling so somehing aint right.
> 
> Sources are very different on this bird...



I think you are seeing several of my points as well as the questions that arise from the data.

Personally, I am inclined to believe that the ceiling was higher than the 'stated' 19,600 feet... and closer to B-29 for equivalent payloads. The real noticeable components of the 390 that might yield higher base drag components are a greater AR, 6 engine nacelle/wing body versus 4 for B-29, and what looks to be a thicker wing/chord..

Those factors MIGHT cancel out the lower wing loading. 

Note also that one source says 267MPH cruise speed, and another says 267mph max speed with external load?

That smells like 200-220 max cruise speed for range calculations but no way of telling without the other data we have been looking for?

I'm strictly guessing when I say I THINK that the Ju 390 had to a.) have more fuel capacity than the B-29, which for block 25 forward according to Baugher had 9438 gallons for Ferry. Kiwi stated 10,000 gallons for the Ju 390.

If true for internal capacity of the Ju 390, I MIGHT be led to believe that the Ju 390 would have a max ferry range slightly greater than the B-29. Again, Baugher says 5800 miles max ferry with full internal fuel and no bomb load... but 3200 miles with 'normal' bomb load - which I think was closer to 12,000 pounds. Operations and ferry figure include reserve for climbing and also contingency at destination... usually 30 minutes minimum

So, I look at the Ju 390 one last time and I come to a "Guess" that a.) the BMW801E was at least 80% of the power of the B-29 at 25,000 feet, and b.) it had to cruise at the higher altitude to get 200-220 cruise speed, than the stated ceiling.

If the 801E was close to the power profile of the D-2 at 15,000 to 20,000 feet I just can't come close to believing any of the range figures..

Last - the Merlin 65/Packard 1650-7 fuel consumtion figures for the Mustang is 48 gallons per hour at 18,500 feet? Is there any way a very powerful radial matches the Merlin for fuel consumption/cruise settings? Kiwi stated 40-55gph at cruise? Another hard one to understand absent the real data.

Hence my 'suspicion' on all the link data on this bird. Call me a suspicious guy but those are the factors which had me scratching my head.


----------



## Soren (Mar 7, 2008)

The high AR of the B-29's wing will increase lift whilst decreasing the drag, increasing the L/D ratio, a great advantage. I haven't looked into the difference in AR though, but even small differences have very noticable effects.

I too believe that the service ceiling of the Ju-390 was higher than 6 km, probably 8-9 km, but no more as the BMW-801 lost performance rapidly above 20,000 ft.

As for the P-51, we agree.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 7, 2008)

Soren said:


> The high AR of the B-29's wing will increase lift whilst decreasing the drag, increasing the L/D ratio, a great advantage. I haven't looked into the difference in AR though, but even small differences have very noticable effects.
> 
> *I don't have the Mean Chord for either but the Span>>2/Area gives 10 for the 390 and 11.5 for the 29, so it is significant.*
> 
> ...



I still wish we could find the data on the 801E. By all anecdotal accounts the 801Q was yet another boost to the 801 series and a direct derivative of the 801E


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2008)

The 801E wasn't really any better than the D-2 at high alt, the 801F proves that. The 801 would need a turbo-supercharger to help it at high alts, just the like the R-2800 in the P-47.

Better L/D ratio of the B-29 also helped increase ceiling over the Ju390.


----------



## Kiwikid (Mar 9, 2008)

Thank goodness I missed this ridiculous bun fight.

The Ju-390 has been quoted as using both the BMW-801D and BMW-801E engine. The "E" engine was experimental and never saw widespread use. The "E" engine had 2.5% better fuel performance.

The "E" engine differed in gearing for higher altitude and a better cooling fan/compressor. The figures for a BMW-801E are so marginally different as to be minimal and if you insist on the Ju-390 having flown to New York with BMW-801E engines then so much the better because that engine had slightly better fuel performance.

Drgndog you've quoted figured like 56 inches boost. That's claptrap! 



> drgndog said:
> 
> You believe a Truth but you don't have any of this to demonstrate you have an assembly of relevant facts? Nor does Kiwi.



I see however where you've made the mistake drgndog and it is understandable. 

Yes you've published a report on BMW-801D performance in a range of rpm settings from 2150rpm to 2750rpm. (post#93) 

What you seem unaware of Drgndog is the BMW-801D (and E) had an automatic fuel control system.

When run above 2150rpm the automatic fuel control switches the supercharger from low to high gear and fuel from lean to rich. That is why you have a table with much higher fuel consumption. It pays to cite facts in context. 

The context is that this engine would not have been run at such settings by the Ju-390 except on take off and even then only for limited time. 

You've cited a table for a fighter plane performance at high boost, high rpm and rich fuel mixtures. That does not translate to a Ju-390 at lower rpm with lean mixture and low boost. 



> I got involved because I saw an analysis that seemed reasonable to me based on the numbers presented. I got into this in more detail when Kiwi posed that nobody knew what they were talking about and proceeded to a.) get the math wrong by nearly 20% on his own figures and assumptions - much less any assumptions based on a referencable source that applied to the case in question.



As I have stated before I did not get the math wrong. I rounded down because I did not accept given the low wing loading that the climb would have been so protracted.

An Fw-190 A5 would reach 20,000ft in 15 minutes. I calculated that a Ju-390 would reach 20,000ft in 25 minutes because that is the time a fully laden B-29 needed to reach 20,000ft.

Then I rounded it down as you say by 20% because the Ju-390 has only 55% of the B-29's wing load and 18% more power. The Ju-390 also had an 85% better power to weight ratio than the B-29.

A realistic figure for the ju-390 to reach 20,000ft would be about 20 minutes, so please stop misleading people.

I did not get the maths wrong. I rounded down because I knew that the fuel consumption for a 25 minute climb was excessive and not supported by fact. 

The math which you say I got wrong was an "ESTIMATE" for the climb. The maths for the cruise was essentially correct. the climb to altitude was an estimate... nothing more ...nothing less. 

If you want to split hairs drgndog, had I assumed the same 15 minute time to altitude figures I could have halved the fuel estimate for the climb and you'd be none the wiser so please stop engaging in cheap shots. 

If you want an honest debate then don't use intellectual dishonesty to win the debate. 


In an altitude range of 14,000ft to 20,000ft with the early two stage supercharger used on "D" and "E" engines the manifold pressure at cruise settings of 1700hp and leaned fuel was 27 inches of mercury.

The supercharger did not change gear until 2150 rpm. 



> I'm willing to believe any performance figures based on either well founded calculations based on exhaustive wind tunnel results with at least one test flight to reference areas of agreement versus differences from the theoretical.



I am glad to hear that drgndog because NACA performed the tests you've referred to on the BMW-801D2

My information comes from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) forerunner to NASA, Memorandum report #E5D19 "Characteristic of the BMW 801D2 Automatic Engine Control."

Flying at lean cruise settings and supercharger low gear up to 20,000 ft, the BMW-801D engine only burned 56.66 US Gals per hour. The "E" engine used 2.5% less fuel per hour.



> I too believe that the service ceiling of the Ju-390 was higher than 6 km, probably 8-9 km, but no more as the BMW-801 lost performance rapidly above 20,000 ft.



Soren the BMW 801D2 would reach 36,000ft if pushed, but that tripled the fuel consumption. Critics of the New York flight cite BMW-801 fuel consumption at maximum power with rich fuel mixtures and high boost to justify claims that the flight couldn't have happened. 

It's intellectually dishonest to cite such power settings as typical of a New York flight. No aircraft cruises at maximum power on a long range flight. 

Through a process of logical deduction the cruise speed for such a mission appears to have been a very slow 167 knots at 20,000ft.

*BMW-801E*

The BMW801E engine: Version E was in fact modified D-2 used for prototype testing. It would have developed 2000hp in bench tests. It seemed to be produced in small number and to be delivered under designation TG and/or TH. 

At take off power the BMW-801D used 200 US Gal per hour but could only maintain this for 3 minutes before overheating required throttling back.

At take off power the BMW-801E used 195 US Gals per hour. It also used water methanol injection to the supercharger intake at take off. 

The biggest difference was a centrifugal air compressor which pushed air pressure from 1.39 atmospheres for the BMW-801D up to 1.62 atmospheres for the BMW-801E.


----------



## Denniss (Mar 9, 2008)

Some "facts" need to be corrected:
1) The 4-stage BMW 801G was never built. The only G built was the 801G-2 and that was a D-2 geared for use in bombers while the D-2 was geared for use in fighters.
2) The Ju 390 did at least use the G-2, you can't use a D-2, geared for small and fast aircraft, in an aircraft that big and slow. Maybe it got uprated engines or not.
3) The Fw 190 A-9 did use the BMW 801S, that's a D-2 with improvements from the 801E/F program and with an improved(thicker) armored oil cooler ring.
4) The BMW 801 performance chart is for the engine without subtracting the power needed for the cooling fan, that's about 70 to 100 PS. This small note is missing on the US chart but visible on the german one.
5) The 801S or later are not to be identified by a 14-bladed fan, it was tested but it proved to suck too much power without improving cooling that much and they reverted back to the standard 12-bladed fan.
6) The often cited take-off power of the 801D-2/G-2 was 1700 PS, the 1730 PS were available at about 600m. The 801 A/B/C/L power was similar, 1560PS at sea level and the often cited 1600PS at about 1000 m

BTW: Dont trust "facts" from a site stating the BMW 801 was an 18-cylinder engine. 

Another thought: Maybe it was possible to shut down one engine pair once at cruising altitude to conserve fuel ?


----------



## Kiwikid (Mar 9, 2008)

This site gives a run down of distinctions in BMW801 engine types. 

focke wulf 190 moteur bmw bmw801 bramo

There may also be confusion about the BMW-801E and BMW-801G because the BMW-801E was also known as the "TG"



> 2) The Ju 390 did at least use the G-2, you can't use a D-2, geared for small and fast aircraft, in an aircraft that big and slow.



Not quite correct Denniss as the Ju-290 sisters of the Ju-390 all had the BMW-801D engines. 

I have seen references that the Ju-390 had both D and E type engines and one supposes that the E type was introduced after the first Ju-390 flights as an attempt to get better performance. 

The gearing was in the supercharger and I have read of 4 stage superchargers late in the war.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 10, 2008)

Kiwikid said:


> Thank goodness I missed this ridiculous bun fight.
> 
> The Ju-390 has been quoted as using both the BMW-801D and BMW-801E engine. The "E" engine was experimental and never saw widespread use. The "E" engine had 2.5% better fuel performance.
> 
> ...



Before you complain about 'bun' fights, you ought to research who said what to whom.


----------



## Denniss (Mar 10, 2008)

Kiwikid said:


> This site gives a run down of distinctions in BMW801 engine types.
> 
> focke wulf 190 moteur bmw bmw801 bramo
> 
> ...



The site you linked has lots of errors. No large (bomber) aircraft used a 801D-2 or similar fighter engines, they all used the G-2 or similar bomber subtypes. 801A/L are the bomber subtypes of the 801C fighter engine. Even the famous Ju 88 G-1 landing with a functional FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN-2 radar on RAF Woodbridge in 1944 was equipped with 801G-2 engines.
There was no 801 with anything more than two superstarger stages/speeds in production, maybe excluding the turbocharged 801J and I really don't know the setup of the 1945 production 801F.


----------



## Kiwikid (Mar 10, 2008)

You mean like you took me too literally about Ju-390 climb to 20,000ft to suggest I got my maths wrong ?



drgondog said:


> You took me a little too literally.
> 
> On the other hand the Luftwaffe didn't capture a Mustang until 3 months after the first Berlin escort mission. June 6, Cambrai. So they performed zero wind tunnel tests on the airframe until after June, 1944. The first one crashed and both the pilot and a/c were lost after Lerche flew it for some time. Look to pages 117-119 of his book.
> 
> ...



... Well that's a very interesting assertion (that no Mustang was flown by Germans prior to 6 June 1944. Try this autobiographical account from Walther Dahl about a captured Mustang being flown by Zirkus Rosarius in 1943 complete with pictures.

Walther Dahl flys the P-51

Hungarian pilots were taught mock combat against captured Mustang T9+HK. That would date these flights to before Hungary capitulated to the Allies in March 1944.

Mustang T9+CK was being tested at Rechlin long before the Normandy landings.


----------



## Kiwikid (Mar 10, 2008)

> The site you linked has lots of errors. No large (bomber) aircraft used a 801D-2 or similar fighter engines, they all used the G-2 or similar bomber subtypes.



Except Deniss that it is well established the Ju-290 did use the BMW-801D so how do you explain this ?


----------



## Soren (Mar 10, 2008)

The Ju-290 used the BMW-801D according to all my sources as-well.


----------



## Kiwikid (Mar 10, 2008)

> > The Ju-390 has been quoted as using both the BMW-801D and BMW-801E engine. The "E" engine was experimental and never saw widespread use. The "E" engine had 2.5% better fuel performance.
> 
> 
> And your irrefutable source for this is?



And your irrefutable source that they did not is ?

Besides which you're arguing the toss about a pimple on a gnat's bum. If it was the BMW-801E engine then so much the better because the E engine had slightly better fuel consumption. You're really taking your arguments to immature lengths.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 10, 2008)

Kiwikid said:


> You mean like you took me too literally about Ju-390 climb to 20,000ft to suggest I got my maths wrong ?
> 
> *No, I took your incorrect math to be wrong*
> 
> ...



Hans Lerche flew the first captured intact Mustang back from France on June 6, 1944, according to him, in his book, Luftwaffe Test Pilot. Your source would be what?

Strangers in a Strange Land recounts the same date
 
My understanding is that Dahl flew the 51 for the first time just about the time IV./JG3 was equipped with the Fw 190A8, when Rall was running the program while recovering from his May 12, 1944 WIA. I am NOT sure of this, but I will check


----------



## drgondog (Mar 10, 2008)

Kiwikid said:


> And your irrefutable source that they did not is ?
> 
> Besides which you're arguing the toss about a pimple on a gnat's bum. If it was the BMW-801E engine then so much the better because the E engine had slightly better fuel consumption. You're really taking your arguments to immature lengths.



uboat.net - Technical pages - Junkers Ju 290 and Ju 390

WRG - Luftwaffe Resource Group - Junkers Ju 390

The point that eludes you is that there are ZERO irrefutable sources regarding

a. Its engines (both of the above state 801E but I have seen reference to 810D also)
b. It design specifications including maximum fuel capacity (no, your 'unequivoval' statement of 10,000 gallons does not meet 'standard' of veracity or 'irrefutable'
c. ANY specifications regarding cruise speeds as function of payload, altitude, fuel consumption, throttle settings, etc
d. ANY data regarding fuel flow and/or rpms and/or boost for the 801D or the 801E for any aircraft in cruise condition - at least not in these discussions.

But you, (as a pilot) are quite happy to rattle away with flight profiles, cruise range, ceilings, specualtion about cruise speeds etc ????? to try to prove someone ELSE is wrong when they assert that there is no proof that the Ju 390 flew to NY and back?

Why?


----------



## Kiwikid (Mar 10, 2008)

> While Soren and I still believe the stated ceilings are wrong (6,000 m), that would suggest that 20,000 feet is un attainable under ordinary circumstances with a full load?



*Misquoting Soren*

Now you're misquoting Soren to wad your argument. Actually Soren does not agree with you. That's yet another example of intellectual dishonesty. You are well aware that Soren believes the Ju-390 could exceed 20,000ft.

You are equally aware that you do not believe the Ju-390 could exceed 20,000ft.

To say that Soren agrees with you is to distort the truth. If that is the lengths you're prepared to go to, then it is an act in futility debating with you , because the debate can't proceed on a rational basis. 

*Refusing to read evidence*

I provided you with facts from NACA testing of the BMW-801 engine. It seems to me that you're reacting in a huff because you don't want to address those facts. Are you refusing to read the NACA report before mouthing off against it ?

The engine performance chart published earlier at your post #93 is for rpm settings which change gear in the supercharger and change the engine from lean fuel to rich fuel. 

The engine performance charts in the NACA report clearly show a jump in fuel consumption above 2150 rpm and above 20,000ft.

Much earlier in this thread you asked me if I knew the optimum cruise altitude for the Ju-390. The NACA tests disclose the BMW-801 had a sweet spot from 14,000ft to just above 20,000ft where the performance and fuel consumption was steady at 17000rpm and 27 inches boost. 

I have earlier given you a source for reading test pilot Hans Pancherz's own notes and charts for the Ju-390. I see that you've made no effort to read those either.

Instead you're mouthing off that everyone else in the world is wrong except yourself. For example: 



> You got the math wrong. This is a fact. You cleverly walked us through your own calculations
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Repeating a false statement*

I did not get the maths wrong. As explained, I rounded down the time to climb. You are engaging in misrepresentation. That is intellectual dishonesty. You've been told the facts. You keep denying them.

Richard Leonard got the maths totally wrong yet you're selectively silent on this. 

I have to walk you through my calculations because you're determined to see failed maths where I simply rounded down my own estimate. 

20,000ft is not unobtainable. You have never responded to the fact that the Ju-390 has superior wing loading, superior power to weight and more horsepower than the B-29. That's just slightly inconvenient for you isn't it ?

You've also been told that the engines are altitude limited. Not based on what I say but based on published engine performance charts.

I have quoted to you an authoritative wartime intelligence report based on proper tests of the BMW-801D2 engine. The BMW-801E is merely a D2 with higher compression on it's centrifugal compressor. 

You asked for a source. I have given you the NACA report.



> See above. A realistic figure would be Never if the data are correct for the Service Ceiling.



Well how fascinating ?

So according to Drgndog, Hans Pancherz the Ju-390 test pilot is wrong.

So according to drgndog National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics spent months testing the BMW801D2 but according to drgndog they got it wrong too. 

Given the superior weight and power ratios, if the Ju-390 couldn't reach 20,000ft then neither could the B-29 nor the B-36 with inferior ratios. 

Ah but don't worry drgndog because I notice you're not letting a simple thing like facts get in your way.


----------



## Kiwikid (Mar 10, 2008)

> By Faustnik (acompletewasteofspace.com)This is from a thread in the ORR board. Crumpp, of the White One Foundation, has answered some important questions on the BMW801D, TS TH powerplants. With his permission, I am reposting them here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> The BMW801D went through numerous technical upgrades throughout its lifespan. Everything from exhaust changes to redesigned piston and cylinder sleeves from the 801E development program added in early 1943. fuel improvements, timing adjustments, plugs, fuel pumps, exhaust changes both to the pipes and the exit ports all contribute to the growing power of the motor.



A Complete Waste of Space



> But you, (as a pilot) are quite happy to rattle away with flight profiles, cruise range, ceilings, specualtion about cruise speeds etc ????? to try to prove someone ELSE is wrong when they assert that there is no proof that the Ju 390 flew to NY and back?



That's an interesting and self contradictory statement by you. Let me recall what you said at post #66:



> Excellent analysis Rich - and to add to the equation, load another 10,000 pounds as a payload - and take 10,000 pounds of fuel off the table for the 'nuke' part of the story.



so when you say: 


> ...to try to prove someone ELSE is wrong when they assert that there is no proof that the Ju 390 flew to NY and back?



...does that mean you exclude yourself and Richard Leonard from those trying to prove there is no proof ?

That's odd because both Richard Leonard and yourself have extensively posted what you appear to term proof that "there is no proof that the Ju 390 flew to NY and back"

When others have posted more accurate information you've either:

(A) attacked them
(B) attacked their information.

You're hardly pursuing an objective debate drgndog


----------



## drgondog (Mar 10, 2008)

Kiwikid said:


> *Misquoting Soren*
> 
> Now you're misquoting Soren to wad your argument. Actually Soren does not agree with you. That's yet another example of intellectual dishonesty. You are well aware that Soren believes the Ju-390 could exceed 20,000ft.
> 
> ...


----------



## drgondog (Mar 10, 2008)

Kiwikid;331932
Bill sez to Kiwi -"But you said:


> Do you even know what point you are trying to make?[/B]
> 
> That's odd because both Richard Leonard and yourself have extensively posted what you appear to term proof that "there is no proof that the Ju 390 flew to NY and back"
> 
> ...



To date you have 

a.) presented your arguments based on 'Belief system' that the notes and data presented by a former pilot of the Ju390 are accurate and reflect the 'facts' of the aircraft's performance and it's flight to NY. 

b.) have no other flight test, design specifications by Junker, actual 'as built' configuration for the Ju 390 or any usually reliable reports from say the LW to corroborate your belief systems.

c.) no clue what the operating performance envelope is for the aircraft, what its' mission configuration was for the 'Ny Flight', no idea concering the actual specified cruise settings for the BMW801E (or D if it was used) in the Ju 390 for either max range or max endurance.

d.) no clue what the alleged fuel load, version type (passenger, recce, bomber) was for the 'trip'. Somehow for the mission, believe there was enough remaining load capacity to carry another 10,000 pounds as a bombload? And hang it where? and still fly for 32 hours?

e.) made many assumptions about the cruise and take off/climb fuel consumption rates when you have no data to support them (we still aren't sure which 801 engine was used) - and base them on your pilot 'credentials'?

f.) blown away Rich's analysis based on your own unfounded assumptions and poor math.. and ready to tell him the 'Real story"

But you question my skepticism (and Rich's) of those that present "better information"??

When are you going to get around to asking questions a 'real pilot' would ask if someone said 'Take this Ju 390 to New York - bring it back if you can?"

There are a LOT of 'real pilots' on this forum that would ask the same questions I have to just get to the point where
a.) I decide it is a credible accomplishment based on the facts, or
b.) I decide it is patent BS because there are no facts (much less 'plenty, but not enough') to support a conclusion.

To summarize'

Your math was bad - deal with it.
Your flight profile assumptions have no substance, no data and no credibility
Your 'belief system' is credible relative to the Ju 390 pilot - entered into evidence - but still not a verified fact!
You don't like me when I ask you tough questions about Real Flight Performance data necessary to generate analysis.
You didn't 'like' others questioning your flawless logic or 'information'.
You frequently confuse statements made by me with statements made by others!

And you accuse me of not being objective? Did I hurt your feelings? I am sorry about that.


----------



## Soren (Mar 10, 2008)

The B-29 did not have a 80% higher wing-loading than the Ju-390, that's for sure. The difference in wing-loading was closer to 60%, which is still allot, BUT here's what I know:

The Ju-390 either used the BMW-801D or E engine, both were at a disadvantage at high altitudes, power decreasing rapidly above 22 - 23,000 ft. So although I do believe/know that the Ju-390's service ceiling was higher than 6km, it couldn't have been much higher than 8 to 9 km seeing that the performance of the BMW-801D E engines completely evaporated at those altitudes.

As for the B-29, well alone because that its engines are fitted with turbo-superchargers it's no surprise that its ceiling was higher. Furthermore the B-29 benefitted from a more efficient wing, the higher AR increasing lift whilst decreasing drag, raising the L/D ratio.

Here's the effect AR has on the lift drag of an a/c and thus the L/D ratio:

With similar CLmax figures let me demonstrate just how important wing AR is;

L/D ratio = Cl / Cd

Cd = Cd0 + Cdi

Cd0 = {Negligable as it always lies in the 0.02 -0.025 area}

Cdi = (Cl^2)/(pi*AR*e)

So for the comparison we assume a Clmax of 1.3 for both and Cd0 of 0.02 for both, now note the difference wing AR alone has on the L/D ratio (one of the most crucial factors to high turn performance), and the higher the L/D ratio the more efficient the wing is.

*Wing with AR of 8*

(1.3^2)/(pi*8*.85) = 0.0791093688

0.0791093688 + 0.02

Cd = 0.0991093688

1.3 / 0.0991093688 = 13.1168225

L/D ratio = 13.11

*Wing with AR of 6*

(1.3^2)/(pi*6*.85) = 0.105479158

0.105479158 + 0.02

Cd = 0.125479158

1.3 / 0.125479158 = 10.3602863

L/D ratio = 10.36
_______________________________

L/D ratio Differential: *35.9 %*

Additionally two graphs showing the difference in L/Dmax between a wing with an AR of 4 vs a wing with an AR of 9:

*AR 4*






*AR 9*





Now the B-29's wing was of a very high AR, 11.53 infact, which meant it was a very efficient wing with a very high L/D ratio, something which was also needed if the B-29 was to be a good performer at altitude.

The Ju-390's wing was of 9.96, also high but still lower than the B-29's by 1.47, which is noticable in lift drag.

In short, the higher ceiling of the B-29 can attributed to its turbo-supercharged engines and more efficient wing. The Ju-390 no doubt could've gone higher than the B-29 had it had turbo-supercharged engines, however it didn't.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 10, 2008)

Kiwikid said:


> Kiwi sez- "Well that's a very interesting assertion (that no Mustang was flown by Germans prior to 6 June 1944. Try this autobiographical account from Walther Dahl about a captured Mustang being flown by Zirkus Rosarius in 1943 complete with pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And your source for this is?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 10, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Kiwikid said:
> 
> 
> > *Misquoting Soren*
> ...


----------



## drgondog (Mar 11, 2008)

Soren said:


> The B-29 did not have a 80% higher wing-loading than the Ju-390, that's for sure. The difference in wing-loading was closer to 60%, which is still allot, BUT here's what I know:
> 
> *Do you want to calculate the Wing Loading at 'normal operating range' or Max Gross Take off? We are talking about a Ferry Range Calc I think.
> 
> ...



I agree the part about the Wright 3350-23A engines. If Baugher's data is correct, they had more Hp at 25,000 feet than at SL for Max Take Off Hp boost. Clearly the D-2 data you showed had a remarkable fall off at 15-18K ft..still have no comparable data for the 801E


----------



## Soren (Mar 11, 2008)

I used the following figures to calculate wing loading:

Ju-390:
Gross weight: 53,500 kg
Wing area: 254 m^2

B-29:
Gross weight: 54,000 kg
Wing area: 161 m^2

That gives a 60% difference in wing-loading.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 11, 2008)

Soren said:


> I used the following figures to calculate wing loading:
> 
> Ju-390:
> Gross weight: 53,500 kg
> ...



_from Uboat_

Specifications
Junkers Ju 390V2

Six 1970hp BMW 801E radial engines Wing span 50.32m, length 33.6m Empty weight 36900kg, max. *take-off weight 53112kg *Max. speed 515km/h at 6200m, cruising speed 357km/h. Max. range 9700km.

_From Warbirds_

Engine: 
Model: BMW 801E
Type: 18-Cylinder two-row radial
Number: Six Horsepower: 1,970 hp

Dimensions:
Wing span: 165 ft. 1 in. (50.30m)
Length: 112 ft. 2.5 in. (34.20m)
Height: 22 ft. 7 in. (6.89m)
Wing Surface Area: N/A

Weights: 
Empty: 81,350 lb. (36,900 kg)
Loaded: *166,448 lb*. (75,500 kg)

_from Military Factor_

Length: 112.20 ft | 34.20 m
Wingspan/Width: 165.03 ft | 50.30 m
Height: 22.60 ft | 6.89 m
Empty Weight: 87,083 lbs | 39,500 kg
*MTOW: 166,449 lbs *| 75,500 kg

_From Wikipedia_

Specifications (Ju 390 V1)
Data from[citation needed]


General characteristics
Crew: 10 
Length: 34.20 m (112 ft 2 in) 
Wingspan: 50.30 m (165 ft 1 in) 
Height: 6.89 m (22 ft 7 in) 
Wing area: 254 m² (2,730 ft²) 
Empty weight: 39,500 kg (87,100 lb) 
Loaded weight: 53,112 kg (117,092 lb) 
*Max takeoff weight: 75,500 kg (166,400 lb)* 
Powerplant: 6× BMW 801D radial engines, 1,272 kW (1,730 hp) each 

In other words - at 166,000 pounds the WL of the Ju 390 is 10#/sq ft less than the 133,000 pound ferry condition of the B-29. In other words 11% difference for the 'NY Run" we have been debating? 

what is the real story on anything to do with the Ju 390?


----------



## Soren (Mar 11, 2008)

Errr, why are we comparing the a/c at different loads ?

The gross weights of both a/c were very similar.

As for the NY run, well that certainly wouldn't have been carried out at max take off weight.

Btw, if talking about bombing the US then the Ju-390 wasn't the ideal choice with its low ceiling. The Ta-400 would've been ideal, however funding was cut as the LW initiated the fighter program.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 11, 2008)

Soren said:


> Errr, why are we comparing the a/c at different loads ?
> 
> The gross weights of both a/c were very similar.
> 
> ...



Soren - I put them out for the very reason you just asked the questions..


We don't know what the alleged NY run load conditions were. 
We don't know what Maximum Gross Take Off conditions were with respect to any version that actually flew... so we don't know W/L would have been for the 'Ny Trip" at takeoff and climb
We don't know if a flying Ju 390 had either a bomb bay, or auxilliary tanks to store additional fuel in the fuselage, and don't know what the weight would have been in that case.
We don't know if the Service ceiling was at minimum fuel to get to the highest altitude possible, or whether that was a Service Ceiling for planned combat load.
We don't know power loading because we don't know the engine or the flight conditions we are calculating
We don't know what any version specifications were for cruise as function of weight and range and engine setting/altitude to achieve the cruise value

So why should anyone get excited about speculation on W/L comparisons, or ceiling calculations, or cruise speed/altitude for maximum range, etc.

What we know is one person claimed to have made a run to NY in one version of this airplane and we have no facts to judge the veracity of the guy.


----------



## Soren (Mar 11, 2008)

Fair enough.

However with no bombs the Ju-390 could've easily made to the US and back, but with a big bomb load I doubt it. If the US was to be bombed by bombers flying from Germany or France the Ta-400 would be needed. 

As for the service ceiling, well all German figures are for full weight conditions, that I know. However since we don't have the service ceiling of the Ju-390 we can only speculate as to what it was, and my guess is 8 to 9 km.

What are your thoughts Bill ?


----------



## Denniss (Mar 11, 2008)

Regarding the engines: Most authors focussed on the aircraft and their design but not on engines or specific subtypes. Many authors still believe the Messerschmitt Bf 110 was powered by DB605A engines were in fact it was powered by DB605B engines. The same is with the BMW 801 powered Ju 88/Do 217 types, they used the 801A/L subtypes of the 801C or the G-2 subtype of the D-2.

The initial Ju 290 (prototypes/A-1) used 801A or 801L engines (yes, the bomber/multi-engined subtypes). At least with the A-5 they switched over to the BMW 801TL (Triebwerksanlage L containg the 801G-2 engine).


----------



## drgondog (Mar 11, 2008)

Soren said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> However with no bombs the Ju-390 could've easily made to the US and back, but with a big bomb load I doubt it. If the US was to be bombed by bombers flying from Germany or France the Ta-400 would be needed.
> 
> ...



I have opinions, and questions.
 
The opinions are: At least one Ju 390 was built in a passenger version originally, was tested and accepted - but contract was cancelled somewhere between one prototype and two. If the second one was built I suspect it was in a Recce version with provisions for internal tanks to extend loiter and range.

Because there is so much confusion regarding engines, I Suspect w/o any shred of proof that the first one was built with 801D and never intended to climb higher than 6000 meters, with the design passenger load. I suspect this version was closer, but less than a B-29 Ferry range.

I further Suspect that if the second one was built (either A-2 or V2) that it was equipped with 801E's to attempt a higher ceiling and cruise range for the Recce version.. I also suspect this is the one that is theorized to make the flight to US and back.

Based on the large capacity above the empty weight, I suspect that the quoted figure was for a version with internal fuel in fuselage for Recce version where passengers was not a factor. If that bird ever lifted 166,000 pounds at take off, this was the reason - pure long distance 'Ferry' condition.

The data presented agree on 87,000 pounds empty and 117,000 Gross Take Off (which I take for 'design internal payload' weight. So speculatively 30,000 pounds of ammo, crew and fuel for the original prototype is my Opinion.

So it seems the difference between 117,000 and 166,000 has to largely be additional INTERNAL fuel from my perspective - close to doubling the fuel capacity.

Even with more powerful 801E's this airplane would neither fly very high nor be efficient in cruise until it burned 2/3 of its fuel... but if it could carry 7-8000 more gallons of fuel, and actually get off the ground, I suppose it is possible to make that trip... 

Questions still come back to the fundamentals - max fuel load, cruise speed and fuel consumption and altitude for the initial leg of the trip while burning down the extra fuel, then remainder of trip at 'standard' cruise and altitude after half the fuel is burned at lower cruise speed, lower altitudes and higher fuel consumption rates. 

I still ponder the efficiency of this airframe/engine combination for cruise optimals. The 51 was a VERY efficient airframe/engine combo and able to optimize cruise Range at about 48gal/hr, 18,000 feet at low boost and rpms.

Do we believe that a series of BMW801s at near that fuel consumption as the efficient/powerful Merlin? I have no inkling or clue. An R-2800 sure couldn't come close which is why the Jug had to have 2x the internal fuel to fo as far.

This would be an interesting Performance Test for students..

As to your first question - if we guessed right that a.) first version prototype with the performance based on 117,000 pounds and 6km service ceiling, and a second one was built with primary difference being internal mod for fuel and BMW801E's - and w/o a chart to show relative Hp/altitude between the two, I would guess that with 200hp 'extra per engine that another 1 - 2 Km could be stretched... but at 117,000 not the 166,000 pound gross weght.

The 801E sgould cruise slightly faster for same sfc as the 801D, and higher for same fuel consumption - giving it probably a little more range - all things equal.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 12, 2008)

I read a little bit on the 390 at the hanger today by a gent named Heinz Nowarra and he states the 390 ferry range was 6000miles at 218 mph and 4900miles with a load ,


----------



## Kiwikid (Mar 13, 2008)

> I read a little bit on the 390 at the hanger today by a gent named Heinz Nowarra and he states the 390 ferry range was 6000miles at 218 mph and 4900miles with a load ,



That puts it's long range cruise about the same as a DC-4 / Carvair. 

the NACA report on a BMW 801D2 engine from 1944 tests:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930093290_1993093290.pdf






Since last being online I read some further data at another forum on the BMW801E.

Phillip Willaume is a leading authority on the BMW engine and has done extensive research from various archives including the Simithsonian and British Archives. Some commentary on the BMW 801E engine based upon the engine's manual is available here:

A Complete Waste of Space Forums-viewtopic-bmw801

I have compressed the essential detail into a table here:





I have elsewhere seen figures for the BMW801D with a fuel flow of 55 US Gals per hour at 1700 rpm which based on this data would be at lower altitudes.





> The opinions are: At least one Ju 390 was built in a passenger version originally, was tested and accepted - but contract was cancelled somewhere between one prototype and two. If the second one was built I suspect it was in a Recce version with provisions for internal tanks to extend loiter and range.



The Ju-390 V1 was converted from Ju-90 V6 with civil registration D-AOKD. This may be where the suggestion of a passenger transport arises.

Ju-290 A1 werke nr J900155 became the second Ju-390 with converstion at the Letov plant near Prague.


----------



## psteel (Apr 11, 2008)

As I understand it , this entire debate hinges around the question of how the so called Ju-390 could have even made a round trip from Europe to America given that its range is some what short of what would seem to be required.

After some internet searching I gave up on the military forums and warplane sites and read up on civil aviation sites. Back in the 1980s I used to get AWST weekly and know that most aircraft range figures are theoretical calculations. For prop driven planes, the wind is by far the greatest factor that determines range. 

When I pulled up my aviation charts for 5000-18,000 feet, it became painfully clear that if you know you wind streams at altitude you can vary your altitude and ride the wind currents across the Altantic [since they head west] and add up to 120 knts to your air speed and then drop to lower altitude heading back in the direction of Spain and negotiate around the winds ranging from 5-35knts with wind directions ranging from westerlies swinging around to northerlies, that could eventually push you back towards France.It would require a skilled crew that knew their winds at altitude...so it could be done in theory.

On a heavy weather day you can add an average of 50-60 knts to any round trip from France to America, which means in theory Ju-390 should be able to do the round trip with extra fuel tanks etc. As I recall they added some internal fuel tanks when the modified the Ju-290 to the 390 design. In fact after some tinkering it was also possible to get the Ju-290 to do the trip.... at a pinch ...also econo cruise at altitude, often had only a couple of engines running to conserve fuel


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 11, 2008)

psteel said:


> As I understand it , this entire debate hinges around the question of how the so called Ju-390 could have even made a round trip from Europe to America given that its range is some what short of what would seem to be required.
> 
> After some internet searching I gave up on the military forums and warplane sites and read up on civil aviation sites. Back in the 1980s I used to get AWST weekly and know that most aircraft range figures are theoretical calculations. For prop driven planes, the wind is by far the greatest factor that determines range.
> 
> ...


the only problem is the LW would have no.... absoulutely no knowledge of those winds aloft the best info the might get would be surface winds from U boats flying the pond was a relatively new sport and the only ones that might be aware of those winds and their trends would be the Ferry Command guys and MATS


----------



## Graeme (Apr 11, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> the only problem is the LW would have no.... absoulutely no knowledge of those winds



The Focke Wulf Condor transatlantic flights of 1938 must have gleaned some information on the wind forces for the Germans?



psteel said:


> On a heavy weather day you can add an average of 50-60 knts to any round trip from* France to America*



From..Transatlantic flight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_"August 10, 1938 - first non-stop flight from Berlin to New York. The Focke-Wulf Fw 200 needed 24 hours, 56 minutes and did the return flight three days later in 19 hours, 47 minutes."_

How did that Condor return faster on the return flight?


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 11, 2008)

Graeme said:


> The Focke Wulf Condor transatlantic flights of 1938 must have gleaned some information on the wind forces for the Germans?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Prevailing winds but to know the winds aloft is still some what of a mystery to this day for example wind shear , look at the local winds aloft for your location they can vary a number of degrees from surface winds the winds here vary by 30 degrees at 3000 ft and are 20 knots faster at this location right now


----------



## Graeme (Apr 11, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> can vary a number of degrees from surface winds the winds here vary by 30 degrees at 3000 ft and are 20 knots faster at this location right now



Roger that pb.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 11, 2008)

I was thinking the same thing. I believe the jet stream and associated winds weren't really discovered until just before the war ended.


----------



## psteel (Apr 11, 2008)

So that when the Japanese floated balloon bombs across the Pacific they had no idea where they were going? Surely they knew of the streams of wind at altitude and the rough direction or they would have had no idea where they would end up?

Wind currents can change 100knts over the first 5000-20,000 feet that were common flight routes . Heres a web site where you can track wind currents at altitude and predict flight routes. After a short while you notice predictable general paths . Not saying it would work every time but could explain ideas behind experimental flights.

Aviation Weather Center (AWC) - IFFDP Text Products--Winds and Temperatures - ICAO Area H

Click on the FL number [39 = 39,000 feet] and it gives you a north Atlantic polar view map of wind currents. The blue dot on each selection gives a closer-bigger map to view. The directional arrow indicates the wind direction and the figure beside it is temperature [I believe they are below zero unless otherwise mentioned]. The symboles indicate the air speed. As I recall, each flag is 50knts and each long dash is 10knts while each short dash is 5knts. 

The wind channels are all over and couldn't go unnoticed. All prop flight is controlled by these winds so any range figures you see quoted are purely theoretical limits and not practical figures to debate about.


PS the wind stream was first reported in December 1934 , according to this web link....so they should have known about it.

http://www.todayinsci.com/12/12_07.htm



> In 1934, Wiley Post is credited with discovering the jet stream when he flew into the stratosphere over Bartlesville, Oklahoma. With the financial backing of Oklahoma oil pioneer Frank Phillips, Post planned flights to test the "thin air" in the stratosphere above 50,000 feet. The Winnie Mae, made of plywood, could not be pressurized so Post developed the pressurized flying suit, forerunner of the modern space suit. Made by B.F. Goodrich, it was of double ply rubberized parachute fabric, with pigskin gloves, rubber boots, and aluminium helmet, pressurized to 0.5 bar. In Mar 1935, Post flew from Burbank California to Cleveland Ohio in the stratosphere using the jet stream. At times, his ground speed exceeded 550 kph in a 290 kph aircraft.



Germans had artic weather out posts for a good part of the war that gave them an ability to predict weather patterns effecting the North Atlantic and Europe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2008)

psteel said:


> PS the wind stream was first reported in December 1934 , according to this web link....so they should have known about it.


But it was basically ignored until the B-29........


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 19, 2008)

Actually during 1944, the U-boat rusting at Liverpool U-534 was posted to perform weather reporting patrols south of Greenland, not to mention other weather bases in the high Arctic.







When first certified in late 1943, the Ju-390's Maximum Take Off Weight (MTOW) was cited as 75,500kg with an 8,000km range. According to pilot Hans Joachim Pancherz, the aircraft was put through a weight reduction program in May 1944 and re-certified with an MTOW of 80,500kg with a range of 11,000km.

Crittics however remain unconvinced so I made an effort to track down an April 1945 report on bench testing of the BMW 801D engines by NACA, forerunner of the agency now known as NASA. Early flights by the Ju-390 used BMW 801D engines. The BMW 801E engine was an experimental engine often mentioned as being fitted to the Ju-390. It was in fact intended for the Export aircraft planned for production by Japan. The BMW 801E had modified gearing on the supercharger to give better fuel consumption and an extra 100hp at altitude. 

Page 29 of that NACA report discloses an individual engine on lean settings below 21,000 feet altitude consumes either:

* 250 L/hr (40.83 US Gal/hr) at 1600rpm (1469.9lb/hr for six engines), or
* 275 L/hr (45.83 US Gal/hr) at 1800rpm (1649.9lb/hr for six engines)

Above 21,000 feet the supercharger cut in automatically and almost doubled fuel consumption.

Reichsluftministerium (RLM) performance specification for the Ju-390 were to carry 10,000kg (22,000lb) over 8,000 kilometres. Fuel capacity with such a payload when the aircraft's empty weight is subtracted from MTOW results in 57,268lb.

Interestingly 32 hours worth of fuel consumption at 1800 rpm equates 52,797lb of fuel. Thus a 32 hour endurance attributed to the Ju-390 is well within known take off weight and fuel consumption. 

A Ju-390 therefore could carry 10,000kg from France to New York and back with a 4,471lb weight buffer, though some of this spare weight capacity may have been consumed in take off power at the start of such a flight. Fuel consumed by a Focke Wulf 190A fighter powered with a BMW 801D engine to reach 19,000 feet, equates 1152lb for six engines. 

Remember that this was calculated keeping in mind a 10,000kg payload so the Ju-390 was not anywhere near the limits of it's performance had the flight been performed without a payload.

What is clear is that the flight would have been below 21,000 feet most of the way and early in the flight unlikely to have been above 12,000 feet.

Jetstream headwinds apply to jet aircraft above 30,000 feet. Not unpressurised aircraft below 21,000 feet.

Sources:

* UK Air Ministry report PRO AIR40/53 (for BMW 801D)
* UK Air Ministry report PRO AIR40/55 (for BMW 801E)
* NACA Technical Memorandum Report MR E5D19 (archived by Nasa as PDF #19930093290_1993093290)


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 19, 2008)

A question has been raised how the Ju-390 compared with the B-29 ?

Ju-390: 

10,380 hp Installed horsepower
75,500 kg (166,400 lb) MTOW weight 
254 m² (2,730 ft²) Wing area
0.17 kW/kg (0.10 hp/lb) Power to weight ratio

B-29:

8,800hp Installed horsepower
60,560 kg (133,800lb) MTOW weight 
161.3 m² (1,736 ft²) Wing area
(0.6577hp/ib) Power to weight ratio

B-36:

21,000hp Installed horsepower
190,000kg (410,00 lb) MTOW weight 
443.3 m.2 (4,772 sq.ft) Wing area
120 kW/kg (0.086 hp/lb) Power to weight ratio


The Ju-390 had 17.95% more power than a B-29 and 79.7% more wing area. The Convair B-36 with less power to weight ratio but similar large wings managed to take off at maximum weight in just 1500 metres.

The B-29 with less power and smaller wings could manage such ranges so why not the Ju-390 ?


----------



## B-17engineer (Oct 19, 2008)

Didn't the B-36 have like a crew of 15.?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> Didn't the B-36 have like a crew of 15.?



It depended on the mission.


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 19, 2008)

The point about the B-36 was that in terms of characteristics the Ju-390 was more like the B-36 than the B-29.

The B-36 was twice as big again and twice as powerful as the Ju-390 but if you scaled the ratios of a B-36 down you would get an aircraft like the Ju-390 and thus the runway performance would be similar too. 

The B-29 had less power than the Ju-390 and more heavily loaded wings. At 89% of MTOW the B-29 required 5,100 feet, or 1500 metres, so the point is this... If the relatively less powerful B-29 with heavier wing loading and the relatively similar albiet scaled up B-36 could both take off with 1500 metres of runway then the Ju-290 whose performance figures fall between the two American aircraft, must have been able to use a 1500m runway and possibly somewhat less. 

I do know for a fact that the Me-264 had inferior runway performance to the Ju-390 and required 2,400 metres.


----------



## B-17engineer (Oct 20, 2008)

Thanks FlyboyJ


----------



## drgondog (Oct 21, 2008)

Kiwikid said:


> A question has been raised how the Ju-390 compared with the B-29 ?
> 
> Ju-390:
> 
> ...



As a pilot you know the following things.

The B-29 had an aspect ratio of 11.5 and the Ju 390 is 9.9. To give you an idea of implications;

If the wings of the two ships had the same CL at the same speed the Induced drag of the B-29 would be about 14% less. I don't have the actual wing CL nor do I have the Cd-zero lift for the 390. I suspect that it wasn't as good as the B-29 because of the ceiling limitations despite the better wing loading for the 390 - but I don't know the answer regarding the Ju 390. Do you?

The B-29 wing had a Cd-zero lift of .0241 and an L/D of 16.8 which is VERY good. A P-38 had .0268 Cd-zero lift wing and an aspect ratio of 8.26.

So the CD for the B-29 was very low and the CL/CD was 16.8 - a very nice number explaining long range capability. What is the corrsponding set of figures for the Ju 390? Do you have them?

You have discussed minumum fuel consumtion rates for the 801D and 801E engines at different rpms and boost. Let's assume they are valid.

What we don't know yet due to lack of flight test data or other dependable sources is what was the best cruise speed to fuel consumption settings to give max range for the Ju 390. We do not know what the specific fuel consumption data is for optimizing range - which is gallons per mile with enough Hp to attain a speed with that load, at that altitude to go the longest distance possible. (independent of winds aloft, temperature, etc)

In other words to get a true estimate for a Ju 390 we have to have the entire System data in context of :

For Max Takeoff Weight A (divided into fuel, bomb load to be dropped, and fixed load of crew and eqipment) what is the optimal flight speed/engine setting which will derive greatest mile/gallon of fuel at what altitude... not number of hours in the air. 

In addition to climb to cruise altitude and descent at return, The flight plan considers the steady rate of weight loss due to fuel consumption, the major step function loss at the mid point of the bomb drop and the steady fuel loss on the way back. 

You haven't noted what the Ju 390 flight speed is for any engine setting/fuel consumption rate you have shown. As a pilot how would you do a flight plan on the outer edge of your aircraft performance if you didn't have those basic numbers? How do you evaluate a claim of performance for one you might buy?

Is 10,000 gallons the right maximum internal fuel capacity number for the Ju 390? Is the maximum internal fuel capacity one that was used for New York Bomber claim? Where is a definitive source to confirm or deny? Is 45 gallons per hour the lowest possible fuel consumption rating? what is Hp output for that setting and how does that translate to true airspeed at 5800m? 

Is 5800m optimal cruise altitude based on L/D and SFC? How do you know?

Optimal cruise is directly proportional to L/D and inversely proportional to SFC so you have to know what those data are also, to plot a potential max range.

How do you know?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 21, 2008)

Optimal cruise is also effected by the thrust curves for the engines at different speeds and altitudes. (obviously in the economical cruise power range)


----------



## drgondog (Oct 21, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Optimal cruise is also effected by the thrust curves for the engines at different speeds and altitudes. (obviously in the economical cruise power range)



*"We do not know what the specific fuel consumption data is for optimizing range - which is gallons per mile with enough Hp to attain a speed with that load, at that altitude to go the longest distance possible. (independent of winds aloft, temperature, etc)
*

This is what Specific Fuel Consumption is all about - with a jet engine it would be in terms of Thrust instead of Hp.

If you look at Drag polars for different payloads and speeds and altitudes, the bottom of the curve where CDp and CDi cross is a good place to start to match up engine thrust or Hp.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 21, 2008)

But with propeller engines the thrust output will deminish as speed increases. (above a critical speed, which is at the low end of the speed range, but varies with prop design)
So, depending on the case, optimum cruise speed (best MPG) may be at a significantly lower speed than the minimum drag speed. (the better thrust/power making up for the higher drag, and spicific power fuel consumption remains about the same, while specific thrust fuel consumption is much less)
And in the entire economic cruise power setting range for the engine fuel/power/hr will be about the same. However there will be a specific speed (on the low end, varying by propeller characteristics) where fuel/thrust/hr will be highest. This speed will also vary with altitude. 

The best MPG speed (max range) should be somewhere between the max thrust/power speed and the minimum drag speed. (as well as an optimum cruise altitude, again determined by both engine/prop and airframe performance characteristics))


With jet engines this is all a lot simpler as thrust is pretty much linear across the speed range, and SFC is fairly constant throut the power range. (though thrust will vary with altitude, iirc the 004B's max thrust was acheived at ~20,000 ft, and the engine will have an optimum cruise power RPM range as well) 
But in any case, for jets, the optimum cruise speed will be controlled almost entirely by the aircraft's minimum drag speed.


----------



## Ome_Joop (Oct 22, 2008)

> Originally Posted by Kiwikid
> A question has been raised how the Ju-390 compared with the B-29 ?
> 
> Ju-390:
> ...



What calculator do you use?
1hp = 745.6999 W = 746 W

10,380 hp / 166,400 lb = 0,0624 hp/lb Ju-390
(10380 x 746) / 75500kg = 102,56 W/kg

8,000 hp / 111,522 lb = 0,0717 hp/lb Ju-290B-2 (with 2000hp BMW 801E with C3 fuel)
(8000 x 746) / 50600kg = 117,94 W/kg
takeoff distance 4537ft or 1375m 
Service altitude 26,235ft or 7950m 
Climb to 6,336ft or 2 km = 13,1 minutes
(ju-290b-2 info from Monogram close-up 3)

8,800 hp / 133,800 lb = 0,0658 hp/lb B-29 less power ?
(8800 x 746) / 60560kg = 108,4 W/kg

21,000 hp / 410,000 lb = 0,0512 hp/lb B-36
(21000 x 746) / 190000 = 82,45 W/kg


----------



## drgondog (Oct 22, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> But with propeller engines the thrust output will deminish as speed increases. (above a critical speed, which is at the low end of the speed range, but varies with prop design)
> 
> *Interesting, true but essentially irrelevant to the Range discussion for a propeller/engine combination.*
> 
> ...



True for best range - With a jet L/D will decrease with velocity but the sfc (c) may not increase significantly as velocity increases ----> optimal cruise may be at a higher speed for the same aerodynamics and wing - depending on V/sfc

The formula is slightly simpler because you strip out complexities of propeller efficiencies and efficiencies as they vary with altitude - both affecting Thrust.

But if you wish to get the same graphical relationship between Power Required and Velocity - simply multiply the Drag x the Velocity from the L/D Polar. Pick the lowest point on the TV vs V polar for best Speed for range.

The key and slightly more complex question for jet engines is examining the sfc at say 1.5 M versus .8 M as the conversion from Propeller to jet thrust substitution in the Brequet equation brings V/sfc.

So the aerodynamics of the a/c become more complicated. The Concorde had better range at 1.5M than it had at .8M as an example, whereas no prop job I am aware of maintained a positive L/D enough to offset the sfc as the velocity continued to increase past optimal cruise speed.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 22, 2008)

> Define 'economic cruise setting. The best setting for loiter (endurance) is lower power required to fuel consumed ratio
> 
> *I meant the power settings with the lowest SFC. (in terms of power)*
> 
> ...



On the minimum drag speed issue: (hypothetically) If minimum drag is reached at such a power setting that the engine has to be run at or near max continuous (at rich mixture and higher rpm), this will obviuosly have a drastic effect on SFC, and enough to make cruise at this speed impractical.

Of course, in such a situation, the engine would not be properly matched with the aircraft, and this would be an extreme example. (the a/c obviously being underpowered, or at least an odd engine selection was made)

The proper propeller would have to be chosen as well, to have a high efficiency at the optimum drag speed.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 22, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> On the minimum drag speed issue: (hypothetically) If minimum drag is reached at such a power setting that the engine has to be run at or near max continuous (at rich mixture and higher rpm), this will obviuosly have a drastic effect on SFC, and enough to make cruise at this speed impractical.
> 
> *KK - it won't happen. It takes more power to take off and accelerate to point in flight profile where the induced drag falls below parasite drag. Therefore when you reach the later point you have more power available than required at Max L/D*
> 
> ...



Independent of the propeller - if it is the SAME prop, max range occurs for that propeller at the max L/D - and requires less power (and fuel flow) at max L/D than it takes to get to that point in your flight profile.

I found something for you that might help. take a look

Maximum Endurance, Maximum Range, and Optimum Cruise Speeds


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 22, 2008)

Thanks, I was already looking up that http://me.nmsu.edu/~aseemath/Schulz_96.PDF, but thanks for the refrence.

You possibly could have an oddball engine that had max economic cruise power at 1/3 of its max power. (say a 1,200 hp take-off with water injection, but max economical cruise of only ~400 hp, but now i'm just going into odd hypothetical examples, which isn't very useful...)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 22, 2008)

X


----------



## drgondog (Oct 22, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Thanks, I was already looking up that http://me.nmsu.edu/~aseemath/Schulz_96.PDF, but thanks for the refrence.
> 
> You possibly could have an oddball engine that had max economic cruise power at 1/3 of its max power. (say a 1,200 hp take-off with water injection, but max economical cruise of only ~400 hp, but now i'm just going into odd hypothetical examples, which isn't very useful...)



That hypothetical could work for most of the Drag polar curves for a powerful engine. The Mustang was in a lower ratio than that.

From memory the cruise setting for TO weight of 8500 pounds (why load it up in civilian world) it used about 45-48 gph depending on rpm at 27" hg. From the charts that is around 450-500 Hp at ~ 16,000 feet for max range. Didn't have an egt/cht set up in those days. So for take off power at ~ 1650Hp that is less than 1/3.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 22, 2008)

I was tinking more in terms of a large (bomber) aircraft though, fighters tend to have more "extra" power relatively speaking. (again, it would have to be on the edge of being underpowered at take-off for the comparison to work)

And in the Merlin's case, max economical cruise power would be well above the 500 hp power setting, ~800 hp in low blower at crit alt iirc. (max power for the minimum SFC range) 
The P-40K's V-1710-73 had a max of 670 hp ar ~15,000 ft (at 28" MAP and 2,280 rpm) with just under 45 lb/hp/hr, but max range cruising was at ~400 hp at ~15,000 ft iirc. (with similar SFC -actually slightly higher). It's take-off power was 1,325 with WEP of 1,570 hp at ~3,000-5,000 ft -depending on ram conditions-. (60" Hg MAP)


Thanks again for that link, it was a lot simpler than the one I was looking at.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 22, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I was tinking more in terms of a large (bomber) aircraft though, fighters tend to have more "extra" power relatively speaking. (again, it would have to be on the edge of being underpowered at take-off for the comparison to work)
> 
> And in the Merlin's case, max economical cruise power would be well above the 500 hp power setting, ~800 hp in low blower at crit alt iirc. (max power for the minimum SFC range)
> 
> ...



You keep using economical - and that does have a meaning when time is more important than $$. Is that the 'economical cruise speed" you are referring to for the 51


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 22, 2008)

I meant ~800 hp is the maximum power setting for minimum SFC. I wasn't saying that would be the power setting for optimal range. (like with the P-40K, max of 670 hp, but max range was somwhere arround 400 hp)

This power setting is usually synonymous with "maximum cruise power" (USAAF) and "max weak mixture" cruise setting. (the latter in British doccuments) The term "economical maximum" was also used, at least for the USAAC.

However, in some circumstances "max cruise power" was actually in auto rich, with SFC much higher than the minimum range. (though ususally significantly lower SFC than at max continuous)

http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/1710-33.pdf (uses "economical maximum")
http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/1710-39.pdf (has max cruise listed as auto rich)
http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/1710-73.pdf
http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/1650-1.pdf (has some rather odd cruising SFC figures across the board)


----------



## Ome_Joop (Oct 23, 2008)

Did anybody check Kiwikid's comparison facts/statements here?



> B-36:
> 
> 21,000hp Installed horsepower
> 190,000kg (410,00 lb) MTOW weight
> ...




First of all a B-36 with a MTOW of 190,000kg (410,000 lb) would have been the B-36J wich had 6 x Pratt Whitney R-4360-53 (3800 hp each....22800 hp but also 4 x 5200 lb.s.t. General Electric J47-GE-19 turbojets)

a B-36B without those had a MTOW of 311,000 lb (but still would have had 6 R-4360-41 wich deliver 3500 hp each! )

a B-36D with 4 x 5200 lb.st. General Electric J47-GE-19 turbojets had a MTOW of 370,000 lb 

let's say in this little game we are comparing the B-36B:

141067kg (311,000 lb) MTOW weight 
21,000 hp / 311,000 lb = 0,0675 hp/lb
(21000 x 746) / 141067 = 111,05 W/kg

wich is ofcoarse better than the Ju-390 and the B-29!
102,56 W/kg Ju-390
108,4 W/kg B-29

I don't know much about maths....but i begin to wonder about those other calculations!


----------



## drgondog (Oct 23, 2008)

Ome_Joop said:


> Did anybody check Kiwikid's comparison facts/statements here?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



good catch


----------



## Ome_Joop (Oct 24, 2008)

This one is a classic...



> The Ju-390 had 17.95% more power than a B-29 and 79.7% more wing area. The Convair B-36 with less power to weight ratio but similar large wings managed to take off at maximum weight in just 1500 metres.



B-36B...
Takeoff run 6000 feet at sea level. Takeoff run over 50-foot obstacle 8000 feet. 

6000 ft = 1828.8 meters
8000 ft = 2438.4 meters

at Combat weigth that is (227,700 lb or 103282 kg)!

The B-36D (with those jet engines remember) did better!

Takeoff run 4400 feet (1341.12m), 5685 feet(1732.79) over 50-foot obstacle. (at 250,300 lb or 113533 kg)!


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 28, 2008)

So how many of you ever picked up that the Ju-390 was developed from the Junkers EF100 wind tunnel tests ?

The projected weights and performance for the EF100 are almost identical with the Ju-390 and the RLM sponsored EF100 project led directly to the Ju-390. 

The EF100's gross weight was 74,500kg. It's landing speed was calculated to be 66 knots. It could land in 510 metres. It could take off in 550 metres at Gross weight. 

Therefore it follows that the Ju-390 could easily use the 1200 metre runway at Bodo in 1945.


The B-36 data is simply an illustration that such a large and heavy aircraft could manage 1500 metre runways. Enjoy your nitpicking.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 28, 2008)

Thats a pretty short take off run , maybe empty and downhill with a 30knot headwind , if you look at runways made for B36's of which I'm familar they are about 12000 feet long and very thick, was the rwy in Bodo designed for that weight of aircraft


----------



## drgondog (Oct 29, 2008)

Kiwikid said:


> So how many of you ever picked up that the Ju-390 was developed from the Junkers EF100 wind tunnel tests ?
> 
> The projected weights and performance for the EF100 are almost identical with the Ju-390 and the RLM sponsored EF100 project led directly to the Ju-390.
> 
> ...



You wouldn't be nitpicked if you dealt strictly from published facts instead of your logic and/or opinions. 

Like another person not to be named - you select a POV then find facts which may be supportive but insufficient to make the case, or may be incomplete or unsubstantiated to support your claim - then declare victory.

Your 'logical' progression from Ju 390 to B-29 to B-36 to demonstrate your irrefutable conclusions turned out to be flawed because you didn't get the math right. Ome_joop caught it, showed the error of your 'logical conclusion' and rather than say "Oops, My Bad" you imply he is enjoying nitpicking?

Above, you enter a mysterious 'exhibit', make a claim about supportive or directly comparable performance to the Ju 390 and then extrapolate a conclusion?

Do you happen to have the Drag Polars for the Ju-390 for different Gross Weights?


----------



## Ome_Joop (Oct 29, 2008)

This would be nitpicking:
Bodo was 1200 meters long that would mean even a Ju-290A7 could not take of with a 99,180 lb / 45000 kg takeoff weight (takeoff distance would be 4,092 ft/ 1240meters)!
A Ju290A7 would have had a better power to weight ratio (114,72 W/kg) than a B-36 or a Ju-390!

(6920 x 746) / 45000 = 114,72 W/kg (i adjusted this because i first had used the 1700 hp info i got from the Mogram close-up 3 is used for info).

So you are telling that a Ju-390 with a 5000 kg increase in weigth (you were talking about an 80500kg Ju-390) would be outperformimg a much lighter Ju290...

Ju-390: 

10,380 hp Installed horsepower
75,500 kg (166,400 lb) MTOW weight + 5000kg = 80500kg MTOW (40000 kg heavier than that Ju-290A7with only a 3460 increase of hp)
(10380 x 746) / 80500 = 96,19 W/kg ...Bodo we got a problem!

Ef-100 suposedly info (as it was only a model, no real aircraft had flown and there was only one JuMo223 built....):
15,000 hp (6 x 2500 hp JuMo 223)
74,500 kg weight
(15000 x 746) / 74500 = 150,20 W/kg and a wing area of 350 m² or 3767 ft²

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Maximowitz (Oct 29, 2008)

Interesting thread this one, the whole of the internet in a microcosm.

Someone starts a thread asking a question.

The resident forum experts reply in the negative.

Someone else replies in the positive.

The whole thing dissolves into pointless technicalities, argument and name calling.

Result. No one is any the wiser.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2008)

Maximowitz said:


> Interesting thread this one, the whole of the internet in a microcosm.
> 
> Someone starts a thread asking a question.
> 
> ...



I think the recent posts here have brought valid points and those who are on one side of the argument have presented compelling data to back up their claims, so with that said I'd invite you to view another thread.


----------



## Maximowitz (Oct 29, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think the recent posts here have brought valid points and those who are on one side of the argument have presented compelling data to back up their claims, so with that said I'd invite you to view another thread.



Sensitive type are you? I was merely pointing out that circular unprovable arguments such as displayed here can be found on any internet forum regardless of subject. More an observation on mankind in general whose main preoccupation appears to be "winning" as opposed to "learning."


----------



## drgondog (Oct 29, 2008)

Maximowitz said:


> Sensitive type are you? I was merely pointing out that circular unprovable arguments such as displayed here can be found on any internet forum regardless of subject. More an observation on mankind in general whose main preoccupation appears to be "winning" as opposed to "learning."



Learning is often obstructed by knowledge. Are you teaching or lecturing?


----------



## Ome_Joop (Oct 29, 2008)

Maximowitz said:


> Sensitive type are you? I was merely pointing out that circular unprovable arguments such as displayed here can be found on any internet forum regardless of subject. More an observation on mankind in general whose main preoccupation appears to be "winning" as opposed to "learning."




I donnu...i've learned 3 things in a few moments just watching these pages!

1. that Bodo was 1200 meters...

2. that the Ju-390 was developed from the Ef100 and not a development from the Ju-290/90

3. some people can't be convinced of anything!


----------



## Maximowitz (Oct 29, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Learning is often obstructed by knowledge. Are you teaching or lecturing?



I was making a Socratic philosophical observation of the human condition.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 29, 2008)

Maximowitz said:


> I was making a Socratic philosophical observation of the human condition.



I believe he was also the author of "learning is hindered by knowlede.." but I have been wrong before.


----------



## Maximowitz (Oct 29, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I believe he was also the author of "learning is hindered by knowlede.." but I have been wrong before.



I stole this from that well known fountain of wisdom Wikipedia but it's accurate enough:

"According to Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone was wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded that none was wiser. Socrates believed that what the Oracle had said was a paradox, because he believed he possessed no wisdom whatsoever. He proceeded to test the riddle through approaching men who were considered to be wise by the people of Athens, such as statesmen, poets, and artisans, in order to refute the pronouncement of the Oracle. But questioning them, Socrates came to the conclusion that, while each man thought he knew a great deal and was very wise, they in fact knew very little and were not really wise at all. Socrates realized that the Oracle was correct, in that while so-called wise men thought themselves wise and yet were not, he himself knew he was not wise at all which, paradoxically, made him the wiser one since he was the only person aware of his own ignorance."

I apologise for derailing this thread, so I'm off to the "Breaking News" thread to look at some tit...er, observe the female form. Definitely.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2008)

Ome_Joop said:


> 2. that the Ju-390 was developed from the Ef100 and not a development from the Ju-290/90



Did we really establish that? It may have used some of the data in its development (stll just speculation), but the Ju 390 certainly was a development of the Ju 290. (leading back to the Ju 90 and Ju 89)

Junkers Aircraft of WWII


----------



## Ome_Joop (Oct 30, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Did we really establish that? It may have used some of the data in its development (stll just speculation), but the Ju 390 certainly was a development of the Ju 290. (leading back to the Ju 90 and Ju 89)
> 
> Junkers Aircraft of WWII




No that (the Ef100 - Ef 53 part ) was just a sarcastic remark 
Design maybe related to the Ef100 but the Ju-390 was a Ju-290 development (enlargement of the Ju-90/290 airframe )


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2008)

Oh...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2008)

Maximowitz said:


> Sensitive type are you? I was merely pointing out that circular unprovable arguments such as displayed here can be found on any internet forum regardless of subject. More an observation on mankind in general whose main preoccupation appears to be "winning" as opposed to "learning."


I am sensitive - and I don't like @sshole remarkes either. If you don't have anything productive to say I suggest keeping your mouth shut. And I do hope this is a LEARNING process for you!



Maximowitz said:


> I was making a Socratic philosophical observation of the human condition.


Keep that for another forum


----------



## Denniss (Oct 31, 2008)

Something to consider when comparing engine power values:
The BMW 801 G-2 used on later Ju 290 A variants and probably the Ju 390 had a take-off power of 1700 PS (= 1677 hp) at sealevel. The often used 1730 PS rating was available from about 600m to 1000m of altitude. There are also graphs floating around stating 1800 PS take-off power but thats overall engine power without subtracting the power needed to drive the cooling fan.

The serial production 801E was to have 2000 PS, similar to the 2000 PS 801S but with better altitude performance. It is possible the 801E saw some serial production, replacing some of the 801D-2 production very late in the war.

It's quite possible they would have used the turbocharged 801J due to the far better altitude performance although I don't know how much fuel they consumed.


----------



## Ome_Joop (Oct 31, 2008)

That is why al sources should put the engine power in kW!
Just to get rid of the difference of PS and hp!

PS = 735.49875 W
hp = 745.6999 W

BMW 801 D-2 had 1272 kW

1272 / 0,73549875 = 1730 PS
1272 / 0,7456999 = 1705,78 hp


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 31, 2008)

The turbocharged versions should have had significantly improved fuel consumption, particularly as turbocharged engine variants usually use lower speed (single speed) supercharger gearing. (so the SFC would probably be somewhat lower than the "normal" engine in low blower)


Edit: PS is also equivalent to Metric horsepower.

And Denniss, I though the 801 S used the same upercharger gearing as the E model, with similar altitued performance. (and an emergency rating of ~2,200 HP) Additionally its max rpm seems to be higher than the E.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2008)

Maximowitz said:


> Interesting thread this one, the whole of the internet in a microcosm.
> 
> Someone starts a thread asking a question.
> 
> ...



There have been some very interesting and insightful stuff brought up in this forum

I do not see any of what you are describing.

If you do not like the thread, then why derail with such comments. Move on to another thread you like better, but do not derail it with useless comments, that have nothing to do with the thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Nov 2, 2008)

The banter in this thread has been very tame compared to those in other threads when comparing specs betwen aircraft. Its been a much more valuable learning experience this time around.


----------



## Ome_Joop (Nov 5, 2008)

What would the Walter 109-500 rocket engine (RATO unit) do for take-off and fuel consumtion at take-off?
Put 4 or 6 of these little engines on a Ju-390 (if possible) would help to reduce the needed runway length...they were planned for use on the Me-264 but never used on the Ju-390


----------



## The Baron (Mar 3, 2009)

A most interesting discussion on the 'rivets' in the system. 

I think the question is more appropriatley answered philosophically rather then scientifically.

The Ju390 came about under a directive from the RLM and General Milch to develop an aircraft capable of delivering a 4,000 kg payload to a range of 12,000 km (I think the meeting in question was in early 42 - I have details at home)

The German aircraft industry responded as follows. Messershmitt offered a 6 engined Me264, Focke Wulf offered the Ta400, Horten offered the XVIII and Junkers offered the 390. The RLM decided to proceed with the Ju390.

It would be fair to assume that the Junkers engineers knew what they were doing in proposing this design as they had extensive knowledge of 
Engine performance
Handling
Altitude
Fuel consumption
Speed etc 
from their experience with the Ju 89, 90 and 290.

It therefore seems reasonable that a somewhat extensive test program would be run with the Ju 390 to establish all those facts which have been argued about over the preceeding pages, however the results of which are lost to us through the ravages of time and war.

So after you do all your testing - like running the engines for the required time on test rigs, climbing to altitude, flying in 'overload' condition - the usual stuff, you might be interested in actually 'flying the mission'. You replace the 4,000 kg bomb load with extra fuel (just to give you extra safety margin) and then you set off into the sunset one day to see how it goes.

The distance from Bordeaux to New York makes about at 11,500 km round trip over open water, you can literally turn back any time (when your fuel gauge or other information tells you to), so why not go for it ??

My feeling is that this series of events is quite plausible. 

The Ju 390 was designed to fly from Europe to New York and back - it was its raison d'etre. 

It was an evolutionary design based on well known performance parameters from its long lineage of predecessors and design should therefore have been pretty spot on.

If you stay 'on mission' you can fly with 4,000 kg of spare fuel while still maintaining mission profile

The mission is low risk as its entirely over open water and you can easily turn back.

You would stay some miles offshore to prevent interception so the 12 mile approach seems reasonable

You would keep it secret - just in case you do want to fly it earnest.

Then you find your base gets overrun and you are out of range so the plan gets canned (there is no A-bomb in any case)

Ofcourse none of this is proof - but then what is ??

To conclude, in my opinion the alleged East Coast flight of the Ju 390 is likely to have been undertaken on the balance of probability and that i'm afraid is as good as it gets.

Cheers

Andreas from Australia


----------



## fly boy (Mar 6, 2009)

didn't they use 390s in the plan to get hitler to south america


----------



## Erich (Mar 6, 2009)

the Ju 390 was developed at the start to support small stealth like units: FAGr 5 in the armed recon role along with working very closely with the KM U-Boot arm, nothing more and nothing less. The unit DID NOT make the travel to NY and back. if it would of have been we would have direct proof through FAGr 5's records as well as incredible amount of info detailing every aspect: times, route, crew, code of A/C during and after the flight being used as an incredible propaganda tool, hence the prop would of broadcasted to the US; we could hit/attack you any time we felt as you would not be able to intercept us.......blah, blah, blah


----------



## Propellorhead (May 7, 2010)

schwarzpanzer said:


> The Ju290 was originally a Lufthansa airliner, converted for WW2 use IIRC?
> 
> (Like the Dakota and Condor)
> 
> ...



Nope schwarzpanzer the Ju-390 was not intended as a nuclear bomber. 

Going back to the start it evolved from the J-89 Ural Bomber into the Ju-90. An RLM requirement for a trans Atlantic airliner designated "EF 53" resulted in a redesign which became the classic Ju-90.

From the Ju-90 V5 airframe onwards, it's wing shape changed radiacally from the earlier Ural Bomber plan form. The Ju-90 also evolved from underpowered BMW 132 engines to the Ju-90S until at Ju-90 V11 it got the BMW801C engines and became the Ju-290 transporter and maritime patrol aircraft.

There had also been issued an RLM requirement issued in 1940 for an "EF-100" trans Atlantic airliner able to fly 20,000kg over 9,000km issued in 1942. The Bv222 was favoured for the "EF-100" project. The Junkers design was in effect the forerunner of the Ju-390 design. Had Germany won the war it would have been designated as the Ju-390D model. 

The "EF-100" requirement was abandoned in 1941, however RLM resurected the design study in 1942 for an "Amerika falls" design. For an aircraft able to reach landfall in America and return. The Me 264 and Fa400 were evolved to meet the revised military requirement. 

Junkers developed the Ju-390 as a maritime patrol and as a transporter model. The Ju-390C model was to carry three Me-328 parasite fighters under the wings and fuselage in a bomber version however in 1944 testing of the Ju-390 wings concluded they were not strong enough to carry both the enormous fuel needed to reach USA plus the weight of parasitie fighters.

It is worth noting however that in 1969 the Junkers test Pilot Hans Joachim Pancherz gave an interview from his home in Barcelona to the Daily telegraph telling how in early 1944 he took a Ju-390 aircraft in company with a Ju-290 tanker on an air to air refuelling mission in which the Ju-390 flew to Capre Town and back. 

Essentially the Ju-390 was a long range transporter and reconnaissance aircraft. Not a bomber. the long range bomber designs of the Luftwaffe would have been the He-177 A-7 or He-277 had they had time to play that role.


----------



## Propellorhead (May 7, 2010)

Denniss said:


> Something to consider when comparing engine power values:
> The BMW 801 G-2 used on later Ju 290 A variants and probably the Ju 390 had a take-off power of 1700 PS (= 1677 hp) at sealevel. The often used 1730 PS rating was available from about 600m to 1000m of altitude. There are also graphs floating around stating 1800 PS take-off power but thats overall engine power without subtracting the power needed to drive the cooling fan.
> 
> The serial production 801E was to have 2000 PS, similar to the 2000 PS 801S but with better altitude performance. It is possible the 801E saw some serial production, replacing some of the 801D-2 production very late in the war.
> ...



The BMW801E differed from the BMW801D only in that it had a different gearing ratio for the turbo charger delaying the turbocharger from kicking in until a higher altitude. This gave the aircraft greater fuel economy.

Unfortunately on the BMW801D the turbocharger cut in automatically at 21,000 feet creating more than double the fuel consumption. The Ju-390 with BMW801D engines at LR cruise revolutions @ 20,000ft could manage 55 US gals per hour per engine.


----------



## Propellorhead (May 7, 2010)

Erich said:


> I had heard some 5 years ago from a German contact who was friends with several survivng members of FAGR 5, that the vets themselves were writing the history of their Gruppe. I wish them a huge success becuase once it is written we will then be able to put the New York flight story to rest and find out about other very stealth operations the gruppe was involved in besides their prime mission of suporting the Kriegsmarine U-boot arm.
> 
> did you know the unit flew recon ops in the Arado 234 towards wars end in the spring of 1945. so as many books have said that FAGr 5 was dissolved and obsorbed by KG 200 and disbanded this is not quite true
> 
> E



The Ju-390 aircraft operated briefly in 1944 by FAGr.5 at Mont de Marsan was undoubtedly the Ju-390 V1 aircraft however I am confident that the stammkennzeichen for this aircraft was RC+ DA. We can tell this because it had the shorter airframe. We know the Ju-390 V2 had a longer fuselage and comparing photos proves GH + UK had the longer airframe and therefore must have been the V2 transporter.






Just because FAGr.5 flew one of the two Ju-390 aircraft at the time of the New York flight does not put to bed controversy. 

At the time of the New York flight the V-2 aircraft was being trialed with long range air to air refuelling missions by Junkers company test pilots and therefore it is not even relevant that KG200 was not operating a Ju-390.

Long prior to publishing his book in 1972, William Green was the editor of the RAF Review and was privy to several RAF intelligence reports. He wrote in the RAF Review about the Ju-390 in 1959 and received correspondence by a former Luftwaffe airman whom he has never named.

One of the RAF Intelligence reports which he was privy to was based upon interrogation of a Luftwaffe airman captured in April 1944 who described Polar flights from northern Finland to Japan. Albert Speer in his memoirs described a flight to Tokyo via the polar route flown by civilian test pilots. 

The true original source for claims of flights to New York and for Ju-290 flights to Manchuria was a captured Photographic technician, Unteroffizer Wolf Baumgart, and another unnamed officer in his unit. 

Baumgart was interrogated by the US Ninth Air Force and his testimony was recorded by the A.P.W.I.U. Report 44/1945. In that report Baumgart is quoted claiming that a Ju-390 flew from Mont de Marsan, France, to within 12 miles of New York city. He further stated that photographs were taken of the city's skyline. The same A.P.I.W.U report also references corroboration by a more senior Luftwaffe officer, who added that the Ju-390 had an in-flight endurance of 32 hours.


----------



## nachtjager (Nov 25, 2011)

I read recently (can't remember where) that one Ju390 was flown to Argentina where it was eventually broken up and buried on German owned land.


----------



## Propellorhead (Jul 21, 2016)

fly boy said:


> didn't they use 390s in the plan to get hitler to south america



Probably because he was evacuated from Berlin on the night of 27 April 1945 and flown via Prague to Barcelona. Arrived in Madrid according to Franco's personal driver on 30 April and lived at the presidential palace until a massive coronary in the early hours of 2 November 1947.

The Ju-390 flight to El Palomar airbase Buenos Aires in May 1945 is documented in official Argentine Intelligence files which were declassified at Congressional hearings of the Argentine Government in 1993. That official report which had been kept secret for decades claimed the Ju-390 arrived in a flight from Villa Cisneros.

From Buenos Aires the Ju-390 was flown north to an airstrip in Entre Rios Province to unload an undisclosed cargo after which it was ferried a short distance to a German ranch near Paysandu Uruguay to be dismantled.

Five days ago* I got an email from my friend Harry Cooper, president of Sharkhunters International, a group for Uboat crew veterans. He said this to me:



> I have been to South America five times thus far and this past February visited the estancia where JU 390-V2 landed and interviewed many people. While they all knew OF this landing, we did interview one 94 year old lady who actually heard the big plane as it flew overhead on its landing approach. We also pin-pointed the wooded area where the Germans set up an RFD station to guide "the Truck" as it was known, to the area



*(17 July 2016)

These are RLM's own figures for the Ju390's performance:

Reichsluftministerium (RLM) performance specification for the Ju-390 required carrying 10,000kg (22,000lb) payload over 8,000 kilometres. 

In the reconnaissance role the (75,510kg Gross Weight) Ju-390 A-1 had fuel tanks for 30,400kg / 67,020lb of fuel (11,170 US Gallons / 42,283 Litres). 

In the transport role the (75,510kg Gross Weight) Ju-390 A-1 carried 17,170kg / 37,853lb of fuel (6,308 US Gallons / 23,878 Litres) with 9,530kg Payload

In bomber role the (75,510kg Gross Weight) Ju-390 A-1 carried 25,180kg / 55,512lb of fuel (9,252 US Gallons / 35,022 Litres) with 4,440kg bombs


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2016)

All theories and myths...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 21, 2016)

Perhaps that Ju390 is buried alongside those Spitfires in crates! 

Find the Ju390 and you'll find the Spitfires!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jul 22, 2016)

The soviets discovered the half burned remains of Hitler and his consort, Eva Braun.

The story of the body makes interesting reading in which the conspiracists have a field say.

known facts are that on the morning of May 2, Ivan Churakov, a private in the Soviet Army, noticed an oblong patch of recently turned soil as he and the 79th Rifle Corps searched the Chancellery. He began to dig, thinking he might uncover some hastily buried Nazi treasure. Instead, his shovel hit bone.

Reportedly he said to his commanding officer: “Comrade Lieutenant Colonel, there are legs here” . An exhumation was ordered and the soldiers dug up the bodies of two dogs (thought to be Blondi, Hitler’s pet German Shepherd, and one of her pups) and the badly burnt remains of two people. An autopsy was performed, and a few days later, confirming the identity. Soviet soldiers moved Hitler’s body to a different gravesite outside of Berlin proper. This would be just one of several moves the corpse would make in the next few decades.

In early June that year, the Soviets re-buried the body in a forest near the town of Rathenau. Eight months later, they moved it again—this time, to the Soviet Army garrison based at Magdeburg. There it remained until March 1970, when the Soviets decided to abandon the garrison and turn it over to the East German civilian government.

Under Soviet control, Hitler’s remains could be kept secret, and physical access to them severely limited. Soviet leaders did not want the body being used as some macabre focal point for all the neo nazi goof heads starting to kick around from about that time onward. Soviet secrecy was unsuccessful, the rumours that Hitler had survived abounded and thrived in the climate ignorance that existed at that time.

After the abandonment of the Madgeburg garrison site, the KGB exhumed the body and re- buried it somewhere else under their watchful eye. They had moved hitlers remains, or so they thought. At some point after this second move KGB director Yuri Andropov decided that the remains should be destroyed and authorized an operation to dispose of the body. The only things that were kept were fragments of a jawbone and skull, which were stored in government buildings in Moscow. (DNA testing recently revealed that these pieces did not belong to Hitler’s body, but were of female origin. Russian officials rejected that conclusion.)

Andropov selected a KGB officer named Vladimir Gumenyuk to pick a secret final resting place for Hitler’s remains and lead a three-man team in taking the remains there for destruction. The Soviet garrison was surrounded by German-built high-rise buildings, so Gumenyuk’s team pitched a tent over the spot where the bones had been buried to avoid being seen. After some digging with no results, the team realized they had counted 45 meters instead of 45 paces from a secret coordinate while following the directions to the corpse. They put the dirt back, moved the tent, and started again.

With what they thought were hitlers remains in their possession, the team disguised themselves as fishermen and drove into the mountains, stopping at a cliff along a small stream. There, in a spot screened by trees, they lit two campfires. One was to make soup. The other, to further burn the remains.

Gumenyuk has called the second cremation a waste of a can of gasoline, but the remains were finally burned to ashes. They collected these in a rucksack, which Gumenyuk took onto the cliff and opened up into the wind. With that, one of history’s greatest monsters disappeared, a brown cloud of dust in the wind.

It is obvious the Soviets goofed up the final disposal of the body, but the evidence that hitler died on the 30 April 1945 remains overwhelming. Like all things to do with the regime there is a hell of a lot of room for rumour and myth and more than enough people gullible or willing enough to believe it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 22, 2016)

You know the truth is, that he escaped to the secret Nazi UFO base in the antarctic - all the rest of these stories are a smoke screen to lead people astray...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 22, 2016)

Naziabomb

I'm not even going to address some of the issues on this fantasy site, but your $64,000 dollar question is answered quite incorrectly and any look at the historical record will confirm this. The issue of the use, or even potential use, of such weapons is and was contentious. It should not be treated so flippantly.

It is true that in 1944 the decision was taken to order 500,000 anthrax 'bombs' from the Americans, but the defensive rationale for this is ignored.
Churchill March 8th (P.M.'s Personal Min. No. M.246/4, Churchill to Brown, 8 March 1944, in PREM 3/65.):

_".. I have had most secret consultations with my Military Advisers. They consider, and I entirely agree, that if our enemies should indulge in this form of warfare, the only deterrent would be our power to retaliate."_

Again on May 21st (P.M.'s Personal Min. No. D. 162/4, Churchill to Ismay, 21 May 1944, in CAB 120/782.)

_"As you know, great progress has been made in bacteriological warfare and we have ordered a half million bombs from America for use should this mode of warfare be employed against us ..."_

I have included references which you can check. Now, clearly not only do you have the timing wrong, but the interest in bacteriological agents was as a response to a perceived threat from similar weapons if deployed by the enemy. It had absolutely ZERO connection to a non existent nuclear threat in March 1944.

It is possible you are conflating two different things. In July 1944 Churchill did seriously consider the use of poison gas in the now infamous and often misquoted minute (P.M.'s Personal Min. No. D.217/4, 6 July 1944, in PREM 3/89 (also in CAB 120/775)).

I include just a couple of paragraphs, the full minute is in the public domain for anyone who wants to read it.

_"1. I want you to think very seriously over this question of poison gas. I would not use it unless it could be shown either that (a) it was life or death for us, or (b) that it would shorten the war by a year.

6. If the bombardment of London really became a serious nuisance and great rockets with far-reaching and devastating effect fell on many centres of Government and labour, I should be prepared to do anything that would hit the enemy in a murderous place. I may certainly have to ask you to support me in using poison gas. We could drench the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in Germany in such a way that most of the population would be requiring constant medical attention. We could stop all work at the flying bomb starting points. I do not see why we should always have all the disadvantages of being the gentleman while they have all the advantages of being the cad. There are times when this may be so but not now."_

This is clearly a consideration of the use of chemical NOT biological weapons in response to the continued bombardment of London by V-1s and predates the first V-2 attack. Again, explicitly, nothing to do with a non existent nuclear weapon slightly later in 1944.
The nature of the response and others within the UK's government and forces is confirmed by comments like this, on 8th July by the Chief of the Naval Staff (Cunningham) in his diary. (Cunningham Papers, Vol. XXI, _Diary_, 1944 (British Library, Add. MS. 52577)

_"C.O.S. meeting at 1100. Discussion on P.M.'s rather immoderate minutes (a) on the use of gas (b) on General Alexander's plans in Italy. In the first he talks of 'uniformed psalm-singers' presumably referring to the Directors of Plans ... He obviously had a bad day after his statement_ [of 6 July, on flying bombs] _in H_[ouse] _of C_[ommons]."

The Chief of the Air Staff (Portal) didn't believe the use of gas would be effective. It was during these discussions that it was suggested that the investigation into chemical options should be undertaken under the supervision of the Vice-Chiefs of Staff, and that both the Chemical _AND _Biological Warfare sub-committees should be consulted. In other words, the Chiefs of Staff took it upon themselves to widen the terms of reference for the proposed report to bring in germ warfare as well as gas. This broadening of the task was specified in the formal instruction to the Vice-Chiefs (COS(44)227th Mtg (0)(14), 8 July 1944, in CAB 79/77)

_"carry out a comprehensive examination of the points raised in the Prime Minister's minute, and to include in their examination consideration of the possibilities of biological warfare and of the form which enemy reprisals might take."_

As Churchill had not asked for the biological option to be explored the reply from a COS secretary (Hollis) to Churchill's original minute didn't even mention it.

_"Prime Minister, Reference your minute at Flag 'A' (D.217/4) about the use of gas, the Chiefs of Staff this morning directed the Vice-Chiefs of Staff to go into this matter with the greatest care and thoroughness, bringing into consultation all interested authorities.

2. A report will be submitted to you as soon as possible." _(COS Sec. Min. 1140/4, Hollis to Churchill, 8 July 1944, in CAB 120/775)

The resulting report had very little on biological warfare. Only three paragraphs were devoted to it.

_"19. If the claims of N _[anthrax] _ are substantiated, its use could probably make a material change in the war situation, but there is no likelihood of a sustained attack being possible before the middle of 1945.


20. There is no known prophylactic against N. If it can be used in practice, the effect on morale will be profound.

21. It is improbable that the Germans will initiate biological warfare. There is no evidence to show whether they are in a position to retaliate in kind, were we to initiate it."_
(COS(44)661 (0), 26 July 1944, in CAB 80/85.)

The British did not have enough biological weapons to mount a meaningful campaign. The 500,000 bombs ordered from the Americans were supposed to suffice for retaliatory attacks on six German cities, but in October 1944 the Biological Warfare sub-committee told the Chiefs of Staff that.

_"it may be necessary to arrange provision of 8 times this number of bombs in order to achieve results on the scale originally intended"_
(Closed (50 years) Document: BW(44)21, 10 October 1944 – also circulated as COS(44)892(0), 10 October 1944, in CAB 80/88.)

This was never done, indeed the Chiefs of Staff, on 13 October 1944 decided to let stand what was termed

_"the present token order for 500,000 bombs."_
(COS(44)338th Mtg (0) (7), 13 October 1944, in CAB 79/81.)

In summary though the British did seriously look at chemical and to a lesser extent biological warfare options in response to the V-1 bombardment there was never a serious plan to implement either. As far as biological warfare goes there was no plan, nor sufficient material. There were never anything other than experimental 'Anthrax laced cattle cakes', produced at Porton Down in 1942 (I'm aware of the 5 million claimed by some, making the cake (Olympia Oil and Cake Company in Blackburn) and impregnating it are two different things), and there was never a public threat to use them. The discussions were so secret that some of the papers referenced above were sealed for 50 years (until 1994). There was resistance to the use of either form of warfare by just about everyone in the British establishment. Even in wartime Britain was still a democracy and Churchill did not have the powers of his adversary in Germany. Just because Churchill was interested in something didn't mean that it would happen. This was summed up nicely in Cunningham's diary on 21st July 1944 when he wrote:

_"C.O.S. meeting at 1100. Nothing much of importance, P.M.'s minute on the study of retaliation by gas was to the effect that he could do nothing if the warriors as well as the parsons were against him."_

Now, you posed your own $64000 question and gave an answer that the Germans did not use their super weapon for fear of retaliation by biological warfare. I can show that the answer is absolute nonsense. Maybe you should try again? Why didn't the Germans use this supposed weapon? Not because of the threat of biological retaliation by Britain. A far more likely and logical explanation would be that no such weapon existed.

The problem with sites like yours, trying to show an alternate history or discredit the received version is that they don't bother to do the work to establish the facts. By cherry picking a few 'facts', conflating them, quoting them out of context, they attempt to construct a version or series of events that rarely if ever stand up to a proper and rigorous historical examination.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 22, 2016)

All I can do is a massive facepalm when I stray across sites like that.

Steve, did you send the above text to the guy running that site?


----------



## stona (Jul 22, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> .
> 
> Steve, did you send the above text to the guy running that site?



Hi Peter, he posts the link to the fantasy site on the bottom of his posts on this site. I figure he can read it here, as can anyone else who is interested.

It amazes me how gullible people can be. They will accept documents, quotes, images with no attribution, no properly cited source etc as facts. I could have knocked up the map purporting to show the effects of an air burst over New York in 20 minutes on my computer. Incidentally the type of device being promoted as having been built (Schumann/Trinks) would have a likely yield in the 0.1-1.0 Kiloton range, depending on an awful lot of factors, which clearly doesn't tally with the map supposedly prepared for Goering.

I could go on, but what would be the point 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 22, 2016)

Steve,

I must now facepalm myself over my own lack of observation. Just noticed the links, thank you.

I agree, gullible ones will take as gospel any scrap of unsubstantiated information if it conforms to their preconceived notion of events. Of course when you bludgeon them with facts they usually call it "doctored" or a cover up, or some such drivel.

Thanks again.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jul 24, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Perhaps that Ju390 is buried alongside those Spitfires in crates!
> 
> Find the Ju390 and you'll find the Spitfires!



maybe that is the plane they were looking for on the bottom of a lake in argentina in the TV series..Finding Hitler. it found all kinds of "could of happened" .... and not one shred that positively IDed him as being there.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 24, 2016)

bobbysocks said:


> maybe that is the plane they were looking for on the bottom of a lake in argentina in the TV series..Finding Hitler. it found all kinds of "could of happened" .... and not one shred that positively IDed him as being there.


In all honesty, it's entirely possible that the Ju390V2 could have been flown there, as alot of Nazi party members ended up in South America. They have never found conclusive proof as to what ever happened to it as the war came to a close. There were all sorts of stories of leaders and high officials fleeing Berlin (some at the last moment), even Hannah Reitsch in a Fi156 on 28 April, being the last Luftwaffe flight out of the city.

The fate of Ju390V1, on the otherhand, is known as it was destroyed in April 1945 as U.S. forces were approaching Dessau.

Regardless of whether V2 made it to South America or not, Hitler never left Berlin - there is just too much evidence to prove he died and not enough to prove he survived.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Jul 24, 2016)

Ju 390 V2 was never finished and scrapped in mid or later 1944.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jul 25, 2016)

I believe it was entirely possible hitler could have fled. in his warped mind he felt like the german people had abandoned and given up the fight..so for him not to die for them is justified. there was the means and opportunity to make that escape...and I believe THAT is what gives what little credence there is to the myth. hilter, at this stage of his life was or was very close to being very high maintenance physically. his degenerative health due to Parkinson's and narcotic dependency would have made such a trip to south America extremely difficult if not down right impossible. none of the eyewitness accounts of him in spain and elsewhere mention his uncontrollable shaking and slow mobility but portray him like he was in the reels from the propaganda films. this disparity smacks of either mistaken identity or a deliberate lie. I believe he died in berlin.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 26, 2016)

bobbysocks said:


> I believe he died in berlin.



He did and everyone agreed, until the Soviets changed their minds and decided to suggest that he was alive and in the West. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why they might have suggested this as the post war relationship between the Allies deteriorated. ALL the myths of Hitler's survival stem from this rather unconvincing Soviet propaganda.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rank amateur (Aug 1, 2016)

This is a great thread to read over. Stories about secret SS controled Norwegian airfields filled with new experimentalist He 277's and 177's ready to drop the "nazi" nuke, German controled airfields in South America, bombing trips to New York and all sorts of mystical stuff makes you feel like a 12 year old again...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vahe Demirjian (Jan 4, 2020)

This thread is loaded with nonsense and ridiculous claims about the Ju 390 being flown to South America. Anthony Kay's book _Junkers Aircraft & Engines 1913-1945_ states in the Ju 390 entry on page 203 that the second Junkers Ju 390 prototype was mothballed without being flown when all large Nazi combat plane programs (including the Ju 390) were axed in July 1944 due to the worsening war situation for Nazi Germany (Kay also happens to recognize that rumors of the first Ju 390 prototype conducting test flights within the sight of New York are unfounded and untrue). The title of this thread should be changed to Fate of Junkers Ju 390 because the first Ju 390 prototype was returned to Dessau in November 1944 and finally blown up by the Germans in April 1945 to avoid capture by Allied forces.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 4, 2020)

Vahe Demirjian said:


> This thread is loaded with nonsense and ridiculous claims about the Ju 390 being flown to South America.


This thread is loaded with what's called "discussion" about the Ju390.

By the way, just because an author states something (and you see it on wiki) does not make it definitive. Green is the one who started the rumor of the North America flight back in a 1955 publication.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vahe Demirjian (Jan 4, 2020)

hartmann said:


> Acording to almost all sources, the He177 V38 was discovered by American forces in Praha (or Pilsen, I don´t remember well), but It was in Czchekia, not in Germany. If there was other more Heinkel 177 adapted to nuke London and New York, I don´t know, but, I hope it will be useful to you, mosquitoman.


The testing of exotic weapons at the one site in Czechoslovakia where the He 177 V38 was tested could be the reason why many older publications claimed that the He 177 V38 was intended to be a prototype "atomic bomber". However, many aviation historians now say that the He 177 V38 was to test the enlarged bomb bay intended for the production Ju 287 FSW bomber.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 4, 2020)

From "Junkers Company Profile - 1895-1965"

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JEANBatten (Oct 20, 2020)

Pepe Sanchez said:


> Anyone knows what happened to the 2 JU390's?
> 
> Do you know which type of german bombers can flow to Brazil?


During WW2 an Argentine airline: Syndicato Condor flew two FW200 aircraft to Buenos Aires on scheduled services. i have read that an abandoned Ju88 was found in the desert of Spanish Sahara. not suggesting that a Ju88 had the range, however a German U-Boat was caught refueling at Villa Cizneros where it would be plausible for any large transport to reach Brazil

On 21 November 1935 Jean Batten flew a Percivall Gull solo from Dakar to Natal:












IN 1927 the Italians flew a Savoia Marchetti SM.55 Flying boat to RIO DE Janiro , were it is still on display in a Brazilian museum at Sao Paulo:





Until December 1941, the Italian Airline LATI operated a scheduled airline service to Brazil.









The demise of LATI is sad: following the attack on Pearl Harbour US forces occupied Surname & French Guiana.Meanwhile, At Natal, Brazil British secret service perhaps forewarned of the Japanese attack waited for LATI flights to arrive from Ilha do Sal Cape Verde Is. impounding several Savoia-Marchetti SM.81 aircraft as they arrived. Meanwhile one LATI aircraft evaded them flying south to Buenos Aires crossing the Andes to Santiago where it was impounded before departing north for Panama:
LATI Airlines









Thus given longer range aircraft like the Ju290 an air bridge was feasible


----------



## JEANBatten (Oct 25, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No P-38. The main purpose of the Ju-390 was not to bomb New York or London. It was actually intended to be used as a heavy transport and maritime patrol aircraft. It was just later proposed to be used as a heavy bomber and possibly for the Amerika Bomber program because of its 32 hour endurance. The Ju-390 is just a development of the Ju-290 transport.
> 
> I am on duty right now till tomorrow morning but when I get home I can tell you what happened to the aircraft that were flown by KG 200. I have a book on them.
> 
> However they were not intended to drop nukes on anyone they were heavy transports. KG200 used them to fly personnel on secret missions. They were also intended to be used in the U-Boot war.



I agree,
The JU390 was rejected as any kind of bomber However the V3 prototype was static load tested for the bomber role, which is why it was rejected
It is incorrectly asserted there was inly one JU390 ever built:

V2 prototype GH+UK






V1 prototype RC + DA






Karl Kossler and Gunter Ott maintain the "sole" Ju390 built was not flown until September 1944, however the log book of Ju390 test pilot Hans Werner Lerche records his flight piloting the Ju-390 on 28 October 1943 on two flights, one of 17 minutes and another of 25 minutes.

It is usually cited that the Ju390's maiden flight was October 1943: by the aircraft constructed at Merkersberg after modifying Ju-90 V6, werke number Wnr 4918 first flown 20 October 1943 by Flugkapitan Hans Joachim Pancherz with Dipl Ing. Gast as co-pilot. with it's length increased from the 26.3m Ju90 fuselage, to a new length of 31.7m. Pancherz complained this V1 prototype was longitudinally unstable, so the V2 was lengthened by 2.5m again to 34.2m to improve the elevator arm. So it is not a question in dispute that the V2 aircraft was longer than the V1. If one rotates the two known images to compare fuselage lengths , it becomes obvious that GH+UK was the V2 prototype and RC+DA was the V1 aircraft.









*Establishing Ju390 Identities*

*



*


According to Geoffrey Brooks who researched Junkers company archives as English translator for Manfred Greihl's book" Luftwaffe over America":

In March 1942 RLM contracted Junkers to convert three Ju90 aircraft into Ju390 prototypes, ie

Ju390V1 stkz, RC+DA (maritime patroller)

Ju390V2 stkz, GH+UK (transporter)

Ju390V3 bomber prototype was never completed, or flown but dismantled after wings failed static wing load testing* Soviet historical sources claim the unfinished Ju-390 airframe was in fact the V3 prototype. At a hearing before British investigators, on 26 September 1945, Professor Heinrich Hertel, chief designer and technical director for Junkers Aircraft and Motor Works,confirmed the bomber prototype was dismantled following static load testing**



*The Ju390 never had a fuselage bomb bay. Bomb loads would be externally slung, either beneath outboard engines or under the fuselage causing horrendous drag & increasing fuel consumption

My view is the Germans did not intend to use the Ju390 as a New York bomber as they understood how unsuitable it was. Patton maintained General Voss told him the He274 built in France was always the intended New York bomber. following the first Ju390 flight to NYC Americans were panicked into building a radar chain along the coast of Maine.

** ThE Ju390 was intended to launch a self sacrifice pilot in a parasite fighter, the Me328. Clearly Ju390 wings could not support the 5,896lb weight,of this parasite aircraft. The Ju390 bomber was intended to carry three Me328 to New York












Definitely two Ju390 were seen flying:. It is known that the V1 aircraft had a shorter 26.3m Ju90 fuselage. The fuselage length of the V2 was increased to 34.2 metres. Comparing two J Ju390 fuselages side by side it is obvious which one was the V2?


In their 1993 book, _*Die Grosen Dessauer: Junkers Ju-89, 90, 290, 390*_ Karl Kossler and Gunter Ott suggest the" second" Ju-390 was not constructed and flown before September/October 1944, however they also claim RLM cancelled Ju-390 contracts in May 1944.

If the Ju-390 contract was canceled in May 1944, then the flying example they do acknowledge could not have been completed in September 1944, either, so Kossler and Ott must have gotten it wrong.

Brooks stated to me:
"In October 1943 at the suggestion of Major Hoffmann [GL/C/E2] was acted upon to commence a series production of the Ju 390 without having prototypes beforehand. The first aircraft of the series would be used for the usual tests. Milch then ordered the Ju 390 [ into ] series production without prototypes after Rechlin said they had no objections. This machine was demonstrated to Göring on 5 November 1943, and trials continued at Prague-Rusin..."

V2 was adopted as baseline design for further Ju390 aircraft To my knowledge: even though these following aircraft were de facto production aircraft, They were not officially designated Ju390A models rather refererred to as more prototypes

"...On 1 December 1943 the Luftwaffe QM-General listed the first series aircraft Ju390 V2 for October 1944. This machine would be available at the end of October, three more in November, five in December[1944] and so on into March 1946. Ju 390 V2 was expected to be ready by the end of September 1944 and flight tested in November. A report dated March 1944 indicates that Dessau was to turn out 26 Ju 390 [aircraft], another report from May 1944 that Junkers had no less than 111 [aircraft] on the order book..."

Brooks often maintained to me in his emails that Authors who published archival research on sensitive topics which the German Government did not wish disclosed, were denied further access to archives.as a form of censorship. He maintained to me, Manfred Greihl would not publish certain matters they had discovered in wartime archives due to this official sensitivity. Brooks did share with me via email that according to Junkers archives, in June 1944 Junkers was paid for seven completed Ju-390 aircraft "designated V-2 to V-7"

Brooks said, "... Junkers received contracts in June 1944 to build Ju 390 V-2 to V-7"


Brooks did expand to me saying that: in the absence of a viable NY bomber Erhard Milch hatched an alternative plan to stage an attack on New York via Mestersveg in Greenland. This location is also used today as an airstrip but in WW2 it had a German garrison. Milch alludes to this plan in his post war memoirs
Mestersveg is also used today as a modern airstrip.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 25, 2020)

V1 was GH+UK, V2 was RC+DA


----------



## JEANBatten (Oct 25, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> V1 was GH+UK, V2 was RC+DA



The facts prove otherwise. NO Pilot's log book identifies the V1 or V2 aircraft by their _Stammkennzeichen_ codes. I am afraid you are just guessing. You can't refute my evidence with hard facts 

This is the log book of Hans Werner Lerche recording his Ju390 flight 30 October 1943:


----------



## JEANBatten (Oct 25, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> From "Junkers Company Profile - 1895-1965"
> 
> ​


Citing to me the wrong assumptions of others merely compounds their mistakes as your own RC+DA was not longer than GH+UK
you can see the proof in this image using the Ju390 wing root for scale:


----------



## JEANBatten (Oct 25, 2020)

schwarzpanzer said:


> The Ju290 was originally a Lufthansa airliner, converted for WW2 use IIRC?
> 
> (Like the Dakota and Condor)
> 
> ...



The Germans agreed with you which is why the Ju390V3 bomber prototype was scrapped in June 1944 It was too slow to survive in contested skies over New York The moment it climbed higher than 18,000 ft altitude, superchargers tripled fuel consumption . It suffered wing flutter if flown too fast or banked too hard.






An SCR-270 RADAR AT Fort Monmouth, New Jersey however did spot unidentified aircraft approaching New York from over the sea At noon on August 28th 1943, AIR RAID Sirens went off in New York and lasted for 45 minutes nearly an hour! and this sighting by the 551st Signals Battalion of an unidentified target so deeply spooked the Americans It prompted deployment of the Shoran radar chain it New Hampshire in 1944.

SCR-271 fixed radar was located at Mount Agamenticus PART OF THE Shoran chain established in 1944 to cover Hudson Bay. Installations of SCR-268 radars were established. SCR-268 radar operating on 205 MHz to guide anti aircraft artillery were built at Ragged Neck Point, Rye Harbour also received a new radar station This site controlled a battery of Anti Aircraft guns and searchlights. The radar system there however only had a detection range of 22 statute miles, but it could detect aircraft flying close by

In 1945 Mustang fighter aircraft were tasked to patrol or respond to radar sightings

Whatever else a Ju390 flight achieved it probably blew the element of surprise.


----------



## JEANBatten (Oct 25, 2020)

hartmann said:


> Why was the nuke too late? (I am not very convinced about this, but I have started to research about the statements  ) In recent investigations, It seems that Germany could have succesfully detonated a nuke near Ohrdruf on March 4 of 1945 (some, even before in Rügen the 11 October 1944). There has been an very intersting debate in a BBC special program sometime before concerning the author of the book and his theories (Rainer Karlsch, Book = Hitlers bombe). even there are some scientist taking samples of the soil to corroborate the possible theory. I don´t know if this is a new revisionist point of view, but... it´s very intersting to speculate about this. It may be the nuke to be carried by the Ju 390, or by the He 177 V38 to New York.
> Just my two cents (of Euro, hehehe 8) )


Germany had a functional low yield (ie 1kt) warhead developed by Schumann & Trinks test blasted on the Bug Peninsula, Rugen in October 1944. Later in American captivity, Goering boasted this was a 5kg warhead -entirely feasible with Lithium deuteride boosted fission techniques.


The HE177 V38 was I believe intended to carry a 4 tonne A-bomb like Hiroshima's Little Boy which some sources maintain was the same bomb captured near Goslar 
[ source: *Dirk Finkemeier *who is on Facebook]


----------



## JEANBatten (Oct 26, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> KG200 used a lot of there heavy transports with civilian Lufthansa marking for secret flights to Spain and so forth.




The aircraft which you refer to were Ju290 A-9, not Ju390, 290s converted as A-9 version with MTOW raised from 41.3 tons to 45 ton and yes they did fly spies &/or guns to White Russian separatists in Soviet rear areas.







*Ju290 A9 long range version*

Once converted they were given civil registrations to operate as Duetsche Luft Hansa DLH airliners on cargo flights, however T9+UK was also photographed in Russia wearing stkz codes: Known A-9 stkz codes were: T9+UK, T9+VK & T9+WK IT is known these aircraft were flown deep into Soviet rear areas with arms & ammunition for Soviet separatist groups. one T9+UK, was caught on the ground by NKVD troops whilst anotherT9+VK was badly shot up by Soviet Hurricanes on a return flight.

These modifications began with three aircraft:

T9 + FK WNr. *J900153* Ju290 V4 Lost from Sarabus 1943 shot down by Soviet Hurricanes
T9 + UK WNr. *J900182*Feb-Jun 44, Captured by NKVD raid on landing behind Russian lines
T9 + VK WNr. *J900183*Feb-Apr 44, scrapped








Trial flights began in 1942 with Ju-290A-5 werke # J900170, Luftwaffe stkz code KR+LA. This aircraft earlier also wore KG200 codes 9V+DH. It was destroyed by air raids at Reichlin in 1945. It’s fuel capacity was increased by 5,140 litres.for long range operation from Ju-290’s standard tankage






In March 1944 three other Ju290 aircraft were transferred to Versuchsverband OKL then they were stripped of all weaponry and civilianised by DLH engineering for Deutsch Luft Hansa (DLH) service on flights to China, Spain, or the Kuril islands . Modification included fitting fuel tanks for 23,800 litres. Each of the aircraft also then received civil registrations. eg D-AITR ( D-AITR piloted by Captain Sluzalek crashed landing in fog on the night of 5/6 April 1945 running off the runway into a drainage ditch. Amid diplomatic protests the next morning a repair crew replaced a damaged tailwheel. It was flown back to Germany after repairs. This was not the same aircraft J900178 adopted by Spain after the war.






*Manchuria flights*

Pre war explorer Hans Bertram was commissioned by RLM apparently in July 1944 to write a report called Ostasienflug (east Asian Flight Project) to plan for a regular courier service to Tokyo using the Me-264.The mission called for a duration of 33 hours flown at 188 knots. Two routes were proposed. The longest from Berlin to Linz, Hungary, Roumania, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Tsitsihar in china and finally to Tokyo. The other route proposed was through northern India and Burma to Rangoon. Ultimately, these flights may not have reached Manchuria, but that was an objective proposed by Bertram.

A War Ministry report (AIR 40/203) detailed in mid October 1944, a POW gave information under interrogation that since the beginning of 1944, there had been "*regular air travel between Germany and Japan established for the transport of high officials flown by old experienced Hansa pilots*."

Luftwaffe Generalmajor Fritz Morzik, Chief of Air Transport for the Armed Forces in WW2 Germany wrote in an article for an official post war USAF study paper, in which he said that the Ju-390 was used for courier flights to Japan during the war.

A Post war US Navy Intelligence report drafted for the War Department, entitled "NA/HW 13/47 - German Technical Aid to Japan" dated 31 August 1945 at pages 134-145, discussed how three Messerschmitt engineers with technical documents for Japanese construction of the Me-209; Me 309; Me 264, Me 262; Me 410 and me 323 would be flown to Japan. Technical drawings were accompanied by engineers. The same report listed German engineers captured in Germany after hostilities ceased.

To accomplish this three Ju290 aircraft were withdrawn from military units, upgraded with 5140 L extra fuel capacity and more powerful engines to lift increased weight at take off. A standard Ju290A-5 aircraft had a range of 3,821 sm. further aircraft were converted after the first three.
.
Decrypted Magic signals revealed plans for flights to operate long range flights to Parumashiro in the Kurils: A Magic decrypt of a diplomatic signal from the naval attache at the Japanese embassy in Berlin dated 21st March discussed an impending flight to Japan within the week, which Albert Speer claimed was a Ju390 flight that occurred on 28 March 1945. One decrypted signal mentions a flight to Petsamo in the northern Kurils. More likely in my view was a flight to the ice free and fog free island of Matsawa Jima, whose airstrip is still populated with Nazi fuel drums.

Junkers test pilots who flew these flights are now deceased: In April 1983, Flugkapitän Erich Warsitz suffered a stroke and as a result died at the age of 76 years 12 July 1983 at Barbengo Switzerland; Hermann (aka Henry, aka Ivan) Quenzler was recruited after the war as a test pilot for Lockheed's CIA Skunk Works. He later went to Seattle and worked there for Boeing on the Boeing 707 and SST. He died in 9th September 2002




* Ju290 A-9 aircraft*

These three converted aircraft were Ju-290A-9 werke # J900183, former Luftwaffe code KR+LN. From February 1944 this aircraft became T9+VK. It was attacked on the ground at Finsterwalde in April 1944 and scrapped at Travenmunde in September 1944.






Also Ju-290A-9 werke # J900182, former LuftwaffeJu 290 A-5 code KR+LM. From February 1944 this aircraft later became T9+UK. This aircraft was destroyed on the ground refueling due to to straffing fire by four Soviet flown Hurricanes near the village of Utta, near Astrakhan in July 1944. DD.11.1943 (Ju 290 A-5)


Ju-290 A7 werke # J900185, former Luftwaffe code KR+LP was the third conversion to become T9+WK. Later in it's career it was attacked over the southern eastern front in May 1944 and returned from the mission beyond all hope of repair.*


All Ju290 swappedtheir Stkz fuselage codes incestuously, therefore individual aircraft can only be traced by their constructor numbers:

*J900178, Ju290 A5/A9*
Luftwaffe, KR+LI (later 9V+EK), Feb. 44 to Sep.44
to DLH Lufthansa, D-AITR, Okt. 44 to Apr.45, named 'Bayern', damaged on landing at Barcelona
Spanish Air force, 74+23, Apr. 50 to Jul.56, named ' ', wfu in 05.53, later scrapped
*J900179, Ju290 A5/A9*
Luftwaffe, KR+LJ (later A3+FK, 9V+FK), Jan. 44 to Feb.44, handed over to USAAF and scrapped
*J900180, Ju290 A5/A9*
Luftwaffe, KR+LK (later 9V+KH), Mrz. 44 to Apr.45, destroyed during air raid at Rechlin
*J900181, Ju290 A7/A9*
Luftwaffe, KR+LL (later 9V+GK), Apr. 44 to Aug.44, destroyed during air raid at Dessau
*J900182, Ju290 A7/A9*
Luftwaffe, KR+LM (later T9+UK, A3+AB), Feb. 44 to Jun.44, lost on secret mission at Russian Front
*J900183, Ju290 A7/A9*
Luftwaffe, KR+LN (later T9+VK, A3+BB), Feb. 44 to Apr.44, claimed damaged during air raid at Finsterwalde [actually damaged Utta Astrakhan] , scrapped at Travemunde constructive total loss
*J900185, Ju290 A7/A6/ Le.290 Orel *Adolf Hitler's personal aircraft completed as airliner postwar


----------



## Propellorhead (Nov 4, 2021)

mosquitoman said:


> Fro what I've read, a He177 was discovered in Berlin, adapted to drop nukes


yes, but you refer to the He-177 V38 prototype stkz KM+TB, found at Prague with a bomb bay enlarged for a nuclear bomb, unlikely to have had either trans Atlantic range, nor the altitude performance to drop the bomb over Britain by 1945. However the aircraft did exist and itwas modified with an enlarged bomb bay


----------



## Propellorhead (Nov 4, 2021)

Erich said:


> I had heard some 5 years ago from a German contact who was friends with several survivng members of FAGR 5, that the vets themselves were writing the history of their Gruppe. I wish them a huge success becuase once it is written we will then be able to put the New York flight story to rest and find out about other very stealth operations the gruppe was involved in besides their prime mission of suporting the Kriegsmarine U-boot arm.
> 
> did you know the unit flew recon ops in the Arado 234 towards wars end in the spring of 1945. so as many books have said that FAGr 5 was dissolved and obsorbed by KG 200 and disbanded this is not quite true
> 
> E


Negative, you propose a Strawman hypothesis which is a complete fallacy of inverted logic. If there was a New York flight, Then that is not ptoof that the flight was flown by FAGr 5. The fact such a flight was not flown by FAGr 5, is not proof said flight did not take place. the US Ninth Air Force, A.P.W.I.U. Report 44/1945 which described the New York flight never mentioned FAGr 5 performing the NY flight. A War Ministry report (AIR 40/203) cites a POW interrogation that long range Ju390 flights to Japan were performed by a special unit comprised of civilian test pilots called Japan Kommando, or Kommando Nebel.


----------



## Propellorhead (Nov 4, 2021)

Erich said:


> problem is and we have all discussed this.............too much of the internet is taken as fact with no questions asked. Find some good resource materials like books and esepcially for the a/c in this thread, German language. R.Leonard mentioned Dr. Kössler/Ott's famous and OOP book on the subject matter and there are a couple others on the air recon war over the Atlantic, sadly way too few though ...........


Kössler/Ott are not the final word on the JU390 either, having modified their position to suggest the Ju390 was not until June 1944.

The Ju390 was first photographed attacking convoy KMF-5 in December 1942!
Merchant seaman Ron Whylie of Mosman, NSW, took this photo in 1942


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2021)

Propellorhead said:


> yes, but you refer to the He-177 V38 prototype stkz KM+TB, found at Prague with a bomb bay enlarged for a nuclear bomb, unlikely to have had either trans Atlantic range, nor the altitude performance to drop the bomb over Britain by 1945. However the aircraft did exist and itwas modified with an enlarged bomb bay


Just so you know that post was from 16 years ago and that member hasn't been on here for quite a long time


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2021)

Propellorhead said:


> Kössler/Ott are not the final word on the JU390 either, having modified their position to suggest the Ju390 was not until June 1944.
> 
> The Ju390 was first photographed attacking convoy KMF-5 in December 1942!
> Merchant seaman Ron Whylie of Mosman, NSW, took this photo in 1942


Again a post from 2005. FYI Junkers Ju-390 - German Aircraft

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Propellorhead (Nov 4, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep - it don't add up. One thought - if this was done the crew could of reached a calculated altitude and shut down 2 of the engines, but it still don't explain the 30% over-gross take off situation. I think the whole this is a myth!


The Ju390 was certified at a take off weight of 75,500kg with an 8,000km range. According to JU390 test pilot Hans Joachim Pancherz, the aircraft was put through an OEW weight reduction program in May 1944 and re-certified at an MTOW of 80,500kg with a range of 11,000km.
A US April 1945 report on bench testing of the BMW 801D2 engines by NACA, forerunner of the agency now known as NASA provides me with an accurate estimate of fuel consumption for the Ju390: 


Early flights by the Ju-390 used BMW 801D engines. The BMW 801E engine was an experimental engine often mentioned as being fitted to the Ju-390. It was in fact intended for the Export aircraft planned for production by Japan. The BMW 801E had modified gearing on the supercharger to give better fuel consumption and an extra 100hp at altitude. High altitude flight above 21,000ft destroyed the Ju390's LR performance.

Page 29 of that NACA report discloses an individual engine on lean settings below 21,000 feet altitude consumes either:


250 L/hr (40.83 US Gal/hr) at 1600rpm (1469.9lb/hr for six engines), or
275 L/hr (45.83 US Gal/hr) at 1800rpm (1649.9lb/hr for six engines)
best performance was to fly at 6,330ft altitude and 1770 rpm


----------



## Juha3 (Nov 4, 2021)

Propellorhead said:


> Kössler/Ott are not the final word on the JU390 either, having modified their position to suggest the Ju390 was not until June 1944.
> 
> The Ju390 was first photographed attacking convoy KMF-5 in December 1942!
> Merchant seaman Ron Whylie of Mosman, NSW, took this photo in 1942


By what weapons, a photo of an unarmed proto which according to other sources made its first flight on 20 Oct 1943. Look at the picture, no bomb bay, no bomb shackles no guns. Even if the plane had existed in December 1942, why would it have flown so close to the ships of an escorted convoy that an ordinary sailor would have been able to take that picture? It would have been a pretty easy target for AA guns.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Nov 4, 2021)

That's because it's not true.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 4, 2021)

Ju390V1 first flew at Dessau on 20 October '43 - not sure how it was photographed in December of 1942.


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 4, 2021)

High speed film?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 4, 2021)

Or time traveling pictures…

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Propellorhead (Nov 4, 2021)

Vahe Demirjian said:


> The testing of exotic weapons at the one site in Czechoslovakia where the He 177 V38 was tested could be the reason why many older publications claimed that the He 177 V38 was intended to be a prototype "atomic bomber". However, many aviation historians now say that the He 177 V38 was to test the enlarged bomb bay intended for the production Ju 287 FSW bomber.


If you are going to tell the story at least tell it correctly please?
THE only connection between the Ju287 and V38 is that the Ju287 has a bomb bay with dimensions identical to that of the V38. 
Given that we know of no German Bomb late in the war requiring such dimensions, the floor is open to anyone who can explain why both







Meantime now that it is declassified, some may with to obtain & read this:
*Practical Use of the German Atomic Bomb," A.P.I.U. (Ninth Air Force) 96/1945 APO 696, U S Army, 19 August 1945.*


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 4, 2021)

Propellorhead said:


> If you are going to tell the story at least tell it correctly please?


Does this also include the Ju390 being photographed in flight almost a year before it actually flew?

And does this also include the bit about the Ju390 allegedly flying to Japan?


----------



## Propellorhead (Nov 4, 2021)

Capt. Vick said:


> That's because it's not true.


What Proof have you got. Just an overblown opinion, it seems?
You don't have a right to believe whatever you want to, just because his evidence clashes with your beliefs...
If you assert This elderly WW2 veteran is lying merely because you refuse to believe his first hand witness account and his photo then your opinion is the first refuge of the wilfully ignorant, of a person who when cornered by mounting evidence feels entitled to shamefully accuse another person presenting evidence of being a liar.

You are granting yourself license to insult and abuse anybody you disagree with because youtr opinion matters more than the facts.
Ron, Born in 1921, was quite a humble gentleman who posted many previously unpublished photos of the attack on *CONVOY KMF-5,* were you there in 1942?.

What gives you the right to rubbish this man's photos, published respectfully for Ron by his seafarers union?
I spoke with Ron in 2008 to try and verify how the photo was taken and who took the picture?
He assured me that he took all the photos in his blog and granted me his blessings to publish them. He had no clue the huge German aircraft was a *Ju390* This gentleman thought he was performing a service to posterity by sharing his war experience for others to learn from
Sadly , I should have warned Ron before he died that he was merely casting pearls before swine.
At least he died believing he was doing the right thing. I am so glad he never met you. 
One thing I know without doubt, He was a better person than you.

Ron's recollections


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2021)

Everyone needs to cool off. Knock it off with the snide comments and insults. It will not be tolerated. Debate in a civil manner, or not at all. That goes for everyone.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Nov 4, 2021)

🤔 Wow...a lot to unpack there. Usually people have to meet me before they form that kind of opinion about me. But be that as it may, I will consider it a challenge to pick apart your outlandish claim regarding the Ju 390. I hope when the dust has finally settled, one of us will be open to changing their belief. Though at this early stage in our interaction I am beginning to think that your not much of a fact based kind of guy. I could be wrong, but I will give it a go regardless.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2021)

Propellorhead said:


> Kössler/Ott are not the final word on the JU390 either, having modified their position to suggest the Ju390 was not until June 1944.
> 
> The Ju390 was first photographed attacking convoy KMF-5 in December 1942!
> Merchant seaman Ron Whylie of Mosman, NSW, took this photo in 1942


All sources I've seen show the first flight of the Ju390 20 October 1943. This is from wiki, I'm leaving the article's references in. Bold type is mine

_The Ju 390 V1 was constructed and largely assembled at Junkers' plant at Dessau in Germany and* the first test flight took place on 20 October 1943*.[3]​ This was done by adding an additional wing section and powerplants and adding a fuselage section immediately aft of the wings to increase the length to 31 m (102 ft). Its performance was satisfactory enough that the Air Ministry ordered 26 in addition to the two prototypes. On 29 June 1944, the Luftwaffe Quartermaster General noted that the RLM paid Junkers to complete seven Ju-390 aircraft.[4]​ The contracts for 26 Ju 390s were cancelled on 20 June 1944 and all work ceased in September 1944. On 26 November 1943, the Ju 390 V1—with many other new aircraft and prototypes—was shown to Adolf Hitler at Insterburg, East Prussia.[5]​* According to the logbook of former Junkers test pilot Hans-Joachim Pancherz, the Ju 390 V1 was brought to Prague immediately after it had been displayed at Insterburg and took part in a number of test flights, which continued until March 1944, including tests of inflight refueling*.[6]​ The Ju 390 V1 was returned to Dessau in November 1944, where it was stripped of parts and finally destroyed in late April 1945 as the US Army approached.

Different sources present different accounts of the history of the Ju 390 V2. Kössler and Ott (1993) stated that the Ju 390 V2 was completed during June 1944, with flight tests beginning in late September 1944.[6]​ The second prototype (Ju 390 V2) was configured for a maritime reconnaissance role, and its fuselage had been extended by 2.5 m (8.2 ft) for a total of length of 33.5 m (110 ft) and it was said to be equipped with FuG 200 Hohentwiel ASV (Air to Surface Vessel) radar and defensive armament consisting of five 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon.[7]​ Green (1970) wrote that the armament was four 20 mm MG 151/20s and three 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine guns. At a hearing before British authorities on 26 September 1945, Professor Heinrich Hertel, chief designer and technical director of Junkers Aircraft & Motor Works, asserted the Ju-390 V2 had never been completed.[8]​ German author Friedrich Georg claimed in his book that test pilot Oberleutnant Joachim Eisermann recorded in his logbook that he flew the V2 prototype (RC+DA) on 9 February 1945 at Rechlin air base. The log is said to have recorded a handling flight lasting 50 minutes and composed of circuits around Rechlin, while a second 20-minute flight was used to ferry the prototype to Lärz.[9]​ Kay (2004) stated that the second Ju 390 prototype was discarded without being flown because of a July 1944 RLM decree sanctioning an end to all large combat plane programs in Nazi Germany in favor of the Emergency Fighter Program.[10]​ *Pancherz himself stated in 1980 that the only the first Ju 390 flew and cast doubt on all claims of the Ju 390 making a test flight to New York.*__*[*11]_​

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 4, 2021)

Again, the Ju390V1 first flew in October of 1943.

It NEVER saw operational status, meaning it NEVER flew over Allied shipping.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Nov 4, 2021)

Maybe there is some mention of it in this book? Surely others would have noticed this 6 engined phantom flying low over the convoy? 🤔

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Propellorhead (Nov 4, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Everyone needs to cool off. Knock it off with the snide comments and insults. It will not be tolerated. Debate in a civil manner, or not at all. That goes for everyone.


I responded in a forthright manner calling a spade a spade, whilst you as a moderator allowed A parade of jibes and insults whilst you said nothing?
That can only be described as a double standard.

This forum tolerates personal abuse which is why it lacks objective debate. Members here spend more time attacking posters than debating the topic. You allow a pack of schoolyard bullies and then scratch your head wondering why you can't have respectful debates. This person had a sense of entitlement attacking an 87 year old man and you tolerate it?
What does that say about you?


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 4, 2021)

Happy I got here before the banning hammer fell

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 4, 2021)

Propellorhead said:


> I responded in a forthright manner calling a spade a spade, whilst you as a moderator allowed A parade of jibes and insults whilst you said nothing?
> That can only be described as a double standard.
> 
> This forum tolerates personal abuse which is why it lacks objective debate. Members here spend more time attacking posters than debating the topic. You allow a pack of schoolyard bullies and then scratch your head wondering why you can't have respectful debates. This person had a sense of entitlement attacking an 87 year old man and you tolerate it?
> What does that say about you?


What's worse, is using an 87 year old vet as an excuse to propagate falsehoods.

Shame on you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 4, 2021)

Capt. Vick said:


> View attachment 647103
> 
> Maybe there is some mention of it in this book? Surely others would have noticed this 6 engined phantom flying low over the convoy? 🤔


The convoy was attacked several times, mostly by He111s and Ju88s of KG26, losing several ships, one being sunk by torpedoes dropped by an He111.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2021)

Propellorhead said:


> I responded in a forthright manner calling a spade a spade, whilst you as a moderator allowed A parade of jibes and insults whilst you said nothing?
> That can only be described as a double standard.
> 
> This forum tolerates personal abuse which is why it lacks objective debate. Members here spend more time attacking posters than debating the topic. You allow a pack of schoolyard bullies and then scratch your head wondering why you can't have respectful debates. This person had a sense of entitlement attacking an 87 year old man and you tolerate it?
> What does that say about you?



Excuse me? Who do you think you are?

I don’t tolerate childish behavior by anyone. When I made my post, it was the first time I had recently been in this thread. I have a life outside of this forum, and cannot read every post made, every minute of the day.

My post was meant for all parties involved. Hence why I did not call you out. I said for E V E R Y O N E. Everyone.

You cry about supposed abuse, yet you think you have the right to insult and abuse me, after I tell everyone to cool off and act civil. 

What does that say about you?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2021)

In fact if you don’t like it here, don’t come here.


----------



## stona (Nov 5, 2021)

Propellorhead said:


> This forum tolerates personal abuse which is why it lacks objective debate.


Debate would involve the discussion of facts, not fantasy.

If you can't accept that the provenance of your posted image is provably incorrect, that's not really the forum's problem. You, of course, can take offence, nothing happens as a result...except that you take umbrage.

You are making extraordinary claims, which go against the accepted and documented evidence and for which it is a burden upon you to provide extraordinary proof. The word of an elderly veteran, so many years after the fact, is not proof. I can post a video of Bob Stanford Tuck holding a model of a Bf 109 E and explaining how it had a cannon firing through the spinner, but it does not make it so.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Nov 5, 2021)

Who insulted you? Did I miss something?

Anyway, back to the matter at hand. Your claim is that a year before the first version of this aircraft took its first flight it flew over convoy KMF-5, where Merchant seaman Ron Whylie of Mosman, NSW snapped the picture in question. Now on the face of it, one must admit that this story, at the very least, buck's what is considered the accepted knowledge about the Ju 390.

Ok, fair enough, now let's consider that history is a self correcting discipline, thought admittedly to a lesser degree than science. Claims are made, evidence is provided, theories are tested. Sometimes these new theories (no matter how radical they may have initially seemed) then become accepted fact over time, as more and more evidence and research is shown to support the initial claim. Unfortunately the further we go back in time the lens of clarity becomes distorted, and some thinks we will only have a best guess at....again supported by the evidence.

Another aspect of this weeding out the preposterous can be summed up like this:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evident"

Put simply, if you are kidnapped by aliens, probed and returned safely, a picture and the claim that it happened won't do. You better bring back a piece of the alien technology to prove it happened.

OK, so back to the claim you have made, the evidence you say you have to support it is a photograph and the recollections of an elderly veteran. Slim evidence to buck the tide, but we will go with it. Barring the belief that the photo looks (to my admittedly untrained eyes) like it has been retouched at some point and that my recollection is that this photo has been bouncing around for years before you claimed provenance. What evidence do you have that he took this photo? Certainly more than the word of someone right? If I understand you correctly the photo was in his possession, though he didn't know its significance, yes? Well can we get a picture of the picture? In say his scrapbook or photo pile in an old shoebox? Or was this photo taken with government equipment and the film surrendered after the convoy docked and only later claimed to to be taken by him after a long broken chain of custody? And another aspect of your claim is that we shouldn't dare question the gentleman...are you serious? You actually expect us to take at face value this extraordinary claim from a completed unknown, without question? This smacks of idolatry. History is ripe with cases of arguments from "authority" that turned out to be absolutely incorrect, and like a double edged sword it can cut both ways. There is your claim and then there is the question of did it happen in fact? Other than the information you gave us, we don't even know if this gentleman exists, and if he does, that he was on the convoy in question. Do you see what I am getting at? The burden of proof is on you, not me, as I initially claimed. Honestly I hope you are correct, that would be so cool. But I suspect it's bunk, and you seem to be way overly invested in it.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Agree Agree:
4 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Nov 5, 2021)

Ju-390 prototypes - JunkersJu390


Portrait of the development and wartime career of the amazing Junkers Ju-390 aircraft




sites.google.com





Now it is clear why the anger of this poster. He has no grudge but hatred to anyone not believing.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2021)

Propellorhead said:


> This forum tolerates personal abuse which is why it lacks objective debate. Members here spend more time attacking posters than debating the topic. You allow a pack of schoolyard bullies and then scratch your head wondering why you can't have respectful debates. This person had a sense of entitlement attacking an 87 year old man and you tolerate it?
> What does that say about you?


I think it's pretty clear that the date of the photo taken by this "87 year old man" is wrong and it's *YOU* that can't accept "objective debate." No one was attacking you personally, just countering the claims made in your posts and I believe those members did a good and respectful job of it, so please spare us with the semantics "You allow a pack of schoolyard bullies," it's apparent you didn't get the answers you sought and you are very thin skinned in accept any type of criticism. So with that said, if can't find and hard and accurate evidence to support your argument (which I feel is now someone's fantasy ) and feel you're being bullied then pack your bags and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out! If you're going to throw insults at the moderators we'll expedite the journey for you!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 5, 2021)

His accusations regarding the moderators and the forum membership are rather ironic considering his own behavior.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 5, 2021)

Perhaps I have missed it, but where is this alleged photo of the Ju 390 attacking a convoy?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2021)

vikingBerserker said:


> Perhaps I have missed it, but where is this alleged photo of the Ju 390 attacking a convoy?








I've seen this photo several times over the years, some say it was photoshopped. I find this whole subject matter rather ridiculous. If this aircraft did fly within a stones throw of NYC, the Nazi's would have used this as a propaganda windfall.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Nov 5, 2021)

I usually keep out of these discussions however, in this one, using logic, I find it illogical that the only one seeing the Ju 390 over the convoy just happened to have a camera during the attack and took a picture. Was that his normal battle/action station. Why weren't there many on the cargo ships and escorts yelling, "Hay, look at the six engine plane." Certainly, if this occurred in 1942 some survivor would have reported the incident and British intelligence would have noted the appearance of a new type.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 5, 2021)

Propellorhead said:


> I responded in a forthright manner calling a spade a spade, whilst you as a moderator allowed A parade of jibes and insults whilst you said nothing?
> That can only be described as a double standard.
> 
> This forum tolerates personal abuse which is why it lacks objective debate. Members here spend more time attacking posters than debating the topic. You allow a pack of schoolyard bullies and then scratch your head wondering why you can't have respectful debates. This person had a sense of entitlement attacking an 87 year old man and you tolerate it?
> What does that say about you?


Ye gods and little fishes... another one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 5, 2021)

Let’s all try and remain civil.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Nov 5, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> View attachment 647139
> 
> 
> I've seen this photo several times over the years, some say it was photoshopped. I find this whole subject matter rather ridiculous. If this aircraft did fly within a stones throw of NYC, the Nazi's would have used this as a propaganda windfall.


Hi

This image is marked as the Ju 390 V2 (RC + DA) however it appears to lack the fuselage extension aft of the wing of the V1 (as shown by the location of the under fuselage loading ramp) let alone the additional forward fuselage extension of the V2. So it is suspect.

Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 5, 2021)

Snautzer01 said:


> Ju-390 prototypes - JunkersJu390
> 
> 
> Portrait of the development and wartime career of the amazing Junkers Ju-390 aircraft
> ...


We need an “insightful” emoji.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 5, 2021)

The Ju 290 prototype flew on July 16, 1942. The Ju 290 entered service in August 1942. 

The Ju 390 was a development of the Ju 290 with 6 engines and extended wings.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 5, 2021)

wuzak said:


> The Ju 290 prototype flew on July 16, 1942. The Ju 290 entered service in August 1942.
> 
> The Ju 390 was a development of the Ju 290 with 6 engines and extended wings.


Actually, Ju390V1 (GH+UK) was built from a Ju90 prototype airframe.

Ju390V2 (RC+DA) was built from a Ju290 airframe and components.

What I find interesting, is that the Ju390V2 was being built for long range maritime service and was said to have been equipped with a FuG200 radar system, yet in all the "airborne" photos of V2, no antenna are present.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 5, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> View attachment 647139
> 
> 
> I've seen this photo several times over the years, some say it was photoshopped. I find this whole subject matter rather ridiculous. If this aircraft did fly within a stones throw of NYC, the Nazi's would have used this as a propaganda windfall.


Is that the entire photograph? Is there any more background for reference?


----------



## Capt. Vick (Nov 5, 2021)

Well apparently it just passed low right over so...


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 5, 2021)

I was just wondering if there might have been some of the ship's rigging or mast around the edges of the picture. That is a high angle so the other ships in the convoy wouldn't be in frame.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 5, 2021)

This is what does not make sense to me, either the photographer just happened to have a large telephoto lens for his camera or the pilot decided to fly a giant slow aircraft over an armed convoy.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2021)

WW2Aircraft.net = MYTHBUSTERS!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 5, 2021)

I dare say that I go out of my way not to disparage the service of WW2 veterans (and other conflicts, for that matter) having no small association with same. On the other hand, I never fear and have been known to expose a fraud where I have definitive evidence. No exposing here, but I do find that propping up an apparently deceased veteran as a source in an attempt to validate a photo which could only have been taken with the aid of a time machine to be more than a little disappointing . . . and then to castigate those who point out the historic origins of the aircraft vis-a-vis the supposed date of the photo as some sort of attack on this same deceased veteran is simply totally out of bounds. Thou doth protest a bit too much, dear Propellorhead, Kiwikid, or whatever you're calling yourself these days.

And after reading the 15 pages since my original post way back when, I remain unconvinced, even when thrashed by at least one individual whom, if you spend enough time on the internet over the years, never met a a German sooper dooper weapon or operation he didn't like. No, the sooper dooper flight, by the sooper dooper aircraft did not happen. Green has a throw away line in his book, back in 1955 or so, for which the fan boy wehraboos have ever since have strived desperately and with much obfuscation and circular self citing, with this that or the other irrelevant statistic, to claim as true.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 5, 2021)

I just cannot wait to see what further attacks on my character he has for me being impartial as I am supposed to be.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Nov 5, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> WW2Aircraft.net = MYTHBUSTERS!


Don't you mean Mithbusters? 😄

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2021)

R Leonard said:


> I dare say that I go out of my way not to disparage the service of WW2 (and other conflicts, for that matter) having no small association with same. On the other hand, I never fear and have bee known to expose a fraud where I have definitive evidence. No exposing here, but I do find that propping up an apparently deceased veteran as a source in an attempt to validate a photo which could only have been taken with the aid of a time machine to be more than a little disappointing . . . and then to castigate those who point out the historic origins of the aircraft vis-a-vis the supposed date of the photo as some sort of attack on this same deceased veteran is simply totally out of bounds. Thou doth protest a bit too much.
> 
> And after reading the 15 pages since my original post way back when, I remain unconvinced, even when thrashed by at least one individual whom, if you spend enough time on the internet over the years, never met a a German sooper dooper weapon or operation he didn't like. No, the sooper dooper flight, by the sooper dooper aircraft did not happen. Green has a throw away line in his book, back in 1955 or so, for which the fan boy wehraboos have ever since have strived desperately and with much obfuscation and circular self citing, with this that or the other irrelevant statistic, to claim as true.


I was actually going to quote your post at the beginning of this thread. Well said!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2021)

Capt. Vick said:


> Don't you mean Mithbusters? 😄

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 8, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> View attachment 647175


Wouldn't that be "Mithbuthters..."?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Nov 8, 2021)

Yeah, a plane that big and rather slow flew close to an armed convoy without getting shot to pieces.
I'm not an aerodynamics expert but a plane that big with such a large wingspan banking that hard left at low alt - would be a big dangerous from the altitude drop often seen on hard banks?
In my opinion there are too many sharp details visible (prop blades!) to be made by a seaman with an ordinary camera. This looks more like made on a test flight by a highspeed cam from the ground or a nearby aircraft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Nov 8, 2021)

Just found these two postings





Deutsches Flugzeug mit 6 Triebwerken = ( Ju 390 V1 ) - Forum der Wehrmacht


Hallo, habe in einer Zeitung diese 2 Bilder gefunden, diese zeigen ein Deutsches Flugzeug. Die Bilder sind sehr schlecht, da diese aus der Zeitung abgescannt sind und auch im Original wohl nicht die Besten sind. Es herrschte damals auch absolutes…




www.forum-der-wehrmacht.de









Deutsches Flugzeug mit 6 Triebwerken = ( Ju 390 V1 ) - Forum der Wehrmacht


Hallo, habe in einer Zeitung diese 2 Bilder gefunden, diese zeigen ein Deutsches Flugzeug. Die Bilder sind sehr schlecht, da diese aus der Zeitung abgescannt sind und auch im Original wohl nicht die Besten sind. Es herrschte damals auch absolutes…




www.forum-der-wehrmacht.de






> Die RC+DA ist übrigens eine Fotomontage von Gert Heumann, seinerzeit Redakteur bei der Flug Revue. Er hat leider mehrere solche Phantasiegrafiken auf dem Gewissen. Green und Heumann arbeiteten als _duo infernale_ in den 50er und 60er sehr eng zusammen und haben viele Unwahrheiten in die Welt gesetzt, die später nur noch schwer zu korrigieren waren und sind.


in short: a faked image made by Gert Heumann of Flug Revue, he made multiple of those fakes. Heumann + Green = Duo infernale supplying lots of fake info.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 8, 2021)

....and we have a winner!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 8, 2021)

Green certainly had his share of Caidinisms.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2021)

Denniss said:


> Yeah, a plane that big and rather slow flew close to an armed convoy without getting shot to pieces.
> I'm not an aerodynamics expert but a plane that big with such a large wingspan banking that hard left at low alt - would be a big dangerous from the altitude drop often seen on hard banks?
> In my opinion there are too many sharp details visible (prop blades!) to be made by a seaman with an ordinary camera. This looks more like made on a test flight by a highspeed cam from the ground or a nearby aircraft.



Just one note: a competent pilot should not lose altitude in a hard banking turn unless that was their intention.

I know I trained flying steep high bank turns over and over until I got sick of it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2021)

I highly suspect our friend will not return and own up to his error…

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 8, 2021)

I had a bit of trouble figuring out the links but "als duo infernale" seems pretty explanatory. 
I'm sure our friend will be happy to admit error. He will be pleased, I'm sure, that he will no longer be an unwitting dupe.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Nov 8, 2021)

Good that this has been "solved".
I haven't followed the whole thread, or viewed all the most recent posts, but concerning the posted photo, it's fairly obvious, even to the layman, that the photo was not taken by the typical "amateur" camera of the period, for example a "Box Brownie", as the definition and contrast shows, and the image is sharp and clear, indicating a "professional" camera and photographer. 
Additionally, in British and Commonwealth armed forces, "private" photography of military subjects was officially prohibited during WW2, and offenders could face a Court Marshall ( civilians would be prosecuted under Civil Law ), although, of course, the exceptions were vast, as witnessed by the huge amount of "personal" photos available today.
Also, disregarding the question of why a transport aircraft would overfly an armed convoy in the first place, the detail in the photo clearly shows the joint lines of the cargo loading ramp - but there is no sign of any bomb bay doors.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 8, 2021)

The problem now is that people like this guy are spouting out garbage like this on a regular basis and the spread of misinformation continues. Dog-whistle politics, where those who want to believe it are suckered in by it and the onus then falls on those who are of more rational stance to prove it _didn't_ happen, when it should be the other way around.

"Alternate Facts" at work...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2021)

Let’s refrain from insults and name calling. The need for civil debate remains.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 8, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Let’s refrain from insults and name calling. The need for civil debate remains.



Copy that, I've altered my post.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Copy that, I've altered my post.



Thank you.


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 8, 2021)

And from a German website








Gab es 1944 einen USA-Flug der Junkers Ju 390?


Luftwaffe vor New York? Gab es 1944 einen USA-Flug eines deutschen Junkers Ju 390 Fernaufklärers bis in Sichtweite der amerikanischen Ostküste?



www.burgerbe.de





wadauno

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2021)

R Leonard said:


> And from a German website
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_"Whichever way you turn the story, the US flight of the Ju 390 remains one of those hearsay stories with which prisoners of war apparently wanted to make themselves important who had caught some technical data of the miracle bird.

Conclusion: The secret mission of the Nazi Air Force to the US east coast never took place."_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

