How does Ural bombers(Ju-89/Do-19) compared to stuff luke B-17 or Lancaster?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Airman 1st Class
Jul 13, 2020
These projects were basically completed when they were abandoned,How good were they compared to the allied offerings?
The Ju 89 showed promise. It carried a record payload for the time to 30,000 feet in 1938/1939. That's better than a Short Sterling.

I am not all that impressed by the Do 19, but that may be due to the engines used, and I'm sure Dornier had little say in the engine choice.

My feeling is the late-model B-17 was better than both, but the Ju 89 wasn't a bad offering. It just never went beyond a prototype stage and never got developed into a production aircraft. Nothing I have read indicates anything good or bad about its ability to survive combat. Can't say. The B-17 underwent transformation into a better aircraft from prototype to B-17F/G. Its easily possible the Ju 89 / Do19 could have been developed into solid airplanes. I think the Ju 89 would have stood a better chance of such development.

The Me 264 was much better than both of the Ural bombers but it, too, never got developed or produced in numbers.

Do 19:

Ju 89:

Me 264:
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread