WWII MISTERIES: What happened with the JU390?

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

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
I was actually going to quote your post at the beginning of this thread. Well said!
 
Capt. Vick said:
Don't you mean Mithbusters? 😄
Click to expand...
1636148155103.jpeg
 
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 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 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 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

_PabloSniper_
WWI Aces Flying WWII Planes
Replies
17
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
M
Mission 760 WWII
Replies
1
Views
571
Snautzer01
Snautzer01
K
Hard runways in WWII
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Thumpalumpacus
Thumpalumpacus
tomo pauk
German artillery what-if: going all-in with gun-howitzers past 1935
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
S
Spitfire with proper meredith effect
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
Back