Talk:Junkers Ju 390

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Power of engines.

The power stated for Ju-390 is the total power, not from each engine. It is 6x1250KW=7500KW or 6x1700hp=10200hp. The main problem of the design was (as its predeccesors and all giant piston powered bombers of the era) that it was uderpowered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.16.187.118 (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Disputed flight

Wikipedia is not the place to run a long discussion of the merits of the two sides. this section should be trimmed heavily and supported by sources where possible. GraemeLeggett 08:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree but this section shouldn't be completely removed. IMHO the best solution could be separate article about this flight and short info with link left here. Piotr Mikołajski 09:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I got distracted and forgot to post here why I nixed the section. There were no references cited and the whole thing sounded like original research. (Besides the dispute was also ignoring that the aircraft simply didn't have the range to make a roughly 7200 mile trip (3600 there and 3600 back) compared to the aircraft's range of about 6000 miles. Anynobody 01:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Sad to see that you've deleted whole section without discussion here. Piotr Mikołajski 08:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
My deletion isn't a banishment, all one needs is verifiable, reliable sources in order to replace it. Anynobody 22:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
With that much info, I think it's good to assume that it's copied from somewhere, and thus is probably a copyvio. Removing it errs on the safe side. I think it was right to remove all of it. - BillCJ 23:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems that this section was based on Manfred Griehl's book "Luftwaffe over America". Unfortunately I don't have English edition and I can't tell is it copyvio or editor's own writing. Piotr Mikołajski 08:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Although the supposed flight of the Ju 390 V1 to within several miles of the NY coast is mentioned in several books by reputable authors, there is overwhelming evidence that it never actually happened.

The flight was first mentioned not by a German author, but by Englishman William Green in his Warplanes of the Third Reich, published in 1970. It is not mentioned in any German records or accounts, contempory or otherwise, and Green apparently got his information from a single Prisoner of War report conducted in 1944.

A recent book, very well-researched, has appeared in Germany, Die großen Dessauer: Junkers Ju 89, 90, 290, 390. Die Geschichte einer Flugzeugfamilie (English translation: The Big Ones from Dessau...History of an Aircraft Family) by Karl Kössler and Günter Ott, which examines the story of the Ju 390 flight, and effectively discounts it (excuse the occasional clumsiness of the translation of the German text):

"The same way not counting are assertions in the literature about an allegedly executed transatlantic flight nearly to New York, for which no reference can be found, like for an action with the FAGr 5 ("Long-range Reconnoissance Wing Nr. 5", the unit that employed the Ju 290 as a reconnaissance aircraft) in Mont-de-Marsan.

The fairy tale about the New York flight obviously started its tour through literature from England. It is first to be found in an intelligence report from August 11th, 1944, composed by the questioning of captured members of the German armed forces. A prisoner, who claimed having been photo assistant in Mont-de-Marsan, stated during his interview that 'a Ju 390 was with the FAGr 5 from January 6th, 1944, for about four weeks for trials. After some short-distance flights, a successful reconnaissance flight was made until a point in a distance of nearly 20 km off the American coast north of New York. Pictures were brought back, showing the coast in that distance.'

Another prisoner, in the same report, said that the Ju 390 'had an endurance of 32 hours'.

Nearly literally, those only as fibs describable 'evidences' are to be found in literature, overtaken without any criticism. During the mentioned time, the Ju 390 V1 eventually was in Prague-Ruzyn, to where it was brought back according to Pancherz' flight book [a flight captain employed with tests of the Ju 390 prototype] on November 26th, 1943, without delay after the mentioned show before the eyes of Hitler in Insterburg (town and airport near Hitler´s headquarter in East Prussia - ED).

While in Prague, during the following time continuously test flights took place, so on Nov. 30th, Dec. 2nd and 3rd (flight to Merseburg and return on Dec. 10th), on 17th and again on 30th and 31st. Then on 3rd, 5th, 7th and 8th, January 1944. In the time between Jan. 17th and 23rd, under share of the Ju 290 factory number 0151 CE + YZ, the in-flight refuelling trials mentioned earlier (in the book - ED) were performed. The afterwards interrupted trials were filmed from the escorting Ju 88 V7 GU + AG, with Flight Captain Beyer on the control stick. More trials were made during February and March, but no flight to Mont-de-Marsan. If so, for what?

Even if the airplane, at any time, when no recordings appear in the existing flight books, had been flown there by a Luftwaffe crew, for a flight to New York the V1 never would have been capable. Do not forget, the fuselage became longer by the two connection pieces but did not gain additional stability. Something similar is to be said about the quickly produced center wing section. This means, a take-off weight of 72 tons, as it was required by the amount of fuel necessary for a long-distance flight like this, for the V1 was far beyond any possibility. For the trials, the maximum weight for take-off numbered not more than 38 tons, having an empty weight of 28 tons! If you compare this to the Ju 290 A-7, with a take-off weight of 45 tons, it is clear how far the Ju 390 V1 could fly at all.

And about the likely use of the V2 for this flight, in any case it could not have been completed before September or October 1944. But FAGr 5, following up the Allied invasion, already had given up its base at Mont-de-Marsan on August 20th. and returned to Germany. [It is very doubtful that a Ju 390 V2 ever existed. One page before Kössler and Ott argue that it was nearly completed during June 1944 and flight tests should begin at end of September 1944, and they give a reference for that - ED]. So, also the V2 cannot be counted for a completely useless flight like this. Once more, an alleged 'fact' turns out to totally be a literature tale.'"

The flight is not listed in any of the records of the unit that supposedly made it, the aircraft in question was nowhere near France at the time the flight was supposedly made, and the aircraft itself simply did not have the capacity to attempt such a flight (and could not have got off the ground if it did).

The prisoner who was the only source for the claim was pretty obviously trying to mislead his interrogators - and did an excellent job of it. Baclightning 23:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


My understanding is that the "records of the unit" (FAGr 5) were destroyed with much of the Luftwaffe documentation towards the end of the war. Does anyone have a citation to a source indicating that this is not the case? As far as the 1944 flight is concerned, several points:
A documented non-stop flight of an FW-200 from Berlin to New York in 1938 reduces the impact of arguments that the 1944 flight could not have occurred;
Successful in-flight refuelling trials were made in early 1944 at FAGr 5's home station of Mont de Marsan (according to Manfred Griehl, Luftwaffe Over America, pp.156-7), involving Ju 290 A-2/4's and Ju 390 V1, another factor mentioned by neither the naysayers nor the proponents of the flight;
While less likely, IMO, the ability to use RATO units to boost range (Griehl, p.196) has also not been discussed in this context;
While Green may, or may not, have simply relied on a single interrogation result [his book doesn't cite any source, and neither does the previous poster], the more important point is what Green DOES indicate: that the flight terminated at a point 12 miles from the US coast somewhere NORTH of New York, not off New York. Given the navigation methods of the time, the termination of the flight could just as easily have been off Boston or even Portland, ME, both within the aircraft's range. At this point in time, the historic reality is likely unknowable, and skeptics have no more evidence (and most certainly haven't shown the "overwhelming evidence" stated (but not cited) by an earlier poster) to support their point than believers do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.183.213 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)