Talk:Junkers Ju 390/Archive 1

Archive 1

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).

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)

OK, and so has there been no additional research on this issue for more than two years? Saying that it could not have happened doesn't prove that it did not happen. Saying that it could have happened doesn't prove that it did happen. Some people want to believe that Germans couldn't do it, fine. Some people want to believe that the Germans did it, OK! Is that the end of the discussion? If so, the entry needs to be revised to indicate that there is a difference of opinion about the flight and then present each side. How much available information pro and con is not "original research" and therefore OK to use?

I'm not going to edit the article for you but short of conclusive proof one way or the other both/all sides must be included and presented in an objective manner. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC))

Flight to Japan

This page used to contain information about the Ju 390's alleged flight to Japan in the Spring of 1945 as recounted by Albert Speer. What happened to this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.31.167.71 (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of it in Speer's book Inside the Third Reich. Salmanazar (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The story is actually in James P. O'donnell's book "the bunker" (pp. 308-309). O'donnell claims to have interviewed Speer over the telephone. He presents the following attributed to Speer: "Late in the war, a Luftwaffe test pilot had flown a Junker-three-ninety nonstop from Germany to Japan over the polar route. Baur would have known of this secret flight..." O'donnell only looks at the issue from the point of view of Hitler's possible escape from Germany by air. O'donnell isn't a great source because his methods were often questionable. Speer could be confusing someone talking about a potential flight late in the war with an actual flight happening. 75.17.127.90 (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

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

Deleted section

I removed the following section as has no reliable source, being based on personal recollections, and seems very dubious.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Detection of Flight by Signal Corp Radar

Andrew J Schneider (ASN 32631622) detected a six-engine aircraft on his SCR-582 set located on Fishers Island, NY. at Fort H.G. Wright. He was able to determine the number of engines by the configuration of the radar signal. The report was met by initial skepticism because of heavy fog, and because no aircraft were supposed to be operating in the area. Schneider said that the radar contact was confirmed by several other radar operators. As a result of the contact, an alert was issued for the entire eastern seaboard. Schneider was recognized for his accomplishment by being given an opportunity to attend training in radar operations in "detached service" throughout the United States and subsequently served in Adak Alaska where he operated a SCR-584 radar .

I understand the reviewer's need for a source. I will continue to pursue this, and ask the reviewer's patience as I am new to this process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewTSchneider (talk • contribs) 22:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

References

File:Junkers Ju 390.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Junkers Ju 390.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 14 May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Junkers Ju 390.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

V2 Prototype

Almost all the claims associated with the V2 prototype (including it existing) are disputed. There are two contradictory legends. One has the V2 prototype making its first flight in 1943. The other has its first flight in late 1944. Other sources say it never flew at all. The only solid fact in favor of its existence is a log entry by a pilot in 1945. 184.63.149.199 (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Major General Otani (Japan)

I found a reference to Major General Otani (Japan) in some of the postwar US archived material.

Specifically: "GUIDES TO GERMAN RECORDS MICROFILMED AT ALEXANDRIA, VA. No. 15. Records of Former German and Japanese Embassies and Consulates, 1890-1945"

There is a notebook attributed to s Major General Otani. The same records reference him being the Military Attache in Berlin in 1943. This is a proof beyond the Russian sources that he was present in Germany at least in 1943. 75.17.124.42 (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As an update, I found and cited in the article a newspaper piece describing who Otani was and that he was captured in Germany at the end of the European war. I think the fact that he was captured in May 1945 puts to rest all the old stories that he flew to Japan on a Ju 290 on 28 March 1945. The only thing less likely than that trip by air at that time would have been a round trip back to Germany from Japan in time to be captured at the end of the European war. 75.17.127.90 (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Sergey Platov

There is an unsourced reference in the article to claims made by Sergey Platov. Platov is said to be an expert on aviation. I tried to trace down the source for the stories attributed to him and all I came up with were claims that he had said things on a website (unidentified) years ago. I can't find any books by him or any information about him. At least through english language searches. Has anyone heard of him or seen his websites? Is he really any kind of expert? 75.17.127.90 (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

For reference: The Anna Kreisling stories

There are series of stories related to the Ju390 and an alleged German pilot named Anna Kreisling. This information isn't suitable for the article due to original research, but I'm placing it here as useful information should the topic ever come.

On March 8, 2007 someone calling themselves "James Newsom" posted a message on the website www.aviastar.org. The message was as follows: "Six more Ju-390's were built in secret. They flew from Odessa to Japanese bases in China. Anna Kreisling a neighbor of mine was a co-pilot on the longest Recon flight of World War II. She took off from Bergen, Norway and overflew Michigan and New York City before landing at a Luftwaffe base in France." The person never posted another message as far I can tell.

Around 2010, in the discussion group rec.aviation.military, hand transcripts of alleged articles written by "James Newsom" for the Australian Publication "Pacific Flyer" appeared. I could find no date of publication for the information. As far as I can tell, nobody has ever claimed to have seen the original article beyond the person who generated the typed transcription. One citation exists to a dated publication of the flyer. Its claimed that their was a "Kreisling" interview in 2001 and its also claimed that there is a picture of her with the material. Everything seems to go back to a single person as source with nothing for verification. While the Pacific Flyer is a real publication, the lack of even a date as to when the Ju390 story was published makes it difficult to do anything in terms of further research. The single source raised grave doubts by being willing to share his full typed transcripts of the article but refusing on copyright grounds to share the images of the article he claimed to have (both are violations of copyright).

Since 2010, the story has spread out to any number of places that treat it as a fact. They often point to the unconfirmed secondary sources (the flyer) as proof even though every single thing said traces back from there to a single person. 75.20.231.253 (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed before - see [1] and the associated article deleted as a hoax, as was the corresponding article on the German language wiki [2]. The story appears to be complete nonsense and should be treated as such.Nigel Ish (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Matua Island material

There is a claim in the article about German fuel drums being found on Matua Island near Japan. The claim lacks any kind of proper sourcing. It currently sources to the post of an individual on a forum. I traced back the claims. They seem to have originated with an individual in 2012. There is no information about where the photographs came from. This material seems clearly out of bounds given the lack of sources and I intend to remove it unless someone can provide a source that meets the rules. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Broken "Specifications" section/template @User:Petebutt + any other interested editors

This is how the "Performance" sub-section now appears (for me anyway):

Performanceat 6,200 m [sic] (20,340 ft)at [sic] 2,500 m (8,200 ft)
Range: 8,000 km (4,970 mi, 4,320 nmi) Ju 390 V1 with 10,000 kg (22,046 lb) payload and 34,096 l (9,007 US gal; 7,500 imp gal) fuel at 330 km/h (210 mph; 180 kn) and 2,000 m (6,500 ft)
Combat range: 9,704 km (6,030 mi, 5,240 nmi) (reconnaissance mission)
Combat range (bomber mission): 9,254 km (5,750 mi; 4,997 nmi) with 1,930 kg (4,255 lb) bomb load

In addition, the following lines of actual template data are invisible in the article itself:
|max speed km/h=505
|max speed note=at {{cvt|20340|ft|order=flip}}
|cruise speed km/h=357
|cruise speed note=at {{cvt|8200|ft|order=flip}}

I haven't noticed this particular issue in any other articles. The ways of templates are often a mystery me, but I really have no idea why:

• the speed data is invisible, and;
• the altitude figures are appearing only in the heading.

I'm guessing that there is either a strange bug in the coding of the template itself and/or something about the way this data has been entered?
(Also posted at Template talk:Aircraft specs.)

Grant | Talk 04:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Nigelish fixed it. Light bulb moment, I might have copied my imperial specs file and inadvertently changed mph to km/h instead of kmh--Petebutt (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Did You Know That The Ju-390 Has A Nickname?. It Is known As The Ghanser!. The Junkers Ju-390 Ghanser!

Ju-390 Nickname Is Ghanser Since Me-323 Is Nicknamed The Gigant 2601:204:C200:BE00:4179:1257:7AB8:6CCC (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Source? BilCat (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)