Use of Ju 90
Use of Ju 90
I was wondering what were the reasons for limited Luftwaffe use of the Ju 90.
While "Tante" Ju 52 is obviously much more rugged, the significantly higher carrying capacity of the Ju 90 and the faster speed make it superior for airdrops and transport to concrete runway airfields.
So why was Ju 90 underutilized?
While "Tante" Ju 52 is obviously much more rugged, the significantly higher carrying capacity of the Ju 90 and the faster speed make it superior for airdrops and transport to concrete runway airfields.
So why was Ju 90 underutilized?
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion
Re: Use of Ju 90
IMHO--Limited quantities of Ju 90 available (>18) vs. 4850 Ju 52.
Limited quantities of forward concrete runway airfields.
Hope this helps.
Rand
Limited quantities of forward concrete runway airfields.
Hope this helps.
Rand
Re: Use of Ju 90
Hence my question, why did the Wehrmacht/RLM not care for a plane that could carry 4 times the load, faster?RandJS wrote:IMHO--Limited quantities of Ju 90 available (>18) vs. 4850 Ju 52.
That don't matter for airdrops, and for those spots with concrete airfields - a logistics bonanza!Limited quantities of forward concrete runway airfields.
P.S.
Does the 4850 figure double count the rebuilds?
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion
Re: Use of Ju 90
Hi,
Sorry for the late reply. I just added the post quickly, taking the figures from World War II Airplanes, Volume 1, Rand McNally Guide.
(As I said, a quick post!)
Rand
Sorry for the late reply. I just added the post quickly, taking the figures from World War II Airplanes, Volume 1, Rand McNally Guide.
(As I said, a quick post!)
Rand
- Maxschnauzer
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 6003
- Joined: 24 Jan 2014, 08:36
- Location: Philippines
Re: Use of Ju 90
It may have been a matter of priorities. It was my impression that the resources of the Ju 90 program were fairly quickly absorbed into development of the Ju 290 which is why so few were produced, as Rand stated. Curiously only 65 Ju 290's were produced! They may have felt that they could "get by" with the Ju 52 which was a proven warhorse.
FYI Here is a table comparing the performance specs of the Ju 52 and Ju 90:
Source: http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/airbo ... rison.html
FYI Here is a table comparing the performance specs of the Ju 52 and Ju 90:
Source: http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/airbo ... rison.html
Cheers,
Max
Max
- Cantankerous
- Member
- Posts: 1277
- Joined: 01 Sep 2019, 22:22
- Location: Newport Coast
Re: Use of Ju 90
The Ju 90's fuselage wasn't wide enough to carry most of the German Army's most advanced fighting vehicles. The Messerschmitt Me 321 and Me 323 constituted the Luftwaffe's true means of heavy-lift capability because they could carry a far bigger military payload than the Ju 90.Maxschnauzer wrote: ↑04 Aug 2014, 04:37It may have been a matter of priorities. It was my impression that the resources of the Ju 90 program were fairly quickly absorbed into development of the Ju 290 which is why so few were produced, as Rand stated. Curiously only 65 Ju 290's were produced! They may have felt that they could "get by" with the Ju 52 which was a proven warhorse.
FYI Here is a table comparing the performance specs of the Ju 52 and Ju 90:
Source: http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/airbo ... rison.html
Ju 52 vs Ju 90.jpg