300 Ju 89's during the Blitz

[phylo_roadking]

It also seems that the V1 Ju89 first flew in December 1936, while the V2 was flew in early 1937. The V3 was due in early 1937 too, but it began the switch to the Ju90 on January 1st 1937. The project was cancelled on April 29th 1937 rather than the first flight occurring then.

And where do these new dates come from?

For instance...http://www.hugojunkers.pytalhost.com/ju_ju89_a1.htm

On April, 11th 1937 the Ju89 prototype D-AFIT (V1, c/n 4911) was first flown by Hesselbach. Short time after the first flight, on April 29th 1937 the further developement of both strategic bombers was cancelled by the RLM.

So testing started in late 1936 for the basic version and would have been completed in IIRC about 3-6 months for the V1.

Really? IF that December date is correct...then it's going to be far closer to 6 months at least...given that European winter is going to interfere with a regular testing schedule!

By the way - if you look at that AND the Wiki entry, the Ju 89's testing regime was actually quite prolonged

The second Ju89 prototype D-ALAT was finished in July 1937, but the third prototype V3 was stopped after the program was cancelled. Both prototypes were used for extensive flight tests to get experiences about the stability and flight controls of large aircraft. On June 4th 1938 Kindermann achieved a new Payload/Altitude World Record with the second prototype D-ALAT with 5000 kg payload at an altitude of 9312 m. On June, 8th 1938 he reached with the same aircraft an altitude of 7242 m with 10000 kg. In late 1938 both aircraft were transfered to Luftwaffe, where they were used as heavy transport aircraft

In the case of the V1 aircraft D-AFIT...a year and a half!

[stg 44]

It also seems that the V1 Ju89 first flew in December 1936, while the V2 was flew in early 1937. The V3 was due in early 1937 too, but it began the switch to the Ju90 on January 1st 1937. The project was cancelled on April 29th 1937 rather than the first flight occurring then.

And where do these new dates come from?

For instance...http://www.hugojunkers.pytalhost.com/ju_ju89_a1.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Warplanes-Third-R ... hird+reich

http://www.amazon.com/Luftwaffe-Secret- ... t+projects

The problem is that those websites are unsourced. Wikipedia has no sourcing and is virtually identical to the link above, while the link above is just links to other websites that are unsourced themselves.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_89
Using the German version of the link, we see the same information, but with sources. However when you go to the source notes, it is completely different from the information in the wiki-entry!
From the entry:

Der Erstflug der Ju 89 V1 (Werknummer 4911, Kennung D-AFIT) erfolgte am 11. April 1937.[1]

But from the source notes:

[Bearbeiten]
1 ↑ a b vgl. Olaf Groehler: Geschichte des Luftkriegs 1910 bis 1980, Militärverlag der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, Berlin 1981, S. 127 fand der Erstflug im Dezember 1936 statt.

This says that the first flight was in December 1936, exactly what my sources say!

Of course the source was from East Germany in 1981, so take that how you want, but realize that the information in the wiki-article is not supported by the sources listed in the footnotes.

On April, 11th 1937 the Ju89 prototype D-AFIT (V1, c/n 4911) was first flown by Hesselbach. Short time after the first flight, on April 29th 1937 the further developement of both strategic bombers was cancelled by the RLM.

So testing started in late 1936 for the basic version and would have been completed in IIRC about 3-6 months for the V1.

Really? IF that December date is correct...then it's going to be far closer to 6 months at least...given that European winter is going to interfere with a regular testing schedule!

By the way - if you look at that AND the Wiki entry, the Ju 89's testing regime was actually quite prolonged

Seeing as it was cancelled in April 1937 and testing/demonstrations were carried on for a while after that, whatever happened after April was abnormal in that the frames were used as demonstrators rather than being tested for improvements.

This is also the first I've heard of testing being interrupted by winter weather, care to source that?

The second Ju89 prototype D-ALAT was finished in July 1937, but the third prototype V3 was stopped after the program was cancelled. Both prototypes were used for extensive flight tests to get experiences about the stability and flight controls of large aircraft. On June 4th 1938 Kindermann achieved a new Payload/Altitude World Record with the second prototype D-ALAT with 5000 kg payload at an altitude of 9312 m. On June, 8th 1938 he reached with the same aircraft an altitude of 7242 m with 10000 kg. In late 1938 both aircraft were transfered to Luftwaffe, where they were used as heavy transport aircraft

In the case of the V1 aircraft D-AFIT...a year and a half!

Again, they were used as demonstrators, not tested for their own improvement, so to say that the payload altitude test was part of their normal testing procedure is incorrect. It was a stunt and part of a wider study plan for how large aircraft behaved.

[BDV]

Germany did not have a lot of monies invested in strategic bomber development because allegedly Kesselring decided so.

OTOH there was plenty of method to Onkel Albert's madness. The madness without method starts when an excellent tactical tool got turned into an ersatz strategic weapon (second half of BoB and the Blitz).

Once the Barbarossa decision got taken, some operational use of the bomber fleet would be useful in weakening the infrastructure and other means that Britain might use for a surprise invasion of Europe in second half of 1941 (e.g. bombing RN's anchorages, SE England ports, rail junctions). Anything more, though, is downright buffoonish.

[phylo_roadking]

This is also the first I've heard of testing being interrupted by winter weather, care to source that?

As noted previously in regards to "problematical" - ANY prototype aircraft is going to have its testing programme interrupted by bad weather.

Again, they were used as demonstrators, not tested for their own improvement, so to say that the payload altitude test was part of their normal testing procedure is incorrect. It was a stunt and part of a wider study plan for how large aircraft behaved

Yes, that last part is what I was trying to emphasise. THAT testing/experimentation is going to HAVE to happen, no matter by what aircraft.

Using the German version of the link, we see the same information, but with sources. However when you go to the source notes, it is completely different from the information in the wiki-entry!
From the entry:
Der Erstflug der Ju 89 V1 (Werknummer 4911, Kennung D-AFIT) erfolgte am 11. April 1937.[1]

But from the source notes:
[Bearbeiten]
1 ↑ a b vgl. Olaf Groehler: Geschichte des Luftkriegs 1910 bis 1980, Militärverlag der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, Berlin 1981, S. 127 fand der Erstflug im Dezember 1936 statt.
This says that the first flight was in December 1936, exactly what my sources say!

NOW you see the issues when using tertiary or quarternary sources - exactly who says Groehler is correct??? Your sources...or did your sources use Groehler's date?

Just because they agree - doesn't mean they're correct - just that they agree. Especially if one source is being used by the others...

[stg 44]

Germany did not have a lot of monies invested in strategic bomber development because allegedly Kesselring decided so.

The Luftwaffe had huge sums to play with thanks to Göring, it was just a matter of priorities; had the LW decided that it was more important say than the Do 217 the money would have been there. Same for continuing funding for the Do 17 and later Do 215.

OTOH there was plenty of method to Onkel Albert's madness. The madness without method starts when an excellent tactical tool got turned into an ersatz strategic weapon (second half of BoB and the Blitz).

Lots of modern scholarship has debunked the myth that the LW was a tactical air force; it was crammed into that role from 1937 on thanks to Richthofen and Jeschonnek, though Kesselring kept up the tradition of having an operational force and developing the He 177 for later when the raw materials crisis was sorted out. He wanted to focus on things like the He 111 and Ju88 rather than the technologically complex strategic bombers because then he had to deal with Udet running the technical department. But strategic bombing never left the LW, which still taught it at the LW officer schools; the problem in 1940 was not the instrument, but rather the wielder, as neither Hitler, Göring, nor Jeschonnek understood how to run a strategic bombing campaign. Wever on the other hand did, as did his doctrinal innovators Wilberg and von Rohden. All were sidelined after Wever's death, which they wouldn't be if he lived.

Once the Barbarossa decision got taken, some operational use of the bomber fleet would be useful in weakening the infrastructure and other means that Britain might use for a surprise invasion of Europe in second half of 1941 (e.g. bombing RN's anchorages, SE England ports, rail junctions). Anything more, though, is downright buffoonish.

The bomber fleet would have been useful during Barbarossa to interdict Soviet infrastructure to a greater depth than historically happened, including hitting the industry in the process of being relocated behind the Urals.

[phylo_roadking]

There is of course something VERY major you've forgotten...in relation to THIS -

Wever on the other hand did, as did his doctrinal innovators Wilberg and von Rohden. All were sidelined after Wever's death, which they wouldn't be if he lived.

[stg 44]

This is also the first I've heard of testing being interrupted by winter weather, care to source that?

As noted previously in regards to "problematical" - ANY prototype aircraft is going to have its testing programme interrupted by bad weather..

Can you demonstrate that all airfields in Germany were closed down due to bad winter weather in 1936-7, 1937-8, and 1938-39?

Again, they were used as demonstrators, not tested for their own improvement, so to say that the payload altitude test was part of their normal testing procedure is incorrect. It was a stunt and part of a wider study plan for how large aircraft behaved

Yes, that last part is what I was trying to emphasise. THAT testing/experimentation is going to HAVE to happen, no matter by what aircraft..

So it will happen with the older prototypes once the later prototype versions are ready. It won't interrupt the general testing of that aircraft for development purposes. So when the V1 is done with its testing it can do those payload and altitude tests while the V2 and V3 work on their testing. There is a reason that multiple prototypes were constructed after all: so you can run multiple tests and experiments without disrupting the whole development process!

Using the German version of the link, we see the same information, but with sources. However when you go to the source notes, it is completely different from the information in the wiki-entry!
From the entry:
Der Erstflug der Ju 89 V1 (Werknummer 4911, Kennung D-AFIT) erfolgte am 11. April 1937.[1]

But from the source notes:
[Bearbeiten]
1 ↑ a b vgl. Olaf Groehler: Geschichte des Luftkriegs 1910 bis 1980, Militärverlag der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, Berlin 1981, S. 127 fand der Erstflug im Dezember 1936 statt.
This says that the first flight was in December 1936, exactly what my sources say!

NOW you see the issues when using tertiary or quarternary sources - exactly who says Groehler is correct??? Your sources...or did your sources use Groehler's date?

Just because they agree - doesn't mean they're correct - just that they agree. Especially if one source is being used by the others...

My sources don't cite Groehler, but your sources only cite Groehler, who actually says the exact opposite of what your sources claim. That is the sources for your claims actually support my sources, rather than yours!
So rather than accepting what some unsourced internet articles state, why wouldn't we then accept when the written works on the subject, especially those from Germany, say about the first flight date?

Because if you are claiming that Groehler is wrong than we have no basis for further discussion about the first flight dates and the progression of development. So what is it, can we move forward with the December date or are you going to say we can't know anything and therefore cannot discuss this?

And this too supports me:
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww2/ju89.html

[stg 44]

There is of course something VERY major you've forgotten...in relation to THIS -

Wever on the other hand did, as did his doctrinal innovators Wilberg and von Rohden. All were sidelined after Wever's death, which they wouldn't be if he lived.

And that is? Wever needs to live, we discussed that that would have to be the POD. Wever had not indicated that he would cancel the Ural Bomber project, all he did was issue the Bomber A specs.
Just like how the Fw190 specs were issues while the Me109 was in testing and development, it doesn't mean that the current project would be cancelled because the organization was looking at future development, just that they were looking forward while developing what they had.

[phylo_roadking]

And that is? Wever needs to live, we discussed that that would have to be the POD. Wever had not indicated that he would cancel the Ural Bomber project, all he did was issue the Bomber A specs.

No; all he did was issue the Bomber A specs because neither Ural Bomber was going to meet specifications. He knew it before they even flew.

See E.R. Hooton, p.108-109...

Just like how the Fw190 specs were issues while the Me109 was in testing and development, it doesn't mean that the current project would be cancelled

...and the Ural Bomber project as a whole was being run down from November 1935. In other words - six months BEFORE the Bomber A spec was issued...and virtually a year before the first Ural Bomber prototype flew.

Can you demonstrate that all airfields in Germany were closed down due to bad winter weather in 1936-7, 1937-8, and 1938-39?

No need to be so obtuse. "All" airfields don't need to be, nor all the time - but if air raids over the UK could suffer for two mwinter months due to bad weather in 1940...your source, after all...a precise testing regime on an untested/partly-tested aircraft is going to be more weather-sensitive.

And no, it doesn't have to be "ALL"....just the one they happen to be flying from, it's not as if they could be dismantled and trucked to a field a few hundred miles away where there was better weather...

So when the V1 is done with its testing it can do those payload and altitude tests while the V2 and V3 work on their testing. There is a reason that multiple prototypes were constructed after all: so you can run multiple tests and experiments without disrupting the whole development process!

Just a detail point - but for some reason it was Junkers' V2 aircraft that did ALL the record setting...I wonder why???

[phylo_roadking]

So rather than accepting what some unsourced internet articles state, why wouldn't we then accept when the written works on the subject, especially those from Germany, say about the first flight date?

You're not getting it...

My sources don't cite Groehler, but your sources only cite Groehler, who actually says the exact opposite of what your sources claim. That is the sources for your claims actually support my sources, rather than yours

...who do they cite??? If not Groehler - who?

And now that I come to think of it...

Just a detail point - but for some reason it was Junkers' V2 aircraft that did ALL the record setting...I wonder why???

....IF it was the V2 aircraft that flew on April 11th - and set all the records - that would make me think even more that whenever the V1 flew...yes, there's something about it we don't know...

[phylo_roadking]

No need to be so obtuse. "All" airfields don't need to be, nor all the time - but if air raids over the UK could suffer for two mwinter months due to bad weather in 1940...your source, after all...a precise testing regime on an untested/partly-tested aircraft is going to be more weather-sensitive.

After all - not just conditions in the air can affect flying and testing...



...waterlogged grass runways can affect it too!

[stg 44]

No need to be so obtuse. "All" airfields don't need to be, nor all the time - but if air raids over the UK could suffer for two mwinter months due to bad weather in 1940...your source, after all...a precise testing regime on an untested/partly-tested aircraft is going to be more weather-sensitive.

After all - not just conditions in the air can affect flying and testing...



...waterlogged grass runways can affect it too!

And you are accusing me of being obtuse
The heavy bombers could only use paved runways.

[stg 44]

So rather than accepting what some unsourced internet articles state, why wouldn't we then accept when the written works on the subject, especially those from Germany, say about the first flight date?

You're not getting it...

My sources don't cite Groehler, but your sources only cite Groehler, who actually says the exact opposite of what your sources claim. That is the sources for your claims actually support my sources, rather than yours

...who do they cite??? If not Groehler - who?

Greene cites the Bundesarchiv and interviews with engineers that worked at Rechlin and various German aircraft manufacturers. Heinz Nowarra's "Die Deutsche Luftrüstung I-IV" also talks about the Do 19 and Ju 89; he also backs up Greene and my other book about the December 1936 first flight date; apparently the initial plan was for the first flight to be in October 1936 and complete testing in February 1937, but it was pushed back to December for some reason. The V 2 first flew in early April before Göring killed the program on April 29th. The V 3 started conversion to the Ju 90 early in 1937.

AFAIK Nowarra is considered the authority on Luftwaffe aircraft 1933-45.

And now that I come to think of it...

Just a detail point - but for some reason it was Junkers' V 2 aircraft that did ALL the record setting...I wonder why???

....IF it was the V 2 aircraft that flew on April 11th - and set all the records - that would make me think even more that whenever the V 1 flew...yes, there's something about it we don't know...

Greene's book has the V1 making both record flights, not the V 2, which Nowarra's books support.

[stg 44]

And that is? Wever needs to live, we discussed that that would have to be the POD. Wever had not indicated that he would cancel the Ural Bomber project, all he did was issue the Bomber A specs.

No; all he did was issue the Bomber A specs because neither Ural Bomber was going to meet specifications. He knew it before they even flew.

See E.R. Hooton, p.108-109...

There is no sourcing for the paragraph about that in Hooton's book. In fact Hooton cites Greene's book in the next paragraph!

Just like how the Fw190 specs were issues while the Me109 was in testing and development, it doesn't mean that the current project would be cancelled

...and the Ural Bomber project as a whole was being run down from November 1935. In other words - six months BEFORE the Bomber A spec was issued...and virtually a year before the first Ural Bomber prototype flew.

This is also in Hooton I asume? See above.

Can you demonstrate that all airfields in Germany were closed down due to bad winter weather in 1936-7, 1937-8, and 1938-39?

No need to be so obtuse. "All" airfields don't need to be, nor all the time - but if air raids over the UK could suffer for two mwinter months due to bad weather in 1940...your source, after all...a precise testing regime on an untested/partly-tested aircraft is going to be more weather-sensitive.

Please, you're the one being obtuse; Britain is at a more northernly climate than Germany and suffers worse winter weather. The two situations are not comparable, especially considering that the war years experienced worse cold and snow than prior in the 1930's. Testing was done in Dessau, which was considerably south of Britain longitudally speaking, and inland in Saxony, so didn't experience the sort of poor flying weather that Britain does.

And no, it doesn't have to be "ALL"....just the one they happen to be flying from, it's not as if they could be dismantled and trucked to a field a few hundred miles away where there was better weather...

So when the V1 is done with its testing it can do those payload and altitude tests while the V2 and V3 work on their testing. There is a reason that multiple prototypes were constructed after all: so you can run multiple tests and experiments without disrupting the whole development process!

Just a detail point - but for some reason it was Junkers' V2 aircraft that did ALL the record setting...I wonder why???

Greene and Nowarra have the V1 doing all the testing, not the V2.

[phylo_roadking]

And you are accusing me of being obtuse
The heavy bombers could only use paved runways.

Do you have a source for that?....



..a major airfield such as Rechlin for example didn't have a paved runway then...

...but Junkers' Dessau plant where the Ju 89 and 90s were built did, a heated concrete runway - but the apron wasn't! It was, as you can see - grass and somewhat waterlogged at times!

However, I don't know if Zeppelin-Lindau where the Do 19 was built had a paved runway in 1936.

Greene cites the Bundesarchiv and interviews with engineers that worked at Rechlin and various German aircraft manufacturers. Heinz Nowarra's "Die Deutsche Luftrüstung I-IV" also talks about the Do19 and Ju89; he also backs up Greene and my other book about the December 1936 first flight date; apparently the initial plan was for the first flight to be in October 1936 and complete testing in February 1937, but it was pushed back to December for some reason. The V2 first flew in early April before Göring killed the program on April 29th. The V3 started conversion to the Ju90 early in 1937.

AFAIK Nowarra is considered the authority on Luftwaffe aircraft 1933-45.

He's also known for being a bit of a propagandist and having some big holes in his facts, as Jon G could tell you if he was still around here I've come across some holes in his dedicated history of the Ju52, for instance.