Ju 390 Help!

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 22 Oct 2006 21:54

I would forget that Wikipedia nonsense, and instead read this:

Ummm, there are a few problems with this story . . .

According to William Green (Warplanes of the Third Reich), the usual source for the mission claim, it went thusly:
. . . “In January 1944, the Ju 390 was assigned to Fernaufklaerungs-Gruppe 5 (Long-Range Reconnaissance
Group) at Mont de Marson south of Bordeaux, for operational evaluation. The Ju 390 carried sufficient fuel for an
endurance of 32 hours, and after a few short-distance flights, the aircraft flew from Mont de Marson to a point some
12 miles from the US coast, north of New York, returning successfully to its base.” I understand the story; Green’s
source was an interrogation transcript in an intelligence report from 11 August 1944, detailing the questioning of
captured German personnel. A prisoner, who claimed having been photo assistant in Mont de Marsan, made the
New York flight claim during his interview. A second prisoner, in the same report, said that the Ju 390 had an
endurance of 32 hours.

Let’s look at a flight from Bordeaux to New York. Such a flight is, approximately, great circle route and not
allowing for any navigational detours to avoid Allied maritime patrols, 5795 kilometers (3129 nautical miles) one
way, so figure 11,590 km or 6,258 nmi, give or take, round trip. But according to the information I can find, the
range of the Ju 390 was rated as having a maximum range of between 8,000 km (4320 nmi) and 9,700 km (5,238
nmi). My theory on the difference between these two figures is based (1) on counting a safety factor in the lower
number into the higher number, typically calculated as .20 x fuel for range plus fuel for 45 minutes, and (2)
any additional auxiliary fuel tanks which could have been installed. In either case, the 9700 km maximum range
is somewhat fatally short of 11,590 km round trip.

So, that’s interesting. Now let’s see ... IF the Ju 390 could travel 11,590 km and the rated cruise speed was 347
km/hr, that works out to about 33 hours at cruise which slightly exceeds the 32 hours cited by Green. Further, that
little calculation doesn’t begin to address fuel consumption, especially expended climbing to altitude. Don’t forget,
also, that the first half mission, from the vicinity of Bordeaux to the vicinity of New York, means bucking headwinds
(or even the jet stream if high enough) most of the way … doesn’t exactly do much for the fuel consumption, and
can rob you of an average 20 percent efficiency in the right (or wrong, depending on your point of view) conditions.

The BMW 801 engine, at cruise, as I understand it, burned about 570 liters (150 gallons) of fuel per hour, or for
the 6 engine Ju 390, about 3,420 liters (900 gallons) an hour. For Green’s declared 32 hours of flight, not counting
climb out consumption, headwinds, and other such inconvenient vagaries, that’s a requirement for some 109,440
liters of fuel. And of course, 109,440 liters of fuel is in the neighborhood of 28,795 gallons (US), which would
weigh about 215,000 pounds.

But wait ... empty weight of the Ju 390 was 36,900 kilograms (81,350 pounds) and the fully loaded weight was
75,500 kilograms (166,448 pounds); and I presume that includes POL, crew and ancillary equipment.

So, figure: 166,448 pounds rated max weight versus 215,000 pounds in fuel, equals: 48,552 pounds over weight.
How do you suppose they got all that off the ground? Was there really a crew with enough gonads to attempt to
takeoff at almost 30% over rated weight limits? All in fuel? With the only one of the aircraft type in
existence? For some sort of navigational stunt?

And to pull off their stunt they're going to fly into a hostile coastal area that had near it some of the enemy’s
more important aircraft production facilities, Grumman comes to mind, that had radar coverage and they're not
going to be detected? Maybe, but only if they run the last hundred miles or so, in and out, at about 150 feet (that
would do wonders for their fuel consumption, wouldn't it). And if you strip out defensive armament, cut crew size,
remove any armor, and self-sealing tanks, all in the name of weight savings (not that such could come close
to accounting for all the 48,552 over weight pounds), what happens when you just happen to run into a patrolling
PB4Y loaded for bear? PB4Ys knocked down about 343 Japanese planes, included 95 twin and multi engine types,
and five German planes (a Do 217, an He 177, and three Ju 88's). One PB4Y would be perfectly capable of chasing
down and ruining a stripped down Ju 390's day. Are you willing to take that chance for what is essentially a one
time stunt?

Then there's the small matter of geography. Look at a map. The New York coastline runs roughly from ENE to
WSW. "North" of New York, city or state, is over land. Jeez, you think if they managed to get some 510 nmi (half
the distance in the above maximum range variance) beyond their rated roundtrip range and ended up somewhere
west of Long Island Sound it would make a much better story. If they took pictures of the coast, they would have
had to turn around to do so.

And what about Reichs Marshall Fatty or Herr Goebbels? Don't you think they would trumpet such a feat to the
all the world? Yet, there is no record of such a propaganda coup.

Also, remember, there were only two of these airplanes, V1 and V2. According to "Die großen Dessauer.
Junkers Ju 89, 90, 290, 390. Die Geschichte einer Flugzeugfamilie" ("The Big Ones from Dessau. ... History
of an aircraft family") by Karl Kössler and Günter Ott, during the time period of this feat was supposedly
accomplished, the lone Ju 390 V1 was in Prague, arriving there on November 26th 1943. While at Prague,
V1 was involved with a series of flight tests, flying on Nov. 30th, and Dec. 2nd and 3rd. The flight on the 3rd was
to Merseburg. V1 returned to Prague on Dec. 10th. More flights were made: on 17th, and again on 30th and
31st of December. Still more flights in January 1944, on the 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 8th. From January 17th to the 23rd,
in-flight refueling tests were conducted with a Ju 290. More tests for aerial refueling took place in through
February and March in the Prague area. The preoccupation with flight tests in the December, January, February
and March time period would seem to knock single prototype Ju 390 V1 out of contention for four weeks duty
in FAGr 5 culminating in a side trip to New York..

And the Ju 390 V2? Well, there’s some question as to whether or not that particular aircraft was ever actually
completed. If it was, as near as I can find, it would not have been completed before September 1944, s
ometime after the mission in question. Further, FAGr 5 evacuated from Monte de Marsan on August 20, 1944.
So, probably built too late and could not have possibly launched from Monte de Marsan.

With the wrong information even an otherwise reputable historian can make a mistake. Take a look at Eric
Hammel's Pacific Air War Chronology for the TF-38 strike casualties on 28 July 1945. Absolute hogwash. Similar
error appears in Clark Reynold's The Fast Carriers ... could they be feeding each other? Did someone mis-read
information published elsewhere? I have a TF-38 report for the period, it is way, way different than either Hammel’s
or Reynolds’ writing. Similarly, a recently published book by popular oral history genre writer, Gerald Astor, entitled
Wings of Gold, on the US naval air war in the Pacific devotes whole pages to fabrications from folks claiming to have
been involved in actions they were no where near, performing feats of daring-do that never happened. Checking
facts would have prevented mistakes. Maybe Green should have looked a little deeper.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, so maybe someone else ought to run the
numbers and see how they come out. I'm willing to be wrong, but I just don't see how this flight could have
happened the way it is described. Nor does the historical record bear it out. I'd suggest that there may have
been a plan to try to see how close they could get. A plan with a lot of wishful thinking involved (not unusual
for some of those folks, especially as events became more and more unpleasant and more and more desperate
for them) that never got off the ground when the rational thinkers on the pointy end of the stick looked at it.

Regards,

Rich


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviati ... 579-3.html

All the best

Andreas

TonyC
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 26 Aug 2006 20:15
Location: Bedford, England

Post by TonyC » 22 Oct 2006 22:22

Thanks, Andreas, a lot of stuff which makes perfect sense to me... references always help!

Remember, William Green was at the leading edge at the time he published his great book - and I still respect the book all these years later.

History changes! It depends who wins, for one thing...

Then again, 1970, when his "Warplanes of the 3rd Reich" was published, is a long time ago and much has been learned since then!

I still consider the book a classic, despite errors which have surfaced since then. It is a basic, source book. Many things have come to light since it was published, but I see no reason to knock it, for all that.

It was the first of its kind. OK it is not perfect, but it has a lot of information which was not generally available in its day. We can build on the basics that it provides. I love it!

Just don't believe everything you read!

Be Well,

Tony

User avatar
dabbydo
Financial supporter
Posts: 269
Joined: 03 Aug 2006 22:37

Post by dabbydo » 22 Oct 2006 22:40

I am sorry, but Hans Baur is not one of which I have information. There are references on Google in the wikipedia on him though, as well as other links as well as the book you already mentioned. Perhaps someone in the biography section on the forum has more to help you. :?

David

TonyC
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 26 Aug 2006 20:15
Location: Bedford, England

Post by TonyC » 22 Oct 2006 23:18

Hi David,

Wikipedia doesn't fill me with confidence - there is a lot of hearsay, of basically rubbish on there!!!

Hans Baur was Hitler's own pilot...surely you realised that from your previous posts...

I am looking for actual briefs from him in person - there have been books by him...not bullsh1t from whoever...there are books... it would be interesting to see how some of his memoirs have been received...

Be Well,

Tony

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 718
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 00:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Post by Simon Gunson » 23 Oct 2006 00:15

Andreas wrote:

I just don't see how this flight could have
happened the way it is described.


In calculating the fuel consumption of the BMW 801 engines I expect you have based calculation upon maximum continuous power. As any professional pilot ought to be aware this is a take off setting and not a cruise setting.

Modern jet aircraft for example use full thrust for take off and reduce that slightly for climb out, but then upon reaching cruise altitude, fuel flows reduce to as little as 20%. Similar applies to reciprocating engines.

Also one does not know the standard operating procedure for the Ju-390.

For example was the aircraft cruised with two engines shut down and props feathered?

This is not mere speculation on my part. How do you think P-3B/C Orions achieve maritime patrols far in excess of their stated maximum fuel endurance ?

In RNZAF service we use the PC-3K with one or two engines shut down. These aircraft are flown at low level and any Orion pilot could give you hints how to gain extra performance from the Ju-390.

Helpful winds en-route could make up for a discrepancy between 32 hours stated endurance and 33 hours estimated requirement.

The Bv222 had a maximum fuel endurance of 28 hours so the Ju-390’s stated endurance is not unlikely.

When you cite fuel reserves with a safety factor of .20 and 45 minutes, you actually refer to IATA fuel reserve rules and no military is constrained by civil flying rules. IATA did not even exist in 1944.

German weather stations were located in Greenland and the U-534 on weather station in the Atlantic below Greenland constantly fed back weather information. As any aviator knows if you can, you will alter course to take advantage of winds blowing around depressions and anticyclones to avoid headwinds. In some case when the weather pattern is just right one could take advantage of favourable winds both there and back.

As for fuel on climb out, the six engines would have mainly been needed for lift off with a big fuel load. Once airborne, there was no requirement to climb to excessive altitude. One could imagine especially at night that an altitude of a few thousand feet would have sufficed. At some point it would have been perfectly feasible to cut two engines and feather the propellers. This would have reduced fuel consumption.

On the difference between stated maximum range of 9,700km and the actual distance of 11,590km, one can of course carry more fuel in the cabin by accepting further payload reduction. It would not be impossible to carry extra tanks inside the cabin and many aircraft on ferry flights over the Pacific to this day use that technique.

One could imagine flying low outbound to utilise favourable winds around depressions or anti cyclones and then with the aircraft sufficiently lightened, climbing to utilise jetstreams on the way back.

Nor do we know if the air to air refuelling trials were themselves part of a mission to New York.

As for radar detection, squadrons of Japanese aircraft were detected inbound for Pearl harbour on 7 December 1941 and were mistaken for an expected inbound flight of B-17s. Even with radar, people are not infallible.

You wouldn’t trumpet it to the world if you were testing the route for a proposed subsequent mission with a super weapon. You wouldn’t risk the super weapon until you had flown and proved the route would you ?

Any P-3 pilot could tell you how to fly a Ju-390 mission to New York
Last edited by Kiwikid on 25 Oct 2006 06:54, edited 2 times in total.

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 718
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 00:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Post by Simon Gunson » 23 Oct 2006 05:44

Double Post

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 23 Oct 2006 10:33

I did not write the rebuttal, which is why it is in quotes, and why a link to its original location is provided, but a few points:

1) I understand that the German refuelling trials happened in November 1944. Too late, obviously.

2) You are presuming that the Ju 390 could operate in the same manner as the Orion. That may or may not be so. If you have technical evidence that the plane was designed to run permanently on (say) four of its six engines without trouble.

3) You are presuming that the Germans would just add internal fuel - presumably that would ruin payload. Since the aim of proving the flight route was to show that NY could be attacked, it does not appear logical that in order to prove the route, one has to remove the ability to deliver bombload. I think that would have been the point where people would have said 'It's not worth it.' Either the plane can fly the distance with full payload, or there is no point flying it.

4) The calculation of fuel burn was based on cruise (it says so in the post), and ignores extra fuel burn for a max-power take above design MTOW. So you may save some fuel by turning off the engines, but on the other hand you need extra fuel to get the bird into the air, so how much of the 110,000 litres is that?

5) The Germans had minimum safety requirements for remaining fuel as well. They were generally based on a 40% reduction of max range for all I can tell. Of course, for a special mission these would go straight out of the window, but I have a hard time believing that for a one-time stunt, with the only available plane of the type, they would have taken the risks required to get the plane there.

6) Oh well, let's leave it at that, let's not get into discussing the ability of the plane to fly around bad weather encountered on the way back when it is at the very edge of the range with little to no reserves, and let's not discuss what the bloody point of the flight would have been. So yes, it is right that one can imagine a lot of things, but the point here is that one has to imagine a lot of things to accept the flight happened. One also has to imagine a range of reasons why a documentary record does not exist, according to Erich (if you read the link over there). Unfortunately I tend to believe that the more we have to imagine, the less likely it is that this stunt took place.

All the best

Andreas

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 718
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 00:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Post by Simon Gunson » 25 Oct 2006 01:19

Sorry Andreas ... Yes you were quoting.

Well yes of course adding extra fuel would ruin payload capacity. I point that out myself.

I do not know whether refuelling trials were part of the equation, or not but there appears to be suggestion here presumably from some authoritative source that the Ju-390 undertook some trials at Praugue from November 1943 and in January 1944 undertook some refueling trials.

It seems logical that if air to air refueling was contemplated for the Ju-390, this is precisely the mission it would be required for.

As a pilot myself, I would assume that the Ju-390 only needed six engines for take off and climb. Once airborne the power required would drop dramatically.

Aircraft are not unlike cars. Especially like manuals. When taking off from a standing start a car requires the lowest gears and the maximum engine torque.

As most of us know, once a car is moving reasonably well one does not need maximum torque nor low gears. Cars are most efficient cruising on the highway in higher gears.

The same is true of a six engined Ju-390 once airborne.

I seriously doubt your claim about engine fuel consumption at cruise settings so I shall investigate it further and will also be comparing it with western equivalent radial engines. The laws of physics apply the same for both.

When I have researched the facts myself i shall return to make an informed response about the BMW 801 engine.

In any case below about 17,000 feet there is no serious issue with running such an aircraft with engines shut down. Above that fuel and oil will freeze and there will be inadequate air density to re-start. Also one would prefer to fly relatively low... Say 5,000-6,000ft on reduced engines because flying higher causes cold soak.

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 718
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 00:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Post by Simon Gunson » 25 Oct 2006 06:45

Quoting from the source

The author in my opinion misled the entire debate. The person’s name it appears is Richard Leonard, or at least on other forums it is. He appears to be the original author.

Richard Leonard talks in his original post elsewhere, about how he explains the range discrepancies as thus:

My theory on the difference is based (1) on counting a safety factor in the lower number into the higher number, typically calculated as .20 x fuel for range plus fuel for 45 minutes, and (2) any additional auxiliary fuel tanks which could have been installed. In either case, the 6027 miles maximum is somewhat short of 7900 miles.


I draw attention that he refers to “My theory.” Or in other words his conjecture, because that is all it is. He starts first upon a basis of wrong facts and then continues to make wrong conjectures.

Firstly the Ju-390 mission to New York in original accounts cited in the Hugo Junkers website, an acknowledged authority on Junkers aircraft, refers to a two aircraft mission to New York, which may be a hint about possible air to air refuelling en-route by another aircraft ?

It may have even been recorded in the squadron records as an air to air refuelling trial rather than "mission to New York".

I do not know that for a fact and neither does anyone else, so let us put that thought aside for a moment and look at the other facts...

BMW 801E Fuel Consumption:

Next, the Ju-390 used the BMW 801D originally, but is most often cited as using the BMW 801E engine. It is possible one prototype had the D model and the subsequent aircraft had the E model, or it could have been an engine retrofit of the E model engines after service entry.

The BMW 801E had a better gear ratio for high altitude operation. There was also a boost function for take off, by injection of a water methanol mixture into the left supercharger inlet. This could only be used for 10-15 minutes. Only at these boost settings does the fuel consumption rise to 221 US Gals PH.

This take off boost raised power to 2,000hp at a manifold pressure of 1.56 atmospheres and 2700 RPM. Usual cruise settings were 2100 RPM at 1450hp and 1.1 atmospheres of manifold pressure.

A climb to 19,000 feet for an FW-190A with a single BMW 801D engine consumed about 16 US gallons of fuel and took about 8 minutes to reach altitude. Let us assume double that for the Ju-390. That's 192 US gals to reach 19,000 ft.

Once at altitude, the BMW 801D will use 90-103 US Gallons Per Hour (GPH) if it is used at maximum cruise speed, but it would not have been flown at max cruise power.

Any pilot will tell you, for over water flights, you do not use maximum cruise settings. Commercial airliners will use an intermediate Economical Cruise setting, but for a military plane one uses the long range cruise setting. In the case of the Ju-390 this was 45-55 US Gals PH at around 1600-1700 RPM per engine..

This falls falls way short of the 150 US Gals PH cited here.

http://www.ww2guide.com/engines.shtml

Using six engines at long range cruise of 55 US Gallons Per Hour for 32 hours equates 63,360 pounds of fuel, plus 1,152 lb for take off and climb to 19,000ft. That makes for a total of 64,512 lb fuel.

The round trip distance Richard Leonard cites (7900nm) would take a Ju-390 29 hours, or just 57,420lb of fuel plus 1,152 lb for climb to altitude.

A total of 58,572lb. Add a 10% safety buffer of 5,640lb and you get a total around 64,429lb. So this is the actual fuel weight for a mission of 7,900nm with a 10% reserve.

Add this mission fuel uptake (64,429lb) to the Operating Empty Weight of the Ju-390 gives you 151,329 lb.

Subtract 151,329 lb from the Maximum Take Off Weight (166,100 lb) leaves a payload ability to New York of 14,771 lb/6,706kg. Enough for an A-bomb.

Misleading Forum Readers

4) The calculation of fuel burn was based on cruise (it says so in the post), and ignores extra fuel burn for a max-power take above design MTOW.


When I asked you previously Andreas if that was the cruise setting which was cited, you gave me a misleading answer that it WAS the cruise power consumption.

I gave you a chance to tell us if you weren’t sure, but you mislead us. You resolutely told us it was the cruise power figure. You didn't actually know did you, but you chose to mislead us ?

Payload for extra Range

Next the question of payload degradation from carrying extra fuel. The Little Boy Uranium A-bomb dropped on Hiroshima weighed about 5,000kg, I understand.

The payload range for the Ju-390 was 35,500kg over 9,500km (5,120nm). Any pilot will understand that payload range is not maximum endurance range.

It was unhelpful and misleading to suggest extra fuel in the cabin would deny the ability to carry worthwhile bomb loads. In any event because Leonard's figures are wrong the need does not arise.

There is only one type of bomb worth carrying all that distance and we know what that was. We know the equivalent used at Hiroshima weighed about 5,000kg.

Range Calculations

Richard Leonard cited the maximum range of the Ju-390 as 9,700km, 6027sm (or 5,288nm). That is wrong. Leonard starts by subtracting fuel reserves from the lesser maximum payload range.

A round trip mission of 7,900nm was well within the maximum fuel range of 8,710nm.

Incidentally the direct distance is only a mere 6,230nm, but to save argument I have worked from Richard Leonard's overly conservative 7,900nm which is 1,670nm more than necessary.

If you want to explain the discrepancy, first start with correct facts. Then you calculate the mission properly and please don’t cock-a-hoot, tell us half baked theories borrowed from Mr Leonard who doesn't know his stuff as fact Andreas.

Nothing in this post previously disproves the ability of a Ju-390 to fly to New York. If calculated accurately it actually proves the Ju-390 could do so comfortably and probably from Italy, or Germany after 1944 too.

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 718
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 00:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Post by Simon Gunson » 25 Oct 2006 21:42

The author Richard Leonard said:

With the wrong information even an otherwise reputable historian can make a mistake. Take a look at Eric
Hammel's Pacific Air War Chronology for the TF-38 strike casualties on 28 July 1945. Absolute hogwash. Similar
error appears in Clark Reynold's The Fast Carriers ... could they be feeding each other? Did someone mis-read ?


The same process is in effect here. Richard Leonard thinks he understands the facts about Ju-390 performance, presumably has never been a commercial or military pilot.... then he concocts a private theory which is woefully inadequate and forever and a day thereafter is seen as an authority on the Ju-390.

I do accept his right to question if the flight took place. The performance of an aircraft is not a little thing to trifle with. The Reichs Luft Ministerim during the war employed test pilots to establish and certify the Ju-390's performance, including it's endurance.

Reichs Armaments Minister Albert Speer noted in post war memoirs that a civil test pilot flew the Ju-390 from Norway toTokyo "via the Polar route." The Japanese however were very nervous of overflights by german aircraft as they did not want war with Russia.

I rather suspect one should try to locate RLM records to establish the true history of the Ju-390. Undoubtedly if these survived the war they are locked up and classified at Wright Patterson Air Base.

Richard leonard makes a further point about vulnerability to the PB4Y (Liberator/Privateer)

...what happens when you just happen to run into a patrolling
PB4Y loaded for bear? PB4Ys knocked down about 343 Japanese planes, included 95 twin and multi engine types,
and five German planes (a Do 217, an He 177, and three Ju 88's). One PB4Y would be perfectly capable of chasing
down and ruining a stripped down Ju 390's day. Are you willing to take that chance for what is essentially a one
time stunt?


Well when I began my response to this post, I had no idea if the Ju-390 would have flown high or low. There are advantages and disdvantages to both. Now that I understand the BMW 801E was optimisted for higher altitude and given the desired drop altitude for an A-bomb, I would say the final part of the mission was at fairly high altitude and much of the mission around 20,000 feet. The disadvantage is reliance on oxygen, or perhaps compressed bleed air from the engine superchargers even ?

One can manage for periods below 20,000 feet without oxygen. One of my interests is Mountaineering and one can manage fairly well up to 18,000 feet with no oxygen.

The advantage of flying circa 20,000+ feet nearing the US coast are that one is flying much higher than patrolling PBY Catalinas and PB4Y aircraft. maratime patrol craft really can't fly much above 3,000 feet because they have to stay in contact with any U-boat targets they might sight.

Were a PB4Y's crew stodging around at 3,000 feet to spot a Ju-390 soldiering overhead at 20,000 feet it would be highly impractical to give chase purely because of the climb to altitude. The Ju-390 would be long gone.

I suspect the aircraft popped up to 30,000 feet as it closed with New York.
The other point Richard forgets is that radar looks sideways. Not up.

The radar beam around a typical radar antennae if placed on a map would look much like a doughnut out to 200 miles with a big blank spot above and over the centre of the doughnut.

If the approach were at say 30,000ft from the direction of Delaware Bay, A Ju-390 might be seen south of Atlantic city but not any nearer.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 25 Oct 2006 22:49

Kiwikid wrote:Misleading Forum Readers

4) The calculation of fuel burn was based on cruise (it says so in the post), and ignores extra fuel burn for a max-power take above design MTOW.


When I asked you previously Andreas if that was the cruise setting which was cited, you gave me a misleading answer that it WAS the cruise power consumption.

I gave you a chance to tell us if you weren’t sure, but you mislead us. You resolutely told us it was the cruise power figure. You didn't actually know did you, but you chose to mislead us ?


I am a bit uncertain as to why you get your knickers in a twist. I quoted from what somebody else said. When you asked, and obviously had failed to understand this even though it was plain to see for anyone with two braincells to rub together (the link provided under the quoted part should have been a hint - if you can't be bothered to check the link, that is your problem), I reiterated that I quoted from what somebody else said. The basis for the quote was posted in its entire length. I never pretended that I added information from any analysis undertaken myself, or that anything I said was not based on the information contained in that link.

One would have to be exceptionally stupid or simply grasping at straws to make a personal attack to get the idea that I am intentionally misleading anyone from this.

I would also like to know how you end up at a payload of 35,500kg over 9,700km, when the apparent difference between Empty Weight and MTOW is 38,600kg, according to what I have seen (which admittedly is not much). You seem to include fuel in the payload, which appears to be incorrect to me - I understand payload as the cargo only.

All the best

Andreas

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4427
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Post by Topspeed » 26 Oct 2006 11:47

Wasn't there a specifically "a america bomber" developement..by Messerschmitt ?

User avatar
ChrisMAg2
Member
Posts: 628
Joined: 04 Aug 2003 08:26
Location: Hannover, Germany or Manila, Philippines

Post by ChrisMAg2 » 26 Oct 2006 13:33

There was: the Me 264.
But this is now OT.

User avatar
Erich
Member
Posts: 2728
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 23:28
Location: OR

Post by Erich » 26 Oct 2006 17:14

Kiwi the new york mission never happened. the unit equipped at the time with the Ju 390 was FAGr 5 which in it's mission complex was providing armed recee with inclusion of the U-boot arm. It is pure fantasy which author Wiliam Green for one has perpetuated in his Warplanes of the Third Reich since the 1970's and earlier. there is no factual evidence in the FAGr 5 log books nor through vet accts that this was even considered . . . . a lovely propaganda myth this has turned out to be

Huck
Member
Posts: 1188
Joined: 19 Jul 2004 12:52
Location: Detroit

Post by Huck » 26 Oct 2006 18:18

Andreas wrote:
Kiwikid wrote:Misleading Forum Readers

4) The calculation of fuel burn was based on cruise (it says so in the post), and ignores extra fuel burn for a max-power take above design MTOW.


When I asked you previously Andreas if that was the cruise setting which was cited, you gave me a misleading answer that it WAS the cruise power consumption.

I gave you a chance to tell us if you weren’t sure, but you mislead us. You resolutely told us it was the cruise power figure. You didn't actually know did you, but you chose to mislead us ?


I am a bit uncertain as to why you get your knickers in a twist. I quoted from what somebody else said. When you asked, and obviously had failed to understand this even though it was plain to see for anyone with two braincells to rub together (the link provided under the quoted part should have been a hint - if you can't be bothered to check the link, that is your problem), I reiterated that I quoted from what somebody else said. The basis for the quote was posted in its entire length. I never pretended that I added information from any analysis undertaken myself, or that anything I said was not based on the information contained in that link.

One would have to be exceptionally stupid or simply grasping at straws to make a personal attack to get the idea that I am intentionally misleading anyone from this.

I would also like to know how you end up at a payload of 35,500kg over 9,700km, when the apparent difference between Empty Weight and MTOW is 38,600kg, according to what I have seen (which admittedly is not much). You seem to include fuel in the payload, which appears to be incorrect to me - I understand payload as the cargo only.

All the best

Andreas


Andreas, wouldn't it be nicer if you'd check the figures before repeating whatever nonsense you found on the web that fits your view? That post starts on the wrong foot from the very first step. The author quotes a fuel consumption of 570l/h in cruise for BMW801E whereas the actual cruise fuel consumption on a long range mission is less than half that figure.

If Ju-390 never flew to New York and back, it was certainly not because it could not do it.

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”