Ju 390 Help!

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 718
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 00:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Post by Simon Gunson » 22 Feb 2007 10:55

Erich, Your post was a classic propaganda myth, using bogus figures to construct a bogus argument that the aircraft could not perform the mission.

There were two Ju-390 aircraft, but only one was operated by FAGr 5. the second was based in Czechoslovakia and used for test flights. Well scuse me for pointing out the obvious, but wasn't the flight to new York always described as a test flight and therefore possibly one never flown by the FAGr 5 unit aircraft. It may just have been that aircraft #2 utilised that field.

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

Post by Simon Gunson » 06 May 2007 11:49

Tony_C was asking to learn more about Hitler's pilot Hans Bauer. Vavie Sellshopp was a close friend of Hans Bauer's widow and perhaps she may be able to direct you to some sources ?

[url]sellschopp@verizon.net[/url]

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6151
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Post by Michael Kenny » 20 May 2007 18:17

Havcing just obtained 2 of Georg's books I smiled when I saw this 'proof' that there was to be a rocket testing range set up in Libya.
The proof :

"The military-industrial Peenemiinde complex very near-
ly included other continents! If Germany had not been
driven out of Africa in May 1943, a rocket testing station
could have been created in the Libyan desert. General Dr
Dornberger and Oberst Thoma were staying in Tripoli as
early as July 1942 to look for a suitable area. The advan-
tages of such a location would have been obvious. Even the
French carried out rocket and atomic tests in North Africa
in the post-war period. German preparations for an African
firing range were apparently already far advanced when it
the military situation put an end to these plans. This would
also explain the presence in Peenemiinde of two unusual
diesel locomotives in the 'African' paint scheme, and the
unusual buff-painted (RAL 8000) rocket launching pads
from 1942. This colour of paint 'happened' to be the base
colour of Rommel's Afrika Korps!
It should also not be
forgotten that the last British doubts about the existence of
the German rockets evaporated when in the spring of 1943..............................."

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

Re: Ju 390 Help!

Post by Simon Gunson » 18 Feb 2008 07:16

Long after this thread I have revisited the topic and found new information.

William Green was not the original source of this New York bomber story from his 1968 book:

Claims for the flight are commonly attributed to the interrogation of a Luftwaffe staff sergeant by US Army Intelligence.
POW interrogations are not the only basis for the claim. That sergeant was with Fernaufklarungsgruppe nr.5, but the pilot of one of the Ju390 aircraft, Hans Pancherz when interviewed about the flight in 1969 by the Daily Telegraph made no claim the aircraft was attached to FAGr.5

This claim appears to have been an understandable presumption by Green.

Quite independent reports by British Intelligence apparently were drawn from a number of sources and possibly Enigma intercepts. Enigma remained classified for many decades after the war and many Enigma decrypts are still embargoed until 2045.

There were two British Intelligence reports from August 1945 entitled "General Report on Aircraft Engines and Aircraft Equipment" which referred to the New York mission.

The claim made in these British Intelligence reports then surfaced in public from the 11 November 1955 issue of "RAF Flying Review"

The article attracted correspondence from a German gentleman who had first hand knowledge of the flight, which corroborated the earlier Luftwaffe staff sergeant's interrogation. That correspondent said the aircraft flew to a point within 12 miles north of New York and not out to sea as some speculate. The correspondent also added a new claim that Long island and the New York skyline were photographed.

This disclosure was subsequently picked up by William Green and published in his book "Warplanes of the Second World War," published in 1968.

In September 1969 the Daily Telegraph newspaper published an article on the New York flight citing an interview with Junkers Test pilot Hans Pancherz who said he flew "one of the Ju-390 transports" (plural) on a test flight to South Africa and back in early 1944.

Pancherz also said the Ju-390 was specifically designed for the New York bombing mission. He said the plane he flew was burned to prevent it falling into Allied hands.

Pancherz implied another Ju-390 aircraft existed. Pancherz is widely recognised for piloting the Ju-390V1 aircraft registered GH+UK which was abandoned, stripped of propellors and then destroyed at Dessau airfield in April 1945. Pancherz said it was burned.

The question arises if Ju-390V1 marked GH+UK was abandoned and unairworthy in March 1945, which Ju-390 flew to Tokyo ?

British journalist Tom Agoston interviewed the late Dr Wilhelm Voss from Kammler's staff in Prague. Kammler from late 1944 was in charge of long distance transport aircraft.

Dr Voss claimed that a Ju-390 flew the polar route to Tokyo on 28 March 1945. Reichs Armaments Minister Albert Speer made a very similar claim about a Ju-390 flight via the polar route to Tokyo in his autobiography. The two men apparently corroborate each other.

In another book yet to be published, Polish author Igor Witowski reveals the second Ju-390 was seen being dismantled at an airfield in Uraguay after the war.

Those who would say a New York mission absolutely never happened now have to account for British intelligence reports in August 1945 and a variety of other inconsistencies. Clearly the whole story has not been made available.

So much about WW2 remains in classified files and it should be inferred in the face of inconsistencies that there is still something to hide.

ju55dk
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: 22 Feb 2004 14:18
Location: Denmark

Re: Ju 390 Help!

Post by ju55dk » 01 Mar 2008 08:09

First of all if you read the statements made by the POW they are not very reliable! One was a photo-interpetreater with FAGr 5 and his claim is that the Ju 390 was with FAGr. 5 from 6. january 1944 for two weeks. But according to Flugbuch Pancherz it was in Prag-Rusin!! The other POW claims that the Ju 390 could stay in the air for 32 hours!!!!!!!

Pancherz own claim as to the test flight to South Africa and back in early 1944 is not in his own flightlog?????. Also nowhere in the material on FAGr. 5 is there any mention of Ju 390 attached to the Gruppe! I have inerwieved a lot of flying-personel from this unit, and seen numerus Flugbücher! No one of these persons have ever seen or heard of a Ju 390 in France!

So in my opinion it's all a bogus myth grown out of pure propaganda.

Junker

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

Re: Ju 390 Help!

Post by Simon Gunson » 02 Mar 2008 04:59

Thanks for your opinion Ju55dk, but there are many opinions available to choose from. Pancherz himself said he flew the Ju-390 "transport" and this was the aircraft at Prague Rusnye in January 1945.

The Ju-390 V1 RC + DA was elsewhere with another pilot at that date.

Debate is valuable and it is healthy to challenge all opinions to get to the truth.

Usually truth is somewhere between extreme viewpoints.

Getting to the truth requires some investigative digging and sometimes one joins the wrong dots or draws wrong conclusions. The reason these stories will not just go away is because somewhere at the back of it, these are not simply myths. I draw everybody's attention to significant differences in photos of the two Ju-390. It is obvious one has a longer fuselage than the other.

The fact that Pancherz recounted the flight to South Africa in an interview with the Daily Telegraph newspaper in September 1969 which was not in his logbook or FAGr.5 records should give us all a none too subtle hint that some of the Ju-390 flights were top secret and simply un-recorded.

If Pancherz's flight to South Africa in the Ju-390 V2 "transport" was unrecorded then possibly other claimed flights to New York in early 1944 and to Fussa aerodrome at Tokyo in March 1945 may just be true also ?

If one takes an entry in a pilot's log book as explicit proof then why discount Oblt Joachim Eisermanns logbook ?
According to his logbook he flew the Ju-390 V2 at Rechlin in February 1945.

There were two POW personnel at Mont de Marsan who gave accounts of the Ju-390 flight. Editor of the RAF Flying Review William Green received correspondence about early 1956 from someone with knowledge of that NYC flight.

Those who dispute the NYC flight also frequently dispute the existence of a second Ju-390 prototype... The Ju-390 V2 was longer in the fuselage than the Ju-390 V1. Ju-390 photos clearly disclose that GH + UK had the longer fuselage.

As some claim, the Ju-390 appears to have had stability issues. The Ju-390 however was a transport aircraft and as a former ATL.98 Carvair loadmaster, I point out that all cargo aircraft have to carefully manage the distribution of their loads. Generally speaking, adding fuselage length will improve the leverage arm about the centre of gravity. That is the specific difference between the V1 and V2 most obvious from photos. Their fuselage lengths.

The Ju-390 was in fact modified from the Ju-90 V6 werke number J4918, civil reg' D-AOKD, Jul. 40 to Apr.41 then to
LUFTWAFFE as KH+XC, Apr. 41 to Apr.42, returned to Junkerswerke and used for Ju390-V1 construction

The Ju-390 V2 was adapted from the fuselage of Ju290 A1, werke number J900155. The photo of Ju-390 V2 banking in flight with markings RC + DA is in fact the maritime patrol bomber. Some say the photo is simply a doctored picture of the Ju-390 V1 with markings GH + UK.

That simply is not true. Ron Wylie owns the famous picture and it predates photoshop, or home PCs. That does not prevent doctoring of registration letters, but any doctoring of other major airframe issues would be quite obvious. You only need to carefully study these pictures to realise that GH + UK was the longer fuselage V2 transport aircraft. RC + DA was the maritime patrol bomber, werke nr.J4918.

Image

Image

ju55dk
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: 22 Feb 2004 14:18
Location: Denmark

Re: Ju 390 Help!

Post by ju55dk » 02 Mar 2008 23:17

Kiwikid wrote:Thanks for your opinion Ju55dk, but there are many opinions available to choose from. Pancherz himself said he flew the Ju-390 "transport" and this was the aircraft at Prague Rusnye in January 1945.
He said that many years after the war still dosent prove that it happened!!

The Ju-390 V1 RC + DA was elsewhere with another pilot at that date.
Why has he or crewmembers never come forward??

Debate is valuable and it is healthy to challenge all opinions to get to the truth.
Yes it is!!

Usually truth is somewhere between extreme viewpoints.
Not allways!!

Getting to the truth requires some investigative digging and sometimes one joins the wrong dots or draws wrong conclusions. The reason these stories will not just go away is because somewhere at the back of it, these are not simply myths. I draw everybody's attention to significant differences in photos of the two Ju-390. It is obvious one has a longer fuselage than the other.
Perhaps??

The fact that Pancherz recounted the flight to South Africa in an interview with the Daily Telegraph newspaper in September 1969 which was not in his logbook or FAGr.5 records should give us all a none too subtle hint that some of the Ju-390 flights were top secret and simply un-recorded.
Everything in the third reich went on record. It proves to me that it never happened!!

If Pancherz's flight to South Africa in the Ju-390 V2 "transport" was unrecorded then possibly other claimed flights to New York in early 1944 and to Fussa aerodrome at Tokyo in March 1945 may just be true also ?
No proof of that!!

If one takes an entry in a pilot's log book as explicit proof then why discount Oblt Joachim Eisermanns logbook ?
According to his logbook he flew the Ju-390 V2 at Rechlin in February 1945.
I never said that Eisermanns claim were untrue. But according to Junkers factory records V-2 wasent completed end july 1944!!!!

There were two POW personnel at Mont de Marsan who gave accounts of the Ju-390 flight. Editor of the RAF Flying Review William Green received correspondence about early 1956 from someone with knowledge of that NYC flight.
I have read the intelligence report. It was rated low! And for the alleged someone from germany, only Green have ever heard of him!!!

Those who dispute the NYC flight also frequently dispute the existence of a second Ju-390 prototype... The Ju-390 V2 was longer in the fuselage than the Ju-390 V1. Ju-390 photos clearly disclose that GH + UK had the longer fuselage.


As some claim, the Ju-390 appears to have had stability issues. The Ju-390 however was a transport aircraft and as a former ATL.98 Carvair loadmaster, I point out that all cargo aircraft have to carefully manage the distribution of their loads. Generally speaking, adding fuselage length will improve the leverage arm about the centre of gravity. That is the specific difference between the V1 and V2 most obvious from photos. Their fuselage lengths.

The Ju-390 was in fact modified from the Ju-90 V6 werke number J4918, civil reg' D-AOKD, Jul. 40 to Apr.41 then to
LUFTWAFFE as KH+XC, Apr. 41 to Apr.42, returned to Junkerswerke and used for Ju390-V1 construction

The Ju-390 V2 was adapted from the fuselage of Ju290 A1, werke number J900155. The photo of Ju-390 V2 banking in flight with markings RC + DA is in fact the maritime patrol bomber. Some say the photo is simply a doctored picture of the Ju-390 V1 with markings GH + UK.

That simply is not true. Ron Wylie owns the famous picture and it predates photoshop, or home PCs. That does not prevent doctoring of registration letters, but any doctoring of other major airframe issues would be quite obvious. You only need to carefully study these pictures to realise that GH + UK was the longer fuselage V2 transport aircraft. RC + DA was the maritime patrol bomber, werke nr.J4918.

Image

Image

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Ju 390 Help!

Post by phylo_roadking » 02 Mar 2008 23:34

That simply is not true. Ron Wylie owns the famous picture and it predates photoshop, or home PCs.
That does not mean it is not impervious to manipulation , usually by brush and artist's ink on a blown-up screen projection, and re-photographed. It was a VERY common technique for most of the twentieth century.

Here's a 1937 example - see the nice artist's advertsing illustration?

Image

No. It's a photo heavily worked over with brush and ink. Shot against a white sheet background, the resultant pic enlarged, retouched 100%, then photographed again.

We are SO used to digital manipulation we forget how old photographic manipulation really is, as old as Victorian fairies on a glass plate...

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

Re: Ju 390 Help!

Post by Simon Gunson » 03 Mar 2008 01:48

Mirror, Mirror on the wall, who is the tallest fairy of them all ?

Image
No. It's a photo heavily worked over with brush and ink. Shot against a white sheet background, the resultant pic enlarged, retouched 100%, then photographed again.

We are SO used to digital manipulation we forget how old photographic manipulation really is, as old as Victorian fairies on a glass plate...
...and your proof is where ?

...and then you still cannot explain can you the POW interrogations of Schuster and Sporrenberg, nor the post war interview with Dr.Voss can you ?

And was Oblt Eisenmanns' logbook entry of flying the V2 photo retouched as well ?

Nor can you explain away recently declassified wartime Argentine Intelligence files placing a Ju-390 there in 1945 either.

All this whilst the other Ju-390 sat derelict on the airfield at Dessau from November 1944 without propellers ?

It's all just a big conspiracy is it and they're out to get you ?

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Ju 390 Help!

Post by phylo_roadking » 03 Mar 2008 02:20

I'm not saying it's proof the picture was doctored. What I'm saying the picture itself is NOT proof that it wasn't. Individual photographs are not definitive and never have been in the history of photography, it's one of the many reasons photographic evidence on it's own is not admissible in courts without corroboration. You CANNOT say categorically it's not a picture of a picture. And thus without full corroboration the doubt is there.

And bear in mind the LW's penchant for false trails and disinformation campaigns, like the hordes of superlative He112s the RAF expected to face, and were in every Allied aircraft recognition book for the first three years of the war :lol: You've no idea how paranoid the British were about that little number LOL This is how the LW is known to have operated, we have examples of disinformation.

Remember Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Especially given that we know the LW/ RLM liked faking pics and intelligence...

User avatar
Ome_Joop
Member
Posts: 783
Joined: 10 May 2004 15:56
Location: Noordwijk(erhout)

Re: Ju 390 Help!

Post by Ome_Joop » 24 Oct 2008 20:12

I wonder how much time and effort would it take to get the derelict Ju-390 back into the air (afterall the only thing it was missing were it's proppellers or was there more??).
Was November the date of it beeing derelict? (i was under the impression it was December altough i've seen October mentioned as well).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Ju 390 Help!

Post by phylo_roadking » 24 Oct 2008 21:47

The answer is - two fortunes. That's why it's been cheaper to remanufacture FW190s than restore tany of the survivors in museums to flightworthy. A single age fracture in a stressed component could render it useless; to put it back in the air requires every single component inspected and tested. And then - engine spares??? 8O

That's why so many "warbirds" are displayed on the airshow circuit; they HAVE to be to try and make the huge investment back.

User avatar
Ome_Joop
Member
Posts: 783
Joined: 10 May 2004 15:56
Location: Noordwijk(erhout)

Re: Ju 390 Help!

Post by Ome_Joop » 24 Oct 2008 21:54

Phylo, i actually ment derelict in 1944 at that time it's propellers were removed (why?).

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Ju 390 Help!

Post by phylo_roadking » 24 Oct 2008 22:02

At a guess....they were needed on something else! :D Possibly to keep the V2 prototype testing regime going? A Ju-390 would be a BIG "spares mine" of BMW 801D and ancillary parts...

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

Wreckage of Ju-390 on US seabed in Maine

Post by Simon Gunson » 14 Mar 2014 20:40

Meanwhile on other forums on another Galexy far, far away... They have been discussing since 1998 a ju-390 wreck in the water off Owls Head Maine USA.

Image

and reply by diver Ruben Whittemore....

Image

...whilst in a US Naval Intelligence report dated June 15, 1945 of a Magic intercept in October 1943

Image

had this to say about the range of an aircraft able to carry 10 tons payload 3,960sm:

Image[/URL]

Whilst a later update report in September 1945 cites a range of 4,970sm with 7,500 US Gals @ take off weight 161,000lb

7,500 US Gals = 45,000lb plus aircraft empty weight + 87,224lb OEW = Just 132,224lb leaving a surplus payload capacity of 28,776lb. The September report noted an ability to carry extra auxilliary fuel tanks in the cabin.

After the war Chief test Pilot Hans Pancherz added that the Max Take off Weight was re-certified from 75,000kg (165,198lb) to 80,500kg (177,312lb) which means the aircraft had a whopping 90,088lb lifting capacity equivalent to 15,000 US Gallons (9,940sm)

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”