Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Schwieger]

Was thinking it would be possible to make a Ju-390 from the Me-323 or Fw-200?
Us Luftwaffe flyers still need a heavy bomber








Crew: 10
Length: 34.20 m (112 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 50.30 m (165 ft 1 in)
Height: 6.89 m (22 ft 7 in)
Wing area: 254 m² (2,730 ft²)
Empty weight: 39,500 kg (87,100 lb)
Loaded weight: 53,112 kg (117,092 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 75,500 kg (166,400 lb)
Powerplant: 6 × BMW 801G-2 radial engines, 1,250 kW (1,700 PS) each
Maximum speed: 505 km/h (314 mph)
Range: 9,700 km (6,030 mi)
Service ceiling: 6,000 m (19,700 ft)
Guns:
2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons in dorsal turrets
1 × 20 mm MG 151/20 in tail
2 × 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine guns at waist
2 × 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131s in gondola

[HundertzehnGustav]

negative on the heavy Bomber please...
you see that bulge under the rear end?
Trapoklappe... she was a transporter... an extended 290
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Ju290-3s.jpg/180px-Ju290-3s.jpg

and, well, it seems that guy who painted the last profile there was drunk...
so many turrets, that's just ridiculous, right?

as a condor replacement... maybe... as a german C-54 somehow... maybe... But as a heavy Bomber a La B-24 or 29 even? with four pairs of main wheels?
In a very very "alternate history" scenario?

[DaC]

[quote link=topic=17388.msg186713#msg186713 date=1311281419]
The Junkers Ju 390 was a German aircraft intended to be used as a heavy transport, maritime patrol aircraft, and long-range bomber, a long-range derivative of the Ju 290.
(from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ju_390)
[/quote]

it was intended as a bomber...

[Schwieger]

[quote link=topic=17388.msg186713#msg186713 date=1311281419]
The Junkers Ju 390 was a German aircraft intended to be used as a heavy transport, maritime patrol aircraft, and long-range bomber, a long-range derivative of the Ju 290.
(from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ju_390)

it was intended as a bomber...
[/quote]


Yep

[HundertzehnGustav]

schweiger...
take a look at the damn thing
analyse its structure...
the 390 would have made a just as excellent bomber as the FW200. a shitty one.
why?
its nothing but a hollow tube, with big cut-outs for that transport door in the rear, side, and no Bomb bay was ever integrated INSIDE the hull.

lets say, the sole 390, as it was "intended" = whatif  , would have flown.
would the germans have taken the time to redesign the center section to make it something like a B-17/24/29?
Answer - no. they would have done one thing: slap a big, fat external bombbay under the belly, keeping the inside for fuel tanks, crew and weapons stations.
welcome extra drag, welcome extra weight. welcome all these nasty side effects of reduced speed and reduced action radius at full bomb load.

result: Bombs of max 500 kg (1000lbs) caliber (cross section of bomb bay permitting), small bombload due to anyway heavy airframe (reinforced tail section). Maximum of what... 2000? 2500 kgs internal? 4x Bombs under the wings a la Condor?

Long range patrol... very good.

heavy bomber for bombing raids against paris, London and New york? Ineffective, fragile, anything you want.
As a transport she was expected to carry 10 tons.
Fully loaded in a transport config, she weighted 75 tons. the Liberator weighted 29, the Superfort 65.
So you suggest that in germany of 1942 to build such a plane. that nobody wanted at that time.
Do not forget to add Divebrakes. All Luftie Waffle Planes MUST divebomb.

it was intended as a Bomber.

Just as much as the Rundstedt offensive was intended to reach Antwerpen.

LOL?

[HundertzehnGustav]

hold on... they could have taken the transport version, load it up with ten tons of bombs of 250 kg size, and manually roll them out of the rear transport door. 2 men per bomb rolling them out, and the pilot pulls the nose up to help .
Exxxxxelent precision!
and the Mustangs rush by... confused. "WTF are the Krauts doing????"

[Wimsmae]

My opinion is the the Germans were not those brilliant developers. It's a myth. They were just desperate. I also read some books and get the suggestion many scientists just developed futuristic planes that could not be build to keep them out of the army and duty on the Ostfront. Much of the technology, especialy jet technologie was not that far behind as often suggested. Jet technologie was not ready at that time and the Germans never succeeded in solving it's problems.  The Allies had also ther flying wings and all kind of developments, but there was not the desperate need to create a "Wunderwaffe", especialy for propaganda.

The last serious bomber, the HE-177 was a disaster because of the stupid tamdem triebwerk. Far too complicated for that stage of the war.

The B-29 was much better then any German bomber. Even unescorted, if the war had lasted a few months longer he would have made it far into Germany without many losses. There were far too less jets, there turbines were crap, they had very few pilots left. Flying those jets was very difficult and shooting down a bomber even more.

Just my opinion....but making alternate histories with especialy those Gossen Amerika-bomber would be fun indeed. I once saw a model of it on one of these forums.

[HundertzehnGustav]

yea, but when going into the what if realm, it is essential to not only haeve a basic idea, but also  try hard to take a look at the technical details, the "how could they have made it work" part.

else... just take a Mustang, add two XXXXL droptanks, and a fatboy the size of a hand grenade on the centerline, and presto, alternate history dictates that Japan was defeated by a single seat fighter out of Hawaii.

Is a quick idea enough? Or does it help to elaborate on it, present it in a way that things could have worked out? from the econmic and political context to the technical part, which is so important for the whole idea to be credible?

[Schwieger]

Of course, I fail to see how this plane would not have worked.  V3 would have been the bomber variant, but Germans never got around to making V3.   

[Wildchild]

V3 was a giant supergun...

[stranger]

he probably means ju390v3

[HundertzehnGustav]

Ju-390 V3...

else, picking up your understanding, V1 was done in 1935
Die (Bf 109) V1 (Werk-Nr. 758) nahm im Frühjahr 1935 ihre ersten Rollversuche auf, am 28. Mai 1935 folgte...

V series: in german planes a denomination for Testbeds for planes... first prototype, second one, third... V1, V2,V3

I dont mind a Ju-390, 4 or even 6engine Bomber... they Built the Condor. They tried really hard with the Greif. they were able to build stuff like the Blohm and Voss 222.
Making a Bomber of less complexity and less operational demands, to avenge german soldiers that died during the failed allied Landings in in Italy and France, makes perfect sense.
If based on the 390, then work needs to be restarted from almost scratch tho.

No windows, no transport doors in the rear and sides, completely revised Fuselage to store the Bombs IN or VERY NEAR the center of Gravity (where the Wings cross the fuselage), and a complete rearrangement of the defensive weaponry...
(two top turrets with twin MG131/13mm, one twin on the underside (Electric Barbette? Manned?)
What about the rear station... 2x 13mm? 2x15mm MG151/15? a combo of both, like the Americans did on the early Superfortresses?)
what about the side defenses... is a single MG enough? are twins better? Are they worth anything at all? Should they be discarded to save weight or place?
And a revision of the "Bathtub" below the nose, where the Bomb aiming device could be. But not necessarily.
Maybe the German engineers finally learned a lesson from the Americans and integrated that device in the nose?

It might work!

But such planes need some serious thinking about first, lest you have a plane as effective and credible as the literal "Lärch"/"Lurch"/etc