Just for the record, the aircraft illustrated in the "3-View" is actually the Ju 90, which was the airliner version of the Ju 89 bomber. Unlike the Ju 89, which never got beyond the prototype stage, a total of 18 examples of the Ju 90 airliner were built for operation by Lufthansa.
Klaatu83, e-mail, 30.10.2014 22:01
The Ju-89 was a better aircraft, and had more development potential, than the competing Dornier Do-19. It's development was stopped for political reasons, rather than due to any design shortcomings. The successful Ju-90 was an airliner version of the same basic airframe.
Bugs Wirkus, e-mail, 22.07.2013 22:40
One cannot place all of the Long-Range-Bomber "fault" on E.Udet; he had help! Goering's obsequious attitude toward Hitler (who wanted QUANTITY!) and Germany's thorough lack of planning and lack of raw materials were 'battles' the Luftwaffe would face throughout WW II.
Mark, e-mail, 20.09.2012 17:01
Ju-89 V2
Crew: Five Length: 26.49 m (86 ft 11 in) Wingspan: 35.25 m (115 ft 8 in) Height: 7.60 m (24 ft 11 in) Wing area: 184 m² (1,979 ft²) Empty weight: 17,000 kg (37,480 lb) Loaded weight: 20,800 kg (50,266 lb) Max. takeoff weight: 27,800 kg (61,160 lb) Powerplant: 4 × Daimler-Benz DB 600A, 560 kW (750 hp) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 386 km/h (241 mph) Range: 2,980 km (1,862 mi) Service ceiling: 7,000 m (22,960 ft) Wing loading: 11.2 kg/m² (25.4 lb/ft²) Power/mass: 0.06 hp/lb ()
Armament
(proposed)
2 × 20 mm MG FF cannons 2 × 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 15 machine guns 1,600 kg (3,520 lb) bombload
Mark, e-mail, 20.09.2012 17:01
Ju-89 V2
Crew: Five Length: 26.49 m (86 ft 11 in) Wingspan: 35.25 m (115 ft 8 in) Height: 7.60 m (24 ft 11 in) Wing area: 184 m² (1,979 ft²) Empty weight: 17,000 kg (37,480 lb) Loaded weight: 20,800 kg (50,266 lb) Max. takeoff weight: 27,800 kg (61,160 lb) Powerplant: 4 × Daimler-Benz DB 600A, 560 kW (750 hp) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 386 km/h (241 mph) Range: 2,980 km (1,862 mi) Service ceiling: 7,000 m (22,960 ft) Wing loading: 11.2 kg/m² (25.4 lb/ft²) Power/mass: 0.06 hp/lb ()
Armament
(proposed)
2 × 20 mm MG FF cannons 2 × 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 15 machine guns 1,600 kg (3,520 lb) bombload
Ronald Lameck, e-mail, 30.08.2011 04:12
War experience would show the Ju-89 seriously under-armed, and perhaps under-powered. Those problems could have been corrected, but Germany lacked the production capacity to make useful numbers of the Ju-89. Not Udet's "lack of vision", but High Command lack of a coherent plan saved Britain. Germany lost the war on the beach at Dunkirk. 300,000 British prisoners-of-war would have virtually guaranteed British acceptance of peace terms.
Karl Brust, e-mail, 09.07.2011 10:37
It was not Ernst Udet that canceled the Junkers 89 but Albert Kesselring. After the death of General Wever, Kesselring took his place as Chief of Staff, and canceled the four engine bomber.
gooda, 21.06.2011 05:39
British bombers until five years later when the Shorts Sterling appeared. Ernst Udet's lack of vision in declining the Ju-89 saved the war for England.
Simon Gunson, e-mail, 06.09.2010 11:25
For an aircraft built in 1937 it's worth recalling that this aircraft wasn't equalled in performance by British bombers until five years later when the Shorts Sterling appeared. Ernst Udet's lack of vision in declining the Ju-89 saved the war for England.
