Junkers EF-130 speculative drawings

[newsdeskdan]

Yes agreed. I understand the cause of Dan’s posts (he is concerned about misinformation being taken as fact, something the world is increasingly concerned with) but this is not the right way to behave on this forum.

I apologise. My difficulty, as you say, is with speculative material posted as fact. The title of the thread refers to speculative drawings. The text posted above the drawings is not marked as speculative. But I hope, however painfully, I have at least made a case to show that the text is indeed speculative.
The study of German WW2 aircraft development has had a very bad name in recent years - far more so than any other area of 'secret projects' study. It had, as I've said, reached a point where it was becoming impossible to tell what material was grounded in historical evidence and what was purely speculative (i.e. fiction).
Having spent seven years studying German WW2 documents and having accumulated vast quantities of material on German WW2 'secret projects', I feel that I am in a position to finally 'set the record straight', sharing my knowledge and sources with forum members so that they can be better informed on the background and evidence for particular projects in this field.
This forum is a touchstone for those seeking to know more about 'secret projects' and it is galling to see misinformation, as mentioned above, being presented without caveat time and again where German WW2 'secret projects' are concerned.
The sensible thing for me to do would probably be to ignore it and let the misinformation creep out unopposed and unnoted - the path of least resistance. I tried this at first (and frankly, mustering the proper evidence to challenge every 'imaginative' assertion is very time consuming - when coming up with an 'imaginative' assertion takes only seconds), but it soon became clear that this same misinformation would then find its way onto Wikipedia, to video game forums, to Facebook and Twitter and elsewhere. In short, if misinformation goes unchallenged, large numbers of people who rely on historians and researchers (and published authors, whether or not they fall into either of those categories) for their information end up believing that the misinformation is fact.
So I can continue to challenge the misinformation as politely and impersonally as I can manage or I can simply allow this forum to become a root source of misinformation about German WW2 projects (or, option three, those who post said misinformation could stop posting it - or post it in the 'speculative' or 'user artwork' sections). I'm not sure which you would prefer.

NB.
* See attached 'Similar threads'. You will note three of the five 'similar threads' presented to me this morning are on the projects of Alexander Lippisch. Looking at those three threads, all contain speculative text and speculative drawings. None are marked as such. They have gone entirely unchallenged, having been posted at a time when I was attempting to ignore such misinformation. I would argue that all three should be in the 'speculative' or 'user artwork' sections.
* Also attached 'P 15'. Here my sternest critic from the thread above has read misinformation presented about Lippisch's P 15 and been impressed by it. "Your added commentary makes these latest offerings truly fascinating, thank you!" As I said, if misinformation presented as fact, without a 'speculative' tag, goes unchallenged, people end up believing it.

 

[Basil]

This thread goes deep to really interesting points about historical research methodology and philosophy. I'm pleased to know and learn from the different points of view, specially when coming from talented experts. I partially agree and disagree with everyone as many of us could do and has been already expressed here. Don't need to add more.

But, as a moderator I see something should be noted about this thread:

a) there is unnecessary amount of confrontation. Please remember the forum aim is to be a place for information exchange between polite people who wants to learn and enjoy. Release your hostility at appropriate places which can be easily found on the internet.

b) quality information is always encouraged. Speculation is only allowed to some point thus should be clearly indicated, as shown in this thread tittle.
So why a general complain to all forum members about an excessive speculation tolerance is expressed in a particular post?. It received two likes...but I disagree. You're invited to visit the forum.

c) The text of the above mentioned post, goes further, this time into a personal attack to another forum member.
Since the beginning of the forum, I can't remember such a straight disqualification to someone's work. Undeserved, in my opinion, but nevertheless the post is a violation of forum rules. That kind of expressions shoudn't be admitted.

I think we all should think about it, specially those who seized the opportunity to launch hostile messages against other members.
It's supposed that we are educated people sharing a common passion.

Antonio,

I understand you refer to my post #14.

This forum is easily the highest quality source concerning lesser known aircraft projects (it has evolved from the primary focus on „secret“ projects) and related systems in the internet and is by now a very serious basis for scientific technical research. This is mainly the result of a close and consistent monitoring by the site staff and the contribution of first class editors and researchers (like Chris Gibson, Calum E. Douglas, Dan Sharp, Tony Butler and many others) as well as by military and industry veterans.

My post was by no way intended to insult persons or their work but an attempted reminder to stay focused on this quality. As Paul highlighted, personal assumptions and speculations of contributors should be recognisable as such. My apologies for no having read the headline of the thread properly which already mentions „speculative“. Perhaps some drawings incorporating more artisitic freedom are better suited to „User Artwork“ or „Modelling Forum“ but this is something to be decided by the site staff.

 

[hesham]

In my files,

we must to know the first purposed of EF.130 was to have a single engined,
and it was Heinkel HeS 011,also with its flying wing shape,and that happened during 1943/1944 ?.

Here is the source from a site about Junkers,

please note the EF.130B was also called EF.135 ?.

Junkers Aircraft of WWII - EF-130

 

[newsdeskdan]

In my files,

we must to know the first purposed of EF.130 was to have a single engined,
and it was Heinkel HeS 011,also with its flying wing shape,and that happened during 1943/1944 ?.

Here is the source from a site about Junkers,

please note the EF.130B was also called EF.135 ?.

Junkers Aircraft of WWII - EF-130

There is no easier way to say this - even according to his own publishers, Herwig is not a reliable source. They actually say this in his own books(!). For example, the English language version of his Luftwaffe Secret Projects - Ground Attack and Special Purpose Aircraft says (p7 of the 2004 'second impression'):
"During the course of the translation of the German original of this book into this English version, our translator Ted Oliver carefully studied the material as supplied and published in the German, and with our approval, has made some significant changes in sequence and content which we believe enhance the readability, accuracy and completeness of the finished German article."
Further down, after talking about the jumbled order of Herwig's material, it says:
"Throughout the book, Ted Oliver has taken the opportunity to eliminate some obvious contradictions in the German original, and to add to or improve information by using sources (principally captured German document sources in the UK and the USA) which were apparently not available to the author. In some instances the extent of the additional material available to the translator has necessitated more extensive additional text. Numbered footnotes are almost all translator's remarks and necessary explanations. These also provide commentary on the author's erroneous text repeated from sources known to be incorrect or speculative."

And I can tell you that as much as Ted Oliver has done his best to fix Herwig's work - much of it is still at odds with the known evidence.

So I refer you back to Post #5. That is the only known source material on the EF 130. As tempting as it is to extrapolate additional versions of the EF 130 or to guess at what might have been, the bottom line is that the EF 130 is only known from those two sources, which you now have in full. I would love for additional primary sources to appear but I suspect that they won't.

 

[Basil]

I agree. At least the German version of Herwig's book is rather chaotic.

 

[Foo Fighter]

In my files,

we must to know the first purposed of EF.130 was to have a single engined,
and it was Heinkel HeS 011,also with its flying wing shape,and that happened during 1943/1944 ?.

Here is the source from a site about Junkers,

please note the EF.130B was also called EF.135 ?.

Junkers Aircraft of WWII - EF-130

There is a nasty hi-jack on that link of yours to a site claiming a block on youtube video's advertising. Not a fan. I know you did not create this hi-jack.

 

[hesham]

From, Jet Planes of the Third Reich - The Secret Projects-volume two.

 

[foiling]

- Junkers / DFS EF-130​

A four engine heavy bomber of ‘Uralbomber’ class designed in the autumn of 1944 to compete against the Arado E-555, the BMW ‘Strahlbomber Projekt II’, the Horten Projekt 18 (23/2/1945) and the Messerschmitt P.1108.

It had a pressurised cockpit for a crew of three, originally designed for the Junkers Ju 388, and the undercarriage of a Junkers EF-131. The wing was a DFS design with leading edge slats, flaps and ailerons.

The system used to power the rotation manoeuvre during takeoff was unknown. It may be speculated that the engines could swing with the help of some hydraulic mechanism to change the thrust direction. That would explain the odd position they are located, in the aerodynamic shadow generated by the cockpit.

The project did not pass the wind tunnel model phase, being cancelled in March 1945.

Technical data Junkers / DFS EF-130

​

Type heavy bomber

Wings wood and plywood with 34º sweep at the leading edge and 13º sweep at the trailing edge, housing fuel tanks and undercarriage main legs

Fuselage light alloy, housing the pressurised cockpit, the bomb bay, the nose leg and the engines

Engines four BMW 109-003 C turbojets rated at 1,030 kp static thrust

Armament none

Payload 4,000 kg

Wingspan 24 m

Length 10,38 m

Height 4.32 m

Wing area 120 sq m

Max. speed 950 km/h

Max. weight 38,100 kg

Range 7,500 km

Ceiling 11,500 m

Fabulous.