Ju 290 without national markings...

[Nick Beale]

Perhaps a suggestion what kind of assignment this Ju 290 had in the north

You could try Günther W. Gellermann's »Moskau ruft Heeresgruppe Mitte …« which has quite a lot of information from veterans and Flugbücher about different missions in the East.

[Buckeye30]

Oops. Ed you are right, apparently the aircraft at Riga was the Ju.90 V7 (a photo clearly shows the code J4-CH). Peter Stahl in his book "KG200 the true story" ( he served in it) calls it 290A-0. Green said the 290A-0 was W/N 0150 but note the Junkers listings. Must admit I get confused sometimes by these prototype / pre-production etc. designations.
This is the link.
http://hugojunkers.bplaced.net/junke...tion-list.html
Regards
Nick

[edNorth]

OK, oops is accepted. If any of the text below offends any, please quit reading and go to next topic.

My comment on KG 200 was to provoke attention. Interesting see how some words get more attention than others, like Ace, Agents, Clandestine, shooting down, fighter ace etc. (The truth of that flight likely is too boring for proper research, but Hitler was against flight attempts to Manchuria if I remember correctly, and no America flight was made either. Its all fiction.)
Ju 90 V7 was true start of Ju "190"/290/390 development. BTW, built by AVIA and LETOV, but assembled at Dessau, but did not serve with KG 200, but many 290s did.

If any is still confused, this is because no one (or very few) has properly sorted this all out, or pays enough attention to the proper works (Die grossen Dessauer is one such most overlooked one).

But you also pick exactly the most wrong link as a reference.
Zoeller makes Junkers sorting out of types even worse because he adds fiction into the lists. Forwarding his "so called lists" is really an insault to Luftwaffe researchers, and is similar to a wet rag into my face. I take this very professionally. Sloppyness in Historcal writings is very common. Similar to Popularty Politics and Twister (in meaning Social Media) should ban politicians that get facts wrong. Period. Enter Spanish[b][color=Red]Inquishion.

Web above is full of crap (no editing it appears), copy paste from others, including all possible errors. That makes it worthless but much seems priated from SIG (Norwegians) that some are here. Björn Havsten did much on this topics in GQ losses research (He 111, Ju 88 etc.) around Norway, copied by Larson, but Zoeller turned it on its head. I have full set of these records, from Germany. Done this, Done that.

However I also have 1000+ pages of carefully edited designation and other info in my "listings" (manuscript) over many/most Ju types, not full lists on everthing, but steady adding info as one day may form some volumes, as I come across new info - incl. Ju 290 info but my largest yet is the Ju 88, that early on I found out most get the designations wrong. Yes, Green, Nowarra, Griehl, AJ, Kagero, Medcalf etc. to name but few. Incidentally my Ju 88 lists are larger than reported totals (at least by Wiki, that still qoutes William Green books from 1968!)

Aeroplane M. and Flypast editors take note. You are also doing it wrong in most cases. So called House Rules do not apply. Get that.

Some members here can verify my statements on how I am doing this research, properly, I think. Writing a good manuscript is however tricky, and takes very great effort.

And respectfully you (all) should also learn how the RLM instructed German/Luftwaffe types be written. Like a Name. When the new system was introduced that before was a jungle of designations, but was made beautifully simple. And I have seen one of the RLM docs on this. One of these days I will post it every time anyone writes it wrong.

http://www.designation-systems.net/non-us/germany.html

First they abbrevated designer/factory to Captial letter, lower case (Junkers became Ju) no dash or dot, then the 8-xx number (eg. Ju 290).

Like examples here http://www.aircraft-reports.com/junk...torenwerke-ag/

I have seem great many variations by clercs in Luftwaffe / German docs, even RLM clercks got it often wrong. Some qoute these as true examples, but they are eqully just wrong.

But I am in progress of sorting all this on individual a/c level, using orignial reords. Ott has this right, but very few others, on the whole many have this so wrong, many avation journals, using their so called House Rules, but pay Proper History a distateful disrespect in the process.

One website recently even called me arrogant and shut me off, when their editors & members just did not get how wrong they were. Call me what you like Mr. www2aircraft.net (Modellers I know are not like that, I think you just became guilty of overreaction. I know my stuff and all my so called guessing is based on actual info as others call it but a few cases of bad info may have lovered my enthusiasm.)
-ed (meaning here editor of this post entry, not Eggert)

[Nick Beale]

Writing a good manuscript is however tricky, and takes very great effort.

Exactly, and it's worth remembering that the manuscript that is free of mistakes has not yet been written. Not by me, you or anyone else.

One website recently even called me arrogant … when their editors & members just did not get how wrong they were.

Really?

[edNorth]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

Exactly, and it's worth remembering that the manuscript that is free of mistakes has not yet been written. Not by me, you or anyone else.

Mistake is one part, blaming research be too costly is another.
And not knowing the subject is often all too apparent.

Jay (já) they will be History one day. I have no worrys.

ed

[sveahk]

As much as I hope that the contributions here can be kept in a decent and friendly tone, I also hope that they can help bring some light and perhaps answer to the document in question:
How come that a black painted Ju 290 in april of 1944 was about to fly up north without any markings at all - as it's said in the document.

The Kössler/Ott book I have not - but I have checked in Karl-Heinz Regnat: Junkers 290/390 and also Thomas/Ketley: KG 200, without any luck, I'm sorry to say. I will try to get hold of Gellermann's »Moskau ruft Heeresgruppe Mitte …«(thank you Nick Beale!), but until then, can anybody who has "Die grossen Dessauer"-book perhaps cast a glance in there for any information...?

Not that it has anything directly to do with the above...but found another german/finnish document, from august 1943, also announcing a Ju 290 flight, a distance test flight - and this time obviously with all the markings!

Hans K

[edwest2]

From this document, I'd like to point out the aircraft is ordered to fly under 5,000 feet. I am unfamiliar with the locations mentioned. This suggests a reconnaissance patrol over certain areas.

[sveahk]

I would suggest more a distance test flight, "Reichweitenflug" as it says in the document...

Hans K