Junkers J1000 transport

[blackkite]

Hi!
Source :

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b1/6b/18/b16b18e931f114b916d3f707482ed732.jpg

 

[blackkite]

Hi! J1000.
Junkers J1000


Technical Data:

Aircraft	year	engine	length in m	span in m	wing area im sqm	net weight in kg	payload in kg	seats	speed in km/h	range in km
J1000	1924	4 x 735kW	24,00	80,00	600	19500	16500	8+80	190	1700

 

[blackkite]

An Unusual (Proposed) Aircraft

Back between the wars, Junkers proposed the huge J-1000 aircraft. Not only would it have been the largest (heavier than air) aircraft of its time, it was a radical design with a forward canard wing…

omnivorenz.wordpress.com

 

[hesham]

Hi,

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/german-giant-aircraft-and-projects-of-1920s.6893/#post-217912

 

[blackkite]

 

[blackkite]

The "duck" aircraft used a thick high lift wing which applied Hugo Junkers’s famous patent "the Floating Butterfly”.
The aircraft was presented to the public during the 63rd VDI Main Meeting in Hanover. In 1924. It was supposed to carry 100 passengers along with luggage. The total weight of the payload was 12,000 kg, this aircraft carried 10 crew members, as well as fuel reserve for 10 flights (10,000 kg). The name "Transocean Aircraft of the Future" clearly did not correspond to the 10-hour flight time and speed of 190 km/h, with which this aircraft was unable to cross the Atlantic in a west-east direction at its narrowest point. However, this project, in its first version, presented only five years after the end of the First World War, has made significant progress in comparison with foreign designs not only because of its gigantic size, but also its entire concept.
In addition to the use of a thick wing with a high carrying capacity, which fully housed cabins, luggage, cabins to accommodate crew members, fuel and engines, there was the use of a retractable chassis and a new type of propulsion system. The chassis had to be removed into both fuselages into the shafts and closed by a new type of sash. In cases of emergency landing with unreleased chassis, the lower part of the fuselage was reinforced with powerful overlays.
Over time, the project has been redesigned and changed many times. At a later time, there was information about a more powerful power plant - four diesel engines with a capacity of 2,000 hp each, which would have to be installed in place of turbines.
Description
The "Monoplane of the Future" J.1000 was a four-engine transport aircraft, made under the "duck" scheme in 1924.
Bearing surfaces
The wing had a tubular frame covered with corrugated metal cladding. The cockpit is located at the top of the front of the wing and has a good view across the board. Behind it is a compartment for the rest of the crew and a kitchen. Nearby compartment for a commander or two pilots. Behind these premises is a power plant.
All cabins for passengers were located in the thickest (2.3 m) part of the wing - 12 cabins for 6 persons each placed in front of the wing, 14 other cabins for 2 passengers each placed in the middle part of the wing. All seats for passengers were adapted for the rapid conversion of them into sleeping, as in the cabins of compartments of rail cars. There was enough cash space behind the passenger compartment for the rest of the crew and luggage compartments.
Fuselage
Two short fuselages are made as a carrier plane. Both fuselages are connected by a wing and serve passengers for food and observation (for 18 people each). There is also a niche for the main chassis.
Chassis
The main chassis consists of two groups, each of which includes three adjacent wheels.
Tail plumage
The front wing is made in the form of a swinging pendulum. Double stabilizers are installed in the lengthening of both fuselages. In addition, two wedge-shaped keels are installed at the ends of the upper part of the wing.
Power plant
Initially, a propulsion system of four 1,000-horsepower piston compressor engines with a total capacity of 4,000 hp was envisaged. the compressed air storage tank is further connected to the four turbines behind the air propellers.
Later, a propulsion system of four 2,000-strong diesels with a total capacity of 8,000 hp was envisaged.
Flight and technical specifications of the 1924 J.1000 project
80,000 mm wingspan
Maximum length 24,000 mm
Maximum wing chord 10,000 mm
Maximum wing profile height of 2300 mm
Wing area 600 m2
Maximum height of 7500 mm
Flight weight 36,000 kg
of them a payload of 100 passengers with luggage of 12,000 kg
Fuel reserve for 10 hours of flight 10,000 kg
Weight of empty 14,000 kg
Flight characteristics:
Top speed 190 km/h
Specific load on the wing 60 kg/m2
Specific load on power 9 kg/hp.
Power per unit area of the bearing surface 6.7 hp/m2
Source: "Der "zukunftseindecker" Junkers J.1000" LUFTFAHRT international 22

 

[blackkite]

Riesenflugzeug Junkers J.1000 XL Ddruck 1927 Jupp Olbertz † Pfaffenhofen J 1000 • EUR 32,49

RIESENFLUGZEUG JUNKERS J.1000 XL Ddruck 1927 Jupp Olbertz † Pfaffenhofen J 1000 - EUR 32,49. ZU VERKAUFEN! 401512730978

picclick.de

 

[blackkite]

1/144 Junkers 1000

 

[steelpillow]

This aircraft is emphatically not a "flying wing", as it is sometimes described and this topic is currently titled. It has screamingly obvious twin fuselages and canard foreplane. Can the phrase be removed from the title, please?

 

[Avimimus]

By the way, if a drawing ever turns up with the main landing gear moved further forward - I'd be extremely interested. Based on a computer model I threw together, I suspect mounting the engines that high (in absolute terms) directly above the landing-gear could cause the aircraft to tip forward Tarrant Tabor style when throttle was initially applied.

If I am correct, I doubt that the designers caught this (the aircraft being more of a theoretical or conceptual study, lacking adequate power-plants)... but if someone did notice this at some point and produced an alternative landing gear layout - it'd be pretty neat to have the confirmation.

This aircraft is emphatically not a "flying wing", as it is sometimes described and this topic is currently titled. It has screamingly obvious twin fuselages and canard foreplane. Can the phrase be removed from the title, please?

In the 1930s 'flying wing' and some related terms were used quite differently. I think you are retrojecting modern (post WWII American) usage of the term onto a period where it was much looser.

 

[steelpillow]

This aircraft is emphatically not a "flying wing", as it is sometimes described and this topic is currently titled. It has screamingly obvious twin fuselages and canard foreplane. Can the phrase be removed from the title, please?

In the 1930s 'flying wing' and some related terms were used quite differently. I think you are retrojecting modern (post WWII American) usage of the term onto a period where it was much looser.

When you produce an informed contemporary source describing this plane or any other like it as a "flying wing", or defining a "flying wing" in terms which include twin fuselages and a foreplane, I will take that claim seriously - but not until then.

For your information, even Junkers' famous 1910 patent does not claim to describe a flying wing. Here is Google's version of its entry on the sometimes over-credulous German Wikipedia:

Although the patent is considered in many publications as a guide to the flying wing aircraft, the fact that Junkers ultimately describes a flying wing aircraft is questioned by other sources.
...
Flying wing?
Although the principle drawings of the patent specification do not show any tail units, there are doubts in some sources that Junkers really depicted a wing-only design. Rather, z. B. according to Pawlas [5] assume that the term wing-only patent, which only became more and more common in the 1930s, takes something for the Junkers aircraft that was not mentioned at all in the patent application.

However, the actual intention can be inferred from the text of the application, namely all parts of the aircraft which do not contribute to buoyancy and cause resistance, such as, for. As engines, fuel tanks, struts, etc., to take out of the air stream and to lay them in a correspondingly shaped, thick wing with large cavities. Tail units and other stabilization or control organs are not mentioned. If the patent had specifically targeted the flying wing, this information would have been essential. The conclusion is that the patent did not describe a special new aircraft type (flying wing), but only one component of an aircraft, namely the wings.

Adding accommodation cabins in the twin fuselages, as done on the J 1000, clearly distances itself even further from the all-wing (nurflügel) principle.

 

[Orionblamblam]

When you produce an informed contemporary source describing this plane or any other like it as a "flying wing", or defining a "flying wing" in terms which include twin fuselages and a foreplane, I will take that claim seriously - but not until then.

The Northrop X-216H of 1929 had twin booms and a tailplane, and was referred to as a "flying wing." Sadly the Aviation Week and Flight archives are no longer accessible, but you can get some hints of that from 1930 articles here:

Aviation Week | Aviation Week Search results for: "flying wing"

Search the complete Aviation Week archive. Explore every issue we have ever published: find every article, photo, story, interview, pictorial, advertisement, and more.

archive.aviationweek.com

 

[Orionblamblam]

When you produce an informed contemporary source describing this plane or any other like it as a "flying wing", or defining a "flying wing" in terms which include twin fuselages and a foreplane, I will take that claim seriously - but not until then.

The Northrop X-216H of 1929 had twin booms and a tailplane, and was referred to as a "flying wing." Sadly the Aviation Week and Flight archives are no longer accessible, but you can get some hints of that from 1930 articles here:

Aviation Week | Aviation Week Search results for: "flying wing"

Search the complete Aviation Week archive. Explore every issue we have ever published: find every article, photo, story, interview, pictorial, advertisement, and more.

archive.aviationweek.com

 

[steelpillow]

When you produce an informed contemporary source describing this plane or any other like it as a "flying wing", or defining a "flying wing" in terms which include twin fuselages and a foreplane, I will take that claim seriously - but not until then.

The Northrop X-216H of 1929 had twin booms and a tailplane, and was referred to as a "flying wing." Sadly the Aviation Week and Flight archives are no longer accessible, but you can get some hints of that from 1930 articles here:

Aviation Week | Aviation Week Search results for: "flying wing"

Search the complete Aviation Week archive. Explore every issue we have ever published: find every article, photo, story, interview, pictorial, advertisement, and more.

archive.aviationweek.com

Yes that is true. However Northrop did not put passenger cabins, main undercarriage and other sundries in his twin booms. So - no banana.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Yes that is true. However Northrop did not put passenger cabins, main undercarriage and other sundries in his twin booms. So - no banana.

Yeah, but no. Before WWII, a "flying wing" was defined differently, and more broadly, than it has been since. If the X-216H was a "flying wing" in that it was a big-ass wing connected to two booms and a stabilizing plane, then the J1000, with a big-ass wing connected to two booms and a stabilizing plane, would seem to be just as much a "flying wing." it's not that *now,* but terms change.

I have seen in various places - and, no, I'm nowhere near interested enough to go digging to find them - aircraft like the Junkers G38 *also* described as "flying wings" at the time. I *think* the definition at the time was that the aircraft was *mostly* wing, containing most or at least a large chunk of the passengers or cargo within the wing. In a conventional aircraft, the fusealge is where all the important stuff is, and the wings are just there to service the fuselage. In a "flying wing," the fuselage *isn't* the center of attention, but served a structural purpose such as holding the horizontal stabilizer.

 

[steelpillow]

and, no, I'm nowhere near interested enough to go digging to find them

Well I have long been so, and I have long done so, so I fear that cannot believe a word of your unsupported and apparently myth-led opinions. Nor can other serious historians whose footsteps I have followed. It is very much a case of no evidence, no deal.

 

[Orionblamblam]

and, no, I'm nowhere near interested enough to go digging to find them

Well I have long been so, and I have long done so, so I fear that cannot believe a word of your unsupported and apparently myth-led opinions.

Except I posted a link to a 1930 issue of Aviation Week where a vehicle was clearly called a "flying wing" that matches the configuration of the J1000, just backwards. Why you are so obsessed over this debate, I've no idea... and no further interest in engaging with it. The fact is clear to those willing to pay attention: the term "flying wing" meant something different circa 1930 than it means today.

 

[steelpillow]

Except I posted a link to a 1930 issue of Aviation Week where a vehicle was clearly called a "flying wing" that matches the configuration of the J1000, just backwards. Why you are so obsessed over this debate, I've no idea... and no further interest in engaging with it. The fact is clear to those willing to pay attention: the term "flying wing" meant something different circa 1930 than it means today.

That Aviation Week link returns the informative message, No Search results found for ""Flying wing"". You presumably mean the Northrop beasite, which does not have any of the J1000 style fuselage gubbins in its supporting booms (i.e. it actually fulfils the Junkers diktat that everything which does not create lift is housed within the parts that do). Why you are so obsessed with promoting untenable rubbish I have no idea. For my part, I believe that other readers are more likely to be interested in evidence-based reality, and our moderators seem to concur.

 

[Orionblamblam]

That Aviation Week link returns the informative message, No Search results found for ""Flying wing"".

Feb 22, 1930:

But I guess this evidence doesn't exist.
But wait! there's more evidence that doesn't exist! Such as this 1929 issue of Popular Mechanics:






Or this from a 1929 issue of Popular Mechanics, that apparently doesn't exist:



Or this Alternate Timeline issue of Flying Magazine from 1933 with a description of a "Flying Wing:"



Or this article from 1933, which compares the distinctly non-flying wing Junkers G-38 to a "flying wing" for exactly the reasons I suggested earlier:

 

[Orionblamblam]

And here's a description of the Fokker XO-27 as a "flying wing" in a 1931 issue of "Antiaircraft Journal:"



The Fokker XO-27, for those not immediately familiar, looked like this:




So... yeah. before WWII, "flying wing" was a much more expansive descriptor of aircraft.

 

[djfawcett]

I enjoyed reading what doesn't exist! I wonder if a BWB is a flying wing?????

 

[Orionblamblam]

I enjoyed reading what doesn't exist! I wonder if a BWB is a flying wing?????

It can be argued as such. In fact, aircraft like the HL-10 and M2-F3 can be argued as flying wings... just flying wings of incredibly stubby aspect ratio. Take any lifting body and stretch it out sideways and you'll have some kind of recognizable flying wing.

Had a BWB appeared in the 1920s or early 1930's, there would have been no hesitation in declaring it a "flying wing."

 

[Jemiba]

This discussion and its tone is at risk to get out of hand, I'm afraid.
Perhaps we can agree, that even in the world of aviation, terms are not always pinned down for all times,
but may be changing during the years ?
Here, I think, we should use the term "flying wing" in the interpretation, which today is standard, though
even this may be a bit difficult from time to time. Several books about this theme also include aircraft like
the Lippisch P.13, though it still has fin and rudder.
About the J1000 called a flying wing, I found another example in the "Illustrierte Technische Wörterbücher,
Band XVII, Luftfahrt" (illustrated technical dictionary, volume XVII, aviation) by Alfred Schlomann, 1932.
You can find then current aviation-related terms in four languages there, explained by a small graphic and
the one, which is used for the term "flying wing" actually looks like the J1000.
So, as I see it, it actually was used that way back then .... but not today, of course !

 

[steelpillow]

Ah, some evidence to examine at last! Let us take them in turn:

• The Northrop type (X-216H) has no fuselage. Everything is accommodated in the flying surfaces. It is often acknowledged as a flying wing.
  
  
• The Christmas design illustrated has a caption which makes it clear that it is not a flying wing - that design (not illustrated) has no fuselage and passengers are accommodated in the wing.
  
  
• The Vance machine is described as; "...a new type of plane on the principle of the 'flying wing' although it is not a true flying wing."
  
  
• The Junkers piece nowhere uses the term "flying wing".
  
  
• The Fokker XO-27 "has often been referred to as a 'flying wing'". The writer is evidently concerned that it may not actually be one. Indeed, it is a perfectly conventional layout. I would want to see much stronger supporting evidence that the writer's contemporary (n.b.) caution was unjustified.

So... yeah. before WWII, "flying wing" was a much more expansive descriptor of aircraft.

I don't think so. One needs to examine the evidence, not merely present it.

Just to clarify an earlier remark of mine, it was the combination of twin fuselages and canard that I rejected as a whole. The canard alone is not significant either way.

 

[Orionblamblam]

porting evidence that the writer's contemporary (n.b.) caution was unjustified.

So... yeah. before WWII, "flying wing" was a much more expansive descriptor of aircraft.

I don't think so. One needs to examine the evidence, not merely present it.

And the evidence presented clearly shows that aircraft that were by modern definition *not* flying wings were, nearly a century ago, referred to as "flying wings." Why you wish to deny the rather clear reality before you, I can't fathom. Nor do I want to. We're living in a time when cognitive dissonance is rampant, and I've lost my patience for it.

So, here's my challenge: I have presented evidence that shows that people *did* refer to non-flying-wings as "flying wings." It is now up to you to prove that that evidence doesn't actually exist. Consider, for example, your counterfactual claim that "The Junkers piece nowhere uses the term "flying wing". " Since it very clearly *does* use the term "flying wing..." Shrug. Don't know what to tell ya.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Perhaps we can agree, that even in the world of aviation, terms are not always pinned down for all times,
but may be changing during the years ?

Apparently not.

About the J1000 called a flying wing, I found another example in the "Illustrierte Technische Wörterbücher,
Band XVII, Luftfahrt" (illustrated technical dictionary, volume XVII, aviation) by Alfred Schlomann, 1932.
You can find then current aviation-related terms in four languages there, explained by a small graphic and
the one, which is used for the term "flying wing" actually looks like the J1000.

Quiet, you!

 

[Orionblamblam]

Here's the thing: if you argue that the J1000 could not ever have been referred to as a flying wing because it wasn't a "pure" or truly "all wing" flying wing... then neither were the B-35 or B-49. Both had small but very clear central fuselages. The B-49 had vertical stabilizers, and the B-35 had nacelles that kinda served that function.

 

[steelpillow]

I have presented evidence that shows that people *did* refer to non-flying-wings as "flying wings."

So "not a true flying wing" and not mentioning "flying wing" at all are both evidence of being referred to as flying wings? Sorry, that is so patently absurd I think further comment is superfluous.

 

[Orionblamblam]

So "not a true flying wing" and not mentioning "flying wing" at all ...

Repeating a falsehood neither makes it true nor bolsters your case.