Edge Rewrite
// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2978f531e15eefa

Jump to content

Talk:Junkers G.38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 4 months ago by Nimbus227 in topic Props

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

[edit]

Removed Military History tag as article is out of scope. --dashiellx (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Additional info

[edit]

I cut this from the Flying wing article because it was OT. Might be worth stitching in here somewhere?

"The biggest land plane of its day, and nicknamed 'The Flying Hotel' one G-38 entered service with Lufthansa; It was not a commercial success however. Only two passenger planes were built although Mitsubishi in Japan acquired the licensing rights and built several (Some sources state 6) G-38s, as bombers under the designation Ki-20 or Type 92. Of Junkers own G38's one was grounded, the other was put to military use as a heavy transport and destroyed by a British air raid in Athens in 1941. "

-- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are there any sources for this info? Manxruler (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Turner & Nowarra (see refs) cover the variant mentioned in the second sentence. There was a Junkers construction number (K51) but they (all 6) were built by Mitsubishi as the Ki 20. There is a page on it but it's worth a mention here. I think the other points are covered or are contentious: Lufthansa ran D-2500 regularly for 8 year, so maybe commercially OK (yes, I remember Concorde!); personally I'm always wary of supposed nicknames.TSRL (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

File:Junkers Grossflugzeug LA2-Blitz-0128 5.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Junkers Grossflugzeug LA2-Blitz-0128 5.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Accessibility by the passengers - incorrect?

[edit]

Accessibility by the passengers of the nose and wings is disputed.

Or maybe not.

--Mortense (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Junkers L88 and Junkers L8a Engines

[edit]

Junkers L88 and L8a are petrol/gasoline engines. Later, Junkers G.38 got Junkers 204 diesel engines.

I changed that in the main article (diesel -> gasoline) but was reverted back to diesel.

This lineage can be traced down to Junkers L1 petrol/gasoline engine. For short, Junkers G.38, while being powered by L88 and L8a used petrol/gasoline. Later, when it was powered by Junkers 204 engines, it was powered by diesel.  Preceding unsigned comment added by MalaMrvica (talkcontribs) 10:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Props

[edit]

The specs say the outer engines had 2 -bladed props. But the 4th pic shows them with 4-bladed. ExpatSalopian (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The fourth image is of the second aircraft which had four engines of the same type. Images with a two-bladed propeller are of the first aircraft in its initial configuration of two different engine types, the lower powered outer engines only needing two-bladed propellers. This image shows the configuration well. The first aircraft was later re-engined with four Junkers Jumo 204s. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply