Flyable Ju-52

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Not entirely sure about that..

 

above is pictured single engine JU-52, it took off and flew although with disappointing performance

 

asymmetric flight would be limited by control authority, although the wing engines do have a slightly strange (helpful) thrust vector, this may be a factor  

 

perhaps someone has a manual/performance charts, they must be fairly common (easily available for purchase, Ju-52/licence built French AAC.1 Toucan and Spanish Casa 352 was manufactured until 1952

 

small site giving reasonable info of variants of JU-52's (MSFS)

 

http://www.ju52-3m.ch/about.htm

 

Cheers Dakpilot

The original Ju-52/1m had a variety of liquid cooled inline engines such as the Jumo 205 with880 Hp. It also had several differences in fuselage construction and weight. Ju52/3m used 3 air cooled BMW132 radials with 660Hp each.

 

I have several Ju-52/3m manuals  and all of which only mention flight with 2 engines. In this case maximum speed is reduced to 160km/h and it mentiones that special caution must be spend while turning into the direction of the dead engine.

 

The outboard engines were angled a few degress to allow for better twin engine flight, not solo outboard. Even if the pilot was able to counter the momentum of only one of the outboard engines running the power would probably not be enought to keep her flying.

[No601_Swallow]

The original Ju-52/1m had a variety of liquid cooled inline engines such as the Jumo 205 with880 Hp. It also had several differences in fuselage construction and weight. Ju52/3m used 3 air cooled BMW132 radials with 660Hp each.

 

I have several Ju-52/3m manuals  and all of which only mention flight with 2 engines. In this case maximum speed is reduced to 160km/h and it mentiones that special caution must be spend while turning into the direction of the dead engine.

 

The outboard engines were angled a few degress to allow for better twin engine flight, not solo outboard. Even if the pilot was able to counter the momentum of only one of the outboard engines running the power would probably not be enought to keep her flying.

 

Many thanks for this outstanding post, Stuks. This, basically, is why I wade through all those countless the-number-of-rivets-on-the-cooling-head-of-the-starboard-valve-is-out-by-two-TWO!-so-I'm-never-wasting-my-money-on-this-crock-of-shite-again  posts on this and most other flightsim forums - because the same enthusiasm that fuels the unhinged (to quote the immortal Taylor) "haters gotta hate, hate, hate, hate..." posts also powers gems like this - fascinating details about the aeroplanes we (I!) love.

 

I really can't wait to get behind the wheel of a '52, to claw my way into the sky, overburdened with evacuating dying and injured soldaten from Pitomnik on three engines and a prayer...

 

(Honestly, the mission-building potential of having a Ju52 (with cargo options in its "properties" dialogue) and eventually a Soviet Dakota are immense. I wonder if we can use the ME fakefield object to make a runway within Stalingrad itself...!)

Edited July 29, 2016 by No601_Swallow

[Dakpilot]

The original Ju-52/1m had a variety of liquid cooled inline engines such as the Jumo 205 with880 Hp. It also had several differences in fuselage construction and weight. Ju52/3m used 3 air cooled BMW132 radials with 660Hp each.

 

I have several Ju-52/3m manuals  and all of which only mention flight with 2 engines. In this case maximum speed is reduced to 160km/h and it mentiones that special caution must be spend while turning into the direction of the dead engine.

 

The outboard engines were angled a few degress to allow for better twin engine flight, not solo outboard. Even if the pilot was able to counter the momentum of only one of the outboard engines running the power would probably not be enought to keep her flying.

 

 you are gently massaging your figures, original JU52 1m with max t/o weight of 7000kg  and engine of 690hp was certified for flight, and although it was not a great performer, it was capable of taking off

 

our Ju 52 3m g4e with  BMW 132 A3 engines  714-728HP (depending on source) and empty weight 6500kg 

 

The question asked was could it stay airborne on one engine,

 

I would imagine it could maintain  unless at max weight

 

anyway soon we will be able to try ourselves 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[216th_Jordan]

 you are gently massaging your figures, original JU52 1m with max t/o weight of 7000kg  and engine of 690hp was certified for flight, and although it was not a great performer, it was capable of taking off

 

our Ju 52 3m g4e with  BMW 132 A3 engines  714-728HP (depending on source) and empty weight 6500kg 

 

The question asked was could it stay airborne on one engine,

 

I would imagine it could maintain  unless at max weight

 

anyway soon we will be able to try ourselves 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Basically I would agree with you, but Stuka was talking about one outboard engine being insufficient for flight. Like that you have to factor in the momentum that needs to be countered by a lot of rudder input which should cause quite some drag. (I would also think that the engines on the wings disrupt airflow, making lift worse when not running compared to the 1m model)

Edited July 29, 2016 by 216th_Jordan

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Maybe this can help out.

That's from the "Ju-52 Betriebsanleitung 1939". It clearly states a nominal engine power of 660Hp each at 915m.

 

The actual takeoff weight with full fuel and no passengers would be ~9200kg.

 

Btw, would be awesome to get the C-Stand (Gondeltopf), too.

Edited July 30, 2016 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[Dakpilot]

I am not trying to be argumentative, but there were many models of JU-52

 

With each being named JU 52 3m followed by model number  -g3- g3e -g4e--etc up to g14e

 

the original 3m did indeed have BMW 132 A engines producing 660 hp, there were however many versions of this engine going up to a max of 950hp

 

We have in game the JU-52 g4e which was the 3rd improved military version with more powerful engines 714- 730 HP depending on source

 

fairly sure the C-stand "dustbin" belly gun arrangement was not used much at all after Spanish civil war Bomber version, however it would be fun, I believe a couple were used as "escort gunships" versions in some large Med supply operations, also fitted with 20mm

 

would much prefer the g10e Float and or ski model   with float planes in RoF this would not be too impossible 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[JtD]

 

 

We have in game the JU-52 g4e which was the 3rd improved military version with more powerful engines 714- 730 HP depending on source

 

Not true about the changed engines and a bit misleading about the power output. The g4e and g3e had the same BMW132A engines. Later models used the BMW132T engine, which still produced the same power. It used a different electric generator and that was all.

 

Rated power of these BMW132 (A, T & Z) according to the manufacturers power chart:

1min - 2050rpm/1.25ata - 725PS@0m

5min - 2050rpm/1.13ata - 640PS@0m, 660PS@900m

30min - 1975rpm/1.06ata - 575PS@0m, 600PS@1400m

max. continuous - 1930rpm/1.02ata - 535PS@0m, 565@1700m

cruise - 1860rpm/0.96ata - 485PS@0m, 515PS@2200m

 

To maintain the flight manuals cruise speed recommendations, you'd need about 400PS per engine.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

We have in game the JU-52 g4e which was the 3rd improved military version with more powerful engines 714- 730 HP depending on source

No. The manual excerp above is for the g3m and g4m version with BMW 132 A-3 engines.

[Dakpilot]

I was unaware that BMW 132 engines from 1930 (A to Z) onwards all had the same power rating and the only difference was the electric generator.......

 

In my personal experience with many hours of 'engine out' flight, and rated for 3 engine takeoff and ferry flight I still feel at max rated power on one engine you would have a good chance of maintaining a reasonable altitude until a suitable forced landing field became available (very good short field landing performance and slow speed handling)

 

this would have nothing to do with maintaining recommended cruise speed, but keeping it above clean stall speed

 

anyway this part of the discussion was simply about a general point of maintaining flight with one engine, not the usual chart battles and micro point scoring

 

I will just look forward to flying it in the sim when it arrives   whichever flyable model we get

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited July 30, 2016 by Dakpilot

[CCG_Pips]

Then it will be possible to release this one ...............................>

 

Edited July 30, 2016 by Pips

[JtD]

 

 

I was unaware that BMW 132 engines from 1930 (A to Z) onwards all had the same power rating and the only difference was the electric generator.....

 

I apologize for insulting you by posting data. I'm glad you've managed to put up a sarcastic wall of ignorance. You're proving that it is a good way of protecting uneducated opinion, even under the threat of facts. I could never do what you're achieving here, because I'm always happy to learn new things. It's of course my mistake to assume that other people also prefer improving their knowledge over maintaining a wrong opinion. So, again, my apologies.

[Dakpilot]

I apologize for insulting you by posting data. I'm glad you've managed to put up a sarcastic wall of ignorance. You're proving that it is a good way of protecting uneducated opinion, even under the threat of facts. I could never do what you're achieving here, because I'm always happy to learn new things. It's of course my mistake to assume that other people also prefer improving their knowledge over maintaining a wrong opinion. So, again, my apologies.

 

And yet your  posted data says that BMW 132 A models,T models and Z models all produce/have the same power rating...I was unaware of that. 

 

Seriously I thought they got improvements over their 10 year military lifespan

 

This can be a very tiring forum to even bother with posting on sometimes.

 

Regardless..

 

My logic from experience says that if an aircraft can take off and climb with 690 HP at 7000kg

 

an aircraft with very similar airframe (1M vs 3M) should be able to maintain altitude with similar HP at  similar/ more weight even with the associated extra drag involved with flying asymmetric

 

If you remove the centre engine power a JU-52 will behave with the same physics as any twin

 

The Ju-52 has unusual wing engine thrust line, easily seen by the 'outward pointing' engines which was a design feature to AID asymmetric flight, also with a comparatively low stall speed and good slow flight characteristics,

 

It is all a bit of hypothetical fun, most likely for a JU-52 in game to lose two engines it would have sustained major other damage or been finished off anyway 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[BlitzPig_EL]

I'm going to make it my mission to make sure that they loose all three of their engines, as quickly as possible.

 

 

Of course that will only spark a debate about their ability to dead stick to the smoking hole under control.

 

[JtD]

There are a lot more models than A, T and Z. Also, there was evolution inside these models, for instance, the A-0, A-1, A-2/A-3 have different power outputs. So, not all BMW132 had the same power output, there certainly was evolution. It's just that basically all military Ju52, from g3 to g8, used the same engine - usually an A-3 or equivalent, with no change in power output at least between 1934 and 1942.

 

The reason I posted the figures is to allow a more analytical approach to the question of one engined flight. Obviously, with a flying weight between ~7t empty ~10t maximum take off weight, 50% power changes depending on the level of engine abuse, as well as a large band of variable atmospheric conditions it operated in, a blanket statement yes or no is a way too simple answer. I'm convinced that there are conditions in which one engine flight is possible, and that there are conditions in which it is not. For instance, at 7t without cargo and with a near empty fuel tank - probably yes. At 10t, fully loaded, with nearly twice the drag - probably not. Maintaining 4000m on a hot summer day - probably not. Maintaining 400m on a cold winter day - probably yes. And so on.

 

Apparently the Ju52 needed ~1200hp to maintain its cruise speed, which happens to be pretty close to minimum drag speed. If you go slower, thrust goes up, but so does drag. For a bit, thrust goes up quicker than drag, at some point, drag's increasing faster than thrust. Biggest question for me right now - 1200hp for 10t or for 7t, or something in between?

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

I hope we can get the additional cupola turret on the cockpit as a modification.

 

http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Ju-52/Junkers-Ju-52/images/Demyansk-airlift-Junkers-Ju-52-FFS©16-ferrying-supplies-Feb-1942-01.jpg

[GrendelsDad]

Thanks so much for the input guys...I find all the facts, opinions, and speculation in this thread awesome!

Edited July 30, 2016 by 6./ZG1_GrendelsDad

[Dakpilot]

I apologize for insulting you by posting data. I'm glad you've managed to put up a sarcastic wall of ignorance. You're proving that it is a good way of protecting uneducated opinion, even under the threat of facts. I could never do what you're achieving here, because I'm always happy to learn new things. It's of course my mistake to assume that other people also prefer improving their knowledge over maintaining a wrong opinion. So, again, my apologies.

 

Bit of an extreme rant considering you now admit your data is wrong

 

There are a lot more models than A, T and Z. Also, there was evolution inside these models, for instance, the A-0, A-1, A-2/A-3 have different power outputs.So, not all BMW132 had the same power output, there certainly was evolution. It's just that basically all military Ju52, from g3 to g8, used the same engine - usually an A-3 or equivalent, with no change in power output at least between 1934 and 1942.

The reason I posted the figures is to allow a more analytical approach to the question of one engined flight. Obviously, with a flying weight between ~7t empty ~10t maximum take off weight, 50% power changes depending on the level of engine abuse, as well as a large band of variable atmospheric conditions it operated in, a blanket statement yes or no is a way too simple answer. I'm convinced that there are conditions in which one engine flight is possible, and that there are conditions in which it is not. For instance, at 7t without cargo and with a near empty fuel tank - probably yes. At 10t, fully loaded, with nearly twice the drag - probably not. Maintaining 4000m on a hot summer day - probably not. Maintaining 400m on a cold winter day - probably yes. And so on.

 

Apparently the Ju52 needed ~1200hp to maintain its cruise speed, which happens to be pretty close to minimum drag speed. If you go slower, thrust goes up, but so does drag. For a bit, thrust goes up quicker than drag, at some point, drag's increasing faster than thrust. Biggest question for me right now - 1200hp for 10t or for 7t, or something in between?

 

I am glad you now acknowledge that A T and Z models do not all have the same performance as posted in your data, and I thought the T model engine was brought in with the g5

 

"Rated power of these BMW132 (A, T & Z) according to the manufacturers power chart:

1min - 2050rpm/1.25ata - 725PS@0m

5min - 2050rpm/1.13ata - 640PS@0m, 660PS@900m

30min - 1975rpm/1.06ata - 575PS@0m, 600PS@1400m

max. continuous - 1930rpm/1.02ata - 535PS@0m, 565@1700m

cruise - 1860rpm/0.96ata - 485PS@0m, 515PS@2200m"

 

No more to say   pointless argument

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[JtD]

I quoted the power figures BMW gives for the engines that powered any military Ju52 from 3g to 8g. They all have an identical power output. It's really not that hard to understand. If you disagree, please be specific and name a source.

 

Right now I have no idea where you read whatever it is you appear to be understanding. It's certainly not in what I wrote.

Edited July 30, 2016 by JtD

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

Can someone give some info about the Ju-52 g4e we are getting other than what wikipedia can give? Like was it the most seen variant during stalingrad and some other info you can give. I want to know as much possible about the g4e

 

Thanks!

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Don't care, Sound: 

 

I actually saw this one life many times, when it flew over Berlin (where I lived as well).

The Rosinenbomber (DC-3) also did regular flights over Berlin until it Crashed. 

Edited July 30, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

D-AQUI is nice but unfortunately uses Pratt & Whitneys with 3-blade Hamilton props. Makes quite a difference compared to the BMW 132 and 2-blade props the original had.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSCjR6eHUEE

Seen this one (Ju-Air), the Rimowa one and Lufthansa's D-AQUI live and they're all beautyfull aircraft. Hope they'll continue flying for long.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, I just read up on the Rosinenbomber, D-CXXX, and surprisingly enough they got it airworthy again, still able to carry passengers. 

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

If Devs manage to give our 52s so many options from payloads (bombs, troops, cargo drops) to those guns cupolas, they will enter sims history for sure.

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

A small modification that I would like to see is smaller nose engine cowling. 

 

Different cowling size shown here: http://imgur.com/a/anrCH

 

That cockpit turret would be nice as well

Edited July 30, 2016 by 6./ZG26_McKvack

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Do engines have fuel injection or I will need to buy another Saitek  throttle quadrant??

Edited July 31, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Gielow

[Feathered_IV]

I apologize for insulting you by posting data. I'm glad you've managed to put up a sarcastic wall of ignorance. You're proving that it is a good way of protecting uneducated opinion, even under the threat of facts. I could never do what you're achieving here, because I'm always happy to learn new things. It's of course my mistake to assume that other people also prefer improving their knowledge over maintaining a wrong opinion. So, again, my apologies.

 

Best not to get too uptight 

 

[=EXPEND=Dendro]

My grandfather used to fly one here in south africa and all over the show..... wish he was still alive so I had more details. I will certainly fly one on BoS to get an idea.

 

http://www.saamuseum.co.za/our-aircraft/66-junkers-ju-52-casa-352l.html

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Best not to get too uptight 

 

Oh, I'll losen up alright. 

[Dakpilot]

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Rjel]

Best not to get too uptight 

 

 

Wicked sense of humor man.

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

Do anyone know if the Ju-52 we are getting has fire extinguishers? It sure looks like it ingame since fires goes out after a few sec

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Do anyone know if the Ju-52 we are getting has fire extinguishers? It sure looks like it ingame since fires goes out after a few sec

Jet Steel can't fuel Melt Beams. 

[JtD]

The Ju52 has a fire extinguisher system.

[Crump]

Stop drop and roll....

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

Jet Steel can't fuel Melt Beams.

Operation Uranus was an inside job

[Sim]

Flyable JUUUU - a dream come true 

 

I am hoping for some cargo payload/modification options. It would be silly to always fly this plane without any cargo (hence no additional weight). Also, a way to jettison the cargo containers on a low level flight (as they did over Stalingrad) would be great.

 

I think paratrooper payload option is a bit too much to request right now realistically... at least I don't think we have theaters that would strictly require this.

 

Another wish list is for the current external model to be improved somewhat - for example we should see through the passenger windows and any details inside (If they choose to add additional side gunner modifications they will probably need to model this interior anyway).

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

Flyable JUUUU - a dream come true 

 

I am hoping for some cargo payload/modification options. It would be silly to always fly this plane without any cargo (hence no additional weight). Also, a way to jettison the cargo containers on a low level flight (as they did over Stalingrad) would be great.

 

I think paratrooper payload option is a bit too much to request right now realistically... at least I don't think we have theaters that would strictly require this.

 

Another wish list is for the current external model to be improved somewhat - for example we should see through the passenger windows and any details inside (If they choose to add additional side gunner modifications they will probably need to model this interior anyway).

 

I agree with you about the cargo and paratrooper part. Paratroopers would be nice but atm it does not really fit in and I guess it would take much more work to get it done however cargo loadouts is a must and droppable cargo would be amazing.

 

About the external model, you can actually see in through the windows and see the interior and some "seats". Would be cool to see crates, barrels and such depending on the loadout

[No601_Swallow]

. Also, a way to jettison the cargo containers on a low level flight (as they did over Stalingrad) would be great.

 

 

And over Velikie Luki, too, I believe.  At V. Luki, towards the end of the seige, they had to drop the supplies inside the walls of the citadel!

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I would love to play Front Line Transport for Injured, VIP and Supplies from Improvised Airfields, Bad Weather and Night Flights.

Basically a WWII Flying Doctor Service. 

 

[RAY-EU]

Where Eagles Dare with Ju-52

 

Edited August 1, 2016 by RAY-EU