Developer Diary, Part 133 - Discussion

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

TO THE JU52 EXPERTS,

 

Guys, I have an old 1970s Wings aircraft magazine that mentions that the JU52 had an engineers position and a radio operator position.  Do you know if these 2 positions were in the military version, or were they just in the civil version?  If they were in the military version, will these 2 positions be modeled?

 

In addition, I read that Capt Eric Brown said that the drill for starting the JU52 "was rather like playing a Wurlitzer organ", so watching the start up sequence is going to be an events on its own!

 

Regards

 

Haza

Both positions were availabel on the military models. The flight engineer's seat was in the cockpit between the pilot and copilot and could be folded up to clear the entrance to the cockpit. The radio operator was located behind the cockpit.

[Bullets]

Looks great so far but imo the cockpit texture resolution is pretty low quality will that be improved?   

[E69_geramos109]

How can the yak 1b new propeller chage the performance?

Edited September 30, 2016 by E69_geramos109

[-TBC-AeroAce]

How can the yak 1b new propeller chage the performance?

It will be more efficient. creating more thrust for same amount of power

[Finkeren]

It will be more efficient. creating more thrust for same amount of power

It could also have a wider range of pitch movement, making it posible to keep maximum rpm in more extreme situations or making it posible to dive more steeply at full power without over-rev'ing.

 

The MiG-3 is an example. Halfway through its production run it switched to a new prop with greater range of motion, and it apparently resulted in better climb rate and high-altitude performance.

[FlyingNutcase]

Bravo chaps; keep up the good work! I look forward to a Ju-52 campaign, in a masochistic kind of way. ;:-D

[Lusekofte]

Yes looking good,very good. Many thanks

[Chief_Mouser]

Eagerly awaiting the Ju52. Mapped a switch on the HOTAS for Engine 3; now just need the update in the Key Settings. Will the engines be 1-2-3 left to right? Hopefully it will be 1-3-2 to keep the nose engine separate and make it easier for those mapping the wing engines on one control. Nice update.

Cheers.

[Freycinet]

Thanks for the update.

 

Some comments regarding the Ju-52 cockpit.

 

I just uploaded my pics of the EADS Ju-52 here, including some detailed cockpit pics:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/g7xfzeuah28dfww/AAB57aAg5PLpfrmMNlyEz_CMa?dl=0

It is one of the more historically correct cockpits. Or at least not totally modernised as the cockpits of other flying Ju-52s.

 

Weirdly, in the EADS Ju-52 it also says "Hauptbehälten", even though I agree that the correct word is "Hauptbehältern" (main tanks). Some other signs ("Öl Kühler", "Kraftstoff pompe") split up the words in a rather un-German way, and there are clear spelling errors, like "pompe" instead of "Pumpe" (Also "Automatische Steverung" instead of the correct "Automatische Steuerung").

 

I am getting the impression that the restorers of this plane were probably better mechanics than typists!

 

I did notice that it says "Bremse" in my photo (on the quadrant) and not "Bremsen" as in the cockpit rendering. Which one is historically correct I can't say... "Bremse" means "(the) Brake", whereas "Bremsen" means either (the verb) "to brake" or (in plural) "Brakes". So take your pick...  :-)

 

Anyway, hope my photos of the Ju-52 interior can be helpful. I took them when I was writing an article about the Ferté-Alais airshow for a Danish aviation journal and had "behind-the-scenes" access to all the planes, it was great!

Edited September 30, 2016 by Freycinet

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Bremsen is the correct term meaning brakes.

[216th_Jordan]

Eagerly awaiting the Ju52. Mapped a switch on the HOTAS for Engine 3; now just need the update in the Key Settings. Will the engines be 1-2-3 left to right? Hopefully it will be 1-3-2 to keep the nose engine separate and make it easier for those mapping the wing engines on one control. Nice update.

Cheers.

 

Why would 1-2-3 not be good for this?

If you have a 2 lever throttle just set 1 and 3 on one axis and 2 on the other (so you also dont have to switch every time you fly a twin engined pane. Or am I getting this all wrong?

[Bando]

What do you do when engine 1 is shot and on fire then?

You'd have to shut down eng1 and feather it. If eng3 is on the same lever you have a challenge. No?

[216th_Jordan]

What do you do when engine 1 is shot and on fire then?

You'd have to shut down eng1 and feather it. If eng3 is on the same lever you have a challenge. No?

 

yes but that's always a problem if you have more than 1 engine on 1 lever.

[Feathered_IV]

There must have been lots of variation in Ju-52 interior colours over the years.  This collection of shots shows a presumably late style.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dwhitworth/page100

[Freycinet]

Thanks a lot! Fixed!

 

Hi Glukus,

 

Have you had access to this document, a 1939 Ju-52 manual?

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/germany/junkers/ju52/ju-52-3m-g3e-und-g4e-betriebsanleitung-hauptabschnitt-0-6.html

 

On page 212 and 214 you have diagrams of engine controls with historically correct names.

 

On page 221-226 as well as 233 you have additional info about control rods and other cockpit interior.

 

On page 304 you can see the correct lay-out and names of the cockpit instruments.

 

The document contains many other useful diagrams of the plane.

 

Cheers,

Freycinet

[Chief_Mouser]

Why would 1-2-3 not be good for this?

If you have a 2 lever throttle just set 1 and 3 on one axis and 2 on the other (so you also dont have to switch every time you fly a twin engined pane. Or am I getting this all wrong?

 

I have a dual throttle and can assign an extra lever for a third, but I don't want to have the nose engine on the same controls as the wing ones. I'd prefer keeping the dual throttles for the wing engines (hopefully 1 & 2), as that's how they're set up for other aircraft, and keep the nose engine separate.

Cheers.

Edited September 30, 2016 by 216th_Cat

[Gunsmith86]

The flight engineer's seat was in the cockpit between the pilot and copilot

 

Thats wrong ther is no copilot thats the seat of the flight engineer and there is no seat between the pilot and the flight engineer.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Thats wrong ther is no copilot thats the seat of the flight engineer and there is no seat between the pilot and the flight engineer.

I might be mistaken assuming it was a general feauture but Lufthansas D-AQUI definetly has a 3rd folded seat mounted at the side of the entrance. Could be that this was one of the modification done by Lufthansa to modernize it.

 

Anyway, thx for pointing that out.

 

Edit: My bad translating "Bordwart" as copilot.

[Uufflakke]

Bremsen is the correct term meaning brakes.

 

Genau!

 

image share

 

image share

[216th_Jordan]

I have a dual throttle and can assign an extra lever for a third, but I don't want to have the nose engine on the same controls as the wing ones. I'd prefer keeping the dual throttles for the wing engines (hopefully 1 & 2), as that's how they're set up for other aircraft, and keep the nose engine separate.

Cheers.

 

Ah! Got you now

[Geleitzug]

Ah! Got you now

Just a silly question - with the Warthog having two "real" throttle levers only, can I still assign a third lever (any of the additional ones) as engine control ?

Edited September 30, 2016 by Geleitzug

[216th_Jordan]

Just a silly question - with the Warthog having two "real" throttle levers only, can I still assign a third lever (any of the additional ones) as engine control ?

Sure, you can assign any lever or axis (even the mouse on the throttle). Sometimes what I do when I want individual engine control I assign 'axes + capslock' in the input settings, so when I press capslock I can have two throttles instead of one for both engines and the other for mixture. Its a bit unhandy though sometimes.

Edited September 30, 2016 by 216th_Jordan

[Geleitzug]

Sure, you can assign any lever or axis (even the mouse on the throttle). Sometimes what I do when I want individual engine control I assign 'axes + capslock' in the input settings, so when I press capslock I can have two throttles instead of one for both engines and the other for mixture. Its a bit unhandy though sometimes.

 

Ok - thanks... will try it when the Tante-Ju arrives and fly around the Christmas tree...   (oops - I forgot to pre-order it so far... will do that soon)

[Feuerfalke]

 

Hope it's visible enought.

 

Ah, thanks, interesting.

I had found a different, scanned photograph with larger black and slightly offset screws.

 

On second thought, this also reads "Aussenboard". The one I dug out was labeled in correct German ("Außenbord"). 

 

Lets hope this is not taken from one of the Swiss Ju52.

Since there is no "ß" in Switzerland that is all replaced by "ss" and they replaced a couple of other platings as well for their training purpose...

 

 

Edit: Yes, it seems to be the Swiss Ju52 HB-HDY judging from the rest of the photos. Also note that most of the instruments have been replaced by international instruments with English titles and scales.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Feuerfalke

[Adj]

Looking forward to the update and the new aircraft!

[Picchio]

Outstanding work as always in the 3D modelling of those cockpits!

But, guys... if I can point out one little but: they're crying for higher resolution textures... especially a few larger geometries in that Tante Ju

[senseispcc]

Thank you for the news about the Yak 1b. Good work ! The Yak 7 was also important in the begining of the war maybe only as a stop gap but it served in/on many fronts and could be also a Uti version ?! One can dream is it not..  but still thanks for your hard works and you listening to us the payer's.  

[Boomerang]

WoW!

Sure glad I purchased both of these Birds  

Looking forward to flying them.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Thank you for the news about the Yak 1b. Good work ! The Yak 7 was also important in the begining of the war maybe only as a stop gap but it served in/on many fronts and could be also a Uti version ?! One can dream is it not..  but still thanks for your hard works and you listening to us the payer's.

 

You have seen the announcement for Battle of Kuban right?

 

http://il2sturmovik.com/about/#9

 

:D

[69th_chuter]

Oxygen supply. Not sure what the dials actually indicate though. Pressure and flow rate maybe?

 

 

Seriously?  Oxygen?  Mine will very definitely have that filled with nitrous oxide,  oxygen can only increase the anxiety, and I will need all the high altitude performance I can get ... even on the deck!

Edited October 1, 2016 by chuter

[69th_chuter]

It could also have a wider range of pitch movement, making it posible to keep maximum rpm in more extreme situations or making it posible to dive more steeply at full power without over-rev'ing.

 

The MiG-3 is an example. Halfway through its production run it switched to a new prop with greater range of motion, and it apparently resulted in better climb rate and high-altitude performance.

 

 

Interestingly, propeller efficiency drops off considerably as the pitch increases (at full feather its zero).  The blade design (cross-section) seems to be the best place to look for reasons for improvement.

[Finkeren]

Interestingly, propeller efficiency drops off considerably as the pitch increases (at full feather its zero). The blade design (cross-section) seems to be the best place to look for reasons for improvement.

For overall improvement yes, but at the fringes pitch range does become important, since it is what gives you the ability to do power-on dives and steep climbs without either over-rev'ing or being unable to run stable rpm.

[E69_geramos109]

For overall improvement yes, but at the fringes pitch range does become important, since it is what gives you the ability to do power-on dives and steep climbs without either over-rev'ing or being unable to run stable rpm.

But with the actual red planes you can dive without over reving.

[Finkeren]

But with the actual red planes you can dive without over reving.

Not the I-16. I've killed the engine in a dive multiple times.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Most Soviet engines in game were kind of 'idiot proof' - the designers made it so that the pilot could never exceed the nominal limits using the cockpit controls. Also as far as I recall the engine controls regulated RPM, not pitch, so I believe in a dive you would probably just have the propeller pitch adjust itself to produce the desired RPM.

 

The Shvetsov engines are bastards though (both in the La-5 and I-16). You can break them by over boosting, over revving, moving the throttle too fast and so on. I've lost count of fights I lost by having the engine immediately quit on me after pushing the throttle too fast.

[E69_geramos109]

Not the I-16. I've killed the engine in a dive multiple times.

Yes but not the current yak1 so that is why im asking for the changes with the new prop of the 1b. I supose it has better performance but it can be fuel economy, climb rate, changes of performances only in some rmp. So i dont know exactly what the changes on performances are.

For example P39 changed in to a 4 blade prop but after that, they changed again in to the 3 blade prop.

Edited October 1, 2016 by E69_geramos109

[Caudron431]

Most Soviet engines in game were kind of 'idiot proof' - the designers made it so that the pilot could never exceed the nominal limits using the cockpit controls. Also as far as I recall the engine controls regulated RPM, not pitch, so I believe in a dive you would probably just have the propeller pitch adjust itself to produce the desired RPM.

 

The Shvetsov engines are bastards though (both in the La-5 and I-16). You can break them by over boosting, over revving, moving the throttle too fast and so on. I've lost count of fights I lost by having the engine immediately quit on me after pushing the throttle too fast.

Interesting, i have always wondered about the differences between soviet (yak lagg) and other allied sytems (pitch/rpm control). Do you have more info on the subject?

Edited October 1, 2016 by Yak9Micha

[LLv44_Damixu]

Ju 52 cockpit looks so high quality, I just might purchase the bird just for heck of it enjoying the quality modeling you guys are doing.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Interesting, i have always wondered about the differences between soviet (yak lagg) and other allied sytems (pitch/rpm control). Do you have more info on the subject?

 

I don't know much unfortunately, but here is my understanding of it. Most manually-operated modern engines from the era, both Allied and Axis, had RPM control which decreased the workload on the pilot. From what I get, the main difference between the M-105PF (not sure about the other models) is that the only power output available to the pilot was the nominal power and RPM, whereas in other engines like the Allison in the P-40E-1 the pilot has access to more than nominal power which can be used with the caveat that excessive use could damage the engine.

 

For the pilot this was the second best thing after the German automatic control, because they knew that so long as the temperatures were kept within the limits, the pilots could push the engine and RPM as needed without breaking down. Airacobra pilots on the other hand had to look out for it for example, and this was a frequent complaint from them. Pokryshkin once decided to do a low pass over his airfield before heading out on a sortie and pushed the engine to the wall, trying to inspire confidence. Seconds later the engine gave in and started smoking all over the place, forcing him to land and take another plane.

[Jade_Monkey]

And to convince them to do the Li-2/C-47

 

I'm ok if they do the static model at least.