Ju 52 Was it an antique? Or a multi purpose operation succes

[phylo_roadking]

1941 version, (JU.52/3MG7E), still only weighed 6500 kg empty.

How is that relevant to a discussion of the Maximum Take Off Weight and landing distances of different models of Ju52/3m?

right, so STOL improves. Takeoff better, landing likely about the same. Weight didn't increase much, so you're STILL left with essentially no point.

"Take off better" - not if the rated cargo weight and MTOW increases also.

"Weight didn't increase much" - through the life of the Ju523m, the MTOW increased by one and a half tons. That's 15%, enough to change landing characteristics. Have you any information on the landing characterists of later models?

Already explained the million to one figure. If 10 arrived, many more followed, then the odds of there only being 5 serviceable out of many more than 10 is a zillion to one

No, you did not explain how you came up with that figure, which had now increased to a zillon to one. If anything, with more of a particular type in-theatre, and a high operation rate/total flying hours during the campaign, as maintenance and service spares being used up, serviceability rates are likely to stay balanced or go down as mechanics await the arrival of any particularly fast-wearing parts or frequent-use service items. Nor have you specified how many is "many more".

& we ARE discussing 1939-40.

No we aren't. According to the title of the thread we are discussing the Ju52, and in your first post you mentioned Maleme and Crete...1941.

[Chromeboomerang]

Yes we are. We were just specifically chatting 52's that went to Norway 1940.

Takeoff weight is not a measure of STOL. It is a measure of cargo weight capacity. To compare a 1932 circa Ju 52 3m vs a late 39/early 1940 JU 52 3m as regards STOL, one would naturally compare Powere to WEIGHT ratio, empty weights, brake systems, flaps, airalons, wing design, landing gear & so on. See link to substantiate this view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOL

These 2 had same wing, same fuselage, same brakes, flaps, & airelons. & weight was not much different.

So to sum up, you're original point that JU 52 was not designed for good STOL is nonsense. & your inference that a later Ju 52 3m ,( with mostly the same equipment mentioned above as a 1932 one did), & silmiliar weight would somehow mysteriously have Dramatically less STOL carries little to no water.

& your point of 5 servicable Floaplanes at Norway remains unsubsantiated.

[phylo_roadking]

Takeoff weight is not a measure of STOL. It is a measure of cargo weight capacity. To compare a 1932 circa Ju 52 3m vs a late 39/early 1940 JU 52 3m as regards STOL, one would naturally compare Powere to WEIGHT ratio, empty weights, brake systems, flaps, airalons, wing design, landing gear & so on. See link to substantiate this view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOL

These 2 had same wing, same fuselage, same brakes, flaps, & airelons. & weight was not much different.

There was a half a ton MTOW increase between "a 1932 circa Ju 52 3m vs a late 39/early 1940 JU 52 3m"

So to sum up, you're original point that JU 52 was not designed for good STOL is nonsense. & your inference that a later Ju 52 3m ,( with mostly the same equipment mentioned above as a 1932 one did), & silmiliar weight would somehow mysteriously have Dramatically less STOL carries little to no water.

Kindly point out to readers where I said in this thread the Ju52 was not a STOL aircraft. I was remarking on you using 1932-36 civilian airline service data to justify a point on military service capability five years+ later. Sadly, you have not provided any data on it's STOL performance in military service despite many requests to. Therefore I presume you don't have it to provide, and your comments on it's STOL performance in later, heavier models remains conjecture.

...& silmiliar weight would somehow mysteriously have Dramatically less STOL carries little to no water.

As you and readers of the thread are aware, there was a one and a half ton weight difference in certain weight measures between early civilian airline models, data on whose STOL performance you provided...and later military models. That is not a "similar weight" The early models had a Maximum Take-Off Weight of 9.8 tons, the last models 11.3 tons. That is a considerable difference between the two. You can try to gloss over that difference - but you cannot argue it away without providing STOL performance data for the later models.

[Ome_Joop]

Don't forget to mention to the reader the hp difference of the early and late Ju-52 (3 x 550 or 3 x 830 hp).

[peeved]

The still flying P&W Hornet Ju 52/3m will provide some information on the effect engine power had on Ju 52/3m take-off distance. With 600 hp Hornets it is ca. 500 m (cf. http://www.rundflug-nrw.de/rf11.html ) and with 725 hp take-off rated BMW 132 A it was 350 m (cf. http://www.ju52archiv.de/varianten.htm ); the 660 hp was 132 A's "combat" rating at 915 m, cf. "Flugzeug-Typenbuch" by Helmut Schneider. Both aircraft had the max. flying weight of 10 500 kg. A 20% increase in engine power for a given flying weight appears to have dramatic effect on the Alte Tante Ju's take-off distance.

To study the effects of a weight increase on the Ju 52/3m take-off one can compare the 132 A -engined bomber version with a take-off weight of 9 500 kg (cf. "Die deutschen Militärflugzeuge 1919-1934" by Helmut Stützer) to the similarly engined max. 10 500 kg cargo/passenger version: 300 m vs. 350 m. A 50 m take-off distance increase for a ton of extra weight doesn't seem too shabby. To quote http://www.ju52archiv.de/geschichte.htm

Durch den patentierten Junkers Doppelflügel hatte die Ju52/3m auch bei hohem Fluggewicht eine kurze Lande- und Startstrecke und war auch bei unbefestigten Landebahnen immer zu einer sicheren Landung zu "überreden"

or something like: "Due to the patented Junkers double wing the Ju 52/3m, at high flying weights also, had a short landing and take-off distance and even on unpaved landing strips could always be "talked into" a safe landing."
Markus

[phylo_roadking]

Don't forget to mention to the reader the hp difference of the early and late Ju-52 (3 x 550 or 3 x 830 hp).

O-J, I did, in that a power increase per model needs to keep step with any weight increase. However...this was NOT always the case with the Ju52...

In mid-model run the Ju52/3mg8e had to have it's BMW 132T-2s swapped out for BMW 132Z radials. Similarly, the subsequent Ju52/3mg9e was powered by the same 3 × BMW 132Z radials, had a glider-towing coupling, and had a strenghtened landing gear...for a max take-off weight of 25,353 lb (11.500 kg) In other words, its power wasn't boosted to match the uprated MTOW.

And, as I said before..."the hp difference of the early and late Ju-52" won't have any input to landing distances...

The still flying P&W Hornet Ju 52/3m will provide some information on the effect engine power had on Ju 52/3m take-off distance. With 600 hp Hornets it is ca. 500 m (cf. http://www.rundflug-nrw.de/rf11.html ) and with 725 hp take-off rated BMW 132 A it was 350 m (cf. http://www.ju52archiv.de/varianten.htm ); the 660 hp was 132 A's "combat" rating at 915 m, cf. "Flugzeug-Typenbuch" by Helmut Schneider. Both aircraft had the max. flying weight of 10 500 kg. A 20% increase in engine power for a given flying weight appears to have dramatic effect on the Alte Tante Ju's take-off distance.

Markus, this is quite correct; as I've just said about to Ome-Joop; however - taking off is only half[/] the story, as you do note...

or something like: "Due to the patented Junkers double wing the Ju 52/3m, at high flying weights also, had a short landing and take-off distance and even on unpaved landing strips could always be "talked into" a safe landing."

...taking a look round that Ju52archive page, that comment you translated seems to refer to its commercial airline performance, just like the centuryofflight source.

Historical events in Norway, Holland and Crete would indicate that they [i]couldn't "always be talked into a safe landing". On the first hours of ops at Stavanger-Sola five were written off in take-off accidents and collisions; in the landings at Valkenburg in Holland,

"...the runway proved too soft for the weight of the troop transports carrying the infantry. The first wave sank up to their axles, blocking the way for those that followed and offering sitting targets for the Dutch. many were hit and started to burn. The remainder could only mill around helplessly overhead or divert to other landing zones."

MacDonald the Lost Battle

At Ockenburg and Ypenburg events were no better. The fields were soon clogged with burning aircraft as seventeen landing Ju52s were shot up, and others collided. "The Ju-52s had to come down wherever they could, on the Rotterdam-Hague motorway and even on the beaches", scattered as far out of range as Sandvoort, and the hard-packed sand there could maybe cope with racing at the Dutch TT but couldn't handle the Ju52s. Between combat losses, and aircraft written off by landing accidents, collisions, and damage on landing "off-piste" -

"Of the 430 Ju52s engaged in the operation, two-thirds either never returned from Holland or were so badly damaged as to be write-offs. The special purpose squadron KGzbV2, during the landing attempts in The Hague area, lost ninety per cent of its aircraft. The Dutch airfields were littered with broken and burning wrecks."

The "combat" losses were only about a third of the total; the rest were landing and take-off accidents, and the damage suffered when coming down on "open-space" landing grounds.

For the problems the Ju52s suffered both at the makeshift Greece end of operations, and at Maleme on Crete - see the posts in the old Operation Ikarus What-If.

[Ome_Joop]

MacDonald the Lost Battle

At Ockenburg and Ypenburg events were no better. The fields were soon
clogged with burning aircraft as seventeen landing Ju52s were shot up, and
others collided. "The Ju-52s had to come down wherever they could, on the
Rotterdam-Hague motorway and even on the beaches", scattered as far out of
range as Sandvoort, and the hard-packed sand there could maybe cope with
racing at the Dutch TT but couldn't handle the Ju52s. Between combat
losses, and aircraft written off by landing accidents, collisions, and
damage on landing "off-piste" -

hard-packed sand near Zandvoort?
I don't think so as i'm from Noordwijk (between zandvoort and Scheveningen
so very near Valkenburg) and know this coast/beach well enough. Hard sand
maybe close to the water but when an a/c has landed it surely would sink
away. near the dunes and the sand is so loose that an a/c would cartwheel
(so both not very good landing spots). Still of many Ju-52's landing on the
beach between Scheveningen and Zandvoort a few were even able to take off
(wich i think was quite a miracle).
The airfeeld of Valkenburg was not finnished during that time and even
worse the polder was not fully drainaged and very wet. That's the reason
why 57 aircraft became stuck (filling the airfield) but that was after they
landed! Those a/c were wrecked during the battle of and around the
airfield. (same as that of those aircraft landed on the beach , some were
destroyed by artillery fire).

http://www.mei1940.nl/intro_valkenburg.htm

O-J, I did, in that a power increase per model needs to keep step
with any weight increase. However...this was NOT always the case with the
Ju52...

The early Ju-52/1m or even the Ju-52/3m (3x 550 hp and MTOW 7700kg) had
worse power to weight ratio than all military variants so it was the case
(maybe there was no real need to increase power even further than the 3x
850 hp).

[waldzee]

Yes we are. We were just specifically chatting 52's that went to Norway 1940.

Takeoff weight is not a measure of STOL. It is a measure of cargo weight capacity. To compare a 1932 circa Ju 52 3m vs a late 39/early 1940 JU 52 3m as regards STOL, one would naturally compare Powere to WEIGHT ratio, empty weights, brake systems, flaps, airalons, wing design, landing gear & so on. See link to substantiate this view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOL

These 2 had same wing, same fuselage, same brakes, flaps, & airelons. & weight was not much different.

So to sum up, you're original point that JU 52 was not designed for good STOL is nonsense. & your inference that a later Ju 52 3m ,( with mostly the same equipment mentioned above as a 1932 one did), & silmiliar weight would somehow mysteriously have Dramatically less STOL carries little to no water.

& your point of 5 servicable Floaplanes at Norway remains unsubsantiated.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
STOL is generally accepted as 1,500 feet or less to clear a 50 ft obstacle, take off & landing.

[Juha Tompuri]

A what-if Ju 52 "Kanonenvogel"
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=47286&hilit

Regards, Juha

[pugsville]

Direct Competitors? Compare with Comparable planes in service 1939. The Ju-52 was a about square with most of it's direct competitors. The DC-3 was outstanding, and Japan and USSR built it under license could Germany got the license in 1938? or Just copied the design in 1939.

were any of these really better?
Savoia-Marchetti S.73
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoia-Marchetti_S.73
Potez 62
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potez_62
Fiat G.18
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.18
Caproni Ca.133
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.133
Boeing 247
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_247

One replacement worth looking at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_232

[Dili]

There is Savoia S.75 also but heavier.

In June 1940 the S.82 the first propose built military transport aircraft was entering service. Around 300 will be bought by Luftwaffe in 1942-43.

[Hellcat45]

The glaring problem with the IA was it's vulnerability. 100 mph. Paratroop use at Crete was probably the 52's last great use. I must add that over the plains of Catania they successfully dropped the Twenty-ninth Panzergrenadier and elements of the Hermann Goring Division on the night of 12 July to block Monty from taking Catania or going around Mt Etna in some of the fiercest fighting the 8th Army had ever encountered, and too; Blocking Patton in skillful halting actions.

Stalingrad was the '52's worst nightmare. Even with huge fires under the engine cowlings the temp's refused to let the oil thin enough for the engines to start. After Operation Flax and Vulcan with heavy losses in Holland early on, the old girl faltered and never regained her composure.

I flew in a Ford Trimotor and aside from being VERY noisy, it was very SLOW, flew low, and was heavy on the controls. It was ghastly in any sharp manuvere losing airspeed and altitude with any sharp action, and tended to yaw at the slightest provocation of crosswind.

I'm assuming the '52 flew likewise, especially with troops and/or frieght loaded to the max. I can only imagine the sheer courage it took for her brave crews to fly slow and straight to deliver her cargo of men, material, and supplies through accurate aniti-arcraft fire and marauding swarms of allied fighter aircraft.

(Hitlers greatest mistake IMHO was to stop short of Moscow and divert forces to the Caucasus's.) Had he listened to his generals he could have plowed through Russia and met the Japanese.)...and using the old girls up meagerly supplying Paulus trapped in Stalingrad would never have occurred. Soviet armor destroyed many on the ground when they overran the airfields.

In sharp contrast, the DC-3/C-47 Dakota airspeed was around 180, The C-54, 190mph.

Stalingrad was an unmitigated disaster for the '52 and drove the final nail in her coffin. Compounding all this was her limited capacity (4,000 lbs) as opposed to the C-47's more robust 6,000 lbs and the C-54, both of witch the allies had in abundance even at the outset of TORCH.