Alternatives to Ju 52

[Dili]

[Split from "Ju 52/3M payload/range charts"]

I wasn't talking about a bigger aircraft, but a same size one.

Even a DC-3 which was slight bigger could take 20-30 passenger and from a fast search i could calculate 1.39kg/km consumption at 266km/h. So faster, less fuel consumption/range, more cargo.

I agree with other parts of your opinion but it seems everyone had much better transport planes than Germans for the mainstream model. I don't know how was the overall consumption of Ju-52 fleet vs whole Luftwaffe was in fuel terms , but with a better transport plane i can see a 25-30% improvement in consumption of the fleet with another plane for the same mileage.

[waldzee]

I wasn't talking about a bigger aircraft, but a same size one.

Even a DC-3 which was slight bigger could take 20-30 passenger and from a fast search i could calculate 1.39kg/km consumption at 266km/h. So faster, less fuel consumption/range, more cargo.

I agree with other parts of your opinion but it seems everyone had much better transport planes than Germans for the mainstream model. I don't know how was the overall consumption of Ju-52 fleet vs whole Luftwaffe was in fuel terms , but with a better transport plane i can see a 25-30% improvement in consumption of the fleet with another plane for the same mileage.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.ju52-3m.ch/about.htm gives an economical cruise speed of 130 miles per hour. The Ju-52 is the mature queen of the tri motor designs- rough strip short haul- forced to longer distances in Russia than designed.
for comparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilla ... Twin_Otter

[Piotr Mikołajski]

Even a DC-3 which was slight bigger could take 20-30 passenger and from a fast search i could calculate 1.39kg/km consumption at 266km/h. So faster, less fuel consumption/range, more cargo.

But DC-3 was flown five years later than Ju 52, in that time it was really big gap in development.

[phylo_roadking]

Even a DC-3 which was slight bigger could take 20-30 passenger and from a fast search i could calculate 1.39kg/km consumption at 266km/h. So faster, less fuel consumption/range, more cargo.

But DC-3 was flown five years later than Ju 52, in that time it was really big gap in development

Exactly; see some of the other threads discussing(haripulling!) the Ju52 with "chromeboomerang". The Ju52 had a roughly rectangular cross-section fuselage,,,,but one that severely tapered "upwards" towards the tail...so to get a "flat" cabin floor, an internal floor was laid that cost a large part of the fuselage's real cubic capacity.

Control cables ran under the floor and there were additional small compartments there for small luggage etc. (again as discussed elsewhere)....but the DC3 had a cylindrical cross-section fuselage that maintained its cross-section for most of its length. Also, only a narrow "cabin floor was laid...allowing the "bulge" of each side of the compartment to be added to the actual carrying capacity; see internal pics of a Ju52 filled with FJ compared to the roomy interior of a paratroop-filled DC3...where the DC3's seating was set back into the curve of the fuselage

[Dili]

Yes but it would be wise from German perspective to have developed a military transport plane in this class and more modern.
Maybe even the 6th Army could have been supplied...

[phylo_roadking]

Yes but it would be wise from German perspective to have developed a military transport plane in this class and more modern.
Maybe even the 6th Army could have been supplied...

The design, prototyping, testing, building of a pre-production series, and finally commencing series production even in wartime could take at least two and often nearly three years! Byt the time the true disadvantages of the Ju52 were really known...nothing would have been there yet to save Stalingrad.

The Luftwaffe "made do" with a whole range of other, heavier-lift aircraft...as well as starting to use obsolete bomber types such as the He111 as transports. Wartime isn't the place to be hoping for the luxury of designing a new transport plane from scratch...remember when exactly the DC-3 dated from Not when said factories have to keep replacing HUNDREDS at a time!

[waldzee]

Yes but it would be wise from German perspective to have developed a military transport plane in this class and more modern.
Maybe even the 6th Army could have been supplied...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Maybe not! the Ju-52 could be hammered in & out of rough short winter strips- & still keep flying.
Like today's twin Otter.
Poland was developing a replacement in 1938- the PZL Wicher , I believe? A tough retractable gear 17 seater.
Perhaps Germany could have produced it ...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL.44_Wicher

[phylo_roadking]

Poland was developing a replacement in 1938- the PZL Wicher , I believe? A tough retractable gear 17 seater.
Perhaps ermany could have produced it ...

Small for the job; that's 17 seated, normally-dressed passengers....not necessarily bulky-dressed FJ with chutes, rubber rings etc. - hence the difference between a stick of 12 FJ plus equipment...and 22-25 airlanded troops in the Ju52 A smaller aircraft wouldn't have been able to cope with the palleted stores and cargos that the Ju52 could. They actually did need something in the Dak class, but fluffed it.

[Snautzer05]

Luftwaffe did not use pallets. They are an American invention.

[phylo_roadking]

The actual pallets, yes....but the Luftwaffe had idealised loading regimes for various cargoes - right up to its requirement to be able to transport entire aero engines (they could carry engines up to the weight of a tonne, and for the purpose woud carry a detachable crane that was carried in the cabin along with the engine)...one of the Luftwaffe's own roles for the Ju52 being to move forward aircraft maintenance units and spares/POL/ordnance to operate forward airfields. There's not so much information about as I'd like on what the actual rgimes were... but Nowarra's book contains detail on how horses etc. were transported, the various internal fitting sets that allowed the cabin to be configured for various purposes, the maximum lading weights between frame members, details on the weight of and what military equipment could be carried, the size and position of various smaller compartments etc. (see a thread elsewhere about carrying A/T guns to North Africa)

It wasn't a big aircraft internally, as I've mentioned; the cabin, due to the decking and the bulkhead closing off the rear of the aircraft (creating a "rear cargo hold" of 1.4 cubic metres), had a cpacity of only 19.6 cubic metres. Thus a smaller aircraft, no matter how excellent, would have been fatally compromised by not being able to fulfill the roles the Luftwaffe need it for.

[Dili]

The design, prototyping, testing, building of a pre-production series, and finally commencing series production even in wartime could take at least two and often nearly three years!

Obviously i am talking about late 30's not wartime.

Small for the job; that's 17 seated, normally-dressed passengers....not necessarily bulky-dressed FJ with chutes

You can't say PZL is small when the Ju-52 can take the same. In PZL you have 4+14 with a bathroom and other amenities. The Ju52 is 2+17 passengers.

[phylo_roadking]

You can't say PZL is small when the Ju-52 can take the same. In PZL you have 4+14 with a bathroom and other amenities. The Ju52 is 2+17 passengers.

14 seated, commercial passengers. In wartime, the Ju52 could carry up to 25 troops...but only a stick of twelve FJ plus two despatchers plus equipment plus flight crew due to their bulk. The Ju52 was small for what it was...the point is the PZL is even smaller

The Wicher is an unknown quantity; it's not really known if it was as reliable as the Ju52 or not...only one prototype was ever built! It's an equivalent of the DC-2, not the DC-3...and looking at pics, there's going to be even MORE of an issue with a large cargo door and getting access to it than the Ju52!

The design, prototyping, testing, building of a pre-production series, and finally commencing series production even in wartime could take at least two and often nearly three years!

Obviously i am talking about late 30's not wartime.

Peacetime it's often right up at the TOP end of time estimates! You've also all the pre-war issues on the apportioning of funding/raw materials/ engines etc. See ALL the many threads about why Germany never developed a proper straegic bombing force, for example, to see discussion of all the conflicting factors.

[Urmel]

When during the supply crisis in North Africa 40/41 FW Kondors were added to the supply runs to augment load carrying capacity, X. Fliegerkorps very quickly asked for more Junkers instead, because the FW200 didn't stand up to the conditions.

[phylo_roadking]

Yep; not only did the airframes of "cargo"-configured Fw200s have a tendency still at that point to break either just being the main wing spar, or just in front of the tail....or both!!! ...they ALSO had that tendency for wheelbrake seizures And that cantilever main undercarriage had a reputation for weakness. The Ju52 had a very primitive, but rugged undercarriage for rough desert strips.

[Juha Tompuri]

The Ju52 was small for what it was...the point is the PZL is even smaller

It wasn't a big aircraft internally, as I've mentioned; the cabin, due to the decking and the bulkhead closing off the rear of the aircraft (creating a "rear cargo hold" of 1.4 cubic metres), had a cpacity of only 19.6 cubic metres.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1697440
Now that we have here the claim of yours about the Ju 52 passenger cabin and cargo room size, how much smaller was the one of PZL-44?

From what sources your comparison is based at?

Regards, Juha