Ju 52/3M payload/range charts

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4247
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Ju 52/3M payload/range charts

Post by Urmel » 18 Oct 2011 14:43

phylo_roadking wrote:
Not just Tigers. What they also found was that the Zis-3 gun could not be transported by air to North Africa. The Pak 38 could, however. Maybe two of them?
I doubt it - one Pak 38 weighed 830 kg.... that puts two of them over half a metric tons above maximum.
Sorry, don't get that. Which maximum?
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
Location: Europe

Re: Ju 52/3M payload/range charts

Post by Jon G. » 18 Oct 2011 14:47

Very nice stuff, Snautzer05!
JBond wrote:...Questions, could fuel be traded for payload?
It seems that fuel/payload is already traded off in the tables? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would translate 'Überführungsflug' as 'ferry flight' and 'Flug mit Nutzlast' as either 'flight with payload' or 'flight with nuts', I am not sure.

The /mg6e, for example, has 1850 kg. of fuel in its ferry flight configuration, but only 592 kg. in its (maximum, I presume) payload configuration.

The /mg4e seems to have carried more fuel in both configurations than the later marks described in Snautzer05's tables.

Granted, that is for a flying workshop auntie Ju, where range might have been less of a concern than for other missions.
phylo_roadking wrote:...I doubt it - one Pak 38 weighed 830 kg.... that puts two of them over half a metric tons above maximum.
?? Maximum payload as per Snautzer05's tables is given as 2,590 kg, that would leave enough lift for three Pak 38s.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Ju 52/3M payload/range charts

Post by phylo_roadking » 18 Oct 2011 14:54

Sorry, I've just scrubbed that, having a brainstorm!

You'd need to check that the aircraft physically could accomodate two or more 38s... the carriage was 4.75 m long, with a barrel length of 3 m...and a width, perhaps most importantly, of 1.85 m; the question will be how do you place those in the cabin/fuselage - and then how do you go about distributing the weight of each, given the limits I've mentioned per square metre. What I mean is - in an artillery piece, what percentage of the all-up weight is transferred through the wheels to the bearing surface? Perhaps timbers beneath the wheels straddling two or more of the load-bearing areas between frame ribs could distribute the weight suitably...but then, can you do this enough to acomodate two or more guns, depending on their placement? It might even make more sense to break the PaKs down as far as they can and reassemble at the far end.

I think you'd have to start with the scale drawings like I had to do with Robdab's idea of the Chitose accomodating three flyingboats many moons ago...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4247
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Ju 52/3M payload/range charts

Post by Urmel » 18 Oct 2011 15:04

I would expect 2 Paks to be at least partially disassembled.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4247
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Ju 52/3M payload/range charts

Post by Urmel » 18 Oct 2011 15:04

Jon G. wrote:Very nice stuff, Snautzer05!
JBond wrote:...Questions, could fuel be traded for payload?
It seems that fuel/payload is already traded off in the tables? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would translate 'Überführungsflug' as 'ferry flight' and 'Flug mit Nutzlast' as either 'flight with payload' or 'flight with nuts', I am not sure.

The /mg6e, for example, has 1850 kg. of fuel in its ferry flight configuration, but only 592 kg. in its (maximum, I presume) payload configuration.

The /mg4e seems to have carried more fuel in both configurations than the later marks described in Snautzer05's tables.

Granted, that is for a flying workshop auntie Ju, where range might have been less of a concern than for other missions.
Doh!

Nutzlast is indeed payload. :oops:
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Ju 52/3M payload/range charts

Post by phylo_roadking » 18 Oct 2011 15:10

Sadly, in all the pics of Ju52s I've got, this is one job that's not in there. Certainly the smallest doorknockers and mountain guns could be loaded...given that they were dropped over Crete!...but it would be interesting to know how they transported 38s in real life. We could then work backwards from there regarding any problems they might have incurred...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4247
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Ju 52/3M payload/range charts

Post by Urmel » 18 Oct 2011 15:21

The Pak 38 could certainly be loaded. The question is if more than one, and how.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
Location: Europe

Re: Ju 52/3M payload/range charts

Post by Jon G. » 18 Oct 2011 15:45

JBond wrote: Doh!

Nutzlast is indeed payload. :oops:
I was kidding :)

I guess it's relevant to discuss just what all those Ju-52s were transporting. Personnel, obviously, and at least in the Mediterranean fuel carried in drums seems to have been a favourite. Also spare parts, spare engines and so on, especially for the Luftwaffe's own needs. I've seen a picture somewhere of a Ju-52 flying with a PAK 37 slung underneath, a late war picture of a Ju-52 packed with Panzerfausts, and another picture of a complete field kitchen unit being manhandled through the cargo door of a Ju-52.

One popular air-delivered item on the East Front seems to have been horse fodder.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Ju 52/3M payload/range charts

Post by phylo_roadking » 18 Oct 2011 16:16

Include... munitions in crates/boxes/wicker baskets (got pics of that), and I've got a pic in Nowarra of palleted SC250 bombs being loaded; anything in sacks; kettenkrads; motorcycle combinations; there's also a schematic in Nowarra of how a horse was supposed to be secured in the after part of the aircraft, aft of the cargo doors.

Regarding the transport of whole aero engines - I've got pics of these being loaded straight on/off trucks level with the starboard hatches...but there was also a jib crane that could be carried aboard a Ju52 and could be fitted to a wing spar and the engine hoisted out that way.

Jon, the auxiliary tank(s) in the fuselage would have been under the decking; it's worth noting that increasing the capacity to two of these means less cargo carrying capacity in the "light luggage hold" there.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
Location: Europe

Re: Ju 52/3M payload/range charts

Post by Jon G. » 18 Oct 2011 20:13

phylo_roadking wrote:...
Jon, the auxiliary tank(s) in the fuselage would have been under the decking; it's worth noting that increasing the capacity to two of these means less cargo carrying capacity in the "light luggage hold" there.
Nope, all fuel is in wing tanks, as per the diagram I posted above (marked '1', '2', '3' and '4' on the drawing) only lubricant was stored in a fuselage tank.

Cargo hold size for the /mg5e and /mg6e is given as a roomy 19.3 cubic meters.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Ju 52/3M payload/range charts

Post by phylo_roadking » 18 Oct 2011 20:26

Nope, all fuel is in wing tanks, as per the diagram I posted above (marked '1', '2', '3' and '4' on the drawing) only lubricant was stored in a fuselage tank.
Jopn, is that not a fuel circuit diagram with approximate positions - like the legendary London Underground map - as opposed to a scale representation?

I wouldn't be sure from that diagram where the two Zusatzbehaelter (No.4 on the diagram) are from the diagram...if it's a "true" representation, then they're in the main flaps! :lol:
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Ju 52/3M payload/range charts

Post by phylo_roadking » 18 Oct 2011 20:29

Cargo hold size for the /mg5e and /mg6e is given as a roomy 19.3 cubic meters.
Jon, which "cargo hold"...the passenger area, the cargo hold rear, the light luggage holds, or the small cargo holds under the floor between each frame support?
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
Location: Europe

Re: Ju 52/3M payload/range charts

Post by Jon G. » 18 Oct 2011 20:41

As I understand it from the accompanying text, all fuel tanks were located in the wings, between the engines and a fireproofed fuselage bulkhead.

Cargo hold - the text uses the term 'Hauptnutzraum', or 'main utility space' so presumably the 19.3 cubic meters apply to the entire cargo hold area.

User avatar
Snautzer05
Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 25 May 2011 21:15

Re: Ju 52/3M payload/range charts

Post by Snautzer05 » 18 Oct 2011 20:43

position of the fuel tanks.
Clipboard03.jpg
Clipboard02.jpg
Clipboard01.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Snautzer05
Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 25 May 2011 21:15

Re: Ju 52/3M payload/range charts

Post by Snautzer05 » 18 Oct 2011 20:44

and
Clipboard04.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”