Correct, retrofit. I should have done something with fixed weather but I had live weather on so not exactly sure on conditions.
Yeah, me too - just wanted to share my experience since others have been discussing
Can I have the avionics and cockpit lighting from the retrofit and the engines from the 1939 (but the sound of 3 prop engines - kudos for different sound packages btw)? Lol
1 Like
At their DOW both have the identical wing loading and the Do doesnât have the âblownâ flapsđ
Just took the 1939 for a spin - and yes, holy cow does it climb a whole lot faster. Sheâs got some power. Love both of them though 
thanks mate
If youâre looking for some realistic short / multi-hop flights for the JU 52, I ran across some old Luft Hansa route maps from that era ( more or less ). EnjoyâŚ
Deutsche Luft Hansa 1927
Deutsche Luft Hansa 1937
( Not my scans - I just cleaned them up and composited them into single images. )
16 Likes
Cool schedules, I would frame these and hang them on my wall
This website has an absolute ton of old airline timetables as well http://www.timetableimages.com/
3 Likes
that is a good site. thanks for posting.
It also has routes and timetables for the Lufthansa owned Syndicato Condor in Brazil that operated Ju52 planes and the SCTDA in Colombia that also operated some.
http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages/sc.htm
http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages/av2.htm
2 Likes
Rudder problems
Iâm quite happy with my âTante JUâ but I have a problem with the rudder pedals.
Always when I push through the rudder pedals, it doesnât matter left or right, the pedal jumps back to neutral. When I push further nothing happens. When I go back to the neutral position and I try to use the rudder again it does the same. It looks like only the first centimerters get recognized by the plane. After that it jumps back to neutral.
Did somebody else experience something similar?
The rudders on the other planes work fine.
Thanks in advance
OK a thought or two⌠Firstly, I can re-create the VERY short takeoff as shown in the video⌠itâs really quite simple⌠set the weight/balance point right back to the rear of the aircraft⌠set-up a headwind of around 10 knots⌠put the nose into it on a tarmac runway⌠max flaps⌠lock the brakes⌠run up the engines to full and wait for a while until max revs has been obtained⌠release brakes and yank back hard on the stick⌠so yes I believe there is an error in the flight model⌠but itâs not on the takeoff, itâs on the fact that if you DO do this, then what should immediately happen is that you rip the tailwheel straight off the aircraft and then immediately wingover and smack into the ground because you donât have flight authority speed with a message coming up on screen saying âYou crashed because you are a t w a tâ
The problem then is that so many people woould be complaining on other aircraft how hard it is to get of the ground and not crash because my bet is that many many people actually leave the ground in the simulator on lots of the aircraft without the proper speed and still survive to tell about it
If you look at all the videos of this aircraft⌠they are all taken on old preserved aircraft where they are being very careful about engine revs and also doing a rolling start or a start having the engines at idle and then running them up slowly to full power⌠in addition, you can see that most pilots in the videos are actually struggling to keep them on the ground until they have flight authority and speed before they try to leave the ground.
So in summary⌠yes there is a possible problem, but do you really want it changed to where every aircraft HAS to have flight authority before it continues to go up, or just goes straight back into the ground on takeoff?
Personally, I would welcome this change, but I also recognise how this would lead to many howls of protest if it was introduced. Perhaps there is a mid point where if you have x% of the flight authority then it is recoverable that could be introduced⌠who knows.
2 Likes
Iâm not sure what you mean by âflight authority speedâ. I think in real life the aircraft is able to take in a very short distance, maybe not quite as short as in MSFS though. The Ju-52 has a low wing loading (at least what I could find on the internet), combined with some flaps, a ton of prop-wash over the wings, full power before brake release, ground effect and thrust vector pointing up I think it CAN take-off in a very short distance. I hope nobody is stupid enough to actually try in real life, if you loose an engine its immediately game-over below Vmca (maybe that is what you mean with âflight authority speedâ?).
Ju-52 wing loading:
Wing area = 110.5 m2
Empty weight = 5720 kg
Wing loading = 5720 / 110.5 = 51.77 kg / m2
For illustration, Cessna 172 is not far off with 47 kg / m2 at empty weight. And does not have the benefit of propwash over the wings (a little bit near the wing root maybe) and thrust vector naturally pointing up.
Yeah translate Flight Authority Speed to Vmca⌠Over the years I have called it both but tend to not use the Vmca when itâs not in company of other technical flyers
1 Like
Another thought⌠what is also possible in this aircraft with its low wing loading and low speed required is that if you land into a headwind of around 30 -40 knots when the landing speed should be around 100 knots, then with careful balancing of the controls and a few prayers, you can actually get it to do virtually a vertical landing⌠again⌠in real life, this would be what I call a t w a t manouver, but in the sim itâs pretty easy
1 Like
Question is, what is the 1g stall speed? I assume the take-off and landing speeds are Vmc limited and therefore way higher than the actual stall speed. With some power applied it would likely keep flying far below the published 1g stall speed. I donât know much, if anything about the Ju-52, but considering the wing loading and propwash over the wing, I would think it can fly as slow as a C172 when empty.
From looking around, the best I can find in English is this information from the website of an operator of 1939 JU-52s in DĂźbendorf:
Speed with extended flaps:
120 km/h with 10500 kg
105 km/h with 7500 kg
whether the Speed is referring to Vapp or Vso is unclear though. At 10500kg that would have 1g stall speed at around either 65kt or 50kt if Iâm doing my napkin math correctly.
Sounds reasonable, 57 kts stall speed when empty, 1g, power off. Could easily go 10 kts below when adding some power to the equation I would think, especially in ground effect.
And thatâs worse case scenario if those numbers are Vs0, if theyâre Vapp then the empty stall speed is closer to 43 kts, add in ground effect and the prop wash from 3 big radials and Iâd believe it can get airborne with little more than a stiff breeze.
3 Likes
Iâm probably being greedy but is there are chance of someone adding some wheel spats to the Ju52?
Yeah, the JU-52 is finally here!
Two or three years ago I was drawn into flightsimming after a long pause by flying a JU-52 in an freeware flightsim on an Office-PC without a graphics card (very poor graphics at about 10-15 fps).
Today I recreated that flight with MSFS: LOWI to EDNX (where I used to live and watched a JU-52 land in real life), passing the town I live now (Garmisch-Partenkirchen, see picture).
As I´m not a real life pilot I can´t say anything about flight performance and behavior. I just enjoyed the whole flight!
8 Likes