Game changers!

davebender said:

First cargo aircraft to provide effective CAS.

View attachment 181709


Personally I question the sanity of employing a large, slow cargo aircraft for CAS. But a crazy idea that works is often referred to as genius.

Click to expand...

About 20 years after WW2. only used when we had complete, unchallanged, air superority. Then it couldn't be used if there was much chance of opposing AA. They developed the AC-119, and AC-130, both were much more useful in a hostile enviroment.

The C47, Dak, Gooney bird or whatever it was named is an iconic aircraft of WW2, It was not a game changer in the same catagory as the as the Lib or B24, please name one other aircraft that could take the place of the 24 with its radar in closing the mid atlantic gap .

please name one other aircraft that could take the place of the 24 with its radar in closing the mid atlantic gap

Click to expand...

I suspect the British Lancaster bomber would work just fine in the maritime patrol bomber role. Britain just needs to change priorities from firebombing civilian property to defeating the enemy submarine threat.

davebender said:

I suspect the British Lancaster bomber would work just fine in the maritime patrol bomber role. Britain just needs to change priorities from firebombing civilian property to defeating the enemy submarine threat.

Click to expand...

Post war the Lanc was used for ASW but required the removal of turrets and additiom of 400 gals of xtra fuel .But that is post war there was no other aircraft available in numbers that could perform the job in WW2. The North Atlantic was the only front active from 39 -45. The DC3 could've easly been replaced by C46 . The JU52 was an outmoded design it may have gone above and beyond in its performance of duties but suggest that may be a compliment to the crews

Siegfried said:

The DC3 and C47 range payload issue is complicated by the fact that as engine power grew so does Maxium Takeoff weight: this means more cargo can be lifted without sacrificing fuel.
In additon C47B carried more than the 3046Litres and some variants had an extended wing span. Moreover the C-47 had access to 100/130 octane which increased takeoff power
enormously and therefore payload. The fuel issue (B4/87 octane for the Ju 52 and 100/130 octane for the C-47 explains some of the differences in performance)

Click to expand...

DC-3/C-47 was just flat out more efficient. As well it should be considering it was much newer. The fuel issue is a non-issue. Some R-1830s were able to give 1200hp for take-off on 100 octane (not 100/130 and there is a difference) and some managed it on 95 octane and a few even did it on 91 octane. C-47 used 28 cylinders to get 2400hp. Ju-52 used 27 cylinders to get 2175-2490hp depending on version.
The Ju-52 used high drag engine installations, the corrugated skinning was high drag and the fixed landing gear was high drag. Needing to use more power to get the same speed explains a lot of the performance difference.

Siegfried said:

My understanding is that range calculations are given at full internal normal fuel load with maximum cargo permissable at that MTOW at cruise speed.
Greater range is possible at reduced load or reduced speed. Reduced speed gets you nowhere in a head wind and irritates passengers as well as wasting aircraft time.

Click to expand...

For transport planes the range calculations were a bit more complicated. For economy of manufacture transport planes were often fitted with a standard fuel tank set up. It was up to the user airline (or military) depending on route flown (or stage in route) or mission to adjust the fuel capacity and passenger/cargo load to suite up to the max capacity of the tanks or a maximum allowable cargo or passenger load. Some aircraft due to fuselage floor or other limits could only carry xxx amount of cargo no matter how much fuel was left out. DC-3 was original designed as a "sleeper" aircraft. Fuselage was designed to hold 12-14 passengers in bunks on over night flights. When changed to a "day" aircraft the passenger load went to 21.

Siegfried said:

In the C-47's case an overload was possible: this I suspect required 100/130 fuel, a long sealed runway, no obstacles at the end of the runway and probably accepted increased risk of a crash landing if there was an engine failure immeidatly after takeoff. The Ju 52/3m range figures are clearly given at Max Fuel with Max Payload at that Max Takeoff Weight
at maximum cruise. The Ju 52/3mge3 could econ cruise at 117L/100km which would give a range of 2400km at a mind numbing slow speed with little cargo.

Click to expand...

The figures I have given for the DC-3/C-47 are at normal operating weights, over load was certainly possible.

Siegfried said:

Roughly it looks like the basic 1940 DC3 with 20% more fuel than the Ju 52/3m (circa 3000L instead of 2500L) carried the same cargo as the Ju 52/3mge3 some 66% further ie 1000 miles instead of 600 miles.

Assuming a 15% reserve one could argue that a DC3 could supply 2.5 tons of cargo to a base 425 miles away while the Ju 52/3m only 260 miles. This is a huge difference as it
gets the takeoff point well away from enemy fighter attack. The C-47B and better fuel improved these figures. The Ju 52 proably had better short field performance.

Click to expand...

There is no reason to suppose the Ju 52 had enough better short field performance to make any real difference. Take off run for the DC-3 at 24,800 lbs is about 1000ft and one source give 1050ft for the JU-52. Stalling speed for the Ju-52 seems to be 63-65mph while the DC-3 seems to be 67-69mph (unless overloaded). Technically the Ju-52 may be better but since the difference seems to be 10% or less I don't think there is much practical difference.

Siegfried said:

Its worth looking at the Ju 252 parameters:

Click to expand...

Why?

It is a given fact that at given level of technology a bigger airplane will carry more cargo, more economically than a smaller airplane. It is why airplanes kept getting bigger.

A 50,000lb 4050hp transport should be faster and show better economy than a 26,000lb 2400hp transport.

A better match would be the C-46.

But back to the point of the thread. Neither aircraft introduced the idea of troop movement or supply by air. The C-47 did a better job of it and was able to do it in places the Ju-52 could not (over water or over mountains, large areas of jungle)

Ar232 Tactical Transport Aircraft. WWII equivalent to modern day C-130.
Luftwaffe Resource Center - A Warbirds Resource Group Site - Arado Ar 232



Ju-290 Long Range Transport Aircraft. WWII equivalent to C-141 or C5.
www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org - Luftwaffe Resource Center - Junker Ju 290


IMO this is a better way to go then the Ju-252 which was a jack of all trades but master at nothing.

These aircraft are mpressive and innovative, but are branching down a differnt pathway....the heavy lift transport, comparable in concept as you say to to the modern heavy lift aircraft.
However, the Dakota was able to provide capability at least similar to the DeHavilland Caribou, for which there remains no modern equivalent. The Dakota was probably best described for its time as a medium lift all purpose transport, as opposed to the C-46 heavy lift strategic transport. The aircraft you are suggesting are in that category but heavier.

And as far as game changers are concerned, well, if this thread really is not interested in operational usage, then perhaps yes, the terchnological advance these aircraft represent perhaps are game changers. However I dont see these aircraft having even the slightest effect oiperationally. Far to expensive, far too specialised far too late, to make any bit of difference to the outcome of the war. That remains the preserve of aircraft like the c-47 and potentially the Ju52(if it had been built in greater numbers and the design updated).

Do you have production costs for the Ju-290 and Ar-232 transport aircraft?

Price data for 1941 for some German aircraft types, via Olaf Groehlers GdLK, 1910-1980: Without engine / with engine, in Reichsmarks (RM)
Bf 109E : 58 000 / 85 970
Ju 87B : 100 300 / 131 175
Ju 52 : 125 800 / 163 000
Bf 110C : 155 800 / 210 140
Do 17 : 185 500 / 235 00
He 111H : 203 900 / 265 650
Ju 88A : 245 200 / 306 950

2.5 RM per U.S.A. dollar.
$65,200 for a Ju-52 transport complete with engines during 1941.
$128,761 for a C-47 transport during 1941. Per USAF statistical digest.

The Ju-52 was dirt cheap, which goes a long way towards understanding why it was an international best seller during the 1930s. It also goes a long way towards explaining why wartime Germany was not anxious to replace the Ju-52. It wasn't pretty, fancy or state of the art but the Ju-52 got the short range air transport mission done for very low cost.

Once again you make an argument about cost without understanding that the dollar to mark conversion rate was artificial and did not reflect the true cost of the items in question. For instance the average price of a Beech AT-11 trainer was $51,000. two 450hp engines and an empty weight of about 5000lbs. Do you really think that a Ju-52 complete with THREE engines could be built for just 28% more? Or that a JU-52 could be built for $20,000 less than a Lockheed Hudson or Loadstar with TWO 9 cylinder engines? Speaking of engines the BMW was a modified copy (licensed) of a P&W Hornet. 27 cylinders, 3 crankshafts, 3 crankcases and so on compared to 28 cylinders, two crankshafts, two crankcases and so on. I am trying to see the big savings in cost of building the engines here but not finding it.

Shortround6 said:

Once again you make an argument about cost without understanding that the dollar to mark conversion rate was artificial and did not reflect the true cost of the items in question.
For instance the average price of a Beech AT-11 trainer was $51,000. two 450hp engines and an empty weight of about 5000lbs. Do you really think that a Ju-52 complete with THREE engines could be built for just 28% more? Or that a JU-52 could be built for $20,000 less than a Lockheed Hudson or Loadstar with TWO 9 cylinder engines? Speaking of engines the BMW was a modified copy (licensed) of a P&W Hornet. 27 cylinders, 3 crankshafts, 3 crankcases and so on compared to 28 cylinders, two crankshafts, two crankcases and so on. I am trying to see the big savings in cost of building the engines here but not finding it.

Click to expand...

i'm full agree that exchange rate was artificial, but it's also possible that a Ju-52 cost 28% more that a AT-11, the difference of costs from US to Germany were immense.
We need to known labour hours for build the plane (and all that within) and after this, compare the industrialization level of the countryes

I agree with most of what you said re my post but make a few notes:
1 ALL Allied aircraft, even transports and bombers eventually switched to 100/130. US 100 octane was meant to opperate mainly stoichiometric so its rich rating was not noted usually. I immagine about 100/120 (same as pure octane)

2 The empty weight of the DC3 is 33% greater than the Ju 52/3m. That alone justies that the DC3 was more expensive. Also proves its aerodynamic efficiency.

3 The Ju 52/3m was in full swing mass production by June 1932 having been preceded by a few Ju 52/1m from 1931. It had an incredible carear starting from then. It was very rugged, easy to service. It continued flights to London in 1935 when there were 120kmh gales that stopped all other flights. Note the single engined Ju 52/1m was in low rate production since 1931 though only one was sold commercially, it opperated from 31 to 1947 with an uncowled loepard engine in canada in aid of logging and minning opperations.
4 The DC2 entered production and service in May 1934, about 2 years after the Ju 52/3m. About the same time Erhard Milch placed an order for 1200 aircraft on Junkers.
5 The DC3 entered production in January 1935.

The Germans could clearly do better than a curragated skin aircraft: Ju 86 were around in 1934, He 111 were delivering mail in 1934.

However it seems that the Junkers Ju 52/3m was considered the only all metal aircraft that could be produced in its thousands at the time (and they were after 5000 aircraft) and the company needed an injection of funds.

This likely set the die.

Its likely the Ju 52 required less tooling than the DC3 which would aid immediate expansion. It was actually an extra effort to replace the currugated townend rings with drawn smooth ones. Ju 52 production is probably easier to set up. Mainly 2 dimensional shapes and small pressings and stampings for the minimal internal structure.

As far as the Ju 252 is concerned: yes bigger is better in transport economics but I suspect that the Ju 252 had some technical advances as well; the engines were particularly fuel efficient.

The combinaion of Junkers industrial capacity and the simplicity of its established manufacturing techniques, going back to the all metal Junkers F13, as well as the respect the G.23, G24 metal aircraft from the early 1920s had earned them as well as the later W.33 and W.34 gave it a ready market.

Vincenzo said:

i'm full agree that exchange rate was artificial, but it's also possible that a Ju-52 cost 28% more that a AT-11, the difference of costs from US to Germany were immense.
We need to known labour hours for build the plane (and all that within) and after this, compare the industrialization level of the countryes

Click to expand...

Possible?

The AT-11 used a pair of P&W Wasp Jr. (R-985) engines. The Ju-52 used three modified but basically licensed P&W Hornet (R-1690) engines. AT-11 had a 347.5 sq ft wing and weighed about 5000lbs empty. Ju-52 had a 1190 sq ft wing and weighed 12550lbs (?) empty.

Unless retractable landing gear is made of gold and silver or German steel and aluminum were a fraction of the cost of US steel and aluminum there is no way that you can build a plane of 2 1/2-3 times the size and nearly 3 times the power for only 28% more.

Its just not possible to make realistic comparisons about unit costs like that, because of the artificial currency and trade manipulation undertaken by the Nazis. During the Second World War, Germany established fixed exchange rates between the Reichsmark and the currencies of the occupied and allied countries, often set so as to give the Germans economic benefits. Moreover they imposed war reparations on occupied countries that were often paid for by the delivery of goods and services at artificially low and fixed prices. Reparations imposed by the Nazis always required the expropriation of all Gold reserves to the reich, so as to artificially prop up the RM. According to Overy, the Germans robbed occupied Europe in this way to the tune of about $600million (US). When it is considered that Germany entered the war with about $140million in Gold Reserves, the extent that Germany was propped up, and prices kept artificailly low by price fixing, the inability to make valid comparisons becomes very apparent.

German armaments were expensive, because of inherent innefficiencies in their procurement machines. the system was basically corrupt and not operating until later to a wartime schedule. Ive read some accounts that say the dollar value can be multiplied by a factor of 5 or 6 times. I dont know if that is correct or not, but if it were, and we took that RM63000 for a Ju52, multiplied it by 5 and divided it by 2.5 (the approximate number of RM to the dollar in 1938), we would get a dollar cost of about $130000 (US) per unit for the Ju52. This would, of course vary depending on the timeframe of the war. But really comparisons like that are not very accurate, and not very helpful. Suffice it to say that the real cost to the Germans is not reflected in that costing of RM63000

Shortround you ve not understand my point, is near sure that a Ju-52 built in US was more expansive of a AT-11 built in US, but compare a german built Ju-52 with a us built At-11 is not so easy, and raw materials are a small fractions of value of a plane

"... because of inherent inefficiencies in their procurement machines. the system was basically corrupt and not operating until later to a wartime schedule."

And that "wartime schedule" was the real beginning of the slave labour economic factor - the "solution".

I'm glad you're posting this Parsifal because it is almost impossible to grasp how totally misguided and F***ED UP Nazi German Economics really were*

*[according to Adam Tooze]

MM

You know something is really wrong when they take one of the most brilliant bankers of the century, Herr Schacht and sack himn because they dont like what he tells them........

The use of transport aircraft in war was certainly a game changer, I am not sure any particular aircraft can claim uniqueness here. Certainly not the Ju-52 which was obsolete at the time of the war. It did not perform much better than previous corrugated metal aircraft. Just upgrading the engines on the earlier Ford Tri-motor or the Fokker Tri-motor would probably provide similar performance to the Ju-52, indeed the Fokker F-10A was very similar.

The C-47/DC-3 was a much more important aviation game changer, often vying for the most significant aircraft ever built.

It is interesting to note that DC-2's turned up in both Japanese and Russian service pre-1939. Both countries interested in licence-build agreements with Douglas. Clearly many saw the design as a game-changer long before it became the C-47 "Old Goonie" that we so love.

MM

Returning to the original premise of this thread. I think Herman Goering was correct -- P-51's (from England) over Berlin in daylight was a game changer. (In the same way B-24's in mid Atlantic were)

MM

Of course, I agree, but within the parameters that have been set for this thread....which i think are wrong (ie gamechangers = technology only) mean that neither the p-51, or the PB4Y Privateers or B-24 were gamechangers. Why? because they dont embrace new technology.

So, here we have this rather ridiculous situation where the me 262, which did squat to change the war is a gamechanger, whilst P-51s which probably had one of the most profound effects on the war is not, because it used or adapted existing off the shelf technologies.

as I said when I kicked off the discussion about transports, operational usage was the main game changer, not technology