German logistics, purchase programs and war booty, reality and alternatives 1935-43

[marathag]

One-engined Ju 52 was carrying 1000 kg over 1000 km, while being powered by unsupercharged engines. Stick an 850-900 HP supercharged radial on that A/C and there it is - a no-nonsense transport that can be cheaply purchased, that sips the fuel and that will require far less of maintenance than the 3-engined siblings. Invest some thought in replacing the light alloy parts - where possible - with steel/wood/canvas while you're at it.

But all that light alloy, and the effort to skin that craft.
Naked view of the single engine Aircruiser undergoing restoration, showing the various material used.

General characteristics

• Crew: one, pilot
• Capacity: 16 passengers
• Length: 43 ft 4 in (13.21 m)
• Wingspan: 65 ft 0 in (19.82 m)
• Height: 11 ft 6 in (3.51 m)
• Empty weight: 6,072 lb (2,754 kg)
• Gross weight: 10,000 lb (4,536 kg)
• Powerplant: 1 × Wright R-1820 Cyclone 9 9-cylinder supercharged air-cooled radial engine, 710 hp (530 kW)

Performance

• Maximum speed: 144 kn (165 mph, 266 km/h)
• Range: 608 nmi (700 mi, 1,130 km)
• Service ceiling: 22,000 ft (6,700 m)

4000 pounds of payload.
That's not bad at all

 

[tomo pauk]

4000 pounds of payload.

4000 lbs was the difference between the empty and gross weight. Actual, useful cargo that should be carried to a place 600, 800 or 1000 km away will be perhaps half of that.
The difference between the empty and gross weight of the Ju 52/1m was 4000 kg, or 8800 lbs. It was rated for 1900 (early examples) to 2200 (later examples) kg of actual cargo.

 

[Juha3]

What's your idea for logistics here? Maybe a glider tug like the Bf 109 below carrying a DFS 230?

View attachment 813117

Mistel testing

 

[marathag]

4000 lbs was the difference between the empty and gross weight. Actual, useful cargo that should be carried to a place 600, 800 or 1000 km away will be perhaps half of that.
The difference between the empty and gross weight of the Ju 52/1m was 4000 kg, or 8800 lbs. It was rated for 1900 (early examples) to 2200 (later examples) kg of actual cargo.

But this is about what you get for the desire for a single engine(710hp) transport using wood, steel tube and smaller amounts of duraluminum alloy than the Junkers Trimotor

Moving 16, vs 17 passengers of the Ju-52 over 1000km at similar speeds with much less materials needed to do so. Increasing the HP of the craft is an easy to increase the payload to a degree, if needed- as well as going to a three blade constant speed prop

 

[tomo pauk]

But this is about what you get for the desire for a single engine(710hp) transport using wood, steel tube and smaller amounts of duraluminum alloy than the Junkers Trimotor

If I have to make two aircraft to do the job of one aircraft, it is the opposite of save. It will also need more fuel and more pilots - 'things' that Germany have had more problems to procure than the light alloys. Note that my idea is that the Trimotor is phased out of production ASAP, replaced with 1-engined sibling in the production lines.
Have the companies make the next-gen transport aircraft prototypes, choose the most suitable design (that should be no worse than the Italian trimotors) for mass production. Making the equivalent of the SM.84 would've probably been a boon for the LW.

Moving 16, vs 17 passengers of the Ju-52 over 1000km at similar speeds with much less materials needed to do so. Increasing the HP of the craft is an easy to increase the payload to a degree, if needed- as well as going to a three blade constant speed prop

The 1-motor Ju 52 should also get a 850-900 HP BMW or Bramo 9-cyl engine and a better prop, not the very basic unit the 3-motors used.
Bellanca transports were good in moving people around, however the Ju 52 was much better in moving the cargo.