S.82 vs. Ju.52. Which one is the better transport aircraft?

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by Sagittario64, Dec 23, 2011.

  1. Sagittario64

    Sagittario64 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Michigan
    I understand the workhorse of the Luftwaffe's transport arm was the venerable Junkers 52. but although it did its job as transport to the letter, i cant help but wonder if there were better Axis transports around and available in quantity. the one that comes to mind is the Savoia-Marchetti S.82. It does have its faults, and was proven to be vulnerable to enemy action (but keep in mind that any and every transport aircraft is very vulnerable given the planes design and role), but it did perform amazing feats of logistics, like the Italian fighter reinforcment to eastern africa. The question in my mind, though, is whether the S.82 was better suited to the transport role than the Junkers Ju.52, and thus be a more attractive choice.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  2. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ju-52/3M
    March 1932. First Flight.
    6,510kg. Empty weight.

    SM.82
    1939. First Flight.
    ~10,000kg. Empty weight.

    The SM.82 was 7 years newer and 50% larger. One would expect it to have a greater range/payload.

    The Ju-252 and Ar-232 were production ready by about 1942. IMO they would be a better choice for Germany then the SM.82.
     
  3. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    One thing for sure, the SM.82 is certainly more attractive.
     
  4. vikingBerserker

    vikingBerserker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    24,064
    Likes Received:
    655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Korporate Kontrolleur
    Location:
    South Carolina
    ....and could double as a heavy bomber carrying 8,800 kgs of bombs. I give the edge to the SM.82
     
  5. CharlesBronson

    CharlesBronson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,822
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Metalurgic Technician
    Location:
    Cordoba - Argentina
    Sm 82 clearly wins, and it was in fact used by the luftwaffe beween 1943-45, in relative small numbers of course, there is a well know german color newreel of the "Panorama" serie in wich the parachutist jumped from a SM82.
    The only advantage of the Ju-52 over the Italian aircraft was the shorter take-off and landing run.
     
  6. Siegfried

    Siegfried Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The SM.82 seems to have had a much better payload/range characteristics as it was a much later design. It also was made of non strategic materials. However the problem is how does one tool up for mass production of an Italian design quickly enough; it almost certainly would have been build more around craftsmen/labour intensive type construction and being a much younger design the tooling and mass production would have been further less evolved. In contrast the Ju 52 was more established and the Germans had made inroads in getting production shifted to occupied countries such as France. Given the inferior power to weight ratio landing field lenght would have been somewhat inferior though this is unlikely to be critical in many situations.
     
  7. Vincenzo

    Vincenzo Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    none
    Location:
    Lazio
    i think that viking want write 8800 pounds not kilograms
     
  8. Sagittario64

    Sagittario64 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Michigan
    The S.82 seems to lag in defensive armament to the Ju.52. they both have a heavy machine gun, but the MG 131 is supposedly enormously better than the Scotti, and the MG 17s are said to be better than the Breda SAFATs. the ju.52 was a metal aircraft, and i guess it was more durable than the S.82 because of that. the S.82 and the Ju.52 were both adapted from passenger aircraft(the S.75 for the S.82), so they arent true military transport aircraft, like maybe the Ar.232 and Me.321/323.
     
  9. fastmongrel

    fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,336
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motor Mechanic
    Location:
    Lancashire
    The Ju 52 might not have been the best transport around but it was relatively cheap and easy to build, very reliable and had a good STOL performance. Did the S 82 have enough advantages apart from a greater load capacity to make the swap worthwhile. My opinion no if the LW was to change it should have gone to a much better aircraft. Actually if I ran the German economy I would have done what the Russians and Japanese did and built a copy of the C47 Dakota.
     
  10. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Why do that when Germany could mass produce the superior Ju-252?
     
  11. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,988
    Likes Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Any perceived Ju-52's ancestor need to be built with as much as possible usage of the non-strategic materials. Seems that Me-323 Gigant used that approach, too bad for Germans not following the same principles for a smaller plane.
     
  12. fastmongrel

    fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,336
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motor Mechanic
    Location:
    Lancashire
    Thats the problem they couldnt mass produce the Ju 252 and the Ju 352 wasnt nearly as good an aircraft as the 252 probably no better or possibly less capable than the Dakota.
     
  13. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I don't believe that.

    The German economy was out muscled by the economies of Britain, the Soviet Union and the USA. Germany had to make tough choices as to what weapons would provide the most bang for the buck. German leadership decided Ju-252s weren't worth the price so the aircraft wasn't placed into mass production. They could have produced Ju-252s while cutting something else such as the V2 rocket program.
     
  14. fastmongrel

    fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,336
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motor Mechanic
    Location:
    Lancashire
    Your right I didnt word that right. Of course an advanced economy like Germany could produce them but as you have said they had to prioritise. I wouldnt like to be the one who had to tell Adolf that one of his pet projects had to be cancelled to build transport aircraft :lol:

    I do think the 252 was a typical German overengineered item. A great aircraft but not what the armed forces needed at the time.
     
  15. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    The SM 82 might have been a good choice. It could carry more using engines of the same class as the JU 52. More payload per plane for the same engines and being built of non-strategic materials is a good combination. It may not have been as "trick" as the some of the German Planes but it was 'available' sooner and without the "tricks" it may have been easier to build. A good basic transport available in numbers is better than trick airplanes available in handfuls.
     
  16. vikingBerserker

    vikingBerserker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    24,064
    Likes Received:
    655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Korporate Kontrolleur
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Really IMHO the only area the SM.82 lacked was engine power, a 4th engine would have been excellent!
     
  17. Denniss

    Denniss Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The engines of the Ju 52 and the SM.82 were not in the same class - Ju 52 had about 700PS engines, SM.82 950PS engines
     
  18. Siegfried

    Siegfried Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #18 Siegfried, Dec 25, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2011
    The Ju 52's engines were consistantly improved untill they reached the 850hp class (Ju 52/3mg8e - late production) Three 850 hp (634 kW) BMW 132Z , these versions had better payload performance. The Ju 352 lost performance over the Ju 252 due to the increased weight of the wooden airframe however much, if not most, of the loss seems to have been due to the loss in power. Latter versions with more powerfull engines (achieved by using C3 during takeoff before switching to B4 fuel) were anticipated to have payload range performances that while not as good as the ju 252 was still quite good.
     
  19. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    Ju 52 used 9 cylinder radials of 27.7 liters each, the SM 82 used 9 cylinder radials of 28.6 liters.
     
  20. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    How do you define "non-strategic materials"?

    Oil was about the only thing in short supply in 1941 Germany. Plus munitions manufacturing capacity which was still being built and expanded from scratch.
     
Loading...

Share This Page