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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Sagittario64

Airman 1st Class
291
0
Nov 21, 2011
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.

 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

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

I do think the 252 was a typical German overengineered item. A great aircraft but not what the armed forces needed at the time.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Better Dambusters
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GTX
Making better Italian aircraft, 1933~1945
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
506
CHen10
Favorite Aircraft? Doesnt have to be just one.
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
PAT303
P
A
1939-1942 FAA: Better aircraft or more aircraft?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
4K
Admiral Beez
A
Menu
Log in
Register