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

[Siegfried]

What about the DB605D which produced 1,850hp with B4 fuel and 2,000hp with C3 fuel? As far as I'm aware it was the only WWII aircraft engine designed to work well with both low and high octane fuel.

There were several versions; the D, DM (M = with MW50) then DC, DB.

The ASM had a compression ratio of 7.3:1 and I suspect so did the DM. The early DB601N had 8:1 but the DB601 had 6.9.

Both the DB (B4) and DC (C3) had a compression ratio of 8.3 the differences probably only related to camshaft and ignition timmings as well as boost limits. The engines could be easily converted to each other though there seems to have been a specialised version that was easier still to convert.


I suspect a variant of the DB(M) I've seen refered to as the DB/DC became the main production version with controls that allowed variable boost settings for C3 or B4.

 

[Sagittario64]

what would the S.82 become if the italians swapped out the existing engines with the engines used on the Piaggio P.108 heavy bomber? would it be able to carry a much larger load with the increased power, or would the non-strategic materials airframe be unable to carry any greater load than it could originally?

and i dont think the DB engine series would likely ever be used on any transport aircraft, due to the insanely high demand for fighters on the front lines.

 

[davebender]

I agree. They need to use Jumo 211 engines, which were in plentiful supply by 1941. The 1,322hp Jumo 211F was powerful enough for WWII era transport aircraft. It was also reliable and had a relatively low fuel consumption.

 

[Sagittario64]

and with regards to all of you speculating on swapping the engines on the Italian S.82(or any other italian aircraft for that matter), i believe the result will almost certainly always be positive. german engines compared to homegrown italians were, imho, a 100% better choice. the italians figured this out when they dropped the DB 601 into the C.200, and later when they dropped the DB 605 into the C.202. maybe not all german engines were superior to their italian counterparts of the same period (like the Ju.52, which didnt really need to be fitted with different and newer engines, which in my mind was due to the soundness of the design). in my mind though, the S.82 didnt need to be re-engined for a long while. a transport aircraft is a transport aircraft. in wwii they could have made them faster, but they had limited options. i imagine the italians, knowing the s.82 would form the backbone of their transport arm, put the best engine they saw fit for such a role, and the S.82 turned out fine. and the engines worked well enough to give the S.82 the opportunity to deliver 8,000lbs of bombs in an offensive role. but haven now looking at my question again, i dont think the germans should have replaced their main transports with the S.82, simply becuase the s.82 wasnt designed for the german air force. wood is more susceptible than corrugated metal, which is why i think the ju.52 made an outstanding aircraft for operations in every part of the world. in the Mediterranean, the S.82 was superior because of its ease to maintain in the warm climates, its longer range, and heavier payload. in russia, the heavy load would have been useful, but subzero winters would have played havoc with its airframe, and its need for longer runways than the ju.52 was a disadvantage.

 

[davebender]

More powerful engines almost always increase payload. Replace the 950hp engines with 1,322hp engines and the S.82 will carry more cargo.

 

[Sagittario64]

yes, but the s.82 was built with different materials. the engines can make whatever aircraft theyre on carry a heavier payload, but if the airframe of said aircraft is already carrying its maximum load without compromising structural integrity, then the advantage of greater loads is void.