Ju52/3m

A complete overhaul and re-development of Gary Grigsby's War in the East, with a focus on improvements to historical accuracy, realism, user interface and AI.

Moderator: Joel Billings

Post Reply
DarkHorse2
Posts: 1070
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2022 12:08 pm

Ju52/3m

Post by DarkHorse2 »

WiTE2 appears to still be using the older Ju52/3mg3e data for its Ju52/3m aircraft specification.

However, by the time WiTE2 begins in June 1941, the Ju52/3mg5e (and 7e) were actually the models being used.
The ]u 52/3m g5e went into production in 1940 and could alternatively be fitted with wheels or floats. The float version ]u 52/3m g5e (See) was used successfully in deploying mountain troops in Norwegian fjords, which were otherwise inaccessible to paratroops and the army. The g5e was powered by BMW 132T-2 engines, producing 830 hp each, and could be ordered with a 'Schleppsporn 6000' designed to tow gliders.
On June 21, 1941 there have been 355 Ju52/3m used in the equivalent of 9 KGr zbV (Kampfgruppe zu besonderen Verwendung = ‘special purpose transport-bomber groups’), in readiness to assist Operation Barbarossa. By this occasion the Ju 52/3mg5e had been the major model in service.
One reputable source gives the following for the 7e specifications (note - the 5e used the same, improved BMW 132T-2 engine):
Specification:
Ju 52/3mg7e Specification
Type transport plane
Engine 3 x 830 hp BMW 132T-2
Accommodation 3 crew + 17 passengers/troops
Wing span 95 ft 11.6 in (29.25 m)
Length overall 62 ft 0.1 in (18.90 m)
Height overall 18 ft 2.5 in (5.55 m)
Wing area 1,189.41 sq ft (110.50 m²)
Weight empty 14,300 lb (6,500 kg)
Weight loaded 24,251 lb (11,000 kg)
Max wing loading 20.39 lb/sq ft (99.5 kg/m²)
Max power loading 9.74 lb/hp (4.42 kg/hp)
Max level speed 178 mph (286 km/hr) at 4,595 ft (1,400 m)
Cruising speed 157 mph (253 km/hr) at 4,595 ft (1,400 m)
Initial climb 689 ft/min (210 m/min)
Time to height 9,845 ft (3,000 m) in 17.5 min
Service ceiling 19,355 ft (5,900 m)
Range 683 miles (1,100 km);
Max Range 808 miles (1,300 km)
----

Key differences between the 3e and 5e/7e variants:
1. Improved engine (BMW 132T-2) vs (BMW 132A-3).
2. Max Takeoff weight improved to 11000kg (from 10500kg). A net increase of 1102.31 lbs.
3. Max cruising speed (157 mph) vs WiTE2 (134 mph)
NOTE - this value is important and appears to be used by WiTE2 in calculating AC effective ranges
4. Max speed (178 mph) vs 3mg3e (172 mph)
5. Max alt (19355 ft) vs 3mg3e (19360 ft)
6. Improved Range (683 miles) vs 3mg3e (620 miles)

(note Max Range presumes the use of all cargo capacity for fuel, which would impact carrying capacity, to some degree, for other uses. In order to utilize max cargo capacity for resupply purposes, I would suggest the base range of 683 miles as the primary reference.)
Denniss
Posts: 9106
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Germany, Hannover (region)

Re: Ju52/3m

Post by Denniss »

I can not find any reference about the 132T engine to be more powerful than the previous A-series engine. All I can find are production refinements which reduced cost and improved cylinder cooling
Nikel
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ju52/3m

Post by Nikel »

Just one reference from Askey's Operation Barbarossa Volume IIA (Google Books). Assuming the first 123 as an errata.

132T.png
132T.png (262.84 KiB) Viewed 549 times

The definitive source should be BMW itself. There is stuff in their archive for the A version, but could not find the documentation for T.

https://bmw-grouparchiv.de/research/det ... id=3052870
Denniss
Posts: 9106
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Germany, Hannover (region)

Re: Ju52/3m

Post by Denniss »

Per 1941 manual covering up to G8e the BMW 132T was the same as the 132A except a generator running at higher speed (I assume they required more power).
The engine power of the 132A-3/T was actually 725 PS as 1-minute rating (for take-off only), 660 PS as 5-minute rating, 590 PS as 30-min rating and 550 PS as continuous power, rated altitude was 900 meters
Zwischenablage01.jpg
Zwischenablage01.jpg (25.99 KiB) Viewed 503 times
Zwischenablage02.jpg
Zwischenablage02.jpg (321.8 KiB) Viewed 503 times
Nikel
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ju52/3m

Post by Nikel »

Thanks for clarifying, then Askey is wrong.

Here is another source from Google books, Jason R. Wisniewski, Powering the Luftwaffe: German Aero Engines of World War II, with more data for T than for A, though we have the real thing from BMW, and in those times manufacturers did not lie :D . * refers to data varies depending of source.

132A.png
132A.png (2.14 KiB) Viewed 494 times
132T.png
132T.png (6.75 KiB) Viewed 494 times
Denniss
Posts: 9106
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Germany, Hannover (region)

Re: Ju52/3m

Post by Denniss »

In several engine manuals the 132T is named as "Umbaumotor" so basically and adapted/modified engine. Take an 132A, remove the old generator and subsytems then attach the new generator and its subsystems = 132T
AlbertN
Posts: 4272
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Ju52/3m

Post by AlbertN »

I am not sure what is the exactl problem with the Ju52, but they're a litteral meme among the group of player-vs-players I am in. The fact not just I but multiple of us define 'kamikaze' them as a joke should be more than eloquent to underline there is manifest perception of a problem on the Ju52. And not a tiny problem.

I do not know if it is related to 'range', to 'reliability' or else.
User avatar
ToxicThug11
Posts: 277
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:54 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Ju52/3m

Post by ToxicThug11 »

Their losses seem excessive

Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2”