Discussion
Riley Blue said:
Am I the only one not to dislike it?
No - from an aesthetic point of view I would I say I actively like it. The Ju52 was never a conventionally pretty aircraft anyway - it was well-formed in a functional Bauhaus sort of way. That rendering is certainly a more attractive than the Ju52s in-period that were fitted with inline engines; look up the one fitted with Hispano-Suiza V12s for a real horror!I'm surprised that the manufacturer believes there's a gap in the market, given that a Ju52 with roughly the same power as the piston-powered original will be something that cruises and climbs more slowly than a Twin Otter, needs slightly more distance to take-off, carries two fewer passengers, has less range and has an extra engine. It would have a significantly greater payload, though. I'd have thought that the extra expense of a trimotor would be very unappealing these days. If anything they'd be better off going back to the original Ju52/1m model and sticking a single very powerful engine in the nose - the 52 wasn't originally designed to be a trimotor! My hunch would be that this is like those turboprop developments of the Antonov An-2 that crop up every now and then - seemingly very capable but not actually that desirable by the market.
But I'd like to have my hunches proved wrong.
It's not the only "flight of fancy" that company is up to... https://www.aerokurier.de/aero-2022-junkers-zeigt-...
And their Junkers A50 replica has already flown too...
https://flyer.co.uk/first-flight-for-junkers-junio...
But the turboprop update of the Ju-52? I like it. I'm not sure who it's aimed at for sales purposes, but it's not as hideous as some seem to be suggesting. But I'd also agree with people who are questioning "why a trimotor?" Surely with modern engine efficiency (and reliability) you could get by with a single engine up front? Or better still alter the nose area with some extra glazing, lose the engine in the middle and go for a more conventional twin engine design while retaining the unique features of the original's corrugated fuselage and wings, and it's simple landing gear..
And their Junkers A50 replica has already flown too...
https://flyer.co.uk/first-flight-for-junkers-junio...
But the turboprop update of the Ju-52? I like it. I'm not sure who it's aimed at for sales purposes, but it's not as hideous as some seem to be suggesting. But I'd also agree with people who are questioning "why a trimotor?" Surely with modern engine efficiency (and reliability) you could get by with a single engine up front? Or better still alter the nose area with some extra glazing, lose the engine in the middle and go for a more conventional twin engine design while retaining the unique features of the original's corrugated fuselage and wings, and it's simple landing gear..
yellowjack said:
It's not the only "flight of fancy" that company is up to... https://www.aerokurier.de/aero-2022-junkers-zeigt-...
There's a strong whiff of P-51 about that. And you can pretend it's a racer and the fluted bits are external radiators 
BrettMRC said:
Now that would be something to see flying again!
The Walrus at Duxford was being restored for flight when it was at Solent Sky, might still be. - https://www.flickr.com/photos/dwhitworth/515651390...
yellowjack said:
And their Junkers A50 replica has already flown too...
https://flyer.co.uk/first-flight-for-junkers-junio...
I quite like that https://flyer.co.uk/first-flight-for-junkers-junio...
The trimotor might make sense as a hybrid. An engine on nose for cruise, with electric motors on wings to help with short takeoffs. Turboprops have parts which are lifed by start/stop cycles not hours, which is one reason the Trilanders lingered on with Air Aurigny for so long. Having one engine, rather than three, would keep costs down on an aeroplane optimised for short journeys. Three electric motors might work on some routes, however the occasional long flight for delivery, more intensive maintenance, etc. may preclude it.
The Junkers fuselage certainly offers plenty of space for a variety of loads, as its forerunner the Junkers G.31 did in New Guinea in the early 1930s:
Between 1931 and 1942 they carried 36000 tones of freight, including a 1000 tonne dredge (in pieces), for the gold mines.
Two Little Dickie Birds – How New Guinea pioneered modern aviation.
At RAE Farnborough we had a Dakota (now with the BBMF) as a trials aircraft. It had the advantage that cutting holes in the structure to poke bits of kit under test through was considerably easier stressing and fatigue-wise than with a more modern airframe. The same would probably apply to the Ju52.
Edit: This article says that the new Ju52 will use the Red Aircraft V12 diesel engine, which makes sense for an aeroplane best suited to short hops. Aunt Ju is coming back
The Junkers fuselage certainly offers plenty of space for a variety of loads, as its forerunner the Junkers G.31 did in New Guinea in the early 1930s:
Between 1931 and 1942 they carried 36000 tones of freight, including a 1000 tonne dredge (in pieces), for the gold mines.
Two Little Dickie Birds – How New Guinea pioneered modern aviation.
At RAE Farnborough we had a Dakota (now with the BBMF) as a trials aircraft. It had the advantage that cutting holes in the structure to poke bits of kit under test through was considerably easier stressing and fatigue-wise than with a more modern airframe. The same would probably apply to the Ju52.
Edit: This article says that the new Ju52 will use the Red Aircraft V12 diesel engine, which makes sense for an aeroplane best suited to short hops. Aunt Ju is coming back
Edited by GliderRider on Tuesday 17th May 00:31
yellowjack said:
It's not the only "flight of fancy" that company is up to... https://www.aerokurier.de/aero-2022-junkers-zeigt-...
And their Junkers A50 replica has already flown too...
https://flyer.co.uk/first-flight-for-junkers-junio...
But the turboprop update of the Ju-52? I like it. I'm not sure who it's aimed at for sales purposes, but it's not as hideous as some seem to be suggesting. But I'd also agree with people who are questioning "why a trimotor?" Surely with modern engine efficiency (and reliability) you could get by with a single engine up front? Or better still alter the nose area with some extra glazing, lose the engine in the middle and go for a more conventional twin engine design while retaining the unique features of the original's corrugated fuselage and wings, and it's simple landing gear..
What a lovely aircraft, it transports you back to the 30's air racing era.And their Junkers A50 replica has already flown too...
https://flyer.co.uk/first-flight-for-junkers-junio...
But the turboprop update of the Ju-52? I like it. I'm not sure who it's aimed at for sales purposes, but it's not as hideous as some seem to be suggesting. But I'd also agree with people who are questioning "why a trimotor?" Surely with modern engine efficiency (and reliability) you could get by with a single engine up front? Or better still alter the nose area with some extra glazing, lose the engine in the middle and go for a more conventional twin engine design while retaining the unique features of the original's corrugated fuselage and wings, and it's simple landing gear..
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff