JU-52 Tweet

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

In the end with most aircraft it is not what is historically accurate that matters it is what the majority of purchasers think is historically accurate.

A good example of this is the Stearman which started out as a relatively accurate representation of the real life stodgy fairly unresponsive basic trainer which could do aerobatics in the hands of a highly skilled pilot.   After enough complaints on the main forum the latest version is now an almost toy like mini-Pitts you can toss around the sky with reckless abandon. 

[zorg 4]

51 minutes ago, Tim-HH said:

According to a former Lufthansa pilot who flew the Ju 52 for years they used the following power settings:

Take off:                    38" inHG / 2250 RPM
Reduced take off:      35" inHG / 2200 RPM
Climb:                        31" inHG / 2100 RPM
Cruise:                       28" inHG / 1800 RPM

Unfortunately the development team somehow managed to forget to simulate the superchargers. So these power settings are not very helpful at the moment. You basically have to fly with the throttles fully forward all the time. Hopefully they will correct that with an upcoming update. 

Btw. these information are from an excellent book that was published in Germany last year: "Die Ju-52 - mit den Augen des Kapitäns". It covers the Ju 52 in great detail - almost like a type rating. I can only recommend it to everyone who understands the German language.

I see, thanks for the info. Seems like quite a glaring omission (or strange choice if deliberate). Is the supercharger missing on the 1939 variant too? I've been using the refit mainly so I can fly VOR radials.

[jcjimmy 150]

Tim-HH,

Thanks for the info on power settings and the book - Die Ju-52 - mit den Augen des Kapitäns 

Out of curiosity, I found the book is available on Amazon!

[Dutch727 543]

A deep dive into the historical navigation system in 1939 and it's simulation in the MSFS JU-52.

TL;DR version: the MSFS JU-52 simulation is useful for sim pilots to fly in IMC, but it isn't realistic to the way it actually worked in 1939.

--- Deep Dive Follows.  I posted this in the MSFS forums and this is a text copy of that post --

The two round navigation gauges at the top of the pilot's side of the panel in the 1939-style JU-52 are an AFN1 "beam guidance" gauge on the left, and a less sophisticated and older ZA.1 "Zielflug" ("Line flight") beam-guidance gauge that does the same thing as the AFN1 on the right.

According to the document linked at the bottom of this post the AFN1 gauge in the real-life 1939 JU-52 would be used to follow a Lorenz “beam” to or from a low-frequency radio transmitter station. A typical beam station would have four horizontally aligned high-power beams which could be followed like a VOR radial. The “Lorenz ILS” system consisted of two lower-power beam transmitters projecting from the end of the “ILS” runway one aligned vertically and the other horizontally, the vertical one providing glideslope. Almost all approaches had marker beacons for the outer, middle, and inner markers and the light on the AFN1 would light up when you crossed these beacons. This system was in common use in 1939 with about 38 stations across Germany and others in other parts of Europe.

A typical AFN1 would provide the ability to follow a course by keeping the left/right needle centered. The vertical needle is a signal strength indicator in the real unit. It’s important to note that following a Lorenz beam is following a predefined course. Like one does when following a VOR radial, except a VOR has 360 radials and the Lorenz transmitter had only 4 which could be aligned in different predetermined directions.

The AFN1 simulation in the JU-52 sort of does this, but not really. It’s useful to us as sim pilots but doesn’t work like the real historical units. This is mostly because there are no Lorenz stations in MSFS 2020 of course, only VORs and NDBs and they are not the same thing at all.

If you tune an in-range VOR or ILS on the NAV radio the AFN1 will deflect based on the heading to the tuned VOR/ILS. It’s behaving as if the VOR is an NDB. If you keep the needle centered you’ll “home” to the station. When you pass it it’ll notice that by a full needle deflection but the light doesn’t light up as it should.

If you’ve tuned an ILS, the vertical needle will show glideslope but not very precisely. (Not realistic, this needle was a signal-strength indicator in the real unit.) As you pass the markers no light illuminates on the AFN1 as it should. The left-right deflection needles will only provide homing guidance to the transmitter! Only by keeping the needles centered and flying a heading aligned with the runway heading can you be on the “localizer”. By following the needles in this way you can approach a runway successfully in IMC but with with much less precision than a modern high-frequency ILS.

The “beam deflection needle” isn’t realistic to the way it worked in real life, but it is useful to navigate to a VOR or ILS in IMC like it was an NDB (actual NDBs can’t be tuned in this JU-52.)

The other two navigation instruments on the cockpit are the ZA.1. “kick” beam guidance device and the radio compass located on the co-pilots side. The radio compass simply points to the tuned VOR/ILS if it’s in range and is super useful. In this sim the ZA.1. essentially provides a duplicate of the needle on the AFN1, useful for homing to a VOR/ILS, but with a little more precision mostly because its a little bigger. In real life this was a “kick” style needle - it would deflect or “kick” to the side every second or so to turn into if you were off course, and center if you were on the Lorenz beam. Useful for following the horizonal course between beam stations but not for a blind landing approach.

More detail on radio navigation in the pre-1946 aviation environment. Search for "AFN1’ and ‘Lorenz VHF’ in the document to get more details on the nav equipment in our 1939 JU-52.

https://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/hellschreiber-modes-other-hell-RadNav.htm

Edited October 2, 2021 by Dutch727

[YoYo 374]

Finally I have it. Its a bug in 1939 version with tire/wheels:

Modern - its ok:

 

But the orginal Tante Ju has this:

 

this issue is very visible.

I added it here to Zendesk - however when I pushed Submit button the status showed SOLVED in the same time, LOL.

 

[HiFlyer 9,359]

18 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

In the end with most aircraft it is not what is historically accurate that matters it is what the majority of purchasers think is historically accurate.

A good example of this is the Stearman which started out as a relatively accurate representation of the real life stodgy fairly unresponsive basic trainer which could do aerobatics in the hands of a highly skilled pilot.   After enough complaints on the main forum the latest version is now an almost toy like mini-Pitts you can toss around the sky with reckless abandon. 

Mathijs Kok over at Aerosoft once told an apocryphal story regarding this.

It was a while ago, but as I remember it, it seems that once upon a time they invested much research and development into a plane that upon release immediately received complaints regarding its inaccuracy, specifically the lack of wing-flex.

The developers pointed out that actual wing-flex on the aircraft was minimal, and in fact barely perceptible in most circumstances, but the explanation was not accepted.

So..... Aerosoft added some nice, unrealistic bouncy wing-flex, and people were happy.

There were also complaints about the look of the plane, though all measurements were confirmed as accurate. But in people's imaginations, the plane was sleeker, and accordingly Aerosoft made it so, apparently, by extending the length of the fuselage.

The moral of the story is that what's real, and what simmer's think is real are not always synonymous.

That story stuck with me over the years, and is a partial component of my tendency towards skepticism when unhappy people step forward waving spreadsheets and arguments-from-authority (trending towards OCD and minutia) about this and that regarding released aircraft.

I pretty much don't believe any of it until an appropriate amount of time has passed, such that the first hasty reactions have died away enough to let something approaching "truth" percolate up from the depths.

[orchestra_nl 931]

2 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

Mathijs Kok over at Aerosoft once told an apocryphal story regarding this.

It was a while ago, but as I remember it, it seems that once upon a time they invested much research and development into a plane that upon release immediately received complaints regarding its inaccuracy, specifically the lack of wing-flex.

The developers pointed out that actual wing-flex on the aircraft was minimal, and in fact barely perceptible in most circumstances, but the explanation was not accepted.

So..... Aerosoft added some nice, unrealistic bouncy wing-flex, and people were happy.

There were also complaints about the look of the plane, though all measurements were confirmed as accurate. But in people's imaginations, the plane was sleeker, and accordingly Aerosoft made it so, apparently, by extending the length of the fuselage.

The moral of the story is that what's real, and what simmer's think is real are not always synonymous.

That story stuck with me over the years, and is a partial component of my tendency towards skepticism when unhappy people step forward waving spreadsheets and arguments-from-authority (trending towards OCD and minutia) about this and that regarding released aircraft.

I pretty much don't believe any of it until an appropriate amount of time has passed, such that the first hasty reactions have died away enough to let something approaching "truth" percolate up from the depths.

The story might be somehere on these fora, at least I think I read it here.

One of the things he spcifically mentioned was people complaining about light GA, the likes of Cessna 152/172, behaved like they were on rails in the sim. His comment was that that's exactly how their real world counterparts behave as well, they were designed for novice pilots and often used as trainer aircraft because of this.

His conclusion was that unless one has flown a specific aircraft for at least several hours, one can't really compare it with its virtual equivalent in the sim. Most of us have little to no real flying experience and should refrain from commenting on flightmodels really. 

[Farlis 2,287]

1 hour ago, orchestra_nl said:

Most of us have little to no real flying experience and should refrain from commenting on flightmodels really. 

That is what I do. 

I never comment on the flight model and I only pay attention to people who actually fly the airframe in question in real life. 

[kaosfere 3,115]

9 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

The developers pointed out that actual wing-flex on the aircraft was minimal, and in fact barely perceptible in most circumstances, but the explanation was not accepted.

So..... Aerosoft added some nice, unrealistic bouncy wing-flex, and people were happy.

But surely that can't be the case, when so many people are obsessed with things being a "sim" rather than a "game".   😁

[ohny 3]

Hello,

need help how to purchase JU-52. If I click on "Buy and download" resp. "Buy" nothings really happens. Only message that purchase is pending resp. purchase failed.

What do I have to do?

Thanks

Norbert

[ray hughes 165]

15 minutes ago, ohny said:

Hello,

need help how to purchase JU-52. If I click on "Buy and download" resp. "Buy" nothings really happens. Only message that purchase is pending resp. purchase failed.

What do I have to do?

Thanks

Norbert

Norbert do you have the Steam version? If so you need to check the Steam overlay is on and also have funds in your steam wallet to make a purchase.

 

[HiFlyer 9,359]

1 hour ago, ohny said:

Hello,

need help how to purchase JU-52. If I click on "Buy and download" resp. "Buy" nothings really happens. Only message that purchase is pending resp. purchase failed.

What do I have to do?

Thanks

Norbert

You might end up having to speak to asobo. Occasionally a purchase gets stuck in the store, and they have to unstick it manually for you.

[warbirds 555]

10 hours ago, orchestra_nl said:

The story might be somehere on these fora, at least I think I read it here.

One of the things he spcifically mentioned was people complaining about light GA, the likes of Cessna 152/172, behaved like they were on rails in the sim. His comment was that that's exactly how their real world counterparts behave as well, they were designed for novice pilots and often used as trainer aircraft because of this.

His conclusion was that unless one has flown a specific aircraft for at least several hours, one can't really compare it with its virtual equivalent in the sim. Most of us have little to no real flying experience and should refrain from commenting on flightmodels really. 

Rails? Yes in Xplane and P3D they are - but - I flew a 152 in real life and it was slipping and sliding with the hot air currents. You just pointed it and tried to forget about the movements and it would stay fairly straight, but not on rails. The 152 in 2020 also slips and slides with the currents and it feels darn real to me. 

Edited October 3, 2021 by warbirds

[ohny 3]

Thanks for your ideas to purchase JU-52.

I do nor have the steam- but the store-version.

Try to contact Asobo to get their support.

Regards

Norbert

[dresoccer4 118]

has anyone been able to find a tutorial on the autopilot in the Ju? Or a in-sim manual at all?

I can't beleive they would release a plane in another language and not provide an in-depth manual and tutorial, right?