JU-52 Tweet

[webstef68 52]

They also did a great job with the sound becoming louder from the direction where you open the windows, very immersive.

[pmplayer 9,526]

7 hours ago, Dutch727 said:

I think this is fascinating and fun aircraft to operate and fly, especially in the 1939 incarnation.

Some notes on the autopilot and VOR navigation I've learned by practice.

The autopilot works you just can't expect it to work like a modern one.  It'll only hold a heading, and it can't make big corrections. 

To use it:

1.  Use the crank on the compass to crank the upper compass card to the desired heading.  (The lower one shows your current heading.)
2. Steer the aircraft manually to on or near the desired heading.  It WILL NOT make large changes. It only uses rudder not ailerons.
3. When approximately on the heading you want (the cards are roughly aligned) turn on the AP with the rotary switch below the yoke.
4. Press IN the switch with the fan on in on the lower part of the compass card device.  This selects "heading hold".
5.  The aircraft will generally track the selected heading.  It may wander a bit but will get back on track.
6.  There is no altitude hold.  Trim it carefully and it will generally stay level.  But you have to watch it.

Radio navigation. 

Again, don't expect anything remotely modern.  It can point you towards a VOR and it can offer crude guidance for an ILS.  It will not fly down the ILS beam for you it just provides guidance.

There are three nav-related instruments on the top of the pilot's panel and one on the lower left of the co-pilot's panel. To use them, tune the NAV1 radio to an in-range VOR or ILS.

To track to a VOR use the leftmost and rightmost pilot's instrument .  The one on the right is labelled ZA.1. and it will tell you in a crude way which direction to turn to point your nose towards the VOR station.  If the needle is inclined to the left, turn left, and vice versa.  When the needle is centered you are flying directly towards the turned VOR or ILS.  There is no indication of what radial you are on nor can you tune a radial.  In effect it makes the VOR/ILS work like an NDB.

The pointer on the instrument on the first officer's panel will always point the relative direction to the tuned VOR/ILS, just like an NBD needle. (You cannot, as far as I know, actually tune an NDB with this system, it's VOR only.)

The instrument on the top left of the pilot's panel is a more precise version of the one on the left, you will see the white marker align with the carets if you are heading straight for the VOR/ILS.

The instrument in the top center of the pilot's panel is the ILS receiver.  It mostly provides crude glideslope information with the tiny brown dot in the curved track on the left.  The little dot works like the glideslope needle on a conventional ILS receiver.  If it's high, climb, if it's low, descend; if it's near the center you are on the glideslope.  The needle on the right works like the needle in the VOR tracking instrument - it doesn't tell you if you're "on the localizer"  It just tells you if you're pointed towards the end of the runway and which direction to turn if you aren't.  To get approximately on the localizer be sure your compass card is pointing to the runway heading while you are pointing directly at it.

I don't think this ILS would be much good at CAT II approaches!

Hope this helps.




 

Thanks for this explanation very useful, they should work out some Dokumentation for this bird IMO.

cheers 😉

[Matchstick 1,888]

6 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

The Piaggio P149 and the Iris Grob Tutor both let you fly with the Canopy slid back as does the Aeroplane Heaven mk1a Spitfire.  The Aeroplane Heaven c140 is happy to let you fly around with the windows open as well (though to be honest it is loud enough with the windows shut).

Carenado are more the exception than the rule here.

Milviz Porter, Aviat Husky, BR Simdesign Debonair all fail with windows open so it's far from only Carenado at fault here

[jcomm 5,951]

Ok, so this well known, for it's peculiarities, aircraft can be taxied gladly in MFS using just rudder, and the "agreeing"  tailwheel, which is supposed to be "free castoring".

From the videos I can't see any need for differential thrust, which is how turns are initiated IRL on a Ju52...

It's pretty though, graphically, as is most of MFS - Graphically...

[psolk 3,046]

7 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

Milviz Porter, Aviat Husky, BR Simdesign Debonair all fail with windows open so it's far from only Carenado at fault here

Even the HPG you can open the door in flight...  

[HiFlyer 9,363]

 

[HiFlyer 9,363]

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

Ok, so this well known, for it's peculiarities, aircraft can be taxied gladly in MFS using just rudder, and the "agreeing"  tailwheel, which is supposed to be "free castoring".

From the videos I can't see any need for differential thrust, which is how turns are initiated IRL on a Ju52...

It's pretty though, graphically, as is most of MFS - Graphically...

We do really have to get over that habit though, of looking for so-called "study level" planes for the price of a pizza........

[Matchstick 1,888]

21 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

We do really have to get over that habit though, of looking for so-called "study level" planes for the price of a pizza........

True and that should also be combined with Devs being responsible about the expectations they create for their planes.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Matchstick

[Johnny Wyatt 152]

Il-2 Sturmovik had a great Junkers 52 that felt more realistic than this one. Actually one could look at the tutorials for that one. https://store.steampowered.com/app/561400/IL2_Sturmovik_Ju_52m_Collector_Plane/

 

I remember the brake were triggered with the throttle, and the trim is linked with the flaps.

edit: "Airplane has separate pneumatic wheel brakes. To brake left or right wheels, move their corresponding left or right engine throttle to 20% or less. Setting the central engine throttle to 20% or less will brake both wheels. Maximum braking efficiency can be achieved by moving the throttle all the way down."

and 

"

• Airplane has a manually controlled horizontal stabilizer. It should be set to 0° before takeoff, to +2° during flight and to -1.5° for landing. Also, it may be used to trim the flight stick during the flight.
• The mechanical flaps control system can be controlled simultaneously with the horizontal stabilizer, these two systems can be linked or unlinked (by using flaps control buttons).

Edited September 30, 2021 by Johnny Wyatt

[jcomm 5,951]

45 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

We do really have to get over that habit though, of looking for so-called "study level" planes for the price of a pizza........

It just scares me that they follow a MS-FLIGHT like track, like when they started delivering the cockpitless WW2 aircraft...

Also, with all of the details that at least from the videos it appears to have, and the excellent graphics, I would expect a bit more of detail in what really makes this aircraft interesting to operate - it's ground handling and flight configurations characteristics ...

OFC there's no alternative other than the Ju52 in "IL-2 Battle of", mentioned by Johnny, the rest being not superior to what I see in this MFS videos, and I can still play a more realistic Ju52 there, but it's a combat sim, and the civil version in the MFS offer looks great, graphically ...

Regarding the price, I would rather pay $45 for a detailed Ju52, honestly...

Edited September 30, 2021 by jcomm

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,799]

OK ... with further testing of the 1939  - 

Providing there is no significant crosswind (not sure of the threshold here but maybe less than 10 knots)  the AP works as expected.

I was even able to change course by 90 degrees by winding the crank and it tracked, overshot slightly and then corrected back to the selected heading.

Investigating further,

[dobee51 348]

4 hours ago, Johnny Wyatt said:

Il-2 Sturmovik had a great Junkers 52 that felt more realistic than this one. Actually one could look at the tutorials for that one. https://store.steampowered.com/app/561400/IL2_Sturmovik_Ju_52m_Collector_Plane/

 

I remember the brake were triggered with the throttle, and the trim is linked with the flaps.

 

They don't have to be mutually exclusive, the two versions of the aircraft can complement one another. If you just want to walk around the old aircraft or check out the original gauges, the MSFS sim can't be beat. If you want to see the old plane in action, go load up the IL-2 plane and drop some fallschirmjaeger-s.

The only gripe I have with IL-2 is, I can never remember all the key maps.

[HiFlyer 9,363]

5 hours ago, Matchstick said:

True and that should also be combined with Devs being responsible about the expectations they create for their planes.

What expectation?

Historically, the ones responsible for outsized community expectations can (probably) be found in a mirror. 

Asobo/Microsoft have, so far, released 20 or so planes now, and each of them, upon release and baring community mods, have pretty much all been to approximately the same standard of "realism".

(Somewhere right around your average Carenado plane)

That being the case, in a logical world, what should be our honest expectations?

[Matchstick 1,888]

5 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

What expectation?

Historically, the ones responsible for outsized community expectations can (probably) be found in a mirror. 

Asobo/Microsoft have, so far, released 20 or so planes now, and each of them, upon release and baring community mods, have pretty much all been to approximately the same standard of "realism".

(Somewhere right around your average Carenado plane)

That being the case, in a logical world, what should be our honest expectations?

To take a quote from one of MS's release announcements

To ensure complete accuracy, we consulted with a Lufthansa pilot who actually flew one of the last surviving Junkers JU-52

https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2021/09/28/microsoft-flight-simulator-releases-first-aircraft-in-the-local-legends-series-today-with-junkers-ju-52/

You might consider the plane to be good but I don't think too many will agree that it's compelely accurate.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Matchstick

[Ron Attwood 3,469]

2 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

You might consider the plane to be good but I don't think too many will agree that it's compelely accurate.

It's 12 quid!