Ford Tri-Motor Air Transport (AT) vs. Junkers Ju 52 tri-motor bomber/transport
Robster
transport aircraft, this post is of more historical interest (unless AW ME
is offering an expanded plane set).
I decided to investigate the history of some other military transports after
participating in an interesting exchanged in the AW3 RR Axis vs. Allies
arena last week and this past weekend (OCT 14-15). The Bz/Axis was just
about to kick the Az/Allies off the Continent, but was having trouble
capturing the last two or three bases. A frustrated player from the Axis
made a comment about the historical availability of flakpanzers to the
Allies; of course, someone from the Allies had to make a snappy comment
back. This player stated, and no one disputed, that the Axis should be
making use of "ford tri-motors" [sic] instead of C-47's.
I am not sure how I came to agree with this notion, myth, mis-history, or
whatever you want to call it; but for some reason this retort by my fellow
Allied pilot seemed to ring true. Then, and at another time, I even made my
own ignorant comment reinforcing the earlier bad history. I recalled that
Germany extensively used tri-motor transports (probably, everyone remembers
the Alpine-flying and closing scenes from the movie "Where Eagles Dare"),
and I recalled the Nazis had "nationalized" a Ford factory during the war.
So, these Channel 1 comments had made a degree of sense to me--in a
forced-transitive-logic sort of way. Needless to say, several days later,
now, I am not quite comfortable with having participed in an exchange where
I did not have the complete facts. Although, I was, and still am, quite
certain that the Germans never overran a Douglas aircraft factory.
As history bears out, the Ford Tri-Motor AT and the Junkers tri-motor were
on parallel courses. Hugo Junkers was a pioneer in the development of
metal-skinned aircraft for Germany. His American analog was William B.
Stout. Stout, with Henry and Edsel Ford as investors, was set to build his
own metal-skinned planes.(1) Still, Stout cast his eye overseas for ideas
on how to improve his own designs. There is evidence that Stout
incorporated Junkers's innovations into his own designs. Ford eventually
bought the company from Stout in 1925. Before Stout could adequately
demonstrate a working prototype worthy of production, a fire destroyed part
of the factory, and the prototype tri-motors. Afterwards, a Ford team
(Stout eventually fell out of the picture) produced the Ford Tri-Motor 4-AT
in 1926 (199 were built). The 5-AT was produced in much larger numbers
after 1928.(2) But this plane was not the same one that Junkers produced.
Hugo Junkers also began experimenting with the production of metal planes
during the 1920's. The first Ju 52 that Junkers rolled out in 1930 was, in
fact, a single-engine model. By 1932, the Ju 52/3m version had the familiar
tri-motor configuration. (3)
Ford Motor Company, was the majority shareholder of a production plant in
Cologne, Germany. Several years before the U.S. involvement in the war, and
in hopes to appease the Nazis, Ford replaced the entire board of directors
of that company with Germans, place Ford's German operations in the care of
a pro-Nazi caretaker, and changed the name to Ford Werke, AG. When I
mentioned "nationalized", earlier, this notion was mistaken--Ford Werke was
never consolidated into the Hermann Goering Werke of nationalized German
military industries. Instead, Ford Werke maintained its status as an
independent company although Ford, Inc. contends that it lost control of
Ford Werke in 1941 after the U.S. declared war. Nevertheless, under
national socialism, the state dictated the product lines that a
privately-owned enterprise could sell; at Ford Werke, this product was:
TRUCKS for the Wehrmacht (only German-made parts were used in their
assembly, even prior to the War). (4) (5)
Anyway, I did not find a connection between Ford Werke or any of Ford's
other subsidiaries in Nazi-occupied countries as far as aircraft parts
production is concerned--but this was not an exhaustive search, so please
weigh the evidence accordingly. Did Ford, Inc. sell any tri-motor aircraft
to the Germans in the 1930's prior to, or even after the rise of
totalitarianism? That I do not know, although Ford did supply tri-motor
aircraft to each of the U.S. Services.(6)
So, why would anyone mistake these two distinct aircraft? Besides the
obvious similarity of having three powerplants and being monoplanes, the
Ford Tri-Motor 4/5-AT has an overhead wing design, and Junkers Ju 52 has its
wing integrated into the lower part of the fuselage. Interestingly, both
used a Pratt & Whitney radial engine at some time in their development
(5-AT, P&W Wasp; Ju 52/3mce, P&W Hornet). Later, a BMW radial replaced the
P&W engines in the Ju 52.(7) I am sure that I will not make the same
mistake twice.
==Rob a.k.a. "Robster"
Picture: Ford Tri-motor
http://www.nasm.edu/nasm/aero/aircraft/images/ford_tri-motor.t.JPG
Picture: Junkers Ju 52 tri-motor
http://214th.com/ww2/germany/ju52/ju52a.jpg
Sources:
(1) http://www.nasm.edu/nasm/aero/aircraft/fordtri.htm
Stout, a bold and imaginative salesman, sent a mimeographed form letter to
leading manufacturers, blithely asking for $1,000 and adding: 'For your one
thousand dollars you will get one definite promise: You will never get your
money back. Stout raised $20,000, including $1 000 each from Edsel and Henry
Ford.
(2) http://www.stuffinder.com/stou.htm
#307. Stout/Pitcairn Correspondence:
Two letters to HFP from Stout (Jan.25,1926) One discusses the Stout metal
plane, (the first and unsuccessful bull-nosed trimotor) and mentions it had
just been destroyed in a fire. The second enclosed letter has a hand-colored
illustration of the Stout Tri-motor, Junkers F-13, and Fokker Tri-motor. It
discusses their suitability in commercial aviation.
(3) "Jane's Historic Military Aircraft, Recognition Guide", 1998, p. 80.
(4) http://past.thenation.com/issue/000124/0124silverstein.shtml
Ken Silverstein, "Ford and the Führer, New Documents Reveal the Close Ties
Between Dearborn and the Nazis", The Nation
(5) http://www.rhombus.net/artvt/fordfuehrer.htm, same author
(6) http://www.worldaircorps.com/airplanes/am586.html
Ford 4-AT Tri-Motor model airplane
(7) "Jane's Historic Military Aircraft, Recognition Guide", Ibid.
Robster
transport aircraft, this post is of more historical interest (unless AW ME
is offering an expanded plane set).
I decided to investigate the history of these other two military transports
after
participating in an interesting exchanged in the AW3 RR Axis vs. Allies
arena last week and this past weekend (OCT 14-15). The Bz/Axis was just
about to kick the Az/Allies off the Continent, but was having trouble
capturing the last two or three bases. A frustrated player from the Axis
made a comment about the historical availability of flakpanzers to the
Allies; of course, someone from the Allies had to make a snappy comment
back. That Allied player stated, and no one disputed, that the Axis should
Robster
Spiffy
skin for the C47. ( Just that the centre prop dont werk <g>)
<justsaying>
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 22:31:45 GMT, "Robster" <4rob...@home.com>
wrote:
>Since AW3 uses the C-47 as the sole representative of WWII military
>transport aircraft, this post is of more historical interest (unless AW ME
>is offering an expanded plane set).
>
>I decided to investigate the history of these other two military transports
>after
>participating in an interesting exchanged in the AW3 RR Axis vs. Allies
>arena last week and this past weekend (OCT 14-15). The Bz/Axis was just
>about to kick the Az/Allies off the Continent, but was having trouble
>capturing the last two or three bases. A frustrated player from the Axis
>made a comment about the historical availability of flakpanzers to the
>Allies; of course, someone from the Allies had to make a snappy comment
>back. That Allied player stated, and no one disputed, that the Axis should
>be
>making use of "ford tri-motors" [sic] instead of C-47's.
rest snipped
Spiffy
Kraits Seeker
You'll find a Junkers skin in SAC.
Seeker
Steve Rawlinson
pall by the third ;)
Trip
--
Steve Rawlinson
Claranet Ltd
st...@clara.net
Robster
but three appeared in the newsgroup--this is my first time posting from this
browser. I think I'll try alt.test or some other test group first next
time!
--rob
"Steve Rawlinson" <st...@clara.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8uoi42...@subpop.noc.clara.net...
Robster
"Kraits Seeker" <rexk...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
news:tJLG5.20675$d4.15...@nnrp4.clara.net...
Robster
fuselage outline of an aircraft, but I had not realized that you could
change the entire appearance of the plane in that way--and change the
fuselage itself! I have been putting off trying SAC (trying to become
competent at flying, first :) but sounds like it adds an interesting new
dimension to the game.
--rob
"Spiffy" <Spi...@kraits.org> wrote in message
news:ht0nusoehq2um192p...@4ax.com...
> If you use Sac you can select the Junkers Trimotor as an alternative
> skin for the C47. ( Just that the centre prop dont werk <g>)
> <justsaying>
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 22:31:45 GMT, "Robster" <4rob...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Since AW3 uses the C-47 as the sole representative of WWII military
> >transport aircraft, this post is of more historical interest (unless AW
ME
> >is offering an expanded plane set).
> >
> >I decided to investigate the history of these other two military
transports
> >after
> >participating in an interesting exchanged in the AW3 RR Axis vs. Allies
> >arena last week and this past weekend (OCT 14-15). The Bz/Axis was just
> >about to kick the Az/Allies off the Continent, but was having trouble
> >capturing the last two or three bases. A frustrated player from the Axis
> >made a comment about the historical availability of flakpanzers to the
> >Allies; of course, someone from the Allies had to make a snappy comment
> >back. That Allied player stated, and no one disputed, that the Axis
should
> >be
> >making use of "ford tri-motors" [sic] instead of C-47's.
>
> rest snipped
> Spiffy
Spiffy
is a little leeway. However in the case of the Junkers 52 you can
squeeze a radial cowl onto the nose of a C47. Give it square windows,
the right camo and colors-hey presto a Junkers. Same as using a
"Betty" shape with He111 markings to represent this bomber in
scenarios. There are quite a few of these alternates in the Sac
collection both for american, german, and japanese aircraft where the
flying characteristics are a reasonable match. Visually in the game
they look quite good too.
Fidd's web site has some nice examples-go visit :)
http://www3.mistral.co.uk/mthuff/index.html
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:20:14 GMT, "Robster" <4rob...@home.com>
wrote:
>Spiffy, I was aware that SAC skins could change the artwork applied to the
>fuselage outline of an aircraft, but I had not realized that you could
>change the entire appearance of the plane in that way--and change the
>fuselage itself! I have been putting off trying SAC (trying to become
>competent at flying, first :) but sounds like it adds an interesting new
>dimension to the game.
>
>--rob
>
>"Spiffy" <Spi...@kraits.org> wrote in message
>news:ht0nusoehq2um192p...@4ax.com...
>> If you use Sac you can select the Junkers Trimotor as an alternative
>> skin for the C47. ( Just that the centre prop dont werk <g>)
>> <justsaying>
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 22:31:45 GMT, "Robster" <4rob...@home.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Since AW3 uses the C-47 as the sole representative of WWII military
>> >transport aircraft, this post is of more historical interest (unless AW
>ME
>> >is offering an expanded plane set).
>> >
>> >I decided to investigate the history of these other two military
>transports
>> >after
>> >participating in an interesting exchanged in the AW3 RR Axis vs. Allies
>> >arena last week and this past weekend (OCT 14-15). The Bz/Axis was just
>> >about to kick the Az/Allies off the Continent, but was having trouble
>> >capturing the last two or three bases. A frustrated player from the Axis
>> >made a comment about the historical availability of flakpanzers to the
>> >Allies; of course, someone from the Allies had to make a snappy comment
>> >back. That Allied player stated, and no one disputed, that the Axis
>should
>> >be
>> >making use of "ford tri-motors" [sic] instead of C-47's.
>>
>> rest snipped
>> Spiffy
>
>
>
>
>
Spiffy
HoHunKhan
<Hugo Junkers also began experimenting with the production of metal planes
during the 1920's.>
Junkers' first all-metal cantilever monoplane flew in 1915, and his first
light-allow all-metal designs entered series production in 1917.
The Junkers F-13 passenger cabin monoplane flew first in 1919.
In 1926, Ernst Zindel (who later created the Ju 52) designed the Junkers G. 24,
an all-metal trimotor passenger plane. The Junkers K. 30a subvariant of a
military derivative of the G. 24 was a radial-engined tri-motor.
("Die deutschen Militärflugzeuge", Helmut Stutzer)
Regards,
Henning
Robster
I inferred that Junkers had started in the 20's because of what I had read
about Stout watching Professor Junker's designs during the early and mid
20's; I had not realized that Junkers or anyone else had started building
all-metal planes during the earlier decade. I assumed he was making only
planes of the fabric/wood/wire-type then. I did not realize that I should
have gone further back in time looking for source material. Junkers was
truly a man far ahead of his time--everyone else was just catching up to him
(or copying him) in the following decades.
Re.,
rob
"HoHunKhan" <hohu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001021073119...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
> Hi Rob,
>
> <Hugo Junkers also began experimenting with the production of metal planes
> during the 1920's.>
>
HoHunKhan
>I assumed he was making only
>planes of the fabric/wood/wire-type then. I did not realize that I should
>have gone further back in time looking for source material.
Junkers never built wood-and-cloth aircraft, but started with steel. Small
surprise, since Junkers was a manufacturer of boilers :-) Junkers' aircraft
company was disbanded by the Allies after WW2, but they're still in the boiler
business.
>Junkers was
>truly a man far ahead of his time--everyone else was just catching up to him
>(or copying him) in the following decades.
Dornier was another early manufacturer of all-metal planes, developing
independendly and employing different technologies.
Junkers' armoured ground attack aircraft were continued in production after WW1
to provide aircraft for the Western Allies, while Dornier aircraft were copied
in the USA.
In the 1920s, Junkers delivered a fair number of aircraft to the Soviet Union
and set up a factory there. In the late 1920s, it became property of the Soviet
Union, and Tupolev took over the factory, turning out all-metal,
corrugated-sheet monoplane aircraft directly based on Junkers' technology.
After WW2, the former Junkers designer Brunolf Baade prepared a multi-volume
report on Junkers on behalf of the Soviets. He also continued work on the Ju
287 multi-engine, forward-swept wing jet bomber for them, which was flown for
test purposes after the war.
Baade's claim to fame stems from the civilian jetliner he designed and built.
It was to be manufactured in the GDR, but had to be scrapped after a Soviet
intervention.
By the way, there are rumours that the Ford Trimotor was more or less an
all-metal copy of the Fokker Trimotor, which had a very similar layout but was
of welded steel-tube construction.
Regards,
Henning