USA warehouse now open. Our USA warehouse is now open! Low cost shipping and an ever growing variety make ordering from the US warehouse even better value!
The Junkers JU-52, or "Iron Annie" as it was nicknamed was originally developed as an Airliner and transport and served in Germany from 1932 until 1945, unsuprisingly, it was pushed into military service and was even used as a medium bomber for a short period. So succesful was the JU-52 that licence built version's were still being used as a civil and military carrier right up to the 1980's. The H-King JU-52 is a model of the Lufthansa operated aircraft regularly seen at airshows around Europe and is painted in the historical 1936 Deutsche Lufthansa scheme.
This superb scale Plug and Fly model is simple to assemble with the motor, ESC and all servo's pre-fitted. The single motor has more than enough power, the out-board props are just for effect and spin easily, the prop wash from the main motor is enough to spin them up, this configuration was chosen to keep the model simple, light and capable of excellent flight times. The JU-52 is very practical, it features a 2 pc removable wing that is simple to wire up as there isn't a spiders web of ESC wires to hook up, a steerable tailwheel for excellent ground handling, rubber tyres for durability and most importantly, it is made from tough EPO foam.
The finish on H-King JU-52 is excellent, the full corrugated effect skin adding to it's scale appearance. Scale flight is what this superb looking model is all about and this is where the Junkers excels, a combination of 4 channel control and light wingloading means this model can be flown slowly but with authority, it is another unique and exclusive model from Hobbyking for the scale enthusiast that will stand out at any flying field!
I have received my JU52 which has a few issues: 1) The fuselage in front of the horizontal stabalizer has 4 pronounced indents.3 being more to the top of the fuselage in the corrigated part &1 starting on top of the fuselage & running down the side following the letter "D" on the fuselage. I have worked with heat & hot water which may have alleviated it a little bit. If it wasn't for the corrigation I could fill it & paint it. 2)The anchor for the rt. wing bolt was completely unattatched in the fuselage. I was able to fix this with apoxy & a piece of plywood. 3) The propeller shaft on rt. wing has no attachment. I will be able to overcome this also. This has been written as a 'heads-up' only with no bad feelings or animosity.
Flew mine today needed a 3/4oz lead suck inside the cockpit and flew well leave the little props ON! sounds awesome on the low fly by's excellent model painted mine in Luftwaffe colours
target=_blank>
I ordered my JU52 today.I am not into changing a good thing,but am looking forward to trying to make the ailerons look stock. Does anyone have an idea for hinges? The aileron has to sit below trailing edge of wing.
the hinges are made in the foam but you do get a bag of very good hinges should you wish to fit them I fitted on the rudder as the tailwheel steering benefitted from fitting them
Has anyone tried flaperons for slowing this plane down for landing? On the real JU52's the ailerons are almost reguarded as a separate wing. They actually sit down below the trailing edge of the wing. I'm still waiting on the new order of the JU52's to come in. Cheers, Tom
Just totalled the front end after stall on take off, can anybody tell me what wattage a 900kV 3128 motor would be please as I need to replace the motor?
What props come with this plane?
I'm thinking about ordering it with 3 less powerful matching motors and props.
Also, if going to 2-blade props, would it be wise to use the same diameter and increase the pitch?
My rebuilt JU52/M1 is flying ok now. (long delay because i was sick for a while). i cut off the wing tips but this did NOT help the stalling, in fact maybe made it worse! so i glued the tips back with a bit of washout. also the ailerons now dont go all the way to the tip. This actually helps a lot with preventing tip stalls. i use a 9x7 two-blade prop and provided i keep the throttle at 75% or above, it flies fine. also i have to hand launch, which is quite tricky as i have to throw it quite fast to prevent stalling. so its not the stately old lady i was expecting, but she does look impressive in the air!
Don hope you are Now well. So she sound like she was a hand full. I was looking forward to better things. I guess she is on to put on the shelf and leave there. SORRY and THANKS
hi kelly! o dear, i wish i really was well, but no.
as for leaving my ju52 on the shelf, NOTHING gets left on the shelf up here!!! i will go on flying it & improve my skills. and if possible make structural changes to improve its flight characteristics - that way i learn things.
one of my favourite planes, which flies wonderfully, is a total rebuild of a HK foamie. the original Quicksilver Ultralight was a total disaster! hopelessly fragile, & very very hard to fly. i repaired it a few times, but it kept breaking. so i built a new plane using only the wing, motor & esc which now flies much better. long story! point is you CAN always improve a bad design.
my rebuild is taking longer than i thought. i am trying to get the cog right without adding weights to the nose - i HATE adding extra weight!! also the weather is terrible. heres a thought: when i was a young boy, south african airways were still flying ju-52s. i cant remember seeing one in the air, but there were 2 old wrecks parked at the side of the airport. boy, does that make me feel old...
i always do FIRST flight in zero wind conditions. but really its possible to fly most little planes in up to 20kmh winds - it just takes more practice & skill. (i was watching the birds, who fly in all conditions, & i said: if they can do it, so can i!) the payback is its wonderful to land into the wind, so slow & graceful. also with some of my more responsive planes, i can point them into the wind & make them HOVER in front of me!
kellyann asked: DOES IT FLY BETTER THAN IT LOOKS? answer: NO. it flies like a dog -underpowered, prone to stall, weirdly unresponsive at times. on 3rd flight trying to do slow circles i got into trouble with a line of trees etc etc. here is my plan: (scale enthusiasts read no further!) 1. 2-bladed 10x4 prop 2. chop 120mm off each wing-tip 3. remove wing nacelles Cutting off the wing-tips improves the taper from .3 to .5. those narrow tips will work on a full-sized plane, but will be permanently stalled on this model. so i expect to have EXTRA lift and less drag by cutting them off! the plane looks fine with the shorter wings. when the weather improves, i'll let you know if it works....
It really fly's like a brick, tip stalls all the time.
I read all the comments where wings where clipped or modified, can someone comment on this modifications?
In addition i read a lot about the negative influence of the two side props. Did anyone ever try to fly removing the two little props and what effect does it have if this little props are removed.
ooooh, donny was NOT a happy chappy. i think the hot australian summer is to blame. when i got my ju-52, all the big decals were coming off - they looked terrible anyway, perched above the corrugations. the hatch wouldnt open - the glue from the plastic tape (inserted i think to stop the magnet rusting) had run everywhere. i had to CUT it open. the esc wasnt connected and was just bouncing around inside the cabin. it takes real keyhole surgery to attach those short little motor cables. and when you do the obvious thing, attaching yellow-yellow, red-red, black-black it runs in reverse! so more keyhole surgery needed! no yoke cable supplied for the ailerons. Thats the end of my little moan. (other than that, i'm happy) Those fake props will have to go - not worth the drag they will cause. I'm still looking at the nacelles - but i think they will be going also.
Don two thing DOES IT FLY BETTER than it looks? and you need to bring the bad finish to CS through the ISSUE tab above. This way they are on the record so if enough buyers have the same result they may fix. I know you are not a complainer but this is for those who come after you. So of us are not as good as you and may have real trouble doing some of the repairs you did. Thanks
i havent flown it yet - but i was doing research on tip-stalls, and (oh dear!) those sharply tapered wing tips will STALL very easily. the wing shape was popular in germany in the late 1920s, especially in gliders. anyway my advice is to avoid slow steep turns!!!
Like you I couldn't figure out how to connect the ESC and nobody understood my query on the subject. In good light I realised that there are two holes on either side of the centre cowling. Inside each hole there is a grub screw. Use a 1.5mm allen key to undo but NOT remove these and the motor can be slide forward out of the nacelle. The wires connect easily but the gap available is not large enough to take 3 connectors together so push one back, follwed by the others. I also had to reverse t
oh, so thats what those little holes are for! i've just done the same operation on my at6, and it took a very hefty tug & twist to get the motor out of the metal mount - i doubt the rather flimsy bit of ply on the ju-52 would have survived that much pressure.
Don, you mention trees and blame the plane? You also mention cutting off a total of 240mm of wing from the plane, that = 20% of the wing width and it affects how it handles? Rusting magnets where do you store your plane? Along with the other things, I am sorry I have seen this plane fly at another club fun fly and it was a great looking plane that landed perfect. Is it the best plane HK has made no it is not, I agree there
goodness me, mr electric power! 1. cant see where i blamed the plane for the trees. 2. the gummed up magnet was how it arrived. i dont think this was my fault. 3. because the wings taper sharply, cutting off the tips reduced the wing area by less than 10%. as it happens, it flew better with the tips removed, and looked a bit like a ME109! read my later comments about the wing tips. read some books on aerodynamics before you before you start to criticise. (donny is in a very bad mood!)
relax Don, I read you 7 and counting postings about this plane you don't like it. Maybe buy a different plane and enjoy the hobby more so you can spend more time flying and less time typing.
yeah, sorry mr EP!! i had just had bad news & overreacted. ju-52 flies ok now, but i have several others that are lots more fun. i only spend time on the net when its windy or dark! also i LOVE the trees and they give me an extra challenge.
Well it came to US and I bought it instantly. CANT WAIT! I hope it works out at high altitude.May have to install two more motors but for now we'll see. Too cool to pass on even if its a foamie. It a German plane and I have to have them all. Its all GOOD! At6Trainer.
you're lucky - mine hasnt arrived yet! i noticed that (on the real plane) the wing-mounted motors actually point about 5 degrees outward, i dont know if the model does this? anyway if i can do it easily i am going to leave those outer nacelles off - less drag, less weight, better hope of flying on the single engine! There is a beautifully restored version of the single-engined JU52 in the Winnipeg air museum in Canada - the wing-line looks superb without the extra motors.
i did the sums for the ju-52. at sea level it needs to fly at 16.8kmh. at 600m it needs to go 17.3kmh to stay in the air. not a big difference really. the calculations assume that all parts of the wing generate lift - which isnt always true. anyway what i know for certain is that this bird is NOT a slow-flyer.
Dif a 1 motor. The prop in the middle is larger than original to make up for only 1 motor. I still want it but international shipping hurts my wallet. Sweet looking model but alas. its foam. At6 Trainer FF.
Yeah, the HK model only has the central motor working - the wing mounted props are dummies. but in the air they will spin & it will hopefully look ok. And the real ju-52 flew for 2 years with only one motor! also multi-motor planes can be tricky, because you have a single throttle stick, so you cant balance the thrust of the 2 motors. i have a very old catalina, and it spirals dramatically downwards if one motor fails - only option is to kill the other motor & glide!
and hey, mr at6trainer - i am also an at6 fanatic. i will go to the at6 page & talk to you there.
Kellyann, Apprently you replied to one or more of my questions. As soon as I can find where these are sited on my web page, I will read them. This is just to let you know that I am not iqnoring any of your answers* I just can't get back to where I wrote the original.
at6trainer the only way to get this done is to place a request in ISSUE tab above or go to: Contacts then: Support then: raise a Ticket. I hope this helps.
at6trainer I was hoping you did not just think I was out there for the CREDITS. I am really enjoying the (BLOG ANSERW BOARD CHAT THING). I have been bed ridden for a few weeks and it has been a good OUT LET thanks to ALL the CUSTOMERS and Hobby King.
when the kit arrives, are the dummy motors already fixed to the wings? i would really prefer to build and fly it with only the real motor - it would look more like the older one-engined model, i think ju-33 (?) anyway, does anybody have any thoughts about this?
i did some research, following the development of the ****ers airliner from a 4-seater F13 in 1919, to the 1924 G23 with 3 motors, to the 1926 W33 with one motor. The ju-52 first flew in 1930 and it had a single non-radial motor. 5 planes were built, several were sold to Canada. The 3-engined version, technically the ju-52/3m first flew in 1932. The single-engined version has a square front - i havent found what sort of engine was used. Anyway i love these ****ers planes, and really all later airliners are descended from them, and i will now press the button & buy one!
i have been flying a ju-52 on my simulator. also the earlier, smaller & single engined F13. unsurprisingly the F13 is very sweet to fly, but the ju-52 is a bit cumbersome. of course, the HK model may behave differently, as the simulator is far from perfect. also i suppose you really want tante ju to be big, slow & impressive. (i credited myself for a reply, mainly to see what would happen! - nothing.)
Don I love to here from you but only the asking of a Question can say YES give him the Money!! But you cannot give it to yourself. It the rules. Also You cannot get to many in a DAY sorry
I have the kit and the quality of the parts is very good. I was pleasantly surprised. Flight experience I can tell yet, because the weather is too bad.
I asked for it to be at USA warehouse too, by clicking on the ISSUE tab at the top of this discussion page and requesting it be stocked there in Aus. Cheers and happy flying. At6 Trainer.
This being my first foamie, I haven't a lot of experience. Can someone tell me how to join the motor/esc connectors? I assume the motor comes out and the esc cables are fed through the nose to be joined up outside. If this is correct, I can't see how to get the motor out. Other than that, I have not had a lot of problems assembling mine, apart from a missing parts which I have had to source locally.
The ****ers JU-52 was possibly a steal off the design of the Ford Trimotor. It was a first in that it had a corrugated construction that made it very strong but very light. Made it easy for troop transport or airliner service. The Military Aviation Museum, Virginia Beach, Virginia, has one (of only 7 still flying in No. Am.) painted in the WWII configuration: ***********fighterfactory****/****ers. Another unusual thing about this airplane was that the ailerons were completely disjunct from the wings**almost separate wings themselves.
Why is this that a lot of people from USA thinks that every airplane in the world is a copy of a USA made airplane??? Hugo J-u-n-k-e-r-s started designing airplanes with corrugated aluminum sheet in 1916 or 1917, can´*t remember the exact date. The Ford Trimotor was designed in the 20's and there was a lot of other corrugated skin airplanes in Soviet Union, France and other places. And the tri-engined layout is almost as old as the airplane itself. Come on, let´*s study a bit more before writing comments. The Ju-52 story are easily found in the Internet. Google is your friend.
Interesting. So, to comment on a new foamie from China, we in the USA are to do research and not be proud of our airplanes, but be proud of all other countries'. Thanks for the history lesson, brother.
First thought? Oh cool, it's like those disposable hobby knives that you can snap off the dulled tip and have a brand new sharp blade again! Just think, if you scuff up a wingtip, just snap the wingtip off and it'll break clean right along those corrugations so you know where to snap the other side off too! Want a clipped-wing ****ers? No problem here! Second thought? Fly it upside down and you have a Ford Trimotor, two planes in one!
I wish they give a choice of markings to this flying garden shed as the Germans nick named it.I want one badly in fact I just bought a plastic model of it.Theres just something about this Hittler taxi that I like.
Haha "Hitler Taxi" Good one:)
I'm tempted with this. One engine is VERY efficient but three would sound quite nice I suppose..
Wonder what size prop comes standard and what diameter prop would be scale. Maybe three 10 gram motor provide enough thrust.
NJGeorge. When I received mine, I thought to ease the decals into the corrugations. The decals lost a lot of the grip and will not stick now. So give it a try. If you can lift off the decals, you have the start of any livery you wish.
no more than 111g for 2 * 370 brushed motors, and will be counter rotating to offset. will post video at my sites directory at Facebook/chingchichoppers
Nice detail and looks. Slight negative on single motor due to prop size. Perhaps a re-motor could easily correct this if it offends sufficiently.
Who is going to be first to add some interior lighting and passenger profiles? Those windows just beckon. Would look magic at dusk on a slow low pass.
I think you'll find that it's got one large prop and two 'fake' props so that it can fly well enough for the majority (and often less-vocal) of HK Customers.
At the end of the day the plane needs to fly, and fly reasonably well. Scale details must come secondary to flight performance.
I'm sure those that are worried about it could buy a few motors and get it running with 3-engines. I bet it wouldn't fly as well however.
But why add more motors that just adds to the cost and makes the plane more complex with wires etc. The original was slightly underpowered, Im sure this has more than enough power to fly scale.
Then just add a smaller center prop for display then, much easier than adding two motors. And if display looks are that important, you should get a plastic kit instead, this model was made for flying.
It would fly just fine on three motors. The issue here is cost not performance or lack there of. It would be more expensive yes, but properly set up it would fly just fine. If it were a 500mm wingspan, trimotor vs single motor may have more merit as weight would be far more of an issue. However on a 1200mm wingspan, motors, batteries, and other electronics won't laden the plane down as much as it would on a smaller airframe. Is it a good design as is? I'm sure it is and I am also sure it flies great. My point, is with a detailed plane such as this, it was disappointing to see only a single motor. I would have thought it would have gone all the way, a trimotor.
Off course it will fly on 3 motors, or two for that matter. I honestly cant see why the number of motors has anything to do with it as long as it looks right, and flys good.
Half the fun of this sport is taking a silly looking plane like this and adding the 2 motors to make it look and fly more scale. As is this is a goofy looking model.. the real A/C is a great looking bird...why not make it look/fly like the original?
The kit arrived today and I was amazed at the quality and appearance of the kit.
Parts fitted really well, with the only glueing being the elevator section, the tail section and the cockpit canopy. The undercarriage was a delight to put together and appears really robust.
With the cg - I found that a 2200mah 11.1v battery slid as far forward as possible gave the model perfect balance.
Overall - the finished presence of the model is fantastic. I hope HK look to building a larger version of this model (with 3 working engines) to the same quality as I would be one of the first to try and get one!
For what it is - this kit goes together and flies brilliantly - 5 crowns :D
1 comment. Reply..
Overall Rating
Landcruiser
13 likes
Value
Quality
Like it?
This is my first foamie and, as such, I wondered how good it would be. No worries on this score. The construction and end result is as easy and accurate as most modellers would wish for. However, there are some niggling issues. One wing servo arm did had not have a holding screw; neither fuselage mounted servo has a control horn or screw.
I found there is a major error on the part of the model designer. There are two servos in the fuselage - one, elevator, the other, rudder. There are also two push rods. But, as the elevators are separate, each with its own control horn, either three rods are required, necessitating another rear end exit, or a split or forked rod is required for the elevators, again with an extra exit. At this stage there does not appear to be any mechanism for attaching any of the rods to the servo arms.
None of the above are insurmountable. However the model is no longer Plug and Fly. I have to purchase some extra servos to rob for spare parts. It will require some work to add a connector to the elevators and will not be available for its first flight this weekend as I had wished.
PS Don't try to ease the decals into the corrugations like I tried. It doesn't work.
PPS The addition of a wooden spar gives the 52's wing exception strenght unlike the B17 I have since purchased.
4 comments. Reply..
Overall Rating
Lukas
3 likes
Value
Quality
Like it?
Hallo Leute
Hab heute meine Tante Ju bekommen.
Also für das Geld kann man nicht meckeren.
Toll gemacht - schnell zusammen gebaut tadellos.1A
Mal schauen wie sie fliegt
Just received the plane. Very nice with lots of details. I bought this to find out if can add 2 motors on the wings. The plane looks silly with the huge prop up front. And indeed it will be rather easy. I will add two Donkey 2004, 1400KV bell motors. Fits perfectly. Thre is a recess on the wings motor pontoons with a wooden plate in the bottom so it will be easy to mount, I think and then I need only to Dremel a bit on the wings to hide the motor wires. I will use Master 6 x 4, 3-bladed props, one of them counter rotating. This will give a better scale look. The existing driven prop is of 8 inch diameter. Hope to have it ready in a few weeks and will let you know.
5 comments. Reply..
Overall Rating
pejay
437 likes
Value
Quality
Like it?
I have now converted this plane to a proper 3- motor version. I have uploaded the complete manual how it was done in the file section here. The plane flew fantastic with this conversion. I think with much more power than I saw from the video here made by Hobbyking.
Copyright 2012 Hextronik Limited.
The HobbyKing.com®, OrangeRx, Turnigy, Durafly, nano-tech and other brand logos and names are trademarks of hexTronik Limited.
All rights reserved
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
The ****ers JU-52 was possibly a steal off the design of the Ford Trimotor. It was a first in that it had a corrugated construction that made it very strong but very light. Made it easy for troop transport or airliner service. The Military Aviation Museum, Virginia Beach, Virginia, has one (of only 7 still flying in No. Am.) painted in the WWII configuration: ***********fighterfactory****/****ers. Another unusual thing about this airplane was that the ailerons were completely disjunct from the wings**almost separate wings themselves. 
