Junkers Ju 77 (EF 77), a planned successor of the Ju 52

[Jemiba]

Still not quite sure abou the reliability, found still yet just one page mentioning this project with the same designation
( http://flickriver.com/photos/23269353@N00/sets/72157624811056857/ ), without any explanation.
In "Der Flieger", May 1966, a project is shown for a successor of the Ju 52, using more modern technologies,
e.g. smooth skin, retractable landing gear, circular fuselage cross section, but still retaining the typical
characteristics and basic dimensions of the "Auntie Ju".
Designated as Ju-77 it would have had 21,0 m, span 24,25 m, cabin length was increased to 9,2 m (compared
to 6,2 m for the Ju-52), and 21 passenger could be carried, 3 abreast. The design was later replaced by the
Ju 252.
Shown is a 3-view and a comparison to the Ju-52 (dotted lines)

 

[richard]

Bonjour


just a little correction : it's the Ju EF 77 .

 

[toura]

Hi Jens
From ?????
EF 77 MODEL

 

[Jemiba]

just a little correction : it's the Ju EF 77 .

That was my first thought, too, but still yet we have the EF 77 as pre-project to the Ju 352,
so probably an after-Ju 252 (with EF 72 as pre ) ? So the photo, we have in the EF-designations
thread so cannoteither be the EF 77, or the number given to that "Ju 77" is wrong completely,
with or without "EF".
Additionally, as Peter Achs once told me, the EF/EFo designations actually were used in chronological
order,whereas with regards to that article in "Der Flieger" this one seems to be a relatively early design,
drawn before the Ju 90, so (probably pre-war)
Talking about the EF/EFo designations still means walking on thin ice, I think. :-\

 

[richard]

It seems that the two are right :
the 1938 design for Ju 52 replacement was intern EF 77 designed , and got the Ju 77 designation from the R.L.M . It was a 21 passengers transport , which was not adopted by the Lufthansa .
In July 1939 , a new design for 30 passengers was made ( in Prag ) , under the same EF 77 name , and led to the Ju 252 : it is shown by Toura .


BTW , my source and the Toura one is the big " Hugo Junkers , Pionier der Luftfahrt " by Wolfgang Wagner .

 

[Stargazer]

Topic name adjusted. Interesting!

I seem to recall that the transformation of an EF designation into a Ju one had already taken place with the Ju 52 itself*.

* After checking my files it appears it was actually Junkers's J52 that became the Ju 52.

 

[Artie Bob]

IMHO, this thread is mixing apples, oranges and possibly even lemons. The EF designations were JFM in-house numbers with no numeric relation to the RLM assigned 8-numbers (basically all aircraft in series production during the 3rd reich had these numbers assigned, written as 8-88, 8-288, etc. or with the RLM assigned manufacturer's prefixes, Ju 88, Ju 288 . The Ju 88 was the EF 59, Ju 288 was the EF 73. To further confuse the situation, the EF and EFO numbers were apparently from different groups inside the JFM organization, so they are different sequences. To my knowledge, a complete list of the JFM EF sequence has not yet surfaced, but they ran into the 130s, not counting the USSR and DDR design descendants of JFM, numbering into the 150s which were apparently extensions of the EF sequence.

Best Regards,

Artie Bob

 

[richard]

It's right , but in this unique case , the EF and the RLM designation were the same ...

 

[Stargazer]

IMHO, this thread is mixing apples, oranges and possibly even lemons. The EF designations were JFM in-house numbers with no numeric relation to the RLM assigned 8-numbers (basically all aircraft in series production during the 3rd reich had these numbers assigned, written as 8-88, 8-288, etc. or with the RLM assigned manufacturer's prefixes, Ju 88, Ju 288 . The Ju 88 was the EF 59, Ju 288 was the EF 73. To further confuse the situation, the EF and EFO numbers were apparently from different groups inside the JFM organization, so they are different sequences. To my knowledge, a complete list of the JFM EF sequence has not yet surfaced, but they ran into the 130s, not counting the USSR and DDR design descendants of JFM, numbering into the 150s which were apparently extensions of the EF sequence.

IMHO you might need a new pair of glasses... :

Nobody here ever suggested that the RLM system and the EF systems were connected. All that was said is that on two occasions (three in fact), the RLM conveniently used the two-digit numbers given by Junkers to some of their projects and assigned it in the official system...: J52 became the Ju 52, J60 became the Ju 60, and EF77 became Ju 77. No-one ever said more than that.

Suggesting the members who contributed here haven't got any knowledge of the designations schemes used by German companies and German authorities before the war is preposterous... Many of us have been collecting aviation data for literally decades, several amoung our members are respected authors and researchers, so be careful about what you write, and by all means go and check the rest of our forum before making such assertions!

No complete list of the EF and EFo designations may have surfaced yet, but several of us have discussed the subject in some detail in our Designations Systems section:

• Junkers EFo designations
• Junkers EF designations

Surprising that someone with your amount of knowledge should misspell EFo as "EFO"... (it stood for Entwicklung Forschungsvorhaben). As to your assertion that EF79 refered to the Ju 288, it contrasts with other sources which suggest EF73 was only a pre-project, and that the Ju 288 was actually the EF112 — though I won't dispute the latter point without adequate evidence of either version.

Every contribution on this forum is valuable, Artie Bob, and I know that you too have great information and knowledge to share. You've already done so on a few occasions. You probably know a lot more about certain topics than many of us, and the same can be said of many of us, as we all have our pet research topics that we are only too happy to share and contribute about... But before making hasty judgement please read more closely what is being said. Nobody mixed apples and oranges... (not even lemons for that matter!)

 

[Jemiba]

Actually not sure, if we really have a case here, where the RLM number doubles as EF number, or the other way round ! If we still
believe in our EF list, the EF 77 was to become the Ju 352, after the EF 72 had become the Ju 252. What EF number the Ju 77 then
had, we still yet don't know.
So, maybe there's no need to quarrel at all !

 

[Artie Bob]

I do have JFM drawings of the EF 112 and can confirm that the EF 112 was not related to the Ju 288 . I am getting rather old and can also confirm that my research on JFM (primary source material) began over 50 years ago, perhaps that also qualifies as decades of research. That being said, the JFM "J" series is yet distinct from the other series previously mentioned in this thread. In general, the use of factory design numbers in the "8" number series was confined to aircraft already produced before the formation of the RLM. That being said, there are some good reasons why my opinion is the EF 77 was not designated as the 8-77 and these would go to dates and apparent lack of any primary documents confirming this. But I do not claim any special knowledge and usually begin my contributions with IMHO, which means "in my humble opinion". I feel Stargazer may have some axe to grind other than my suggestion this particular designation might have been in error. With that I will no longer contribute any of my possible erroneous material to this site.

Artie Bob

 

[Stargazer]

I feel Stargazer may have some axe to grind other than my suggestion this particular designation might have been in error. With that I will no longer contribute any of my possible erroneous material to this site.

Bob,

I don't think you ought to overreact to my message.

No axe to grind but I'll admit I've been rather fed up of late with the attitude of several forum members and it probably shows. Perhaps I should let go of that moderation thing altogether? I love the part that deals with reorganizing the old threads and correcting the spelling mistakes in the titles of the topics, for instance, but I really suck at... well... moderating people and keeping foul words at bay and strong egos in check, mine included.

Remember my final words in the post: I'm sure you are a very knowledgeable forum member and you have proved to be a very valuable contributor. True, the remark of "EFo" was a streak of irony on my part. That was because your initial message made it sound like we were all basically a bunch of misguided fools trying to connect things that were unrelated. But at no time did I ever question your knowledge, and you certainly know a heck more than I do on German aircraft, there is no questioning that!!

Not contributing any more would not only deprive the rest of the forum members of your valuable input, it would also give my words more power than they really had.

If it takes bringing my moderator's head on a plate for you to stay with us, then I'm all for it.

 

[Jemiba]

Folks, please ! We should try to calm down a little bit, I think.
Perhaps we should look at both sides, "mixing different sort of fruit" can give a rather tasty fruit salad,
but for many people vowed for doing so outside their kitchen, it isn't regarded as a compliment.
Needing an optical aid neither, although there are many sorts of fashionable eyeware, just think
of Elton John !
Perhaps we sum up the facts we have:
- There's an article about a Junkers design with the stated designation "Ju 77", described as a successor
to the venerable Ju 52 and looking like a scled down Ju 252
- Probably (!) there was a design study/pre-project/windtunnel model of the JU 352, that was designated
EF 77 and one of the Ju 252 as EF 72.
- As I wrote, on a first glance, it is easy to assume a direct connection between the designations "Ju 77"
and "EF 77", but to my opinion, that's just accidentally and quite probably there was quite a time between
them, with the "Ju 77" appearing BEFORE the "EF 77", which to my opinion can be regarded as an evidence,
that there was no direct connection between those designation (the last sentence is important, as there
actually WAS a connection between the designs, but that's a different matter.

This thread perhaps could be a good example, how things can go off course, just because words are written
a little bit too flippantly ! Would be sad, to lose a contributor, or a mod this way.

But aren't we too old to take such words too seriously ?

 

[richard]

Bonjour


Much noise for a little thing ....

About EF72 and EF 77 :
- Model shown in the literature of "EF 77" have the same fuselage front part and rectangular outer wings than the early Ju (?EF ?)77 shown in the 3-views . Only the tail differs .
- Model of "EF 72" is the SAME , but with trapeze outer wings .




About Ju 77/EF77 :
my sources were : The Hugo Junkers Homepage . and " Hugo Junkers , Pionier der Luftfahrt " by Wolfgang Wagner . ]I don't know how reliable they are .


the text :

 

[hesham]

Great info my dear Richard.

 

[Vahe Demirjian]

Folks, please ! We should try to calm down a little bit, I think.
Perhaps we should look at both sides, "mixing different sort of fruit" can give a rather tasty fruit salad,
but for many people vowed for doing so outside their kitchen, it isn't regarded as a compliment.
Needing an optical aid neither, although there are many sorts of fashionable eyeware, just think
of Elton John !
Perhaps we sum up the facts we have:
- There's an article about a Junkers design with the stated designation "Ju 77", described as a successor
to the venerable Ju 52 and looking like a scled down Ju 252
- Probably (!) there was a design study/pre-project/windtunnel model of the JU 352, that was designated
EF 77 and one of the Ju 252 as EF 72.
- As I wrote, on a first glance, it is easy to assume a direct connection between the designations "Ju 77"
and "EF 77", but to my opinion, that's just accidentally and quite probably there was quite a time between
them, with the "Ju 77" appearing BEFORE the "EF 77", which to my opinion can be regarded as an evidence,
that there was no direct connection between those designation (the last sentence is important, as there
actually WAS a connection between the designs, but that's a different matter.

This thread perhaps could be a good example, how things can go off course, just because words are written
a little bit too flippantly ! Would be sad, to lose a contributor, or a mod this way.

But aren't we too old to take such words too seriously ?

The Arado Ar 77 was the only German aircraft with the RLM slot 8-77, and it should be noted that the EF 77 design that later became the Ju 252 was envisaged in December 1938 in response to a Deutsche Lufthansa requirement for a plane to replace the Ju 52, but offer much greater loads, seating, range and performance. The Ju 352 was conceived much later, in 1942, so there is no way that EF 77 could have been the company designation for Ju 352.