Rigidity, originally. We have better ways to construct planes now but as the other anon said, this is a retro novelty plane. It's like the Chevy HHR having deep dish pressed fenders. Did it need them? No. Was it cool? Kinda.
Mainly a method to improve strength for early duralumin alloy skins at the expense of drag. Better metallurgy means the technique is not really necessary.
But imagine if you scaled them down to maybe... a quarter of the size.
Too small to fit a person sure so maybe you could make them remote operated.
Of course since you don't have to worry about the safety or comfort of a pilot you could make them really cheap.
So cheap in fact that... maybe you could turn the thing into munition since surely whatever you strike with it will far offset the cost of production.
Yes and no. See AD-2, all the turboprops, A-10 most drones. Although their original piston engines were way too unreliable.
The major difference is avionics, WWII planes are useless irl, they're too unreliable and the avionics isn't cheap.
i dont see how there is a market for selling things like this
owning planes like that is for richgays and richgays rather someone else fly them around in comfy private jets insetad
It's bankrolled by a German billionaire who wants to revive Junkers for whatever fricking reason. Markets are a bit iffy because most GA boomers just buy used, buy they probably don't have to sell all that many planes to break even
>revive Junkers for whatever fricking reason
Isn't Junkers already technically part of Airbus? After a million mergers and acquisitions with all the other old German aircraft manufacturers that is.
Correct, the new Junkers has nothing to do with old Junkers as far as company lineage goes, they might have bought the trademarks or whatever IP (if any still legally exist) but that's about it
Drone FAC and anti-drone duties probably. Load 'em up with FLIR turrets, EW and lasers to zap small drones, with maybe a couple of IR-guided missiles for larger drones and helicopters.
More pictures
what's the advantage of the corrugation?
None. They're probably trying to make a reference to the Ju-52
Rigidity, originally. We have better ways to construct planes now but as the other anon said, this is a retro novelty plane. It's like the Chevy HHR having deep dish pressed fenders. Did it need them? No. Was it cool? Kinda.
Mainly a method to improve strength for early duralumin alloy skins at the expense of drag. Better metallurgy means the technique is not really necessary.
Does she come with the Junkers?
Sure.
But imagine if you scaled them down to maybe... a quarter of the size.
Too small to fit a person sure so maybe you could make them remote operated.
Of course since you don't have to worry about the safety or comfort of a pilot you could make them really cheap.
So cheap in fact that... maybe you could turn the thing into munition since surely whatever you strike with it will far offset the cost of production.
Idk I think I might be on to something here.
Ridiculous. Flying without a pilot?
That's almost as ridiculous as crashing a plane without survivors.
Absolutely disgusting ass wienerpit.
What the frick were they thinking?
you could use the big ones to ferry supplies.
in combat though? probably not.
I don't know, I guess if a USAF MAJCOM were to buy about 100 of them we would know for sure... I'ma say no.
Yes and no. See AD-2, all the turboprops, A-10 most drones. Although their original piston engines were way too unreliable.
The major difference is avionics, WWII planes are useless irl, they're too unreliable and the avionics isn't cheap.
Sure.
>make them RC / autonomous
>load them to capacity with HE
>fly them into things
i dont see how there is a market for selling things like this
owning planes like that is for richgays and richgays rather someone else fly them around in comfy private jets insetad
It's bankrolled by a German billionaire who wants to revive Junkers for whatever fricking reason. Markets are a bit iffy because most GA boomers just buy used, buy they probably don't have to sell all that many planes to break even
>revive Junkers for whatever fricking reason
Isn't Junkers already technically part of Airbus? After a million mergers and acquisitions with all the other old German aircraft manufacturers that is.
Correct, the new Junkers has nothing to do with old Junkers as far as company lineage goes, they might have bought the trademarks or whatever IP (if any still legally exist) but that's about it
>Open wienerpit
moronic.
Drone FAC and anti-drone duties probably. Load 'em up with FLIR turrets, EW and lasers to zap small drones, with maybe a couple of IR-guided missiles for larger drones and helicopters.
It really is a beautiful plane.
why would you get a meme junkers (that's most likely a tax writeoff for some ultra richgay) when you can get a Tarragon?