Junkers Ju-52 flying the Atlantic to USA in next few days

[Pat]

Funny I should see this thread...I saw one flying over Lucerne, Switzerland this afternoon! It was too high to see any markings.

-Pat

[k5083]

The Junkers is safely in Maine, according to the online tracker.

http://www.rimowa-in-the-air.com/northamerica/logbuch/

August

[warbirdfinder]

If the aircraft is licensed under the equivalent of our "standard" category, I don't believe they need any special permits or exemption to fly passengers.

[The Inspector]

If the aircraft is licensed under the equivalent of our "standard" category, I don't believe they need any special permits or exemption to fly passengers.

I think the issues with the CAF and the FAA centered around the C of A, the previous owners not wanting to relinquish that piece of paper and somewhere in the middle was a length of rope suspended from the ceiling and at least two very full bladders and 'I'm gonna hold my breath until you turn blue' attitudes.
When it was touring the U.S. over a decade ago, the LUFTHANSA JU was selling rides at every stop

[bombadier29]

I think the issues with the CAF and the FAA centered around the C of A, the previous owners not wanting to relinquish that piece of paper and somewhere in the middle was a length of rope suspended from the ceiling and at least two very full bladders and 'I'm gonna hold my breath until you turn blue' attitudes.
When it was touring the U.S. over a decade ago, the LUFTHANSA JU was selling rides at every stop

With regards to the CAF JU-52, it simply boiled down to it being in the experimental category and not being allowed to sell rides in foreign built experimental aircraft. If you joined the CAF you were quite able to ride in the JU-52 as a member of the organization.

[JDK]

If you see one with a single engine, that's a Ju 52. If it's got three motors, it's a Ju 52/3m. Like accents in the alphabet, they might'nt seem important to us English speakers, but that suffix does specify the one we all know, rather than the mostly supplanted version - with one replica in the Western Canada Aviation Museum, IIRC. The 'u' is also lower case, FWIW.

FWIW, I had a flight in the Lufthansa Ju 52/3m from Bristol to Bournemouth some years ago, and it was distinctly odd seeing the flight board ticker click over with a Lufthansa flight and number on it for a domestic UK flight. In that case, and in the case of the Swiss examples (I think) the aircraft are certified as airliners, able to fly passengers point-to-point and under the normal international rules; but better informed minds may be able to comment.

Either way, well worth a ride, and in some specific ways technically superior to the peerless DC-3. Offers as to what those aspects are might be a fun way to continue the thread...

Regards,

[Mike]

Either way, well worth a ride, and in some specific ways technically superior to the peerless DC-3. Offers as to what those aspects are might be a fun way to continue the thread...

Well, for a start the Teutonic tin shed almost certainly flies better than the Douglas Commercial Model 3 after a double engine failure!

I've also had the pleasure of flying in the Lufthansa example. Now waiting to add the Starliner to the list.

[redvanner]

I found a video featuring both, HB-HOT and HB-HOY in their RIMOWA paintjob. Though the one with German lettering, HB-HOY only shortly, from 0:23 to 0:32, coming in view from bottom left. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqxf7BZp ... r_embedded

Michael

[kmiles]

I think the issues with the CAF and the FAA centered around the C of A, the previous owners not wanting to relinquish that piece of paper and somewhere in the middle was a length of rope suspended from the ceiling and at least two very full bladders and 'I'm gonna hold my breath until you turn blue' attitudes.
When it was touring the U.S. over a decade ago, the LUFTHANSA JU was selling rides at every stop

With regards to the CAF JU-52, it simply boiled down to it being in the experimental category and not being allowed to sell rides in foreign built experimental aircraft. If you joined the CAF you were quite able to ride in the JU-52 as a member of the organization.

We have our Fi-156 Storch on our exemption letter, so there is no requirement that the aircraft has to be US produced. The Storch is both foreign and experimental and we had no problems adding it to our exemption letter.

I have not seen anything about flights available in the Ju-52 either. We have had several cities on the "tour" ask us to bring The Wings of Freedom Tour into the same location at that time so that there could be ride flights available to the public, so I do not think they are planning on offering flights.

[Silverplate]

I was lucky enough to get a ride on the Lufthansa JU-52 DAQUI during a stop at the Weeks Air Museum in 1990. Real neat experience.

[redvanner]

An idea that just struck my mind: May it be, that it is due to the additional long-range fuel equipment installation, that they do not offer passenger flights? I do not have any information whatsoever, it is just a guess. Maybe getting everything out, seats in, seats out and tanks in is just to much work, to expensive, or it simply doesn´t pay off. It might just be as simple as this, but I do not know at all.

Michael

[bombadier29]

We have our Fi-156 Storch on our exemption letter, so there is no requirement that the aircraft has to be US produced. The Storch is both foreign and experimental and we had no problems adding it to our exemption letter.

But is your ME-262 on the exemption letter? Your organization has the Storch on the exemption letter now, but it wasn't an option in the not too distant past. That was a big part of why the CAF JU-52 was sold, it was too hard to make money with it. Off hand, I can't think of too many foreign built airplanes on exemption letters. Harvards vs the AT-6 is an example.

The original requirements made it impossible to put foreign built aircraft on the ride programs. The experimental part I was talking about was "experimental" versus the foreign version of standard category. That is the reason Luftansa was able to sell JU-52 rides in their airplane. It is in whatever the Germans call standard and was accepted by the FAA as such. That is the distinction I was trying to make but I see I could have said that more clearly.

[Dan K]

Now scheduled to depart Auburn for OSH sometime June 29. I just happen to be driving by Wittman on the 29th & again on the 30th. Hope to post pics of a successful rendezvous.

[kmiles]

We have our Fi-156 Storch on our exemption letter, so there is no requirement that the aircraft has to be US produced. The Storch is both foreign and experimental and we had no problems adding it to our exemption letter.

But is your ME-262 on the exemption letter? Your organization has the Storch on the exemption letter now, but it wasn't an option in the not too distant past. That was a big part of why the CAF JU-52 was sold, it was too hard to make money with it. Off hand, I can't think of too many foreign built airplanes on exemption letters. Harvards vs the AT-6 is an example.

The original requirements made it impossible to put foreign built aircraft on the ride programs. The experimental part I was talking about was "experimental" versus the foreign version of standard category. That is the reason Luftansa was able to sell JU-52 rides in their airplane. It is in whatever the Germans call standard and was accepted by the FAA as such. That is the distinction I was trying to make but I see I could have said that more clearly.

Here are the guidelines that were set in 2007 that the FAA uses (for now) to determine to issue a Living History Flight Exemption letter:

The FAA will use the following criteria in deciding whether granting an exemption is in the public interest and does not compromise safety:

1. Aircraft holding any category of airworthiness certificate issued under 14 CFR part 21 may be considered for an exemption to provide living history flight experiences.

2. Exemptions will not be limited to a particular category of aircraft or based on a type of engine; fixed wing or rotorcraft may apply as well as piston or turbine powered aircraft.

3. An aircraft that was not made by a U.S. manufacturer may be considered for an exemption if the operational and maintenance history is adequately documented.

4. Aircraft with crew egress systems will be considered, provided that flightcrew, ground personnel, and passengers have completed a training program approved by the FAA. Passenger training programs must be at least as thorough as what is provided by the manufacturer or military service user when preparing an individual for a
``familiarization'' flight.

5. Aircraft of the same or similar make/model/series cannot be in current production or in significant commercial use for the carriage of passengers. Exceptions may be considered where a particular airframe has documented historical significance.

6. All passenger seats and their installation must:

a. Take into consideration passenger egress in the event of an emergency; and be FAAapproved if installed on typecertificated aircraft; or

b. Meet the military seat and installation standards or equivalent standards in existence at the time the aircraft was manufactured as outlined in 14 CFR 21.27 if installed on experimental aircraft The Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) having oversight for that aircraft will then ensure the approved maintenance program is modified to incorporate the specific seat inspection procedures.

7. Exemptions will be issued for the sole purpose of providing living history flights to promote aviation and preserve historic aircraft. The operations authorized under these exemptions are specifically not air tour, sightseeing, or air carrier operations. The FAA may stipulate conditions and limitations to the operation to preserve commonality and standardization.

8. The FAA, in determining the public interest derived in any grant of exemption of this nature, will take into consideration the number of existing operational aircraft and petitioners available to provide the historic service to the public.

9. The FAA must be provided with proof that the petitioner is a taxexempt museum or foundation, recognized as such by the U.S. Department of Treasury, which uses the funds received from exhibitions to enable the continued display of the featured aircraft. The aircraft must be under the operational control of the petitioner.

10. Applicants may be required to submit an operational history of the make/model/type aircraft, or justification with respect to aviation history in order for the FAA to determine the public interest basis for granting an exemption.

11. If a petition for exemption is granted, the conditions and limitations may include revised operating limitations as part of the aircraft's airworthiness certificate. These operating limitations may be more
[[Page 57198]]

The entire document can be found at: http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2 ... 9-E7-19846
The Storch was added after these guidelines went into effect. The Me-262 was in process when the current moratorium went into effect in March of 2011. There have been no new aircraft added since that time. There is nothing in the 2007 guidelines that prevents the Me-262 from being added to an exemption letter.

[Dan K]

Missed 'em at OSH by a couple of hours!

Here's what it looked like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm3O6Dz18Z4