3rd best land-based medium transport aircraft of WW2?

[Admiral Beez]

Arguably the best medium transport aircraft of WW2 is the Douglas C-47 Skytrain and its license-built versions (Lisunov Li-2 and Showa/Nakajima L2D). The second best, IMO is either the Junkers Ju 52 or Curtiss C-46. I'm referring to these as medium transports, where for example the C-47 max cargo wgt was 5,000 lbs., and the Ju 52 cargo wgt was 3,500 lbs. I appreciate cargo capacity may not be the best way to differentiate from larger transport, such as C-54, so I ask for your advice. Number of engines may not suit either, as I would classify the four-engine de Havilland Albatross as a medium transport.

So, excluding heavy four-engine transports like the C-54 Skymaster, Avro York, giants like the Messerschmitt Me 323 and flying boats, which is the 3rd best land-based medium transport aircraft of WW2? Interpretations of "best" are open to opinion, to me it includes cargo capacity, ease or ability of loading/unloading, rough strip ability and ease of production and reliability.

 

[cherry blossom]

There are two plausible German contenders, the Ar 232 and the Ju 252, and the Italian SM 82. Wikipedia tells us that the maximum take off weight of the C-47 was 31,000 lbs (14,061 kg), that of the SM 82 was 18,020 kg (39,727 lb), the Ar 232B was 21,150 kg (46,628 lb), the C-46 was 49,600 lb (22,498 kg) and the Ju 252 was 24,050 kg (53,021 lb). There is an old thread on the German aircraft JU 252 352 which discusses the payload of the Ju 252 suggesting that it was quite similar to the C-46 in payload and range. The Ar 232 was much shorter ranged and slower but it was optimised to use very primitive airfields. Note that all the performance figures for these Axis aircraft may suffer because they are armed unlike the C-47 and C-46.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Outside of the Dakota the RAF seems to have fielded rather poor transports, often based on bombers. Here's the Whitney.

Though I have to say the Handley Page H.P.54 Harrow looks rough field ready.

It's interior is certainly more roomy, but still no way to transport jeeps or large items like artillery.

 

[Shortround6]

A problem with evaluating many of these transports is that after the American C-47 and C-46 and the German Ju 52 is that the production numbers fall from the thousands into the hundreds and in many cases into the dozens (AR 232 had to built with two BMW 801 engines and ten built with four Bramo 323s).
This makes it difficult to evaluate the actual service use of transports built in small numbers.

 

[nuuumannn]

Outside of the Dakota the RAF seems to have fielded rather poor transports, often based on bombers. Here's the Whitley.

I've corrected that for you! Yup, the Whitley was designed as a bomber with a secondary role as a transport, but the Harrow and its Bristol equivalent the Bombay were designed from the outset as bomber transports -and they maintained their armament in service. They were also not 'poor' aircraft, being relatively proficient at what they did. The Bombay was used as a bomber during the North African campaigns. The Ju 52/3m in Lutwaffe service was the same - the LW units that used the aircraft were composite units that were trained in bomber ops as well as transport and used them as such during the Spanish Civil War. It should be added that the Whitley was used as a paratrooper for small numbers of special forces, rather than as a general troop transport.

As SR said, it's a difficult one; production numbers of different types does tend to colour their overall career and utility, which will determine their usefulness in the scheme of things, but in consideration must also be taken into account the fact that the USA had resources the rest of the world didn't, which enabled the C-47 to become a dedicated transport option to all Allied countries offered the type. Why not borrow another country's aircraft so you can concentrate your production resources on combat types? That certainly shouldn't diminish the individual abilities of different types that weren't built in similar numbers though.

The SM.82 is a good choice of aircraft and is slightly larger than the C-47, but is of mixed construction, with a wooden rear fuselage and wing and all that that entails. It was also conceived as a bomber transport with internal bomb stowage below the wing and was produced, for a European type in sizeable numbers.

SM.82

 

[Shortround6]

Outside of the Dakota the RAF seems to have fielded rather poor transports, often based on bombers. Here's the Whitney.

View attachment 561435

Though I have to say the Handley Page H.P.54 Harrow looks rough field ready.

View attachment 561436

Interior of the Bristol Bombay (built to same specification as the Harrow) was a bit more spacious than the converted Whitley.

I would note that the Ju 52 was actually a pretty crappy transport compared to other aircraft from around 1939/40 on.

The corrugated skinning was innovative in it's day (high strength/low weight) but was very high drag. The Ju 52 needed three engines to do what the British planes could do with two.
This also affects fuel consumption. How far can the transport carry XX amount of cargo or troops on the same amount of fuel?

For instance a C-47 can fly about twice as far as a Ju 52 on the same amount of fuel, a rather important consideration when you start trying to figure how far you can actually airlift supplies. A Ju 52 that flies 600 miles from base needs to carry 800 US gallons of fuel as cargo to refuel once on the ground to get back to the base. A C-47 can make the round trip on the internal wing tanks.

The rough field ability was a bit overrated. Germans lost hundreds of Ju 52s in each of the air borne assaults it was used in.
The Americans could often get an improved airstrip ready in days between bulldozers and Marston matting.

The pre-war commercial DC-3s had a stalling speed under 70mph so they could do pretty well on small airfields. Of course the payload wasn't as great as the wartime aircraft.

Granted these figures are for the most common transports and not number 3 (or below) but are important considerations when looking at the contenders for No 3.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Ju 52 was smaller than the C-47 inside as well, although it was a relatively strong design based on construction techniques Junkers had pioneered during the First World War. Its fuselage frames were not linked by longitudinals like in a convential design, but held together by strenghtened sections that made up the exterior cladding, hence the ribbed skin (for extra pleasure). It was an old design, even by the mid 30s, but it worked. The DC-3 however was thoroughly modern, but let's not forget that until the early to mid 30s, the best transports being built in the USA were based on the steel tube, fabric covered, wooden winged Fokker F.VIIb trimotor that was all the rage at the time. So, the Junkers means of production was advanced in the 20s and 30s.

The rough field ability was a bit overrated. Germans lost hundreds of Ju 52s in each of the air borne assaults it was used in. The Americans could often get an improved airstrip ready in days between bulldozers and Marston matting.

That's because the 'Muricans employed SUPERMAAAN... That the Ju 52 was lost in large numbers was down to its operating theatres - the C-47 would not have fared much better during the Crete or Stalingrad operations. That the US forces could build a makeshift airfield in quick time was due to its superior logistical efforts and local established air superiority, which the Germans were not always operating with in. This wasn't a deficiency of the Ju 52.

 

[Shortround6]

It's interior is certainly more roomy, but still no way to transport jeeps or large items like artillery.

The JU-52 had a lot of difficulty transporting jeeps or artillery. Even for the US it was more of a stunt to transport a jeep by air than a regular occurrence.
And the US 105mm Howitzer weighed just under 5000lbs or twice what a Jeep weighed. Yes there are lighter pieces of artillery but note that the Americans and British both built lighter guns for air transport in the 1950s and 60s. But by then they were looking to sling the guns underneath helicopters for short range transport.

And again, it rather depends on the plane and power available, C-47s had 1200hp engines and a wide fuselage.
The British planes had around 900hp engines. Fat fuselage and 900hp engines means an even slower plane (and shorter ranged) than the British planes already were.
TANSTAAFL.

 

[yulzari]

The Handley Page Harrow/Bristol Bombay were at the slightly better end of the Ju52 class and could use smaller fields than a Dakota. Perhaps a marginally better tactical choice in air landing work and the Bombay was worked up to the Bristol Freighter with Hercules engines during the war so it could have been in use during the war had it the priority. It would be interesting if they could have been used to air land heavy kit for airborne assaults and well able to carry jeep/Universal Carrier towed AT guns and light field artillery and 3" mortars and ammunition.

 

[Kevin J]

The Handley Page Harrow/Bristol Bombay were at the slightly better end of the Ju52 class and could use smaller fields than a Dakota. Perhaps a marginally better tactical choice in air landing work and the Bombay was worked up to the Bristol Freighter with Hercules engines during the war so it could have been in use during the war had it the priority. It would be interesting if they could have been used to air land heavy kit for airborne assaults and well able to carry jeep/Universal Carrier towed AT guns and light field artillery and 3" mortars and ammunition.

You beat me to it, I was about to suggest the Bristol Freighter too.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You beat me to it, I was about to suggest the Bristol Freighter too.

A post-war design, outside of our window.... but had the British not had access to the Dakota was there any reason the Bristol Freighter couldn't have entered service in 1941-2 or so?

 

[Kevin J]

A post-war design, outside of our window.... but had the British not had access to the Dakota was there any reason the Bristol Freighter couldn't have entered service in 1941-2 or so?

It's a war time design with the Bristol Bombays wing design, first flew 2 months after the war ended. It should be included for that reason. Why build transports while you have lend lease Dakota's.

 

[Shortround6]

A post-war design, outside of our window.... but had the British not had access to the Dakota was there any reason the Bristol Freighter couldn't have entered service in 1941-2 or so?

Aside from trying to pry Hercules engines away from bomber command?

More seriously, the performance figures generally available are for a 44,000lb airplane with a pair of 2000hp engines.
The project started at around 30,000lbs with a pair of 1050hp engines. So the question becomes what sort of plane do you get in 1942?

Edit. The Bombay's 7 spar wing was changed to a two spar wing.

 

[Kevin J]

Aside from trying to pry Hercules engines away from bomber command?

More seriously, the performance figures generally available are for a 44,000lb airplane with a pair of 2000hp engines.
The project started at around 30,000lbs with a pair of 1050hp engines. So the question becomes what sort of plane do you get in 1942?

Edit. The Bombay's 7 spar wing was changed to a two spar wing.

You get some thing that can carry a 3 ton truck, perhaps flying late 44, early 45, but to late for service entry in SE Asia. Such a shame Bristol couldn't have come up with this, with Hercules, in time for the Pacific War.

 

[Shortround6]

Rough timeline for the Hercules is 1375-1400hp in 1940-41, then just under 1600hp in 1942 then 1735hp near the end of the war.
You could design the fuselage to carry the 3 ton truck, (and the simpler wing) but with 30% less power in 1940-41 you can't carry it very far. Increased power means increased gross weights which mean more fuel with same payload.
C-46 had two 2000hp engines with 2 production planes delivered by Dec 7th 1941.

 

[tomo pauk]

Rough timeline for the Hercules is 1375-1400hp in 1940-41, then just under 1600hp in 1942 then 1735hp near the end of the war.

1670 HP in late 1941:


1800 HP near the end of the war: link

 

[Dimlee]

My vote is Ar 232. Four engines but the payload closer to C-47 and Ju 52 than to C-54 and other "heavies".
Actually I'd give Arado 1st place for innovative features and influence on further transport aircraft development.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I whole heartedly agree with you!

 

[Shortround6]

We have been over this before.

RB-1 Budd Conestoga "The prototype first flew from the Budd Red Lion Factory Airfield in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on 31 October 1943, piloted by Guy Miller.[1] The prototype had a takeoff run when empty of just 650 feet (200 m), and could carry a maximum payload of 10,400 pounds (4,700 kg) with a takeoff run of 920 feet (280 m)"

other aspects of it's performance were not so great. Fuselage and part of the wing were stainless steel.

Curtiss C-76, aside from the elevated flight deck and a nose that swung open it was a great example on how NOT to build an airplane.
"The first flight of the YC-76 prototype took place on 3 May 1943"

Fairchild C-82

first flight (after redesign from wood to metal) 10 September 1944

All three were started in 1941. The idea that the Germans lead the way in transport design really needs to be relegated to the trash bin.

What was happening was that engines were getting powerful enough to fly planes that could hold large objects/weights that needed special loading arrangements.

Unless the allies had a great spy system that was getting plans for aircraft back the allies months or years before they flew it was a case of engineers in different countries coming up with similar solutions to similar problems at about the same time given similar resources (engines and aerodynamic knowledge) and materials.

Please note that the above aircraft hardly complete the US projects for air transports.

Also note that the first DC-3 (actually the DST/ Douglas Sleeper Transport) used engines of 930hp take-off rating and 850hp max continuous at 5800ft. Gross weight was 24,000lbs.
Useful load was 8250lbs but after subtracting 650 US gallons and filling the oil tanks and a few other needs the payload was 3475lbs. comprised of 16 passengers, 3 crew and 755lb of baggage/mail. Increasing the power by 1/3rd changed the capabilities somewhat but they were stuck with the original fuselage, wing and landing gear. The Douglas DST was certified on May 21 1936 after first flying on Dec 17th 1935. so by 1941 it was hardly the newest air transport in the designer's minds. People had 5-6 years to figure out how to build a better transport (it wasn't as easy as they thought.)

 

[ktank]

Arguably the best medium transport aircraft of WW2 is the Douglas C-47 Skytrain and its license-built versions (Lisunov Li-2 and Showa/Nakajima L2D). The second best, IMO is either the Junkers Ju 52 or Curtiss C-46.

At least, unlike the C46, the Ju52 didn't blow up in flight...