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

[Dimlee]

The idea that the Germans lead the way in transport design really needs to be relegated to the trash bin.

Ar 232 trials started earlier than the three designs mentioned and it became operational almost 3 years before the most successful of them - C-82. So why not to give credit where credit's due. Not to "the Germans" in general but to Wilhelm van Nes and his colleagues in Arado Flugzeugwerke. A lead of 2-3 years is still a lead, isn't it?

...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.

Of course. Absolutely agree.

 

[cherry blossom]

An air force may need two or three different types of transport aircraft. Flying over the Hump The Hump - Wikipedia ideally required a longer ranged aircraft than the C-47. Thus converted B-24s and the C-46 were mostly used. The C-46 had many problems as noted by ktank

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

The explosions seems to have been due to the sealed wing which allowed any leaked fuel to accumulated so that the wing became full of an explosive vapour. The fuel tanks were not self sealing which caused the C-46 to suffer heavy loses when used in 1945 to drop paratroopers in the Rhine crossing. Even when all the main problems were solved, the C-46 still required a great deal of maintenance and was called the plumber's nightmare. Thus it would be tempting to equip an ideal air force with the Ju-252 rather than the C-46 as these have very similar ranges with various payloads and were available at almost the same time (The C-46 first flew in May 1940 but only two were actually delivered by December 7, 1941 whilst the Ju 252 first flight was in October 1941).

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.

View attachment 561515

The Ar 232 was the ideal transport to take supplies to troops fighting a battle around a newly captured or constructed airfield. The problem was that the millipede wheels did not retract and together with the huge wing area for short field performance, this caused the Ar 232 to be slow and short ranged.

We could imagine that an air force equipped with the Ar 232B, the Ju 252 and (outside this thread) the Ju 290 would be perfect for 1943-4 but the problem is that none of those aircraft were produced in large numbers. The C-47 by contrast could do almost everything well, even just make it over the hump, and 10,000 were produced. The Ju 52 was old by 1940 but was available in relatively large numbers and had good short field performance.

 

[Shortround6]

We could imagine that an air force equipped with the Ar 232B, the Ju 252 and (outside this thread) the Ju 290 would be perfect for 1943-4 but the problem is that none of those aircraft were produced in large numbers. The C-47 by contrast could do almost everything well, even just make it over the hump, and 10,000 were produced. The Ju 52 was old by 1940 but was available in relatively large numbers and had good short field performance.

we do have a problem it what constitutes a medium transport and when the line is crossed to a heavy transport.

The C-47 (or the DC-3) started as a 24,000lb airplane and was pushed up to 27,000lbs and finally to 31,000lbs.

The C-46 started at at 38,000lbs (twin tail and 1700hp R-2600 engines) and was operated at up 48,000 (or over depending on model and date) when it got the single tail and R-2800 engines, one reason for the delay between prototype and service use.

The C-54/DC-4 started at 47,000lbs gross, quickly went to 50,000lbs for airline use and certain models could go to 73,000lbs for wartime use. Notice the cross over between the C-46 and early C-54.

according to Wiki the gross weight of the Arado Ar 232 B (4 engines) was 46,628 lb,
the Ju 252A was 49,068 lb normal gross and 53,021 lb max.
The FW 200 maxed out ot just over 50,000lbs as a bomber and would hold 30 equipped troops as a transport.

The Ju 52 had a gross weight of about 23,000lbs (changed with time and model)


BTW helping the C-47 make it over the Hump was the fact a large number of them got two stage engines (not two speed) very much like the engines in the F4F Wildcat.

First flight of the C-69 was in Jan of 1943. Definitely In the heavy class at 86,500lbs and production was a trickle, in part because the engines were needed for the B-29.
Granted getting vehicles into a C-69 would have been more than a bit tricky
Ideas for use of some these transports was sometimes a bit fanciful.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Thoughts on the potential of the Armstrong Whitworth's contenders for medium transport?

A.W.23

The wings on the Armstrong Whitworth Atalanta look so very thick.

Here's a pic of the Atalanta beside a de Havilland Dragon Rapide for scale.

Too large to qualify, but the Armstrong Whitworth Ensign looks impressive for its day.

 

[Admiral Beez]

And for the French, the Bloch MB.220 seems as close a knock-off of the DC-3 as can be.

 

[Shortround6]

You can probably use google as well as I can.

A.W. 23 Crap engines, no flaps (could be added later) no real potential against the DC-3/C-47.

Armstrong Whitworth Atalanta, yes the wing was thick, it also used four 340 engines so it had less power than a DC-2.
Bog sloooow, short ranged and of limited capacity. But that is what you get from a plane that first flew in 1932.

Armstrong Whitworth Ensign
crap engines, and might qualify depending on that you mean by medium transport, if the C-46 is a medium then the Ensign was.

....................................................AW27 Ensign IA..................................................W27A Ensign II
Powerplant.........................Four 850 hp AS Tiger IXC...........Four 950 hp Wright Cyclone GR-1820-G102A
Span..........................................123 ft 0 in
All up weight..........................48,500 lb................................................................55,500 lb
Capacity........................ Four crew and up to 40 passengers
Maximum Speed.................. 200 mph................................................................208 mph
Cruising speed.......................170 mph at 9,000 ft...........................................180 mph
Endurance / Range...............860 miles.............................................................1,370 miles

Please note that the Tiger engines may have been worth a bit more (880hp?) at take-off but the Cyclone GR-1820-G102As were rated at 1100hp for take-off, the 950hp rating is max continuous.


The Tiger engines established a rather poor reputation for reliability. Early Whitley bombers that used them were banned from over water flights in 1938 or early 1939 as soon as Merlin powered Whiteleys reached the squadrons. Granted a four engine plane has a bit more redundancy.


Bloch 220? it may have been a concurrent design and not a knock off but basically it was a DC-2 several years too late, Dc-3s advantage was that was fat enough to seat 2 on one side of the aisle and one on the other. The Bloch, DC-2 and Lockheeds sat one on each side.

 

[Admiral Beez]

My vote is Ar 232.

View attachment 561515

I like these unconventional designs.

For weirdness, I'll throw Canada's contribution into contention, the Burnelli CBY-3.

 

[pinehilljoe]

I think there is the medium category you have the C-47, and C-46, and everything else is a distant third.

 

[cherry blossom]

I think there is the medium category you have the C-47, and C-46, and everything else is a distant third.

Half agree. I suggested that a mix of Ar 232 and Ju 252 would be perfect but one would need to know the future to decide on the correct numbers. The C-47 could do both jobs fairly well, so there is a very good argument for choosing a fleet of mostly C-47s.

However, the C-46 has few advantages compared to the Ju 252. The performance is very similar as expected for similar sized aircraft with very similar power. It did fly a year earlier but because of serious teething troubles, only entered service at about the same time. The C-46's lack of self sealing fuel tanks and the problem of fuel explosions as well as the loading ramp of the Ju 252 makes me choose the Ju 252 if we need a longer ranged transport.

If we need a larger transport than the C-47 in 1940, we might think of the SM 82 as that was used from June 1940 and could carry loads such as a disassembled CR 42. The range isn't too bad as the civil version was used to fly from Spain to Brazil although probably with a very light payload.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Hamilcar glider, with engine conversion looks useful, with its big bow doors.

AIUI though, it still needed a tug to get to altitude.

 

[Shortround6]

The Hamilcar glider, with engine conversion looks useful, with its big bow doors.

View attachment 562077

AIUI though, it still needed a tug to get to altitude.

The engines were basically for self recovery after landing and unloading, which rather points to the fact that hinged noses and tail ramps are only useful once you have large enough engines to actually lift the types of payloads that need hinged noses and tail ramps.

It was found that while carrying a heavy load the powered Hamilcar could not maintain altitude after the tow plane disconnected.
MAx gross for unpowered version was 36,000lbs
Initial max gross for the powered version was 47,000lbs.
Max gross for the powered version doing a self take-off was 32,500lbs. However since you have to subtract the weight of the power plants and the installation plus the 400 gallons of fuel (and tanks) the reduction in cargo weight is substantial.
From Wiki
" At 32,500 lb, it could take off in 1,385 yards. Its maximum speed was 145 miles per hour (233 km/h) but it could cruise at 120 miles per hour (190 km/h). With 400 gallons of fuel it could manage 705 miles (1,135 km) in still air or 1,675 miles (2,696 km) with 860 gallons onboard replacing the cargo capacity. "

 

[ktank]

The engines were basically for self recovery after landing and unloading, which rather points to the fact that hinged noses and tail ramps are only useful once you have large enough engines to actually lift the types of payloads that need hinged noses and tail ramps.

It was found that while carrying a heavy load the powered Hamilcar could not maintain altitude after the tow plane disconnected.
MAx gross for unpowered version was 36,000lbs
Initial max gross for the powered version was 47,000lbs.
Max gross for the powered version doing a self take-off was 32,500lbs. However since you have to subtract the weight of the power plants and the installation plus the 400 gallons of fuel (and tanks) the reduction in cargo weight is substantial.
From Wiki
" At 32,500 lb, it could take off in 1,385 yards. Its maximum speed was 145 miles per hour (233 km/h) but it could cruise at 120 miles per hour (190 km/h). With 400 gallons of fuel it could manage 705 miles (1,135 km) in still air or 1,675 miles (2,696 km) with 860 gallons onboard replacing the cargo capacity. "

Trivia - the Blackburn Beverley was descended from the Hamilcar!

The Beverley Association: History of the Beverley

 

[windswords]

I don't know what that the stats and specs are, but the Mitsubishi Ki-57 army transport sure is pretty.