Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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?The idea that the Germans lead the way in transport design really needs to be relegated to the trash bin.
Of course. Absolutely agree....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.
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).At least, unlike the C46, the Ju52 didn't blow up in flight...
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
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.
I like these unconventional designs.
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.I think there is the medium category you have the C-47, and C-46, and everything else is a distant third.
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. "