davebender
1st Lieutenant
Most forward area Army airfields are grass or dirt right up to the present day. So wouldn't that be a significant advantage for a tactical transport aircraft?
Could the Luftwaffe have done a better job supplying the 6th army at Stallingrad
- Thread starter rank amateur
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
In today's world a C-130 or C-17 can land in forward area providing there's a dirt strip long enough to accomodate them. During WW2 this would be an advantage but you have an increased risk for accidents by operating a tail dragger tactical transport, but again that was the norm for that era.
Shortround6
Major General
It was starting to go away before WW II. The Douglas DC-4E (predecessor to the DC-4/C-54), DC-5 (small production run ahead of the normal DC-4), Lockheed Constellation, the A-20, B-19, B-24, B-25, B-26 were all in the planning stages before the US got into WW II. Plus others I may have skipped. The US also had a number of light planes with Tri-cycle gear before WW II including at least one Waco biplane.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yep!!! I think in the pre war years the writing was on the wall, especially when many modern airfields were being built.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
That's fine for a civilian passenger liner or a military heavy bomber. However army troops that need aerial resupply are often in the middle of nowhere. No purpose built airfield and even a level field might be difficult to find.
Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think something like LAPES (Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System) would have been a huge advantage for WWII Germany at Stalingrad. The key requirement (besides aircrew training) is a rear cargo ramp such as the Ju-252 had.
Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think something like LAPES (Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System) would have been a huge advantage for WWII Germany at Stalingrad. The key requirement (besides aircrew training) is a rear cargo ramp such as the Ju-252 had.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
parsifal
Colonel
Some of the things we did with Caribous makes me question whether tricycle gear is that much of a disadvantage on rough strips anyway
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
If properly designed and operated an aircraft (like the Caribou) can do just as much on a dirt as a tail dragger.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
The Ar-232 is the direction German tactical transport aircraft were heading towards. The Ju-252 would probably have been the last German tail dragger.
Arado Ar 232 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tricycle landing gear plus 20 smaller wheels (10 per side) under the fuselage. The small wheels kept the fuselage from hitting the ground in the event the main gear broke off in a shell hole.
de Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Arado Ar 232 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tricycle landing gear plus 20 smaller wheels (10 per side) under the fuselage. The small wheels kept the fuselage from hitting the ground in the event the main gear broke off in a shell hole.
de Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
German designs were being pushed in the direction or tricycle gear by the appearance of jet engines. I believe even the He 219 was designed with the possibillity of jet propulsion in mind so this may have influenced their choice of tricycle undergear. A perusal of the "Luftwaffe Secret Pjoects: Bombers" or Manfrid Griehls twin volum "German Jet aircraft" shows a larger number of piston engined junkers and focke wulf transports that were projected in the late 30s and early 1940 with tricycle layouts, indicating that German aeronautical engineers had accepted the layout advantages. The Extreme STOL Ar 232 of course also used the tricyle gear, indicating that it was suitable undercarriage for STOL as did the Gotha Go 244 transport. Either way I don't think the tail dragger layout of the Ju 252 was going to be a major disadvantage and there are supposedly advantages.
An interesting aside: many tricycle engine aircraft had poor escape systems for the crew eg B-24 and B-26 (I think the B-25 may have been OK). The nose undercarriage blocked the possibillity of an escape hatch while the fact that the forward part of the crew sat well ahead of the props caused prop impact issue on emergency egress.
One reason that the He 219 eventually received ejection seats is because unless the props were carefully feathered emergency egress could mangle the crew.
It's worth pointing out that apart from the Ju 52, some 290 FW 200's that the Luftwaffe had some 213 Me 323 giantw produced and these had a 15 ton load.
An interesting aside: many tricycle engine aircraft had poor escape systems for the crew eg B-24 and B-26 (I think the B-25 may have been OK). The nose undercarriage blocked the possibillity of an escape hatch while the fact that the forward part of the crew sat well ahead of the props caused prop impact issue on emergency egress.
One reason that the He 219 eventually received ejection seats is because unless the props were carefully feathered emergency egress could mangle the crew.
It's worth pointing out that apart from the Ju 52, some 290 FW 200's that the Luftwaffe had some 213 Me 323 giantw produced and these had a 15 ton load.
One item of technology that was developed in Germany at the time was the high speed ribbon droque parachute. It came into use for such diverse tasks as slowing down Arado 234, slowing down the Me 163 in preperation for emergency egress and stopping assault gliders (with the droque deplyed in flight) and also I suspect sewing aerial mines.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Aerial supply drops were somewhat common during WWII but first hand accounts I have read suggest they were lucky if 50% of supplies reached friendly forces. Dropping an entire pallet at very low altitude would ensure the cargo lands where it's supposed to. But you need a rear cargo ramp for that sort of drop.
I think the post-war American C-119 resembles the Ar-232.
Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What was the altitude for this Korean War equipment drop?
I think the post-war American C-119 resembles the Ar-232.
Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What was the altitude for this Korean War equipment drop?
Shortround6
Major General
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Are you coming up with this based on facts or by looking at a cut away of the aircraft?!?! Have you ever been in any of these aircraft to make such a statement?!?!?!?!
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
B-24 escape...
The B-24 statement I got from Wikipeidia:
"The B-24's spacious slab-sided fuselage (which earned the aircraft the nickname "Flying Boxcar")[15] was built around a central bomb bay that could accommodate up to 8,000 lb (3,629 kg) of ordnance. The bomb bay was divided into front and rear compartments and had a central catwalk just nine inches wide,[16] which was also the fuselage keel beam. A universal complaint arose over the extremely narrow catwalk. The aircraft was sometimes disparaged as "The Flying Coffin" because the only entry and exit from the bomber was in the rear and it was almost impossible for the flight crew and nose gunner to get from the flight deck to the rear when wearing parachutes. "
It may not be that quick to wind down a nose wheel in an emergency.
The B-26 egress difficulty I'm pretty sure I got from a B-26 Bombardier, but will check before quoting name.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Wikipedia...
If you look at the diagram and if you were ever INSIDE a B-24 you would find the bomb bay is right behind the pilots. If a crew member is inside one of the turrets (nose or tail), that's another story but then again any multi engine aircraft of the war would present difficulty during egress and has absolutely nothing to do with the aircraft having a nose landing gear. Had the B-24 been a tail dragger, bail out would have probably been the same. Egress was very similar from inside a B-17 and parachutes were always an issue for aircrews regardless.
Last edited:
You don't have to wind the nose gear down. It retracts FORWARD in a B-24, just hit the manual release, gravity and slipstream do the rest.
Normal and emergency exit for the bombardier, navigator, and front turret gunner were the front wheelwell hatch, and they were all stationed within a few feet of it.
Normal and emergency exit for the bombardier, navigator, and front turret gunner were the front wheelwell hatch, and they were all stationed within a few feet of it.
From rec.aviation.military:
B26 Aircrew Personal Armor? - rec.aviation.military | Google Groups
Subject: Re: B26 Aircrew Personal Armor?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
By Art Kramer (B-26 Bombardier)
"Let me tell you my sadstory of moving through a B-26, especially if you were a
Bombardier. Do you know how a bombardier entered and exited the nose? He had to
crawl on his hands and knees in front of the copilot who had his seat ssid back
and helped the bombardier through without getting his parachute harness
tangled on the engine controls. I could only exit the nose with the help and
consent of the copilot. He had to slide his seat back and guide me through as I
crawled out. If the copilot was hit and a fast exit was needed, the bombardier
alnmost never got out. And if the copilot had been hit, escape from the nose
was impossible. Now let's look at the overall situation. If I have to fly a 5
hour mission where I can be killed by a flak fragment at any moment, I sure has
hell an not going to fly without my flak suit and helmet, Unless of course I
have lost all judgement and good sense. I think that anyone who flies a mission
where he knows he will go through heavy flak and won't wear his armor, I would
say he has flown one mission too many. But please don't tell me how tough it
was to get out of Lancasters. My heart bleeds for those guys. But I had
troubles of my own And I think the Lanc guys had a much better chance of
escape than I ever did."
B26 Aircrew Personal Armor? - rec.aviation.military | Google Groups
Subject: Re: B26 Aircrew Personal Armor?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
By Art Kramer (B-26 Bombardier)
"Let me tell you my sadstory of moving through a B-26, especially if you were a
Bombardier. Do you know how a bombardier entered and exited the nose? He had to
crawl on his hands and knees in front of the copilot who had his seat ssid back
and helped the bombardier through without getting his parachute harness
tangled on the engine controls. I could only exit the nose with the help and
consent of the copilot. He had to slide his seat back and guide me through as I
crawled out. If the copilot was hit and a fast exit was needed, the bombardier
alnmost never got out. And if the copilot had been hit, escape from the nose
was impossible. Now let's look at the overall situation. If I have to fly a 5
hour mission where I can be killed by a flak fragment at any moment, I sure has
hell an not going to fly without my flak suit and helmet, Unless of course I
have lost all judgement and good sense. I think that anyone who flies a mission
where he knows he will go through heavy flak and won't wear his armor, I would
say he has flown one mission too many. But please don't tell me how tough it
was to get out of Lancasters. My heart bleeds for those guys. But I had
troubles of my own And I think the Lanc guys had a much better chance of
escape than I ever did."
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And this has what to do with the B-26 having a nose landing gear????? Look where the NLG wheel well was located and look where the bombardier was positioned. The Lockheed Hudson series had the same situation as far as the crew member in the nose having to crawl under the co-pilot or a very small crawl space, typical of MANY WW2 aircraft, both allied and axis, again nothing to do with your assessment of aircraft have a NLG or the reasoning why that configuration vanished in the post war years, so please apply some real world assessments to your analysis; you're "over engineering" again!
Egress systems in a WW2 multi-engine aircraft - Get your parachute on and get to the first opening as fast as you can, that simple...
Egress systems in a WW2 multi-engine aircraft - Get your parachute on and get to the first opening as fast as you can, that simple...
Last edited:
