Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The C-82 may have been late-war, but it's still notable with the high wing and clamshell rear cargo doors.A discussion in another thread about the characteristics of the Ju 52/3m vs Ju 252 vs C-47 lead me to thinking about just how different WW2 transport aircraft look compared to those of today. Nowadays it seems obvious that a military transport should have a high wing, an upswept rear fuselage with a loading ramp, and very short undercarriage tucked into the side of the fuselage. But, the Ar 232 aside, until the C-123 came along in the late 40s, all military transports, even purpose-designed ones, followed the general layout of most other aircraft.
Purpose-built military transports (and bombers) weren't consistently using high-wing layouts either, in spite of capacity advantages. The C-46 didn't go with either, though I don't think it or the C-47 were really prevented from being designed with rear loading ramps or had cargo capacity compromised because of the low wing. (the C-46 did get a particularly large cargo bay opening, though)Both Ju-52 and C-47 were once-civilian designs that were militarized. Air forces were trying to get as much as possible of those 'good enough' transport aircraft, without waiting for 'ideal' ones to be designed/built.
was there any reason why the now-standard pattern for a military transport couldn't have been use earlier?
If you're including converted powered gliders, the Go 244 is a nice example similar in configuration to the C-82 too, but it's a lot smaller and had a pretty short range.The Me 323 did a good job, i.e. big and drive on, if a bit slow and flammable when loaded with gasoline.
DC-3 had a higher volume cargo/passenger/troop capacity and existing large scale manufacturing and support infrastructure as well as already being in widespread use with many flying.One commercial design that might have been a good fit but which was not choosen for some reason was the Douglas DC-5.
Wow, stainless steel. Looks like it probably needed R-2600s or R-2800s for reasonable power/weight.Budd Conastoga
First flight 31 October 1943
And it was made of stainless steel.
There's also the Fw 206, which seems to have been canceled outright in 1939 with no prototypes built. It seems to have been in the works early enough to be useful and closer to the DC-3/C-47 than anything else in German development at the time and a better direct replacement for the Ju 52 than anything else on the table. (similar size, 2 1000 HP class Bramo 323 engines planned, design derived from the Fw 200)Not in my opinion and that goes double for Luftwaffe as they rejected Ju-252 and Ar-232 for mass production. Both were mature designs with prototypes flying during 1941 to 1942.