Landing on water is a more useful trait when there is a lot of large bodies of water around (ie the Pacific). Fighting in Europe, it's probably better to have transport planes built for what is generally in the region. Granted there may be bridges or strategic locations near lakes or bodies of water, I don't think the situation would be common enough in Europe to justify extra resource expenditure to allow the plane to land on water. Remember at the heart of all wartime machines (especially in regards to the Axis who had very finite resources) is cost.
WWII WI: a Wiking fleet (BV-222)
- Thread starter thaddeus
- Start date
Landing on water is a more useful trait when there is a lot of large bodies of water around (ie the Pacific). Fighting in Europe, it's probably better to have transport planes built for what is generally in the region. Granted there may be bridges or strategic locations near lakes or bodies of water, I don't think the situation would be common enough in Europe to justify extra resource expenditure to allow the plane to land on water. Remember at the heart of all wartime machines (especially in regards to the Axis who had very finite resources) is cost.
................................
From a practical perspective, floats (and seaplane hulls) are giant skis that can be safely landed on grass, sand or snow. When lightly-loaded they easily take-off from the same surfaces. Sounds like a perfect solution for re-supplying Stalingrad or Rommel' Afrika Korps.
Remember that OTL LW were chronically short of transport airplanes.
I have even watched a light floatplane land on asphalt. Short landing run! But the only damage was a few millimetres scraped off the keel. They jacked it up, repaired the undercarriage retraction mechanism and put it back to work the next day.
Most float keels are made with extra-thick keels to allow them two or three land landings before they need repair. Also consider how fast sand grinds down keels when float-planes are "beached" for the night. Bush pilots expect this sort of wear-and-tear. Float plane owners include float repairs in their long-term maintenance budgets.
From a practical perspective, do you have knowledge of any floatplane taking off from sand, snow, or asphalt without a dolly? Do you have any knowledge of anyone conceiving of doing that to a Bv-222 or anything comparable?
.......................................................
First of all, no-one ever plans to operate seaplanes from asphalt. Landing seaplanes on asphalt is strictly for emergencies. Asphalt abbrades keels too quickly.
Even landing on the grass beside the (asphalt) runway barely scuffs the paint.
Meanwhile we can dig up dozens of stories of bush pilots operating float planes from grass and snow. Sure factory pilots preferred using dollies, but bush pilots are not that fussy about preserving shiny, new paint. Also remember that desperate bush pilots invent new methods rather than risk being marooned hundreds of miles from civilization. The farther they are from Transport Canada, the more imaginative their inventions. Suggestions from logging and mining engineers (eager to get home) accelerate the thought process. Red-neck engineers can do the same job for 10 percent of the cost of diplomaed engineers.
During the height of the Cold War, the USAF devoted considerable R&D money to develop tri-phibian (land, water and snow) versions of Grumman's Albatross and the C-123 Provider. This was during the 1950s, just as they worked the last major bugs out of turbine-powered helicopters. Now turbine-powered helicopters dominate the rescue business.
Back to the original question .... Hitler would cheerfully have ordered Vikings to re-supply Stalingrad .... if he had a large fleet of Vikings sitting idle. Vikings would have suffered about the same casualties as the Ju-52, He-111 and Giant Messerschmitts used in the original effort.
With fore-sight, LW could pre-fit extra- thick keel wear strips to help Vikings stay ahead of known wear patterns when landing on snow.
thaddeus
Donor
my guess would be that for flights between Germany and Japan, flying boat would become the favored transport if built in numbers. even though Junkers JU-290 was selected IOTL (read various accounts on whether any flights actually took place.)
(there would be so many bodies of water in USSR and China available but no friendly airfields in emergency)
if real effort made towards Operation Eisenhammer to bomb Soviet hydroelectric plants they could have used the BV-222B, could have even carried saboteurs (although risky is too weak a word.)
(there would be so many bodies of water in USSR and China available but no friendly airfields in emergency)
if real effort made towards Operation Eisenhammer to bomb Soviet hydroelectric plants they could have used the BV-222B, could have even carried saboteurs (although risky is too weak a word.)
There is one story of a British floatplane owner who lands in the morning on wet grass and takes off after greasing the floats. There aren't any more take-off stories. Your comparison of "Red-neck vs. Diplomaed" engineers perhaps explains why p. Engs work for money instead of gratitude. The real engineers were the ones who designed the floats, and the aircraft. Why is it that factories use dollies?
.......... Why is it that factories use dollies?[/QUOTE]
...............................................
Factories use take-off dollies to shorten take-off runs and preserve the shiny new paint.
I am not clear why you want to debate " professional engineers " versus "redneck engineers" so fiercely.
Bush pilots learn " redneck engineering" skills when faced with a broken airplane and the prospect of freezing to death tonight. Bush pilots have invented dozens of quick-and-dirty repair schemes to ferry broken airplanes back to base.
Bush pilots apply the same "redneck engineer" skills when asked to fly missions (e.g. transport canoes) that never crossed the professional engineers' minds in their worst drunken nightmares. Alternatively, factory executives never expected to sell significant numbers of that configuration.
Desperate soldiers apply "redneck engineering " skills in their constant struggle to stay alive.
I never suggested that landing Viking flying boats on sand or snow was they best (most gentle) way to use them, but faced with a the risk of losing an en-circled army because it is running out of ammo (e.g. Stalingrad), delivering that ammo by flying boat is a huge improvement over no ammo.
...............................................
Factories use take-off dollies to shorten take-off runs and preserve the shiny new paint.
I am not clear why you want to debate " professional engineers " versus "redneck engineers" so fiercely.
Bush pilots learn " redneck engineering" skills when faced with a broken airplane and the prospect of freezing to death tonight. Bush pilots have invented dozens of quick-and-dirty repair schemes to ferry broken airplanes back to base.
Bush pilots apply the same "redneck engineer" skills when asked to fly missions (e.g. transport canoes) that never crossed the professional engineers' minds in their worst drunken nightmares. Alternatively, factory executives never expected to sell significant numbers of that configuration.
Desperate soldiers apply "redneck engineering " skills in their constant struggle to stay alive.
I never suggested that landing Viking flying boats on sand or snow was they best (most gentle) way to use them, but faced with a the risk of losing an en-circled army because it is running out of ammo (e.g. Stalingrad), delivering that ammo by flying boat is a huge improvement over no ammo.
I'm not really fierce at all. I'm just saying a Bv-222 that landed on Russian soil wouldn't take off again without a dolly, which wouldn't be practical since it's massive. Also, a bush pilot wouldn't land a float plane on anything but water because it would compromise his livelihood.
One of those floatplanes that landed on the runway at Oshawa Airport ended up closing the airport for hours while they figured out how to move it. Why didn't he just taxi it away?
One of those floatplanes that landed on the runway at Oshawa Airport ended up closing the airport for hours while they figured out how to move it. Why didn't he just taxi it away?
.......................................................................
While I contend that a lightly-loaded Viking could take off from snow. Seaplane hulls are just giant skis.
There is a famous case of a Norseman on floats deliberately landing on a snow-covered BC mountain lake, then taking off from the same lake the next morning.
It is still a mystery how one floatplane could close Oshawa Airport for several hours considering that Oshawa had two asphalt runways.
Any airport that routinely handles floatplanes has trailers or giant fork lifts to move floatplanes from hangars to the seaplane ramp. Pitt Meadows Airport has two or three giant fork lifts. The last time a Cessna (on amphib floats) landed wheels up, the was no fuss to clearing the runway in 20 minutes.
thaddeus
Donor
and they did not have overseas airfields or really adequate transports either.
that was one of the reasons for a fleet of flying boats, throw up a network of u-boats, flying boats, auxiliary cruisers (and purpose built tankers.)
there was a late in the war plan to use the OTL Wikings to bomb NYC, after installing a watertight hatch. but as has been pointed out that's a difficult placement of bomber bay door.
probably better to launch torpedoes and guided bombs mounted externally (and of course they could carry additional munitions)
not sure about the Blitz being more effective but two points, the British might be concerned about the BV-222 landing troops and the diesel engine could power a more powerful, higher altitude JU-86.
The Norseman's empty weight is 4,240 pounds.
The Bv 222's empty weight is 67,572 pounds.
Size matters.
.....
there was a late in the war plan to use the OTL Wikings to bomb NYC, after installing a watertight hatch. but as has been pointed out that's a difficult placement of bomber bay door.
probably better to launch torpedoes and guided bombs mounted externally (and of course they could carry additional munitions) ....
.............................................................
Water-tight bomb-bay doors in the lower hull are doing it the hard way.
Concentrating all the load in the fuselage requires massively strong wing roots. Massively strong equals massively heavy.
Structurally it is more efficient to spread the load along the wing spar. If you spread the load along the wing, you can carry the same load with a lighter structure. Lighter structure equals lighter empty weight equals greater payload. Greater payload equals carry more bombs farther.
Look at Martin Marlin and Grumman Tracker to see bombs stowed in engine nacelles. Stowing bombs in engine nacelles streamlines them and spreads the load more evenly along the wing span.
Look at all the dozens of failed attempts to pair engines in one or two nacelles. Then look at all the thousands of successful airliners and bombers with four or six engine nacelles spread out along the wings.
Also consider that modern airliners carry most of their fuel in wing tanks to even out span-loading.
there was a late in the war plan to use the OTL Wikings to bomb NYC, after installing a watertight hatch. but as has been pointed out that's a difficult placement of bomber bay door.
probably better to launch torpedoes and guided bombs mounted externally (and of course they could carry additional munitions) ....
.............................................................
Water-tight bomb-bay doors in the lower hull are doing it the hard way.
Concentrating all the load in the fuselage requires massively strong wing roots. Massively strong equals massively heavy.
Structurally it is more efficient to spread the load along the wing spar. If you spread the load along the wing, you can carry the same load with a lighter structure. Lighter structure equals lighter empty weight equals greater payload. Greater payload equals carry more bombs farther.
Look at Martin Marlin and Grumman Tracker to see bombs stowed in engine nacelles. Stowing bombs in engine nacelles streamlines them and spreads the load more evenly along the wing span.
Look at all the dozens of failed attempts to pair engines in one or two nacelles. Then look at all the thousands of successful airliners and bombers with four or six engine nacelles spread out along the wings.
Also consider that modern airliners carry most of their fuel in wing tanks to even out span-loading.
thaddeus
Donor
thanks for pointing this out, the BV-238 "brother" to Wiking DID have wing bays for up to 10,000 lbs of bombs AND could carry 4 add. bombs of 8,000 on external racks (or several other variations of externally mounted weapons)
not sure why the late in war effort to bomb NYC focused on modifying BV-222 with bay in fuselage, assuming no wing bays.
thaddeus
Donor
one possible variant would be to include "millipede" wheels from Arado AR-232 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_232
although they had conventional landing gear the track wheels could be used in an emergency, rocky terrain, etc
although they had conventional landing gear the track wheels could be used in an emergency, rocky terrain, etc
thaddeus
Donor
the Luftwaffe had plan to transport small attack boat via Gotha glider but easier to transport via the Wiking
http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_mb_hydra.htm
http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_mb_hydra.htm
Errolwi
Monthly Donor
You keep on saying this. I see an important difference.
Wanaka2010_5745qf by errolgc, on FlickrA C-130H is 75,800lb Empty weight
Motat10_4901S by errolgc, on FlickrA Sunderland was 34,500lb Empty weight.
I assume the keel is to assist with both stability and surface area/effective weight issues on takeoff.
I'm going to MOTAT in the weekend, I can measure the depth of the 'horizontal' area if you like. What is it on say a Beaver floatplane?
The V bow reduces wave impact on the front of the hull. OTOH hull is much flatter at the planing surface, just forward of the step.
Any vertical surface near the bow is de-stabizing (about the yaw axis) which is why floatplanes typically have vertical fin extensions or extra vertical fins.
Any vertical surface near the bow is de-stabizing (about the yaw axis) which is why floatplanes typically have vertical fin extensions or extra vertical fins.
Errolwi
Monthly Donor
But the hull won't be resting just on the flattest part while and after landing on the snow, will it? A v-shaped hull designed to enter water will be contacting snow (of varying density, depending on exact location, and the day). As you slow down, you will lose control authority, so good luck keeping it level (less of an issue with a floatplane). Is the plan to also land exactly into the wind every time?