Earlier aircraft with rear cargo ramps

MatthewB

Banned
07a_fm2015_frombernier01_00032145_live.jpg


I think you'd have issues with hull form with a tail ramp. The Convair Tradewind had a nose ramp.
I was thinking of a rear well deck that intentionally floods when the rear door opens. Obviously buoyancy will need to be taken into account.
 
That needs ballast tanks and pumps. It would add a lot of weight and take up a lot of space needed for the cargo for something with little utility.
 

MatthewB

Banned
How many troops can that thing carry?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_R3Y_Tradewind

"Cabin soundproofing and airconditioning were added for pressurised accommodation for 103 passengers or 24 tons of cargo. As a medevac aircraft, 92 stretcher cases could be carried."

I assume troops could be further crowded in, but with their weapons and kits perhaps no more than 120 troops?

Photo-18.-Convair-R3Y-2-128450-landing-demo_2.jpg

http://www.letletlet-warplanes.com/2014/05/12/convair-xp5y-1r3y-1-and-2-tradewind/
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Both. Some just had barrels of explosives rolled out the cargo door, and that's what I was thinking of when you asked the question. However, the Russians have a long history of building "civilian" aircraft with military utility in mind (many of their transports come with windows for a bomb aimer and a tail turret). The A-26, as used in the Sudan, can be fitted with fuselage bomb racks, and pilots train for delivering bombs with them.
Yes that's what I had in mind too

I wondered why Assad in Syria did not use that, esp at night even an antonov an26 would be very difficult to hit with small arms by militia units and can drop a dozen " barrel bombs" in contrast to 1 to 2 by a Mi 8
 
ATL Perhaps Bristol could have learned a lesson from the Fleet Freighter by installing a cargo hatch in the floor directly below the centre of gravity on a Bristol Bombay transport/bomber. Shove heavy cargo (e.g. spare engine) under the airplane and winch it up into the cargo hold.
Alternately, taxi the airplane over the cargo ......
Bristol Bombay Mark III might be tall enough to drive a truck underneath the forward fuselage.
Having a cargo hatch at the C. of G. would also allow dropping bombs with minimal change in balance.

A typical Bristol Bombay colonial policing mission might include delivering a few bombs on the outskirts of an uppity village, delivering MG ammo to (side-facing MGs) another uppity village, dropping off rations at a police outpost and returning with a medical casualty. Only the last two tasks would require landing out.
 
I wondered why Assad in Syria did not use that, esp at night even an antonov an26 would be very difficult to hit with small arms by militia units and can drop a dozen " barrel bombs" in contrast to 1 to 2 by a Mi 8

It's very hard to say, and I have absolutely no idea why that decision was made. That being said, it's usually a mistake to think about things in isolation. Decisions occur in a context, which shapes what is considered sensible or even possible. For example, the An-26s might all have been busy hauling troops or supplies - they can do that a lot further and faster than a Mi-8, and that might have been judged a more important task. Or the Mi-8s might have been quicker to respond to a fluid situation, and one or two bombs now is much better than a dozen too late. Or they might simply have had more Mi-8s serviceable. Or the An-26 pilots might not have been trained for bombing runs, and it's much easier to get things kind-of on target from a slow-flying helicopter. And so on, and so on. The point is, it isn't always about the technical characteristics of the equipment being used.
 
Yes dear PMN1,

OTL An airplane can have both a tail ramp and a tail wheel.
After WW2, Fairchild of Canada built a few Husky bush planes with canoe hatches and tail wheels. The hatch was big enough for a freighter canoe and the tail wheel was just forward of the hatch. While Huskies resembled their DHC Beaver and Otter competitors, they suffered from single Otter sized cargo holds, but Beaver sized engines, making them too easy to overload.

In a related Canada wank, Fleet flew their first Fleet 50K Freighter in 1938. The Fleet Freighter sported a bewildering array of 5 or 6 batches including a hatch under the cockpit for loading long items and another hatch in the belly directly under the centre of gravity. Lacking spreader bars between their twin floats (pontoons) Freighters could easily water-taxi over boats or docks to hoist heavy cargo (e.g. spare engine) straight up. Like too many other early bush planes, Freighters suffered from its pair of Jacobs engines producing insufficient horsepower and only a handful were built.

WI more Canadian mining projects required more awkward cargo flown into narrow mountain strips during the 1930s? Would Fairchild of Canada, Fleet, Noordyn, etc. have developed dedicated ramp-loaders before WW2?

Did the Husky have a ramp that cargo could be wheeled up or was there just a rear hatch that cargo could be loaded through?
 
Is no-one else going to comment on this mentioning the silliest aviation related death ever?
The Beverley was equipped with toilets, which were situated in the tail beyond the paratroop hatch located on the floor of the tailboom. One fatality was caused by a serviceman who fell twenty feet to the ground when exiting the toilet, unaware that the paratroop hatch had been opened. Modifications were made to prevent the toilet doors from being opened when the paratroop hatch was open.
 
Did the Husky have a ramp that cargo could be wheeled up or was there just a rear hatch that cargo could be loaded through?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fairchild Husky only had a hatch under the aft fuselage. The hatch was big enough to load a freighter canoe, but there was no ramp.

In the end, bush pilots just strapped canoes to float struts and flew off. Tying freight on the outside gave Transport Canada fits! TC tried all kinds of ways to standardize weight and balance calculations, but most bush pilots just looked at the third rivet ...... on the tail end of the float/pontoon!
Hah!
Hah!
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_R3Y_Tradewind

"Cabin soundproofing and airconditioning were added for pressurised accommodation for 103 passengers or 24 tons of cargo. As a medevac aircraft, 92 stretcher cases could be carried."

I assume troops could be further crowded in, but with their weapons and kits perhaps no more than 120 troops?

Photo-18.-Convair-R3Y-2-128450-landing-demo_2.jpg

http://www.letletlet-warplanes.com/2014/05/12/convair-xp5y-1r3y-1-and-2-tradewind/
No, combat equipped troops weigh about 30-50% more than 'passangers'. So you would probably only get 60-80 in.
 
That would make a airborne operations much easier. Allied airborne forces could have add drop Jeeps with 37 mm cannons and other assorted technicals, giving them added firepower.
It also would have made. Loading and unloading of cargo aircraft easier and faster, which could have allowed more supplies to get into Stalingrad.

That was what gliders from small to large were used for The ME-323 started out as the ME321 glider to haul heavy loads. The American CG-4 could carry a Jeep. A cable connected to the tow hitch of the Jeep could pull the nose open as the Jeep pulled forward

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_323
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_CG-4
 

Nick P

Donor
I looked at the idea of creating a C-130 Hercules in WW2, the idea being that landing light tanks at Arnhem would have been rather helpful. The main catch I found was not the airframe design but engine power. Simply, there are no engines of suitable power until around 1944.

The early C-130 had turboprop engines each offering 3,750 hp. The largest aircraft engine in WW2 was the Pratt & Whitney R4360 offering 3,000 hp. I'm not sure that would be enough for a full-size Herky bird but maybe something like the C-295 or the Nord Noratlas would be possible.

An outside runner would be the BV.144 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_&_Voss_BV_144 Modifying the design to have a ramp and lifting tail seems possible.
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/bv144.html
 
ATL also consider the proposed WACO YC-62 transport. It’s specifications were the same as Douglas C-47 and Curtiss-Wright Caravan, but no prototype got build.
Waco’s proposal looked like a cross between a tail-dragging Bristol Freighter with the H-tail and tail boom of a shrunken Bristol Beverly.

ATL another thread suggested building Miles M.20 fighters in Canada. This leads us to speculate if Miles of Canada would have developed the OTL Miles Aerovan into OTL Shorts Skyvan.
 
How wacky or implausible is this? In 1940 needing transports for the Airborne forces demanded by Churchill the RAF are looking for castoff's to use. Some one suggests that the Albermarle then being readied for production could be spared. Someone at the Ministry of aircraft production or Whitworths has a flash of inspiration and decides to commission a design study of a purpose built transport by just changing the fuselage yet use as much existing design and jig as possible. the resultant redesign had the cockpit moved forward to just aft of the front under carriage well. and with the removal of the gun turret the high line of the fuselage was extended aft to the limit of the existing bomb bay, this increased the cargo space and balance the weight of the cockpit being moved forwards. Internal fuselage tanks and other equipment were moved to the bomb bay. for access a ramp was added under the tail from the aft end of the Bombay/floor. A proposal to widen the fuselage was not pursued as it would disrupt the production to much.
 
How wacky or implausible is this? In 1940 needing transports for the Airborne forces demanded by Churchill the RAF are looking for castoff's to use. Some one suggests that the Albermarle then being readied for production could be spared. Someone at the Ministry of aircraft production or Whitworths has a flash of inspiration and decides to commission a design study of a purpose built transport by just changing the fuselage yet use as much existing design and jig as possible. the resultant redesign had the cockpit moved forward to just aft of the front under carriage well. and with the removal of the gun turret the high line of the fuselage was extended aft to the limit of the existing bomb bay, this increased the cargo space and balance the weight of the cockpit being moved forwards. Internal fuselage tanks and other equipment were moved to the bomb bay. for access a ramp was added under the tail from the aft end of the Bombay/floor. A proposal to widen the fuselage was not pursued as it would disrupt the production to much.

There was a suggestion on APOD about that


Without such a plane or access to LL DC-3's they've only got converted Wellington's and Stirling's to flesh out the old Bombay's and the mixture of civil types in Transport Command (if/when it is formed. Without departing from reality at all, just combing the elements of the OTL Albemarle and Ensign we would get a plywood and steel tube, nose wheeled, high wing transport not dissimilar to a DC-3 sized Caribou with a usefully square (~9-10' wide) fuselage.

There's even some chance it might be quite elegant too boot… scary. Call it an Albemarle if need be, although Shane's always liked 'Navigator' for this idea (He's been playing with it for years), we could have 600 of these aircraft with no impact on OTL production of other types before October 41 OTL and while admittedly it reduces the available slack for FFO during and after its OTL production run, as such an aircraft could well be produced in larger than historical numbers (for the Albemarle), it's still minimal for the number of aircraft produced.

The A-W Albemarle has no place as a combat aircraft, yet it was produced with little impact on wider aircraft production by design, making few demands on strategic resources or manufacturing capacity and maximum use of alternatives. As far as we can tell the OTL Albemarle was roughly comparable in weight and performance to the DC-3, its superior performance and heavier empty weight reflecting the fact that it was a bomber with full military equipment. Although Shane's really only saying there's enough meat in an Albemarle to build something the size of a DC-3, he don't mean to imply a steel tube and plywood 'scrap-bin special' is going to compare as a load carrier in terms of payload miles.

Comment by Mark: This is not necessarily so. It will most likely be less efficient in ton mile terms, but will able to carry outsized bulky items up to 8'10" wide and 7'6" tall, and up to 28' long (and later of slightly larger dimensions). All by itself, this is a brand new capability. We also need to recall that such an aircraft with a ramp had long been called for in the PNG gold fields and in the mining industry in India.

Albemarle could be transformed into a transport, say by the substitution of a new fuselage (that is a good option). Rather that a mostly 'new' aircraft designed in the wake of the cancelled OTL Albemarle and of a similar size/production cost might be an attractive proposition for the RAF circa 1940-42. On a pair of Hercules it would be volume limited not weight limited, with a surplus of power for tight fields, Hot/High work or glider towing. It might also be a very convenient aircraft to use a tail ramp. Now, that sounds like hindsight, but it was used on several contemporary German designs, there was a strong demand for such an aircraft in the mining industry and even without one the floor would still be level and at a more convenient height. Twin Pegasus's would be a minimalist alternative, but might still produce a viable aircraft or NOT, dud's have their place in the greater scheme of things too.

Mark notes that the Avro team were developing the York from 1940 on a spare capacity basis. It was never a 'converted Lancaster', it was always a design in its own right, and not a bad one. This example offers a good path for a twin Centaurus/four engined heavy tactical and low-end strategic transport and for Albemarle and Navigator. What has happened in FFO is that the OTL agreement that the UK would not produce transports is a dead duck from POD.

Mark also notes that a flat floor, high wing 'Navigator' is NOT unrealistic. There was a longstanding and widespread demand across the Empire for exactly this sort of machine to move mining equipment, not least at the Wau goldfields.

The basic elements of the Albemarle OTL design allowed for rapid design of a transport aircraft. The wings essentially remained the same on the transport (using the York example), with the nacelles being lengthened to provide stowage for a longer undercarriage. The wings were then raised to the top of a new, boxy fuselage bearing a functional resemblance in cross section to that of the York. This retained a front end generally similar to the original Albemarle, which saved design time and placed both the crew and their accommodation forward. A small galley was placed in the nose for the four man crew (pilot, co-pilot/navigator, aircraft engineer/radio operator, and load master). Aft of where the leading edge met the upper fuselage, however, things would be completely different. The boxy fuselage was 10' wide internally with a height of 9' internally, this section being 31' long before starting to taper in width. Exploiting the original type of high-mounted twin tail, the aft fuselage was fitted with a tapered ramp which could be lowered to the ground. An arrangement is then possible that the ramp, when lowered, brought down with it a tapered wedge of the fuselage sides. When lowered, these two side pieces were then themselves folded outward, giving the ramp a uniform width of 9'. However, a disadvantage of the design was that no object higher than 7'6" could be brought up the ramp without jacking the aircraft up. Later addition of a hydraulic system which allowed the Albemarle to lift its tail by lowering the nose solved this problem. There were also two side doors just under the aft of the wing. This is a flying cargo truck. It would also be useful as a personnel transport, air navigation trainer and aerial ambulance. The Albemarle transport could be fitted as a glider tug.

The second outgrowth of the Albemarle could be Shane's far more elegant Navigator. This would not be a flying truck at all, but an airliner style personnel transport. Again, the general nature of the original Albemarle wings and tail might be retained but that is not essential as Navigator, like Albemarle transport, would not use strategic materials in any quantity.
 
PMN1 brought up some good points about adapting Armstrong Albemarle bomber to specifically support paratroopers.
Albemarle competed directly with NAA B-25 Mitchel in the medium bomber role, but B-25 was already on its third or fourth “Mark” and in large scale production. Armstrong had little chance to compete with the huge numbers of B-25s roaring off NAA production lines.

ATL a more “evolutionary” time line would see British paratroopers fixating on dropping out of circular hatches in the floor. The circular batches remained when belly turrets were removed from obsolete (e.g. Whitely) bombers.

WI paratroopers tired of “ringing the bell” and demanded larger belly batches?
This would force airframe modifications to enlarge belly batches.

Would it also lead to enlarged cargo panniers bolted into bomb bays?
With panniers sagging almost to ground level, and long rear hatches, would this lead to dropping narrow cargoes like AT guns?
 
Something else about AW, they already have experience with wheels on the side of the fuselage with their Atalanta.
 
Top