Transport Aircraft

The Me 323 was a powered version of the Me 321 glider. As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread General Aircraft made a prototype of a powered version of their Hamilcar glider. This was so successful the air ministry had it manufactured by Blackburn as the Beverley. This became the standard transport aircraft for the RAF in the fifties. Non of the technology in it was beyond the industry in 1935. The Beverley used Centaurus engines but it could have been made with the Hercules.

Non of the technology in it was beyond the industry in 1935.
Only if you don't look at the engines.
Yes, the 1950 version had 2x 2850 hp engines.
A 1940 version would have at the most, 2 x 1290 hp with the Hercules. But that means that a number of Beaufighters won't have engines.
More likely you'd have the Bristol Taurus engine at 2 x 1000ish hp.

That means a 1940 version would have less than half the enginepower of the OTL one. At least, by assuming there weren't heaps of Hercules/R-2800/whatever high performance engine lying around for installment in a transport aircraft.


I'm not exactly an engineer (far from it), so everything above could be wrong, so if anyone stands to correct me, please do.
 
Non of the technology in it was beyond the industry in 1935.
Only if you don't look at the engines.
Yes, the 1950 version had 2x 2850 hp engines.
A 1940 version would have at the most, 2 x 1290 hp with the Hercules. But that means that a number of Beaufighters won't have engines.
More likely you'd have the Bristol Taurus engine at 2 x 1000ish hp.

That means a 1940 version would have less than half the enginepower of the OTL one. At least, by assuming there weren't heaps of Hercules/R-2800/whatever high performance engine lying around for installment in a transport aircraft.


I'm not exactly an engineer (far from it), so everything above could be wrong, so if anyone stands to correct me, please do.

It could have been made with four engines as Avro did when they developed the Lancaster from the Manchester. The question is not if the manufacturing volume is there, more was it within the technical ability of the industry. A lot of aircraft designs ended up with variants almost double the power of the first models.
 
The Me 323 was a powered version of the Me 321 glider. As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread General Aircraft made a prototype of a powered version of their Hamilcar glider. This was so successful the air ministry had it manufactured by Blackburn as the Beverley. This became the standard transport aircraft for the RAF in the fifties. Non of the technology in it was beyond the industry in 1935. The Beverley used Centaurus engines but it could have been made with the Hercules.

Firstly, as you said both aircraft were derived from gliders. Why would there be 'gliders' in the thirties. No I know there were 'sports' gliders, but here - the Me 321 & Hamilcar were cavernous aircraft designed to give support to paratroops. That is - without paratroops - why gliders!?
Second, the Hamilcar glider was designated G.A.L. 49, the powered version (with two 965 hp Mercurys) was designated G.A.L. 58 - intended for use in the Pacific. The Beverley, was a developed versio of the G.A.L.60 - which first flew in 1950 with Hercules engines.

As has been already said, the production lines were taken up by bombers, e.g. the Handley Page Harrow was replaced by the Halifax, but only when the Halifax was in Squadron service, could the Harrow be used for 'transport'.
Avro could have produced the York earlier, or more Lancastrians, but the US had the industrial capacity to supply the RAF with transport aircraft e.g. the C-47. Though this doesn't mean that the British armed forces couldn't have done with more transport aircraft, in the '39 - '42 period.

If the RAF is to have a better transport capability earlier - why? That is what is it for - cargo, troop transport? Will such aircraft prevent you from having something else?
 
If it was up to me, and in AH it is, I'd give the Hampden the flick in favour of the Bombay transport. So the RAF would have less bombers which sucked and more transports which could do something worthwhile.
 
Using hindsight, the UK probably could have used more transport aircraft, especially early-war. But could the British or any other side realistically expect aircraft to play such an important role in WWII?

When WWII started transport aircraft were usually either old converted bombers, civilian aircraft or aircraft using the resources from the bottom of the rung.
Who in their right mind is going to install high performance, expensive engines in transportaircraft when they could also be put into true offensive weapons, like bombers?

Even using hindsight, where is the UK going to use the extra transport aircraft and will they offset the other aircraft not built because of them?
 

Markus

Banned
Only if you don't look at the engines.
Yes, the 1950 version had 2x 2850 hp engines.
A 1940 version would have at the most, 2 x 1290 hp with the Hercules. But that means that a number of Beaufighters won't have engines.
More likely you'd have the Bristol Taurus engine at 2 x 1000ish hp.

IMO the engine power is not too important, the C-47 started with 1,000hp engines too. Loading and unloading is the key difference. The C-47 has a mansize door, a high-wing plane can have a rear door or ramp as wide as the whole airframe. Meaning loading time is cut and you can put much larger items on the plane.
 
The Curtis C46 Commando had a door at either side so paras could exit the plane twice as fast, making the 'stick' much more compact. The downside of course was it's vulnerability to ground fire, as a result of it's fuel leaking into the lower parts of the plane.

I still think the Bristol Bombay could have been a contender if it was built in decent numbers, a hell of a lot better as a para plane than converted bombers like the Whitley.
 
The Curtis C46 Commando had a door at either side so paras could exit the plane twice as fast, making the 'stick' much more compact. The downside of course was it's vulnerability to ground fire, as a result of it's fuel leaking into the lower parts of the plane.

I still think the Bristol Bombay could have been a contender if it was built in decent numbers, a hell of a lot better as a para plane than converted bombers like the Whitley.

What % of transport aircraft was used (solely/mostly) as a paraplane?
Wasn't that, apart from operations like Crete and Arnhem, a small %, especially with the Allies. Wouldn't existing amounts of C-47 Skytrains be plenty for that? Unless you're going to plan an even larger para-assault then in Normandy or Arnhem, you won't need more for those.

I've read 'Fate is the Hunter' by Ernest Gann and I got the idea 90% or so of transport aircraft wasn't used for para's and the likes.
 
Would be interesting to see what would have resulted if the UK had realised sooner than 1938 that its civilian aircraft were going to be increasingly outclassed by the opposition from the US and mainland Europe and civilian specifications 14/38 and 15/38 had been issued earlier.

14/38 resulted in the 4 Hercules engined Short S32 (three fuselages were already being built when WW2 started)

Wingspan:............38.8 m (127' 6")
Length:...............27.7 m (90' 9")
Empty Weight:.....17,710 kg (39,050 lbs)
All-up Weight:......32,210 kg (71,000 lbs)

Performance:
Max Speed:.........443 km/h (275 mph) or
...................................530 km/h (330 mph) if pressurised at 7620 m (25,000 ')
Range: ..............5470 km (3,400 miles)

and 15/38 was won by the 4 Taurus (Wright Cyclone) engined Fairey FC.1

Engine availability would be a problem but I wonder if Bristol can be persuaded to double row their existing engines...

FaireyfCI.gif


Piccie of an FC.1 but without the triple tail the S32 looked vaguely similar but with the wing mounted higher up on the fuselage.
 
Last edited:
Para may not be the main job of transport planes, but when it is needed it is vital and should be done as best as humanly possible.

It's a bit like WW2 destroyers and torpedos, it wasn't often that they needed torps, but when they did they really needed them and as a result they just could not be omitted.
 

Moglwi

Monthly Donor
Rear Drop down door

I just realised a probleam with the invention of a dro down door at the rear of a cargo plane the non use of tricycle undercarragie the only plane I can thing tht used it is the airacobra would this be a probleam?
 
I just realised a probleam with the invention of a dro down door at the rear of a cargo plane the non use of tricycle undercarragie the only plane I can thing tht used it is the airacobra would this be a probleam?

Since ticycle undercarriage was being looked at pre WW2, I dont see a problem.
 

Moglwi

Monthly Donor
Since ticycle undercarriage was being looked at pre WW2, I dont see a problem.

That what I like about this board the wealth of knowlage. We can see the benifit of a drop down rear door like the angled flight deck for aircraft carriers but whould it havestruck an engineer in the 30's?
 
Top