WWII WI

Being the aviation nut that I am, I have always been fond with the aircraft of WW2 that never flew. One in particular was the wooden built Hughes Aircraft H-4 Hercules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules.

Specifications (H-4)
Performance specifications are projected.
General characteristics
  • Crew: 3
  • Length: 218 ft 8 in (66.65 m)
  • Wingspan: 319 ft 11 in (97.54 m)
  • Height: 79 ft 4 in (24.18 m)
  • Fuselage height: 30 ft (9.1 m)
Performance
  • Projected endurance (cruise): 20.9 hrs
The idea of this aircraft, to my knowledge the first of its kind was to send everything from troops to tanks to the war in Europe and be able to avoid German U-Boats, I believe the idea was to drop them off in Great Britain and go from there.

The project began in 1942 and were supposed to have three built no later than 1944, however it was never finished on time and only one was built, which didn't fly until 1947.

Here is the WI, lets say Hughes Aircraft accomplished their task and built three six months ahead of schedule around 1943. The U.S. Government approves of this aircraft and builds them on a factory assembly line up until the end of the war.

Two questions:
  1. How could have this affected the war? The H-4 Hercules was expected to carry at least 400,000 lbs worth of cargo.
  2. Hughes Aircraft built the largest cargo...scratch that...largest plane in history up until the mid 1960s. This aircraft is still larger than the U.S. Air Force's C-17 globemaster III and only 30 feet shorter than a C-5 Galaxy. So, the question is, if this aircraft was successful-how would the history of heavy aircraft be changed?
 
I doubt it gives the US or the Allies much advantage if any at all.
Flying something over instead of shipping is extremely expensive, especially 60+ years ago.
Building a small fleet of these aircraft will mean the Americans have to give something else up, something they'll more then likely need much more then these beasts.
Untill the germans start sinking 99 out of every 100 ships crossing the Atlantic, sealift is much preferred over airlift.

The only place a dedicated heavy airlift airplane would have served purpose would IMHO the airbridge over the Hump; where there was no way to transport supplies any other way. But I doubt the Spruce Goose, how awesome it may look, is capable of flying higher then a few hundred feet.

Besides, nowadays (military) transportaircraft are shrinking again, for example the C-17 is smaller then the plane it replaces, the C-5. Apparently the militaries worldwide prefer more versatile, somewhat smaller aircraft capable of landing on smaller airstrips (and of lower quality).

Even today there is only a very, very limited market for aircraft capable of carrying huge loads, like the An-225.
The low demand for such aircraft is proven by the fact there are only 1 or 2 An-225's and Antonov isn't planning to develop a new model, neither is anybody in the US or Europe.

So basically:
1; no
2; not
:D
 
The H-4 needed more powerful engines to fly worth a damn. But it did manage to do that and haul a large amount of cargo (200 tons is out of the question, it wouldn't stay airborne with that much weight, 60-70 tons is probably more appropriate) then it would be helpful for stuff like mail, parts that were needed right now, light weapons like anti-tank rifles and so forth, which is shipped much faster by plane than by ship.
 
Top