DC-3: Floatplane variant? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Nemo121 -> DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 12:17:33 PM)

I'm wondering if there was ever a floatplane variant of the DC-3. It seems to me that it would make sense to investigate a floatplane variant with the following modifications:

1. Place wings at the top of the fuselage ( obvious reasons ).

2. Strengthen the base of the fuselage to provide the main float.

3. Subsidiary floats along the wings.


Now, my question is just what kind of deterioration in performance would this create?
My guess is that you'd have at least a 20% reduction in cargo capacity due to the weight required to create the float along the base of the fuselage accompanied by at least a 20 to 30% reduction in range ( due to the less aerodynamic shape ). This is assuming no change in the engines.

I don't however have any way of accurately assessing this and I'd appreciate some input. I'm thinking of how an L2D2 variant which would be basically a flying boat would function.



Terminus -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 12:34:56 PM)

There was:

[image]local://upfiles/16369/781CB731D0534DD793074066091A97CC.jpg[/image]



Local Yokel -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 12:37:52 PM)

In 1943 a C-47A was experimentally fitted with Edo Model 78 amphibious float gear. This aircraft, redesignated C-47C, was first flown at La Guardia Field and transferred to Wright Field on 13 June 1943 for further evaluation.

The float gear reduced cruising speed by approximately 30 m.p.h, whilst payload was reduced by between 3,500-4,000 lb. Fitting of floats had the effect of moving the c.g. forward, and this increased the criticality of weight distribution when loading the aircraft. Also, servicing the amphibious gear was perceived to be a problem: changing a tyre required the use of two 9' jacks and six 2' jacks in order to lift the entire aeroplane the forty-nine inches required for removal of a wheel.

Because additional ramps and docks were going to be required for cargo transhipment that were unlikely to be found on small island bases, the C-47C project was abandoned.

I think you must be thinking of conversion of a C-47 into a flying boat, but this conversion involved the altogether more straightforward addition of a pair of floats. Same approach as the Junker Ju 52/3mW, though the German conversion seems to have regarded as more successful.



Terminus -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 12:39:41 PM)

To sum up, it was a bad idea.

My favourite C-47 variant:

[image]local://upfiles/16369/107815BE1A88485FBEB08C638AF2C7A3.jpg[/image]



wdolson -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 12:39:58 PM)

Before it became obvious that it was going to be easy to build airfields almost anywhere, there were a number of floatplane experiments done with several aircraft types.  You can even get a 1/24 scale model of the float plane Spitfire.  They usually go cheap on Ebay since few people are interested in spending a lot of money for an x plane project that never went anywhere.

Bill



Nemo121 -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 12:44:31 PM)

The floatplane spitfire was actually deployed in Egypt. There are pictures of its operational deployment on the web... I'm not sure if it saw combat though. I know cause I stumbled across some when I was searching for DC-3 + amphibious earlier this morning. FloatSpit


Local Yokel,

Aye that solution seems great... Easy to do also, a lot easier than a full floatplane conversion. Not as bad of a degradation as I was expecting actually.



m10bob -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 12:46:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

To sum up, it was a bad idea.

My favourite C-47 variant:

[image]local://upfiles/16369/107815BE1A88485FBEB08C638AF2C7A3.jpg[/image]


I saw some of these on the ground where I "lived", for a time.The pilots were very cavalier, handlebar mustaches, old leather jackets, "Fifty mission crush" type hats on a couple of them..



Terminus -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 12:48:22 PM)

Air Commandos...



Terminus -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 12:50:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

The floatplane spitfire was actually deployed in Egypt. There are pictures of its operational deployment on the web... I'm not sure if it saw combat though. I know cause I stumbled across some when I was searching for DC-3 + amphibious earlier this morning. FloatSpit



It wasn't deployed "as such", and it certainly didn't see combat. Dead-end technology, and only three Mk V's and about the same in Mk IX's were converted.



Terminus -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 12:52:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Local Yokel,

Aye that solution seems great... Easy to do also, a lot easier than a full floatplane conversion. Not as bad of a degradation as I was expecting actually.


Erm, it lost two TONS of payload and gained about as much in performance and maintenance issues. How bad did you think it would be?[&:]



Nemo121 -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 12:58:48 PM)

Well, obviously, worse than that... as I stated in my post.

In-game troop transports are useless once the Allies bomb an airfield and close it to transports. So, having a transport which does 60 to 70% of the job BUT can do it even when the airfield is closed is actually quite a good deal. It makes the difference between allowing the Allies to rob you of a capability and allowing them only the ability to degrade your capability 40%. I'd rather have 60% of a capability than 0%.



Local Yokel -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 1:01:29 PM)

If the need for such a transport had been pressing enough, the downside might have been tolerable. My guess is that the need for additional cargo-handling infrastructure is what really killed enthusiasm for it. That and the fact that if you stuck something heavy enough in that rear cargo hatch, the aeroplane all too readily sat back on its tail assembly. By-product of starting out as a tail-dragger.



Nemo121 -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 1:08:38 PM)

Aye, for the Americans that was an issue. They could keep their airfields open and could build airfields anywhere.

I am thinking of Japan in 1944. They were building subs to transport cargo sacrificing combat capability for the ability to actually reach isolated islands. It seems to me they'd be reasonably happy to sacrifice cargo capacity in L2D2s in order to be sure to get supplies through. Of course the reason they probably didn't need them is that it was more difficult to close an airfield in real life than it is in the game... But in game terms this makes sense, even if it may not have made quite as much sense in the real world.



Terminus -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 1:24:26 PM)

You've already got transport variants of the IJN's flying boats. Why not produce more of them, rather than add yet another type to an aviation industry that can't produce all the types already on the rolls?



Reg -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 1:28:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

1. Place wings at the top of the fuselage ( obvious reasons ).



From an engineering aspect it would be easier to start with a completely new design. That is not an insignificant change.

And there were plenty of flying boat designs around already....



Nemo121 -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 1:39:58 PM)

I'm finding the Japanese really didn't have many flying boat designs. Lots of floatplanes but not many flying boats with reasonable cargo capacity. The closest other suitable flying boat would be the H9A trainer. I am postulating a cargo capacity of about 6,000lbs gained by reducing the range a little ( since it is a transport not a patrol ) and removing 3 of the 5 crew and fitting more powerful engines ( not difficult since by 1945 even osbolete-ish mid-war engines generated more than 710hp



PaxMondo -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 2:03:25 PM)

What's wrong with the Emily transport version? Big cargo capacity, big range so you can base way back in your safe zone, and already in your build queue ....



Terminus -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 2:04:48 PM)

Nothing wrong with it at all.



oldman45 -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 2:28:00 PM)

My first thought was the Emily also. Even the Mavis could be used in a pinch.



Terminus -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 2:42:25 PM)

Both exist in transport variants.



Shark7 -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 6:10:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

To sum up, it was a bad idea.

My favourite C-47 variant:

[image]local://upfiles/16369/107815BE1A88485FBEB08C638AF2C7A3.jpg[/image]


Oooh...Spooky! [:D]



Nemo121 -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 7:26:54 PM)

Well, here's some mod-specific reasoning...

As the war is grinding on Japan is always looking for ways to do more with less. its defensive perimeter is shrinking so it doesn't need as much range but it does need a way to shuttle troops around and reinforce isolated garrisons.

So, the need for 4-engined flying boats diminishes and a 2-engined flying boat with moderate transport range ( say 20 hexes ) but high payload increases. Upgrading the engines on the H9A to help increase its payload seems like a pretty good way to go about that.

Thanks all.



Terminus -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 7:30:49 PM)

And precisely how much extra payload do you expect to be able to put on that very tiny airplane?



PaxMondo -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 8:33:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well, here's some mod-specific reasoning...

As the war is grinding on Japan is always looking for ways to do more with less. its defensive perimeter is shrinking so it doesn't need as much range but it does need a way to shuttle troops around and reinforce isolated garrisons.

So, the need for 4-engined flying boats diminishes and a 2-engined flying boat with moderate transport range ( say 20 hexes ) but high payload increases. Upgrading the engines on the H9A to help increase its payload seems like a pretty good way to go about that.

Thanks all.

Nemo,

Understood.

This is my personal take on it ... use it as you see fit.

Flying boats are pretty weird "fish" ... meaning fairly unique designs as compared to other aircraft. So, could you spend design resources to get one? Sure. Prolly take a spin on a 2E (or a captured PBM Mariner) starting in early '43 and get there by '45. BUT, you're going to have to allocate a BIG chunk of your design team efforts to get there. Will the Ha-32 or Ha-33 engine work? Sure. Both good engines. But that doesn't take in all the other design needed. So, still a couple of years of intense design effort to get you into production.

When I sit back in my "if I were the Emperor" mode and think what is the best that could be done for IJ air designs, I'm not likely to squander my limited design team resources on a new flying boat design. I'm going to want to focus on fighter designs. IJ doesn't have unlimited design resources, and one of the big mistakes they made IMO was they spread those resources too thin with insufficient priority (hence a lot of designs arrive in '45).

Granted the Emily is an expensive transport. BUT, you are getting 2x the payload you would get on a twin engine so it isn't that bad. And the design is already pretty much done at game start, it still takes a year to get into production.

So, if you are working on a fantasy mod, and you want this plane, then I think you need to take at least one of your bomber designs (like Peggy or Frances) and remove it from the game. You'd have to say that the Peggy design team worked on this project instead.

Just my thoughts.



wdolson -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 11:20:56 PM)

The Japanese concentrated on cargo subs instead of cargo aircraft because subs could carry more per trip and though they were slower and took more crew, they weren't as vulnerable to US air power.  Most islands that needed these kinds of measures to keep the garrison alive also were interdicted by US air.  Flying any aircraft in and out was risky and transports are the most vulnerable of all aircraft to be flying in a war zone.  The Allied massacre of German transports off Tunisia is an example of how dangerous it is to try an air lift with enemy air about.  The Allies intercepted the trnasports with anything that had guns and the range to reach them which included bombers.

Bill



PaxMondo -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 11:27:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The Allies intercepted the trnasports with anything that had guns and the range to reach them which included bombers.

Bill


Bill, I did not know they had used bombers like that. Makes sense and against transports they would be deadly.



Terminus -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/12/2011 11:34:56 PM)

B-25 for one... I think the most peculiar air-to-air kill I've heard of was scored by a USN Privateer flying boat...



PaxMondo -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/13/2011 3:40:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

B-25 for one... I think the most peculiar air-to-air kill I've heard of was scored by a USN Privateer flying boat...


I agree ... that one was an "over-achiever". Wow.



Shark7 -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/13/2011 3:48:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

B-25 for one... I think the most peculiar air-to-air kill I've heard of was scored by a USN Privateer flying boat...


I don't know, a pair of old AD-1 Skyraiders taking out a MiG-17 during the Vietnam War might match it for over-achievement. [;)]



oldman45 -> RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? (6/13/2011 4:29:19 AM)

There is the story of the Sunderland that fought off 6-8 Ju-88's over the Bay of Biscay and made it home after shooting down a couple of them. A week before a B-24 was jumped in the same place and had gotten shot down.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.716797