Me 321 Gigant cargo bay dimensions + loading schemes
Me 321 Gigant cargo bay dimensions + loading schemes
- What were the exact dimensions of the Me 321 Gigant cargo bay? I know it was narrowing towards the end, but who has the most precise data of all the sections?
- What loading schemes were devised and employed?
I know of SdKfz 7 with 88mm Flak, a Pz III (2950mm wide!) or 150 soldiers. Who has the original manuals??? Christoph, you?
a+
matt
- What loading schemes were devised and employed?
I know of SdKfz 7 with 88mm Flak, a Pz III (2950mm wide!) or 150 soldiers. Who has the original manuals??? Christoph, you?
a+
matt
- Attachments
-
- Me321_02.jpg (57.16 KiB) Viewed 3392 times
-
- Me321_03.jpg (74.1 KiB) Viewed 3391 times
-
- Me321_05.jpg (92.67 KiB) Viewed 3393 times
Me-321
Hello! On October 18, 1940 Junkers and Meserschmitt were each given 14 days in which to submit their outline designs for gliders, given the numbers
Ju -322 and Me-261 by the RLM. The designs were to be able to carry an
88mm gun and its halftrack tractor, or a PzKpf IV Tank. The Junkers-322
"Mammut" prototype while flying loaded, had the tank fall through it's floor!
Messerschmitt received the contract to build 200. The number changed from Me-261 to Me-263 and then to Me-321. The strong cross beams could
carry a PzKpfW IV tank weighing approx: 20000kg(44,092lbs). For troops
planks were added to the upper cross beams to give two level capacity.
The front door opening was 3.04m(10feet) wide and 3.45m(11feet) high.
The height of 11 feet went back for 36feet(10.97m) after which the height starts to decrease to approx: 6 feet. Cheers brustcan
Ju -322 and Me-261 by the RLM. The designs were to be able to carry an
88mm gun and its halftrack tractor, or a PzKpf IV Tank. The Junkers-322
"Mammut" prototype while flying loaded, had the tank fall through it's floor!
Messerschmitt received the contract to build 200. The number changed from Me-261 to Me-263 and then to Me-321. The strong cross beams could
carry a PzKpfW IV tank weighing approx: 20000kg(44,092lbs). For troops
planks were added to the upper cross beams to give two level capacity.
The front door opening was 3.04m(10feet) wide and 3.45m(11feet) high.
The height of 11 feet went back for 36feet(10.97m) after which the height starts to decrease to approx: 6 feet. Cheers brustcan
- Alter Mann
- Member
- Posts: 686
- Joined: 11 Jan 2003, 05:50
- Location: Texas County, Missouri
Gigant Load Plan
Just some general info on aircraft load plans based on the Air Force Load Planner's Course.
The two most important considerations are the maximum safe lift capacity of the aircraft and maintaining the aircraft's center of gravity within an area that will not cause the aircraft to become unstable in flight.
The first one is a 'no-brainer' but the second one may require some explanation. The aircraft has a fairly well known center of gravity when unloaded. Adjustments to trim, etc. will keep the aircraft stable in flight with little effort from the pilot. Adding large amounts of weight to the aircraft by loading it with troops or vehicles can change the center of gravity of the aircraft beyond the range where 'trimming' the aircraft is practical. This makes the aircraft unstable in flight and requires a lot of extra effort on the part of the flight crew to keep it in the air and pointed in the right direction.
For instance, loading a few PzKpfw IIIs in the nose and 'pax' (passengers) in the rear, will probably make the aircraft nose heavy. (Pax with equipment are still estimated at 200 pounds each.) Switch the pax and the AFVs and the aircraft becomes tail heavy.
Transverse movement of the CG is also a problem. If you load motorcycles or guns one one side and pax on the other, the aircraft will have a tendency to turn a lot faster in one direction than the other, even with counter-rotating propellors.
There is a spherical area within the aircraft where, if the Center of Gravity is within this sphere, the aircraft is considered to be flyable. The load planner's job is to get as much cargo as possible, including pax, loaded onto the aircraft while still mainting the CG in the safe area. The load planner disregards the distribution of fuel in the aircraft fuel tanks, a significant part of the load, and the flight crew is responsible for making sure that fuel distribution does not move the CG out of the flyable range.
For each aircraft and load, there are usually several possibilities for the load plan. If this is the case, the load planner has to take into consideration what part of the cargo needs to unload, or be unloaded first. If the mix is pax and AFVs, the pax will probably be arranged so that they can unload first, because the AFVs need to be tied down and chocked, so they take longer to unload.
I almost forgot that this tying down is the third factor. Any loose cargo that shifts during flight changes the position of the CG. If the crew can't maintain stability in flight, there is a good chance that the cargo will shift to a point where it will cause the aircraft to crash almost immediately.
The two most important considerations are the maximum safe lift capacity of the aircraft and maintaining the aircraft's center of gravity within an area that will not cause the aircraft to become unstable in flight.
The first one is a 'no-brainer' but the second one may require some explanation. The aircraft has a fairly well known center of gravity when unloaded. Adjustments to trim, etc. will keep the aircraft stable in flight with little effort from the pilot. Adding large amounts of weight to the aircraft by loading it with troops or vehicles can change the center of gravity of the aircraft beyond the range where 'trimming' the aircraft is practical. This makes the aircraft unstable in flight and requires a lot of extra effort on the part of the flight crew to keep it in the air and pointed in the right direction.
For instance, loading a few PzKpfw IIIs in the nose and 'pax' (passengers) in the rear, will probably make the aircraft nose heavy. (Pax with equipment are still estimated at 200 pounds each.) Switch the pax and the AFVs and the aircraft becomes tail heavy.
Transverse movement of the CG is also a problem. If you load motorcycles or guns one one side and pax on the other, the aircraft will have a tendency to turn a lot faster in one direction than the other, even with counter-rotating propellors.
There is a spherical area within the aircraft where, if the Center of Gravity is within this sphere, the aircraft is considered to be flyable. The load planner's job is to get as much cargo as possible, including pax, loaded onto the aircraft while still mainting the CG in the safe area. The load planner disregards the distribution of fuel in the aircraft fuel tanks, a significant part of the load, and the flight crew is responsible for making sure that fuel distribution does not move the CG out of the flyable range.
For each aircraft and load, there are usually several possibilities for the load plan. If this is the case, the load planner has to take into consideration what part of the cargo needs to unload, or be unloaded first. If the mix is pax and AFVs, the pax will probably be arranged so that they can unload first, because the AFVs need to be tied down and chocked, so they take longer to unload.
I almost forgot that this tying down is the third factor. Any loose cargo that shifts during flight changes the position of the CG. If the crew can't maintain stability in flight, there is a good chance that the cargo will shift to a point where it will cause the aircraft to crash almost immediately.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8695
- Joined: 11 Nov 2004, 13:53
- Location: Hohnhorst / Deutschland
Here :
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waf ... 323Ver.htm
you can find many more pictures about loading a "Gigant" ...
Jan-Hendrik
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waf ... 323Ver.htm
you can find many more pictures about loading a "Gigant" ...
Jan-Hendrik
- Davide Pastore
- Member
- Posts: 2768
- Joined: 26 Nov 2005, 23:05
- Location: Germagnano, Italy
- Contact:
Re:
If I am not mistaken, the largest load amongst the ones depicted in that page is the Sd Kfz 7 + sFH 18 (for a total weight of 6.304+11.550=17.854kg according to this source, bottom of the page, although my books say 5.512+9.750kg=15.262kg).Jan-Hendrik wrote:Here :
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waf ... 323Ver.htm
you can find many more pictures about loading a "Gigant" ...
Question: what was the heaviest load Me 321 and Me 323, respectively, did really carry in flight?
I am not talking about theoretical project specification (22t for the glider) but to loads actually carried, at least during trials.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: 24 Mar 2012, 17:48
- Location: North Utica, IL
Re: Me 321 Gigant cargo bay dimensions + loading schemes
Dear s,sturmfxr wrote:here is some more.
again, who has more data?
The artillery looks like it might be horse drawn, were there gliders bringing horses as well?
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2
- Snautzer05
- Member
- Posts: 312
- Joined: 25 May 2011, 22:15
-
- Member
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: 24 Mar 2012, 17:48
- Location: North Utica, IL
Re: Me 321 Gigant cargo bay dimensions + loading schemes
Dear Big S,Snautzer05 wrote:yes
If the yes is to Horses in the gliders, did they have to sedate the horses for flying? I am not so sure they would be easy air travelers.
Strike Swiflty,
TH-M2
- Snautzer05
- Member
- Posts: 312
- Joined: 25 May 2011, 22:15
Re: Me 321 Gigant cargo bay dimensions + loading schemes
The dont look sedated to me but i really do not know if they did.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: 24 Mar 2012, 17:48
- Location: North Utica, IL
Re: Me 321 Gigant cargo bay dimensions + loading schemes
Dear Big S,Snautzer05 wrote:The dont look sedated to me but i really do not know if they did.
I don't know either. But leave it to NAZI Germany to combine what was the highest technology of the time with prime movers that were medieval. At least if you are under siege you can eat the prime movers.
Strike Swifty,
TH-M2
- Snautzer05
- Member
- Posts: 312
- Joined: 25 May 2011, 22:15
Re: Me 321 Gigant cargo bay dimensions + loading schemes
Dear Enormous TH-M2, horses played more then a great part in ww2.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: 24 Mar 2012, 17:48
- Location: North Utica, IL
Re: Me 321 Gigant cargo bay dimensions + loading schemes
Dear S,Snautzer05 wrote:Dear Enormous TH-M2, horses played more then a great part in ww2.
Horses were a part of the war. It just seemed odd that the Fallschirmjaeger would still use them. The US Army used its horses at Corrigedor; they ate them. The mule was still an Allied prime mover in Italy and Burma as the terrain didn't permit the use of motor vehicles.
Strike Swifly,
TH-M2
P.S. As to enormity, let's leave my belly out of this.