Me 321 Gigant cargo bay dimensions + loading schemes

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
User avatar
kfbr392
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 17:05
Location: Germany

Me 321 Gigant cargo bay dimensions + loading schemes

#1

Post by kfbr392 » 06 Nov 2004, 16:47

- 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
Attachments
Me321_02.jpg
Me321_02.jpg (57.16 KiB) Viewed 3392 times
Me321_03.jpg
Me321_03.jpg (74.1 KiB) Viewed 3391 times
Me321_05.jpg
Me321_05.jpg (92.67 KiB) Viewed 3393 times

User avatar
kfbr392
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 17:05
Location: Germany

#2

Post by kfbr392 » 08 Nov 2004, 22:28

here is some more.

again, who has more data?
Attachments
Me323_01.jpg
Me323_01.jpg (44.51 KiB) Viewed 3378 times
Me323_02.jpg
Me323_02.jpg (112.96 KiB) Viewed 3378 times
Me323_03.jpg
Me323_03.jpg (105.67 KiB) Viewed 3381 times


brustcan
Member
Posts: 276
Joined: 30 Mar 2004, 05:38
Location: canada

Me-321

#3

Post by brustcan » 20 Nov 2004, 07:00

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

User avatar
kfbr392
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 17:05
Location: Germany

#4

Post by kfbr392 » 20 Nov 2004, 13:32

thanks brustscan!

User avatar
Alter Mann
Member
Posts: 686
Joined: 11 Jan 2003, 05:50
Location: Texas County, Missouri

Gigant Load Plan

#5

Post by Alter Mann » 21 Nov 2004, 00:48

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.

User avatar
kfbr392
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 17:05
Location: Germany

#6

Post by kfbr392 » 26 Nov 2004, 16:49

thanks.

here are some more pics:
Attachments
Me_323_03.jpg
Me_323_03.jpg (22.11 KiB) Viewed 3369 times
Me321_06.jpg
Me321_06.jpg (118.5 KiB) Viewed 3370 times
Me321B_cp01.jpg
Me321B_cp01.jpg (19.16 KiB) Viewed 3371 times

Jan-Hendrik
Member
Posts: 8695
Joined: 11 Nov 2004, 13:53
Location: Hohnhorst / Deutschland

#7

Post by Jan-Hendrik » 31 Dec 2004, 16:04

Here :

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waf ... 323Ver.htm

you can find many more pictures about loading a "Gigant" ...


Jan-Hendrik

User avatar
Davide Pastore
Member
Posts: 2768
Joined: 26 Nov 2005, 23:05
Location: Germagnano, Italy
Contact:

Re:

#8

Post by Davide Pastore » 29 Feb 2008, 21:27

Jan-Hendrik wrote:Here :
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waf ... 323Ver.htm
you can find many more pictures about loading a "Gigant" ...
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).

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.

Trackhead M2
Member
Posts: 1004
Joined: 24 Mar 2012, 17:48
Location: North Utica, IL

Re: Me 321 Gigant cargo bay dimensions + loading schemes

#9

Post by Trackhead M2 » 30 Apr 2012, 18:51

sturmfxr wrote:here is some more.

again, who has more data?
Dear s,
The artillery looks like it might be horse drawn, were there gliders bringing horses as well?
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2

User avatar
Snautzer05
Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 25 May 2011, 22:15

Re: Me 321 Gigant cargo bay dimensions + loading schemes

#10

Post by Snautzer05 » 07 May 2012, 10:43

yes

Trackhead M2
Member
Posts: 1004
Joined: 24 Mar 2012, 17:48
Location: North Utica, IL

Re: Me 321 Gigant cargo bay dimensions + loading schemes

#11

Post by Trackhead M2 » 07 May 2012, 15:02

Snautzer05 wrote:yes
Dear Big S,
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

User avatar
Snautzer05
Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 25 May 2011, 22:15

Re: Me 321 Gigant cargo bay dimensions + loading schemes

#12

Post by Snautzer05 » 08 May 2012, 13:08

The dont look sedated to me but i really do not know if they did.
Attachments
Clipboard01.jpg

Trackhead M2
Member
Posts: 1004
Joined: 24 Mar 2012, 17:48
Location: North Utica, IL

Re: Me 321 Gigant cargo bay dimensions + loading schemes

#13

Post by Trackhead M2 » 08 May 2012, 22:53

Snautzer05 wrote:The dont look sedated to me but i really do not know if they did.
Dear Big S,
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

User avatar
Snautzer05
Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 25 May 2011, 22:15

Re: Me 321 Gigant cargo bay dimensions + loading schemes

#14

Post by Snautzer05 » 08 May 2012, 23:01

Dear Enormous TH-M2, horses played more then a great part in ww2.

Trackhead M2
Member
Posts: 1004
Joined: 24 Mar 2012, 17:48
Location: North Utica, IL

Re: Me 321 Gigant cargo bay dimensions + loading schemes

#15

Post by Trackhead M2 » 09 May 2012, 22:17

Snautzer05 wrote:Dear Enormous TH-M2, horses played more then a great part in ww2.
Dear S,
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.

Post Reply

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”