Twin boom cargo aircraft

Isn´t there a new aircraft from Sukhoi that is a twin boom aircraft ?

The twin boom design was the best layout for the the C-82 as it allowed easy front and rear (straight through) cargo access, a clear area for aerial dropping, and kept the overall height from ground to fin tip relatively low. The C-119 was simply a development which lacked front loading. The Argosy was another straight through loader (ideal for car ferry and ro-ro cargo), although that was deleted on the RAF version.
I don’t know much about the Noratlas or whether it shared anything with the above designs, but maybe the low fin height was considered important.

Another reason comes to mind in the availability of ever more powerful engines leading to greater speed so that more load can be taken on a similar wing area. Where do you put the extra load space? There comes a point at which greater beam is not neccessary so, like so many passenger jets, it goes on the length. No extra drag from frontal area and only a little more parasitic drag due to surface friction. Eventually the fuselage is so long that it is pointless adding extra torsional strength for wing to support the tail boom’s weight plus the downward stabilising forces. You might as well stick a tail on the fuselage that’s already there and even if you need increased fin area because its out of the propwash you’re still winning.

I mean, can you imagine a twin boomed Andover?
The thought wouldn’t linger long, would it?

although the Argosy 100 could not carry anything very far and was very slow.

Argosy performance was not of course helped by the traditional MOD approach to a/c procurement ie keep changing the requirements and also adding so much weight to the original design that it becomes pretty useless.
Back in the design stage Roy Dobson had insisted on the use of the shackleton wing to ‘save money’ and therefore the a/c ended up with a higher drag wing approx 1500 Lb heavier than the original AWA design.

cheers baz

The Belfast had huge problems with drag due to its more conventional shape, after all.

Until, halfway through the “production run” they fitted a reshaped tail fairing, which raised the cruising speed by 40 mph. This went on all 5 aircraft already built and the 5 still building.

Part of the reason could be that placing of the fins behind the inboard propellers made them more effective and thus smaller, hence less weight of rear fuselage and less drag for the same result. The Belfast had huge problems with drag due to its more conventional shape, after all. Presumably someone at AW did the sums and proved this was the better arrangement, although the Argosy 100 could not carry anything very far and was very slow. Also it did of course also mean that you could not easily extend the fuselage (e.g. Hercules C3).

NB On the Argosy, you could drive in the front and out the back, hence quicker turnrounds if carrying cars. I recall that there was a published comment from a BEA Argosy pilot that it was “like landing a cottage from the bedroom window”!

Let’s not forget the Miles Aerovan. The first drawings for this were produced in 1944 and the prototype – U-0248/G-AGOZ – first flew in January 1945. Definitely not a twin boom but its large format rear loading facility was revolutionary amongst UK produced aircraft in the latter years of WW2!

They were replaced by clamshell doors when it was developed into the Blackburn Beverley, the tailboom on this was used for extra accomodation.

The rear doors had to be removed before used for dropping and deflectors fitted to the sides of the opening thus left! Not an easy task in inclement weather.

RAY

Although not initially designed as a cargo transport, the UB-14 was capable of carrying a fair sized payload in 1934.

Which was the first?

Don’t let’s forget the Noratlas.
Which was the first twin boom transport? The C82 design dates from 1941 (first flight 1944), while the C119 and Noratlas were of 1947 vintage, although I think the C119 flew first (1947 as opposed to 1953 for the Noratlas). So was the C82 the first, or were there any earlier?
Laurence

At the risk of sounding like an anorak…I have to point out a couple of WWII-era transports did have rear loading ramps:

The Budd Conestoga RB-1…A few were used by the Navy, perhaps their greater contribution came as being the initial aircraft for what became the Flying Tigers all freight airline.

And don’t forget the C-97s (f.f. Nov, 1944) had a rear loading ramp that was missing from the later, more numerous tanker variants of the Boeing B-29 turned transport.

Also, the Curtiss C-76 Caravan had a high wing but a hinged nose (obviously no good for dropping stuff in flight, but shows a they were on the right track with a single tail transport).

The German Ju90, 252, 352, 290 and 390 series and the EF100 transports did have a rear door/ramp but from what i’ve seen, they don’t represent proper ‘beaver tails’ and i’ve never heard of them being opened in flight – more a Blackburn Beverly type of tail althougth the original Universal Freighter GAL60 had doors and ramps.

Heres a good answer! Fuselage mounted tails were not developed to leave a rear entrance until the fifties so the above mentioned aircraft were easier to load/unload and parachute cargo and paratroopers from. The high wing mounted engines were out of the way of debris on rough field operations.
Ray

The GAL60 Universal Freighter had a ramp and doors, the actual tail projected further back from them, though I don’t think they could be opened in flight.

They were replaced by clamshell doors when it was developed into the Blackburn Beverley, the tailboom on this was used for extra accomodation.

Heres a good answer! Fuselage mounted tails were not developed to leave a rear entrance until the fifties so the above mentioned aircraft were easier to load/unload and parachute cargo and paratroopers from. The high wing mounted engines were out of the way of debris on rough field operations.
Ray

Sounds logical…perhaps the state of the art of aircraft design made it more logical to make a twin boom transport.
At the risk of sounding like an anorak…I have to point out a couple of WWII-era transports did have rear loading ramps:

The Budd Conestoga RB-1…A few were used by the Navy, perhaps their greater contribution came as being the initial aircraft for what became the Flying Tigers all freight airline.

And don’t forget the C-97s (f.f. Nov, 1944) had a rear loading ramp that was missing from the later, more numerous tanker variants of the Boeing B-29 turned transport.

Also, the Curtiss C-76 Caravan had a high wing but a hinged nose (obviously no good for dropping stuff in flight, but shows a they were on the right track with a single tail transport).

There have been a number of twin boom cargo aircraft – the Argosy, the C-82, C-119 plus designs that never got off the drawing board.

Why was this arrangement used for these designs over the now usual fuselage mounted tail?

Heres a good answer! Fuselage mounted tails were not developed to leave a rear entrance until the fifties so the above mentioned aircraft were easier to load/unload and parachute cargo and paratroopers from. The high wing mounted engines were out of the way of debris on rough field operations.
Ray

That’s a good question.