• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Could the Hamilcar Mark X have been used as a low-cost transport plane?

Hendryk

Taken back control yet?
Published by SLP
Location
France
The General Aircraft Hamilcar was designed as a heavy-duty glider, but as was the case in Germany with the Me 321 Gigant, the option of making it self-powered was explored. The result was the Mark X, which was fitted with two Bristol Mercury engines. Those were intended to assist in take-off when heavily loaded, but it turned out the Mark X could also take off under its own power with a maximum load of 3.175 metric tons, which seems respectable compared to what, say, a DC-3 could carry.

Only about 20 were made and the end of the war put a stop to further development. But did the Mark X have potential as a low-cost transport plane? Perhaps, say, for hauling vehicles and other bulky cargo to places like remote mining settlements?

409965023.jpg
 
I did a lot of research when I wrote the Hamilcar Wikipedia article a while ago, and while the Mark X was impressive, I just can't see what advantages it would have over, as you say, a DC-3 or similar. Hamilcars were rather unwieldy and did have a tendency to suddenly break apart in mid-air
 
I did a lot of research when I wrote the Hamilcar Wikipedia article a while ago, and while the Mark X was impressive, I just can't see what advantages it would have over, as you say, a DC-3 or similar.
One advantage I had in mind is that the Hamilcar can transport a vehicle. But I was also wondering about manufacturing cost (though I'm aware it's something of a moot point in the post-WW2 years considering the huge amount of secodn-hand DC-3 dumped on the civilian market): do you happen to know the price of the Mark X?

Hamilcars were rather unwieldy and did have a tendency to suddenly break apart in mid-air
Was this due to a design flaw, or was it inherent to its wooden structure?
 
Over at Whatifmodelers.com someone suggested replacing the Bristol Mercury engines with Hercules ones. Any thoughts about that?
 
But did the Mark X have potential as a low-cost transport plane?

The reason the Hamilcar was cheap and quick to produce was that it was composed primarily of a canvas skin over a birch and spruce frame; structural members requiring greater strength were built of steel rather than aluminium, and they were only where absolutely critical. The result is indeed cheap, but it is not durable. It was designed to make one flight and then be written off; a transport aircraft has to be reliably reusable, and that requires considerably more structural strength than the Hamilcar had. Even if the canvas wings were kept, the result would effectively be an entirely new aircraft, considerably more sophisticated and also more costly; you'd be looking at something larger than, but not dissimilar to an Antonov An-2, sans the biplane, and even then it is doubtful that you could produce a reliable heavy haulage transport.
 
Last edited:
The reason the Hamilcar was cheap and quick to produce was that it was composed primarily of a canvas skin over a birch and spruce frame; structural members requiring greater strength were built of steel rather than aluminium, and they were only where absolutely critical. The result is indeed cheap, but it is not durable.
OK then. I was sort of hoping that the Mk. X could have been an earlier analog to the Fairchild C-123, which also started out as a glider and became a reliable transport aircraft, but if it is too fragile to be used more than once, that settles it.
 
Back
Top