"Modern" Helicopters in WWII

RyanC

Crazy Researcher
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
19 December 2006
Messages
977
Reaction score
735
Website
www.generalstaff.org
The "heavy" advanced helicopters of the 1950s could very well have been in WWII.

This is not crazy talk.

The H-34 Choctaw had a single R-1830 radial powering it -- the same engine that powered the:

DC-3/C-47
B-17
SBD Dauntless

Biggest issue is that helicopters were very much in the "Experimental" stage.

The R-4 was in limited use; with the R-5 coming along in 1945 when the war ended:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_H-5

That one had a single 450 hp R-985 radial.

The Germans had the Fa-223 Drache; which had a single 1,000 hp engine powering twin rotors. It oculd carry cargo loads up to 2,200 lb.

The Drache was to be developed in five versions originally:

Fa-223A ASW helicopter with two 250 kg bombs or depth charges.
Fa-223B observation/reconnaissance helicopter.
Fa-223C search and rescue helicopter.
Fa-223D transport helicopter.
Fa-223E dual control pilot training helicopter.

In the end, it was decided to make just one multi-purpose variant with different attachments.

The first Laupheim built Fa-223E-0 (V11) flew on June 21, 1943. The V11 exhibited its carrying ability by lifting such items as Fieseler Storch observation aircraft, an Me-109 fuselage, a one ton engine, and a Volkswagen military staff car.

Only about 20 Fa-223s were built; and one of the prototypes V16, was used by the German Mountain Warfare school over 83 flights, with a flying time of 20 hours to transport artillery guns and mountain troops.

Basically, during these tests; it:

A.) Lifted 1,100 pounds to a remote site at 6,500 ft elevation after a seven minute flight -- something that would need 20 men and nearly two days of strenuous climbing to accomplish conventionally.

B.) Lifted a mountain howitzer and ammunition via cable to a mountain peak.

C.) Carried as many as 12 men (4 inside cabin and 8 on tractor seats on outriggers)

When the tests ended on 5 October 1944, the Mountain Warfare school enthuastically endorsed the Fa-223.

On 11 October 1944, the RLM ordered all work to stop, in order to transfer all Focke-Achgelis personnel to Messerschmitt to assist in Me-262 production.

In December 1944, the RLM changed it's mind and decided that 400 a month were to be built at a new factory in Tempelhof Airport at Berlin. This, despite all tooling had been previously blown up by the USAAF in bombing raids.

Tempelhof actually did build one Fa-233E and it's story was pretty crazy.

It was delivered to the Luftwaffe and by "Order of the Fuhrer" on February 25, 1945, ordered to fly to Danzig.

It took off from Tempelhof the next morning to proceed on its mission. Due to dodging storms, Allied bombing attacks, advancing allied forces, and having to search for fuel, the helicopter did not arrive on the outskirts of Danzing until the evening of March 5th.

There, because of advancing Soviet forces, it was now impossible to fly into the center of Danzing as ordered. While awaiting orders on where to proceed, the crew got word that a fighter pilot had gotten lost in a snowstorm and had made a crash landing. Lt. Gerstenhauer took off in the Fa-223 and proceeded to search the area. The helicopter crew spotted the downed Me-109 with the injured pilot still in the cockpit. They rescued him and flew him back to the base for medical attention. By this time, Danzing was falling to the Russians, and the Fa-223's crew took off to try to reach a safer haven. Fuel was still a problem and when they did find a fuel stockpile, they realized that the Allies push had captured or destroyed all the friendly airfields along their projected route. After topping the tanks off, they loaded a 55 gallon drum of gasoline and a hand pump on board, took off and overflew the Soviet forces.

When they finally put down at the German base at Werder, they had flown a total of 1,041 mile on this escape mission. After a rest the ship was flown to Ainring to join Transportstaffel 40, only to be captured by American troops.

One of the survivors was actually flown across the English Channel post-war in September 1945, becoming the first helicopter to cross the channel.

With all that said...

There was nothing technically preventing a 10 (or more) passenger helicopter from being developed in WWII; the engines were available (1,000 hp radials or inlines) and construction techniques of the time were up to making the helicopters. (either stressed skin or aluminum pole frames).

You could have used the glider manufacturing base, albeit with some bleed off of engines and aluminum from other programs.

The short ranges of helicopters aren't a drawback -- airborne troops were never used to their maximum theoretical airdrop radiuses other than the early TORCH airdrops.

And unlike troop carriers/gliders; you can use the helicopters for other things after the airborne landing. That was a sore subject with Army leadership regarding Airborne Divisions in 1945; from AFRA Reel A1372 Frame 448:

9 Aug 1944
Memorandum to Marshall (Chief of Staff)
Subj: "Maximum Employment of Troop Carrier Units"


"Our troop carrier force in the United Kingdom, aggregating with associated services some 37,000 men, was employed for only five (5) days in the airborne phase of OVERLORD, subsequently carried out one (1) four-day resupply mission, and was then returned to theater training. There are indications that this force will soon be employed again tactically. Such employment with specially trained airborne forces apparently will continue to be intermittent."

800 x C-47s = 1,600 x R-1830s, 1,600 skilled pilots, 800 navigators, 800 radio operators, and 30,000 ground maintenance troops and you....can't really do much with them.

Whereas, if you halved the C-47 force; you suddenly get:

800 x R-1830s, 800 pilots free to equip hypothetical 12,000 to 15,000 lb Gross Weight helicopters carrying 14 men.

Unlike gliders; you can recycle and reuse them after operations; and unlike troop carriers; you can actually use them tactically for various missions (artillery spotting, casualty evac, etc) with the ground forces
 

Attachments

  • Fa223-V16-DM-ST-10 in Alps.jpg
    Fa223-V16-DM-ST-10 in Alps.jpg
    462.1 KB · Views: 21
It was not true that WW2 gliders were not recyclable. From 1944 efforts were made to recover them where possible. The overall percentage may have been small but it did happen.

Firstly some CG-4A and Horsas were recovered via the snatch technique. And as indicated in the following threads Britain made efforts to recover gliders from Overlord onwards.


This article has stats for USAAF snatch recoveries.
 
It was not true that WW2 gliders were not recyclable. From 1944 efforts were made to recover them where possible. The overall percentage may have been small but it did happen.

My Dear EwenS,

From your own link(s):

...less than 17 percent of the American gliders and 6 percent of the British gliders which had landed east of the Rhine [VARSITY] were recovered in usable condition....

...97 percent of the gliders used by American forces in the Normandy landings were left to rot in narrow pastures in which they landed...


Granted, most of this was non-strategic materials using industries which would otherwise not really be able to contribute to the war effort (woodmaking) -- and most of the gliders would have "timed out" anyway from wood rot, so it wasn't as bad as it could be, but it could be a lot better.
 
The successful German attack on the Belgium Fort Eben Emael wouldn’t have been possible with noisy helicopters. At least before the introduction of radar, gliders had a large advantage for surprise attacks.

I guess, a replacement of gliders by helicopters would have caused high losses of very expensive helicopters instead of cheap gliders. On the other hand, helicopters could do, what gliders couldn’t (e.g., transport troops on montain tops), so both means of transport art not directly comparable.
 
A very interesting idea. Will follow it closely. I like "BIG" thinking like this.

I was wondering how early did the first "big" Sikorsky helicopter flew.
So late 1949 it was.

1949 is only 5 years after 1944, so I'm tempted to say - why not ? The H-19 clearly was the right formula for helicopters until turbine came and provided a quantum leap in performance. Even without turbine however H-19 and all the piston-engined Sikorskys provided stellar service in Korea, early Vietnam, and countless other conflicts - including my own country's dirty bush war called the Algerian war.

Imagine a string of H-19 / H-34 helicopters starting with a R-1830 as you mentionned - and then going bigger and bigger with the "classic" radials: R-2800, R-3350, R-4360. The classic path followed by US fighters / bombers from P-36 to XP-72, kind of.

A scaled up H-19 beast of a chopper with a B-29 or B-36 engine - now that would be something to behold.

Fun fact: I realized there never was a thing like a R-3350-powered fighter - unlike the R-1830 and R-2800 before and unlike the varied atempts at creating R-4360 fighters. Closest thing was Curtiss XP-62 and... the Skyraider, not a fighter. How about THAT !

Btw @RyanC I do hope your website will return. I loved it for one reason (among many others): it was one of the few places on the web with the exact weight and dimensions of things like Titan SRMs or Polaris SLBM. Only for that, I miss it a lot (I'm a hardcore rocket nerd).
 
Last edited:
There was nothing technically preventing a 10 (or more) passenger helicopter from being developed in WWII; the engines were available (1,000 hp radials or inlines) and construction techniques of the time were up to making the helicopters. (either stressed skin or aluminum pole frames).
There was nothing technically preventing a space launcher rocket from being developed in WWII; the problem was not the technology, but experience. The helicopter flight & control theory was still very much in development, the sucsess of any design could not be guaranteed at all. So while it is theoretically possible to obtain heavy transport helicopters in WW2, on practice the probability of making the design, that would at least "sorta work" was low (not impossible, of course, but the chance of obtaining the costly failure was significant).
 
A lot of the problem was funding, most of the helicopter companies in the USA were tiny under capitalized outfits, that wouldn't survive long. Sikorsky and Bell had existing aircraft companies that helped absorb the costs of helicopter development.

Platt-LePage had the XR-1 and XR-1A, that could far out lift the R-4, but having a heavier more complex helicopter than the R-4, took more time to develop.
Picture what would have happened to Sikorsky if they hadn't built the little VS-300, and developed it into the XR-4, and had instead gone straight to the XR-5...You would have likely had the same protracted development like Platt-LePage had with the XR-1 and XR-1A

Platt-LePage Aircraft had two designs for a heavy lift transport helicopters, PL-8 (single engine 1000hp engine) and PL-9 twin (450hp engines) during WW-2.
Unfortunately for Platt-LePage, because of similar control issues that mirrored the Focke Helicopters, there was no interest by the Air Corps, and no funding to build these designs.
McDonnell Aircraft bought the PL-9 engineering package from Platt-LePage Aircraft, but would not have the
XHJD-1 flying until 1946 for the Navy. (By '45 the Air Corps wanted nothing more to do with lateral tandem helicopters)

The Kellett XR-10 would get the first Air Corp Heavy lift helicopter contract, but again Kellett, being a small sized company wouldn't get the XR-10 into the air until '47.
Frank Piasecki did make a first flight in his superior XHRPX in March of '45, and was able to go on to production, but by then the was was over.
As far as helicopter development goes, Frank Piasecki once said at the American helicopter Museum: "The hardest thing to to do with these early machines, was wipe the tears off of them, because a lot of tears were shed building them"
 
I've always assumed that there's not a lot that went into those late '40s/early '50s radial powered helicopters (from a technology standpoint) that either did not exist in the run up to WW2, or could not reasonably have been expected to be developed in that period. Like, those helicopters (Chickasaws, Mi-4s, Mojaves, what have you) provided performance that any military in the war could have really used, and it's not as if they relied on digital controls or anything that was decades in the future. But as Dilandu at #7 and Platt LaPage at #8 point out, getting something like those helicopters requires a fair amount of crawl/walk/run, and to get them into service in the war in any useful numbers would require that development process to take place in the 1930s when lots of countries either aren't spending much on their military, or are undergoing expansions with a focus on building up their established capabilities. I don't think it's an accident that the country that had the most interest in helicopters in the run up to the war was Germany. Germany, who was spending like crazy to rebuild their military sort of from scratch, and who was constantly on the lookout for any off the wall idea that might give them an advantage, since they they were basically surrounded, and held out hope that force multipliers might redress the balance. Give their armed forces an ability the enemy doesn't have, etc. I'm sure the Brits had plenty of gyrocopter and helicopter project in this era, but their military was throwing most of their money at the Royal Navy and putting the RAF through that late '30s process of rapid iteration that caused the state of the art for fighters and bombers to turn over every year and a half. Not much left in the coffers to start the process that could lead to some sort of air mobile operation at D-Day or Market Garden. I'm guessing most other nations, if not facing exactly the same circumstances, faced similar enough conditions that standing up a force of experimental aircraft large enough to be useful (both in terms of individual aircraft, and overall force size) was a luxury, if not an outright indulgence. If we're going to play around with an alternate history that could shift the arrival of those Chickasaw-era helicopters to the earliest possible introduction date, the obstacles that would need to be overcome aren't technical, they're mostly political and economic, and they're significant enough that I don't think you can posit a few butterfly beats making them disappear.

This subject is one of my AH hobby horses. The idea of some airborne soldier hanging out the side of an H-19 as it chugs over the flooded fields of the Netherlands as a big band cover of "Fortunate Son" plays in the background tickles me. However, a couple of other potential road blocks have occurred to me. We know that the US was concerned about production of strategic materials, to the extent that some non-trivial work was done on creating wooden transport aircraft to save on the use of aluminum. (This brings up one of my other favorite AH subjects, the Budd RB-1, in my mind the perfect AH fantasy blend of "a decade ahead in terms of features," and, "looks very much the product of an older era,") Anyway, we know that in the end, the US was able to increase aluminum production and it never felt the pinch it was dreading, but would that have been the case if large scale deployment of helicopters happened? I know OP posits some portion of the C-47s fleets that were actually produced being shifted to production of our hypothetical med/heavy lift helicopter, but I don't know how realistic that is. The C-47 was good for things even modern helicopters can't do, and I'm guessing that, even if our supposed helos existed, the theater commanders would want as many skytrains at their disposal as they could get their hands on. I don't think the production of helicopters would be offset by a proportionate decrease in production of skytrains, which means much more aluminum was necessary for at least part of the airframe of the helicopter, as well as all the crank cases for all the extra engines. What ended up being a non-issue in history could have ended up being a serious production bottleneck under these circumstances.

And there would be a LOT of extra airframes and engines. Because if the Allies in Europe could find a lot of uses for this kind of helicopter, I have to imagine the USN and the USMC would LOVE it in the Pacific. I mean, I gather the Marines went pretty hard for helicopter use in amphibious deployments during and after Korea. If something like that capability had been available in a much larger war? Even if the Marines aren't able to develop helicopter amphibious assaults in time, helicopters are too useful for plane guard duties, med evac during all those beach landings, and more prosaic ship to shore transport. All those weird designs about convoy fighters? What if instead you had a helo taking off from one of the convoy ships and performing search that way? I think it would have generated huge demand, enough that we're not looking at a 1:1 replacement of the comparatively small glider corps. Obviously, if anyone has actual numbers about the Allied aluminum production in the war, please feel free to correct me, but I think this would result in a substantially larger drain on resources.

This scenario would also make the subject of pilot training even more pressing. Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall reading that the Brits helped pay to set up a bunch of pilot training schools in the US before we entered the war? And that was just to prime the pipeline for fixed wing aircraft pilots, the sort of training program for which, by the late '30s, was pretty well established. I don't think there's any way there's gonna be more than a couple dozen helicopter pilots in the US by the time war breaks out? Maybe a hundred or so? Under this AH scenario, there would definitely be British and French pilots with some experience in helos, but I'm betting they'd be too busy with the war to help train all pilots necessary to put together a useful force of helicopters. I'm guessing if any such pilots were available in Britain during the Blitz, they'd be scooped up and put into Spitfires and Hurricanes. Ditto any French helo pilot who escaped the fall of France. So this leaves a situation where a massive branch of air power has to, Athena-like, spring fully formed into existence in the space of a few years. I mean, maybe the profusion of air power in WW1 shows it can be done? But I'm still skeptical that we can get significant helicopter numbers into existence much earlier than they did in history.

So, to sum up my ramblings: I think that the technology existed to get something like the Chickasaw (or similar craft) into service during WW2, but if they did, they'd be too useful to expect that they'd only be produced in small enough numbers that they don't cause big production headaches, especially given that they wouldn't be so useful that they supplanted traditional transport aircraft in great numbers, and if they were produced in such numbers, the whole industry, from production plants to pilot training, would basically be starting from a dead stop, so you have a situation where everybody wants at least some helos, and probably some people want A LOT, but getting enough birds and pilots out the door would be an iffy proposition.

But maybe I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. First post, thanks for having me.
 
reflexiones interesantes

El caso es que el helicóptero no era necesario para el asalto de infantería, ya fuera anfibio para USMC en el Pacífico o Torch/Overlord en Europa: los paracaidistas del C-47 Dakota cumplieron la función.

Como ataque al CAS, los P-47 y P-51.

Al final, el único significado para el helicóptero fue el rescate.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom