Talk:General Aircraft Hamilcar/Archive 1

Safekeeping II - History
The G.A.L.49 was designed to Air Ministry Specification X.27/40, covering the design of a large tank- or vehicle-carrying glider. The first prototype flew on March 27 1942 and led to the production of 410 aircraft with the service name Hamilcar I.

The Hamilcar was of all-wood construction apart from the control surfaces which were wood framed with fabric covering. Manufacturing was subcontracted to various companies with experience in woodworking, under the supervision of General Aircraft Ltd.

In configuration it was a high-wing monoplane so that the wing centre section did not interfere with the loading of vehicles through its swing-open nose. For the same reason the crew of two were accommodated in a cockpit mounted on top of the fuselage, accessed via a ladder. It was fitted with tailwheel landing gear, with oleo-pneumatic shock absorbers that could be deflated to bring the fuselage nose down for loading or unloading purposes.

It was the largest and heaviest of the transport gliders used by Allied forces during World War II, being capable of carrying up to 17600 lb of cargo, or two Tetrarch light tanks or two Universal Carriers. It was also the first British glider to carry a tank into action. Approximately 410 were built, and it was used with success in Operation Overlord. The only British aircraft capable of towing it was the 4-engine Handley Page Halifax bomber, which saw widespread use as a glider tug.

Cost?
£50,000 seems a bit much for a disposable glider, Spitfires would have been about £25,000 at the time (including the engine), is this an adjusted for inflation figure? Good work BTW, nice to see the article on the front page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    12:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, a good point. That's the only figure I can find - Flint gives it as that, and it's not adjusted. I've never done an aircraft page before, so really don't know about costs and such. However, given that there were production problems and management disputes, and the War Office vacillating - and the fact that it was such a large glider - it might well have really cost that much. But there's such a distinct lack of detailed info on the Hamilcar except for Flint that I've not found any more details on how much it cost; I was surprised to find it in Flint, to be honest. Skinny87 (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I'm not at home at the moment, but when I am I'll double-check Flint just to be sure. Skinny87 (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it does sound high to me especially as it was made out wood and had no engine. Often next to the cost we put the year in brackets or add a footnote saying whether it was the cost at the time or has been adjusted for inflation. I personally put the original price in if it's known and qualify it. Do you know that there is an active aircraft project at WP:AIR? Lots to do and I'm sure you would be most welcome. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    12:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article on the Avro Lancaster states - A total of 7,377 Lancasters of all marks were built throughout the duration of the war, each at a 1943 cost of £45-50,000. This makes £40,000 for a Hamilcar, of similar size but made of wood and unpowered, seem a surprisingly large sum and makes me wonder if your source has got it right. Catsmeat (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, here's the quote, make of it what you will. "The original requisition from the Air Ministry to GAL to 'design, manufacture and deliver two tank carrying gliders in accordance with [specification] X27/40' survives, dated January 1941 and quotes an agreed cost of £50,000 each." Skinny87 (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum - None of my other sources, including Otway, which is the official account of the British airborne forces during the conflict, gives a cost for the Hamilcar. I'm afraid I'm stumped; perhaps it really was just an amazingly costly glider? Skinny87 (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Or maybe GAL took the Air Ministry officials out to lunch a few times! Something not quite right there but you can only go on the references to hand. I had a good trawl through the Flight magazine online archive, some great stuff on the Hamilcar but no mention of prices. I have often wondered whether aircraft/armament companies, both allied and axis, profited from producing their products or whether they were supplied at cost price. Straying into politics here, best get back to some mechanical engineering stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    01:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, that wouldn't surprise me. From what I've read in Flint, GAL's management were a tad shady to begin with; at one point one of the Hamilcar Work Group accuses GAL's chief manager of sabotage and corruption. Flint says that's probably going a tad too far, but still, where there's smoke there's fire and so forth? But yes, we have to go with the sources. Skinny87 (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading the quoted sentence the figure of £50,000 for each aircraft would seem to apply for the complete design and production of two prototypes. So this figure includes the one-off costs of designing and constructing two aircraft from scratch. Production aircraft would (presumably) have cost much less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The Hamilcar X wasn't developed for the reason stated, it was developed for use in the Far East so that after a towed flight with a cargo it could then return empty under its own power. There was little chance of a powered aircraft safely landing in the terrain in Burma to recover the glider and so the addition of engines was simply for the purpose of recovering the glider without risking a tug aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.11 (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Typo?
The Tetrarch and M22 Locust light tanks were so large that they barely fit inside the glider, and as such their crews stayed inside the glider for the duration of the flight

You take it for granted the tank crew were inside the glider. Did you really mean they stayed inside the tank during the flight? Catsmeat (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They did indeed - Flint has multiple personal accounts, which I've seen replicated in other books, that have the tank crews staying inside the tank and only emerging once they've driven out, if even then. I'm guessing it's because the flights weren't that long, and if someone get's out to stretch their legs it'd be difficult to get back in! Skinny87 (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the Flint quote, for extra proof! "The Locust and Tetrarch light tanks were such a tight fit that their crews stayed inside the tank during flight." Skinny87 (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Between Flint, Dank and Lloyd, it would appear that the tank crews remained inside their vehicles so they could exit as quickly as possible, as well as the fact that there was so little room. Flint cites one Hamilcar crash in which the glider crashes during training, and the Tetrarch it is transporting comes flying through the fuselage and rams a nearby house. People rush to the tank in time to see the driver's hatch fly open and the driver poke his head out and lets losse a stream of expletives. He then explains that he was told to remain inside the tank at all times during the flight, and has presumably banged himself up quite badly in doing so! In another tale from Operation Tonga a Hamilcar hits an anti-glider pole at 80mph, and it's only the fact that the tank crew were inside their vehicle that they managed to survive; as it crashed, the driver revved the engine, they pulled their hatches down and smashed through the fuselage even as it stopped moving! Skinny87 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Preparatory comments
I will be reviewing this article at GA, but due to time commitments my initial read through will take more than one sitting so I am inserting comments here until time is ready to begin a full review.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "gliders proved to be useful" - "useful" is a bit of a non-word, can you think of something more descriptive?
 * I have to admit to being stumped. Writing this intro took ages, and now I'm not sure what to replace it with. Any ideas?
 * Is "successful" too strong?
 * Ah, great idea, added that.


 * "so it could serve in the Pacific Theater of Operations;" - do you mean the Pacific War, or the American term specifically?
 * Yep, changed that and another example further on.


 * "When the equipment to be used by the airborne forces had been examined" - unclear, firstly the tense is wrong and secondly you need to explain the nature of the examination (i.e. planning for the forces, not examining existing equipment) - at the moment this sounds like a kit inspection.
 * That's my fault, being too verbose; changed it to 'being developed', as that's what was actually happening.


 * "glider-borne troops" - since your already talking about things that can be carried in a glider, there is no need to add "glider-borne".
 * Heh, oh yeah, good thinking :)


 * "which by 1941 was to include artillery and some form of tank" - is the word "expanded" missing here?
 * Nope, but I added it anyway, makes more sense that way.


 * "To minimize the risks in developing such a large glider which had never been built before" - confusing two bits of information: the minimizing of risks and the unprecedented size of the glider.
 * Reworded, that's me being verbose again.


 * "as well as to ensure that the glider remained secret," - how would transporting it across the country be helping to keep it secret?
 * Whoops, reworded for clarification! Skinny87 (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Some times "group" is capitalised and sometimes it isn't - pick one.
 * Capitalised!


 * "this meant that American personnel who had been helping with the production of the gliders were withdrawn and further delaying production times." - tenses are a bit confused here.
 * I think I've corrected this, but could you check to make sure?


 * "which was achieved by the pilot getting out of the cockpit and dropping to the ground by sliding down the fuselage," - a little inelegant, is there a better way to write it.
 * Hopefully this has been corrected by my rewrite.


 * "where an instructor accompanied them" - "the pilots", not "them"
 * Done!


 * Is there a figure for the casualties suffered in Operation Tonga among the Hamilcar crews?
 * Bah, I wish there were, but I can never seem to find them, not even in the official history.


 * The linking of ranks is a little bizarre - sometimes they are linked, sometimes not. I suggest either linking them all, linking none or only linking them the first time they appear.
 * Hopefully done!


 * "when they began to land." - perhaps "came in to land" is a better way of phrasing it.
 * Done!


 * "As a result of this, one Hamilcar" - no need for "of this"
 * Done!


 * "having engine failures" - "suffering egine failures"?
 * Good idea, done that


 * "made them excellent targets" - I think you mean "easy targets"
 * Yep, sorted that.

In general an excellent article - once the above are dealt with, I will open a formal review and pass the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for such a thorough review, done everything you asked, hopefully!

Operation Mallard
The Hamilcar was also involved in Operation Mallard albeit only one arriving after 30 were sent towed by Stirlings. Appears to be no mention any Normandy Invasion experts around? MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)