Best World War II Aircraft?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

The AC-47 is a gun ship for crying out loud! It is a sitting duck for any fighter as it has no rear, top, front or bottom defensive armament. Like I said the C-47 couldn't be equipped qith effective defensive armament, it could only really mount guns on its sides.

The fact that a cargo plane could carry armament is irrelevant. The USAAF never saw a need to arm its C-47s and only a handful were ever shot down by fighters.

[Soren]

FLYBOYJ,

The Ju-290 could carry more & further than the L-049, so except for speed & ceiling the L-049 holds no advantages.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

The Soviets never complained even though the rudder pedals of their Tu-4s and DC-3 were still cast with the "Douglas" and "Boeing" logos respectively....

And ?? Still doesn't mean that every great design was directly copied. Also why would you always try to directly copy a design instead of trying to improve it or perhaps use it as a basis for something better ? The Soviets AFAIK didn't keep the few B-29 copies for very long before they decided making their own much better bomber.

Some designs were directly copied, others weren't. The DC-3 isn't the best transport a/c, there are MANY much better transport a/c today. Be careful not to put something on too high a pedestal! The were many WW2 a/c who were as reliable as the DC-3 and could do things the DC-3 couldn't.

[AL Schlageter]

Gee Soren, are you saying your super duper German Third Reich transports could take on Allied fighters and win?

I think I remember some Me323s in the Med being used for target practice. They ended up being debris in the Mediterranean.

[AL Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Soren

And ?? Still doesn't mean that every great design was directly copied. Also why would you always try to directly copy a design instead of trying to improve it or perhaps use it as a basis for something better ? The Soviets AFAIK didn't keep the few B-29 copies for very long before they decided making their own much better bomber.

The American did not keep their B-29s/B-50s around that long either. The B-50D was replaced in its primary role during the early 1950s by the B-47 and B-52.

Tu-4s were withdrawn in the 1960s, replaced by more advanced aircraft, the Tupolev Tu-95 (starting in 1956) and Tupolev Tu-16 (starting in 1954).

Be careful not to put something on too high a pedestal!

Good advice you should take.

[evangilder]

I never said there weren't better transports today. The C-17, C-130 and many others are great transports. The DC-3 was not only a great design, but was influential in many later aircraft.

[Soren]

Al,

LoL!

Defensive armament gives you a chance, none gives you no chance at all!

The Me323's shot down were heavily loaded and were pounded by many Spitfires, it was a turkey shoot. And it was exactly the same which was happening to the Allied bombers over Europe, they were shot down in droves. Defensive armament helps, but it doesn't solve anything.

PS: Thats Russian Li-2 carries ONE SINGLE armed ball turret, a sitting duck from all sides!

Good advice you should take.

And that comes from you ??!

Keep the good stuff coming Milo...

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

And ?? Still doesn't mean that every great design was directly copied. Also why would you always try to directly copy a design instead of trying to improve it or perhaps use it as a basis for something better ? The Soviets AFAIK didn't keep the few B-29 copies for very long before they decided making their own much better bomber.

The Soviets built almost 500 of them - it was the backbone of their strategic air arm until the mid 1950s and it turned out to be the basis for every large bomber they ever made in the post WW2 era - more than just a few aircraft Soren!

Originally Posted by Soren

Some designs were directly copied, others weren't. The DC-3 isn't the best transport a/c, there are MANY much better transport a/c today. Be careful not to put something on too high a pedestal! The were many WW2 a/c who were as reliable as the DC-3 and could do things the DC-3 couldn't.

Name any aircraft that has had the DC-3s/ C-47 longevity and operating history - you can't. As stated there might of been some that carried more or were faster but they weren't cost effective to operate and weren't the right price out of the factory or cost too much to maintain. The DC-3 DESERVES to be placed on a pedestal because no other plane in history come close to its accomplishments.

[AL Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Soren

And that comes from you ??!

Unlike you Soren, and your 2 buddies, with your blatantly obvious Third Reich bias, I give credit where and when credit is due.

I consider the Fw190 family of single engine fighters to be the BEST Germany produced. The Ju 88 I would put in the same class as the Mosquito. The Panther was a superb tank. The Type XXI subs were hands and feet above any Allied sub.

[Soren]

The 1951 Tu-95 is a completely different design than the B-29 (Tu-4) FLOYBOYJ, thats quite clear from looking at the a/c.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by AL Schlageter

Unlike you Soren, and your 2 buddies, with your blatantly obvious Third Reich bias, I give credit where and when credit is due.

Bullshiiiit!

And who are my two buddies btw ???

I consider the Fw190 family of single engine fighters to be the BEST Germany produced.

You consider them the best that Germany produced, yes, and that's it.

The Ju 88 I would put in the same class as the Mosquito. The Panther was a superb tank. The Type XXI subs were hands and feet above any Allied sub.

So you think that I am incapable of giving praise to any Allied design ?? If so I'm gonna have to ask you to wake up, cause I've often expressed my admiration for many Allied designs, such as the Spitfire, Mosquito, M1 Garand, Thompson and believe it or not but the DC-3 as-well, and the list goes on.
So you can quit you bias accusation emmediately!

[Soren]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Name any aircraft that has had the DC-3s/ C-47 longevity and operating history - you can't. As stated there might of been some that carried more or were faster but they weren't cost effective to operate and weren't the right price out of the factory or cost too much to maintain. The DC-3 DESERVES to be placed on a pedestal because no other plane in history come close to its accomplishments.

What about the Boeing 747 ? Or one of Airbus's aircraft ?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

What about the Boeing 747 ? Or one of Airbus's aircraft ?

Not even close.

Right now as far as years in service, operational longevity, costs, versatility the next in line is the C-130.

[Soren]

I'd have to say that the Boeing 747 is pretty versatile as-well, and cost wise very friendly when compared to the money it brings in. The C-130 is a great candidate as-well actually, and I'd even say its a better candidate than the DC-3. The DC-3 has been going for longer alright, but that doesn't make it better or any more dependable.

Interestingly the C-130 hsa the same cargo hold capacity as the BV-222, and can carry the same amount of people - 92 fully equipped troops or 75 injured on stretchers.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

The 1951 Tu-95 is a completely different design than the B-29 (Tu-4) FLOYBOYJ, thats quite clear from looking at the a/c.

It's design linage comes DIRECTLY from the Tu-4. I even think part of the aft fuselage is still the same.

"Development of the TU-95 intercontinental bomber began in the early 1950s after series production of the medium-range TU-4 started. Initially, several design configurations were considered, including a modification of the TU-4 and production of a new aircraft with piston engines."

Tu-95 BEAR (TUPOLEV)

There were 2 or 3 development aircraft built that eventually led to the Tu 95. There was an article in Air Classics many years ago called "Billion Dollar Bomber" and it goes through the whole design lineage from the first B-29 copies (Tu-4) right through the Bear and Badger.