Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums
 



Go Back   Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums > World War II - Aviation > Aviation

Aviation Discussion on the aircraft of WWII.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-24-2007, 08:24 PM   #751
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 117
Regarding the production or non-production of german aircraft post-war:
1) Spain actually paid for license building rights of the Bf 109 and He 111 so they had all the technical data and drawings needed to keep up the production after german defeat. But they had to modifiy the design to accept other engines.

2) France and Czech built these aircraft because they had the facturies actually producing these aircraft located inside their country. They proably also had all data and drawings to keep production up. The Czech 109 G-10 (AKA Avia S-99) was good but once they ran out of fighter engines and were forced to use Jumo 211 bomber engines (Avia S-199) the design was not so good anymore because of problems with engine torque. Czechs even built the Me 262 A-1a (Avia S-92) and B-1a (CS-92) postwar with nine and three built.

I also see the Ju 252/352, 290 and the Ar 232 as good designs with potential and at least the Ar 232 might have some influence on other designs. The DC-3 was influential because it was relatively cheap and reliable as was the Ju 52 several years earlier. And the DC-3 was available in large numbers postwar as the military replaced them with larger transport and passenger aircraft.

And if you look at the production cost I don't think the Constellation was very cheap to built. The fuselage changes the changes very often, that may have been some sort of expensive/intensive on manhours to built.
Denniss is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2007, 08:54 PM   #752
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pine Mountain Lake, California
Posts: 981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soren View Post
Merry Christmas!

Santa didn't bring me a DC-3 model Oh well, might go buy one then, haven't got one in my collection (Big mistake! I know!), and then I'll have something to pass my time with tommorrow, helps lower the blood pressure
Where you at, Soren? Asia? It's already Christmas there? My kids are literally counting down the seconds until Santa arrives (yes, they've been driving my wife & I crazy all day!).

However, as much as I hate to agree with Flyboy (fighter planes are so much more interesting!), I gotta go with him on the C-47/DC-3; C-47's were still flying during the freakin' "Vietnam Conflict" (that's the PC version!), not to mention WWII & Korea. So, as much as I love the Me 262/P-38/Do 335; I gotta go with the AC-47/DC-3.
SoD Stitch is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2007, 11:44 PM   #753
Banned
 
Soren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoD Stitch View Post
Where you at, Soren? Asia?
Asia ?? Why Asia? AFAIK not many people celebrate Christmas in Asia

I'm in Europe Scandinavia at the moment, and here tradition is that the presents are given after a dance around the tree at around 8 - 10 PM, not first the morning after

Tradition is that each person has to pick a salm to be sung, and then when all the salms have been sung the kids get a free leash at the gifts, then us adults get to pick up what'ever's left afterwards Hehe no no, the kids just get to grab their presents first thats all

Last edited by Soren; 12-24-2007 at 11:46 PM.
Soren is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2007, 07:02 AM   #754
Senior Member
 
plan_D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,978
Send a message via MSN to plan_D Send a message via Yahoo to plan_D
The C-130 has had the longest front-line operational history, the next in line for the title is the B-52. The DC-3 still holds the title for the longest operational history because a lot of nations still hold on to aircraft. The B-747 doesn't come close.
__________________
"When you go home tomorrow, don't expect anyone to know what you have been through. Even if they did know, most people probably wouldn't care anyway. Some of you may get the medals you deserve, many more of you will not. But remember this, all of you are now members of the front-line club, and that is the most exclusive club in the world." - Lt. Col. Matthew Maer CO 1st Battalion, the Princess of Wale's Royal Regiment. Camp Abu Naji, Oct. 2004

To those in that club.
plan_D is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2007, 11:23 AM   #755
IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
 
FLYBOYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 16,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denniss View Post
And if you look at the production cost I don't think the Constellation was very cheap to built. The fuselage changes the changes very often, that may have been some sort of expensive/intensive on manhours to built.
Actually it doesn't - the fuselage was built in a large production jig, there were actually several of them to support the production line. They would be placed in a large building side-by-side and the fuselage built up from bulkheads and then longerons and stringers added. I seen some of these jigs before they were ultimately scrapped.

The principal is the same for most aircraft in today's world.
__________________
> I Support Doug Gillis <
FLYBOYJ is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2007, 12:15 PM   #756
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ View Post
I stand corrected it was the Tu 16 that used an enlarged Tu 4 fuselage
The Tu 16 had a completely different fuselage than Tu-4/B-29 because of his flying profile - with the "widebody" like Tu-4 you can't even reach the subsonic speeds in a diving flight without the airframe destruction. It was not larger ,but rather thinner with both engines almost integrated to it.

However, I completely agree with you - it was a milestone in a soviet bomber engineering , especially in a system development.
It was also a useless plane from the strategic point of view - you could barely reach targets inside the UK , not to mention the US (only in a kamikadze one way mission ). That's the reason why various adventurous plans like capture of american bases in Iceland or Greenland with invading forces transported by submarines were developed .
Back to the topic - the Spitfire easily beats others from the general point of view - great airplane, good combat record and a winner of the war
Ramirezzz is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2007, 01:45 PM   #757
IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
 
FLYBOYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 16,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramirezzz View Post
The Tu 16 had a completely different fuselage than Tu-4/B-29 because of his flying profile - with the "widebody" like Tu-4 you can't even reach the subsonic speeds in a diving flight without the airframe destruction. It was not larger ,but rather thinner with both engines almost integrated to it.

However, I completely agree with you - it was a milestone in a soviet bomber engineering , especially in a system development.
It was also a useless plane from the strategic point of view - you could barely reach targets inside the UK , not to mention the US (only in a kamikadze one way mission ). That's the reason why various adventurous plans like capture of american bases in Iceland or Greenland with invading forces transported by submarines were developed .
Back to the topic - the Spitfire easily beats others from the general point of view - great airplane, good combat record and a winner of the war
Although one of the great COMBAT aircraft of WW2, let's not forget the limitations of the Spit (range) as well as the mauling it received in the post BoB sweeps into France by the Fw 190.

As argued, the DC-3/ C-47 was a benchmark and the fact that is served on all fronts, was used by dozens of Airforces and civilian operators since it's inception and is still in service today is more than enough proof to support the claim of it being the Best Aircraft of WW2 and probably the greatest aircraft ever built.
__________________
> I Support Doug Gillis <
FLYBOYJ is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2007, 01:49 PM   #758
Der Crewchief
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 34,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ View Post
As argued, the DC-3/ C-47 was a benchmark and the fact that is served on all fronts, was used by dozens of Airforces and civilian operators since it's inception and is still in service today is more than enough proof to support the claim of it being the Best Aircraft of WW2 and probably the greatest aircraft ever built.
Ditto
__________________


fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"
DerAdlerIstGelandet is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2007, 01:59 PM   #759
Senior Member
 
drgondog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: oregon
Posts: 4,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by plan_D View Post
The C-130 has had the longest front-line operational history, the next in line for the title is the B-52. The DC-3 still holds the title for the longest operational history because a lot of nations still hold on to aircraft. The B-747 doesn't come close.
?? I thought the first flight for the 52 was 1952 and production ops in 1955 - whereas the C-130 first flight was 1954 with ops in 1956?

The 52 is still projected to extend into 2020+

It would have been #1 on my list but was focused on WWII for the C-47.

Last edited by drgondog; 12-29-2007 at 02:04 PM.
drgondog is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2007, 02:11 PM   #760
IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
 
FLYBOYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 16,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramirezzz View Post
The Tu 16 had a completely different fuselage than Tu-4/B-29 because of his flying profile - with the "widebody" like Tu-4 you can't even reach the subsonic speeds in a diving flight without the airframe destruction. It was not larger ,but rather thinner with both engines almost integrated to it.
I stand corrected - Aft Fuselage - I've seen reference stating that a section of the Tu 16 aft fuselage was derived from the Tu 4 - a very common practice in aircraft construction.
__________________
> I Support Doug Gillis <
FLYBOYJ is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2007, 02:13 PM   #761
IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
 
FLYBOYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 16,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by drgondog View Post
?? I thought the first flight for the 52 was 1952 and production ops in 1955 - whereas the C-130 first flight was 1954 with ops in 1956?

The 52 is still projected to extend into 2020+

It would have been #1 on my list but was focused on WWII for the C-47.

All true....

I would tend to swing to he 130 based on some of its combat and covert exploits, not that the B-52 didn't have any....
__________________
> I Support Doug Gillis <
FLYBOYJ is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2007, 04:45 PM   #762
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 360
B-52 has certainly good points in this pool, but ironically (and luckily) it was never been used in its primary role as a nuclear weapons carrier.
Ramirezzz is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2007, 07:36 PM   #763
Senior Member
 
drgondog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: oregon
Posts: 4,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramirezzz View Post
B-52 has certainly good points in this pool, but ironically (and luckily) it was never been used in its primary role as a nuclear weapons carrier.
Which is why I rank it so highly (for one reason). It was SAC in the context of the Big Stick for so many years.
drgondog is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2007, 07:46 PM   #764
"Shooter"
 
evangilder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Moorpark, CA
Posts: 15,395
Send a message via Yahoo to evangilder
Oh, it carried plenty of nuclear weapons in the cold war days. Thankfully, it never had to drop them.
__________________




For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return. Leonardo Da Vinci
evangilder is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2007, 09:04 PM   #765
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 330
Quote:
Which is why I rank it so highly (for one reason). It was SAC in the context of the Big Stick for so many years.
It was SAC and represented the frontline of our manned nuclear deterrent. What a great plane.


All the best,

Crumpp
Crumpp is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Weird World War 2 Facts Smokey Aviation 154 09-13-2009 11:35 AM
Italy v. England - Air to air DAVIDICUS Aviation 193 07-22-2009 12:58 PM
Air Force test team launches 'overhauled' Iraqi aircraft Royzee617 SitRep 0 04-28-2006 10:53 AM
War of 1812. plan_D Old Threads 39 05-09-2005 06:15 PM
The Story of Charles Hoffman Crazy Stories 4 06-19-2004 07:50 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:38 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2
Ad Management plugin by RedTyger
Design by HTWoRKS


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124