Best World War II Aircraft?

[Denniss]

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.

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by Soren

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.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by SoD Stitch

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

[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.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Denniss

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.

[Ramirezzz]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

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

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Ramirezzz

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.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

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

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by 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.

?? 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.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Ramirezzz

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.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by drgondog

?? 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....

[Ramirezzz]

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.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Ramirezzz

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.

[evangilder]

Oh, it carried plenty of nuclear weapons in the cold war days. Thankfully, it never had to drop them.

[Crumpp]

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