Best World War II Aircraft?

[Soren]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Could do better, sure, but were they as cost effective to operate, built in the same numbers, showed the same longevity, were as easy to fly and operate, had the potential for multi-use and design growth and have a better safety record?


No.

Well FLYBOYJ there can be many reasons for that, such as the discontinued production of excellent designs because of a war lost.

The C-47's production numbers and years in service are impressive, there's no doubt about that, but the same can be said about other WWII a/c, such as the 109 for example, the most successful fighter design of the war with over 33,000 built and serving as frontline fighter well into the 50's (Which is quite astonishing considering the replacement rate esp. fighters undergo).

As for cost effectiveness, well I don't have the numbers for each a/c but I doubt the C-47 was much better than most other a/c of WWII. But perhaps you have some numbers ?

And as to multi-use & design growth, the C-47 was hardly at the forefront really. I mean how much did the design change over time ? Not much.

Now don't get me wrong the C-47 is great design, one of the best of WW2, but it wasn't THE best or the most revolutionary of the war. Now if you were to say it was the most important a/c of the war, then I could somewhat agree, without it the allies wouldn't have won.

As to which a/c was the overall best of the war, I think that is impossible to answer as most a/c from both sides were carrying out their own vital roles at which they were the best in their air arm.

[pbfoot]

The C47 had something no aircraft from Germany could dream of it was a simple and not overly engineered aircraft. In the RCAF/CAF they designed a replacement for it it was called a DHC 4 Caribou a good aircraft in its own right with a fair combat record in Viet Nam . The Dak out lived the Caribou in the RCAF/CAF . That says a great deal .

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

Well FLYBOYJ there can be many reasons for that, such as the discontinued production of excellent designs because of a war lost.

It is what it is, Lufthansa flew DC-3s and I'm sure they wold of continued to do so had Germany won the war, but then again "what ifs" don't make history.

Originally Posted by Soren

The C-47's production numbers and years in service are impressive, there's no doubt about that, but the same can be said about other WWII a/c, such as the 109 for example, the most successful fighter design of the war with over 33,000 built and serving as frontline fighter well into the 50's (Which is quite astonishing considering the replacement rate esp. fighters undergo).

It is impressive for one of the best fighters made IMO, but by the end of the war the -109 was facing obsolescence as you well know and "if" the war continued we would of seen less and less of her - the fact that she was produced in the cold war years was because of a broke dictator (Franco) who had cheap resources at his disposal. And we won't forget about the Avias that went to Israel, but I think there too yo had the Czechs who had the airframes available and the Israelis who would of grabbed anything at the time.

Originally Posted by Soren

As for cost effectiveness, well I don't have the numbers for each a/c but I doubt the C-47 was much better than most other a/c of WWII. But perhaps you have some numbers ?

The number are UNKNOWN because the Japanese and Russian built their own and although the Russians had a license, they probably built way more than they were licenced to. Additionally the design led to a whole series of Ilyushin transports with their roots directly attributed to the C-47. But as far as official numbers, over 10,000 C-47s, 487 by the Japanese and 4937 by the USSR that we know about. Oh yea, there were about 600 plus plain old DC-3s built as well.

Originally Posted by Soren

And as to multi-use & design growth, the C-47 was hardly at the forefront really. I mean how much did the design change over time ? Not much.

Actually it did, aside from numerous engine mods including turbo props, installation of modern avionics the fact that the basic design remained the same but allowed for much internal growth was one of the reason why the design lasted so long - the cockpit layout, placement of instruments and little things like shaping the flap handle like the shape of a flap or the shape of a wheel on the landing gear handle, all innovations that were made mandatory by regulation through out the world thanks to the C-47/DC-3.

Originally Posted by Soren

Now don't get me wrong the C-47 is great design, one of the best of WW2, but it wasn't THE best or the most revolutionary of the war. Now if you were to say it was the most important a/c of the war, then I could somewhat agree, without it the allies wouldn't have won.

It was revolutionary because the simplicity of the systems combined with the airframe design gave it a very "harmonized" design where rather than being the fastest or biggest, but all the systems and functions worked in harmony, and the key word here is "worked."

Originally Posted by Soren

As to which a/c was the overall best of the war, I think that is impossible to answer as most a/c from both sides were carrying out their own vital roles at which they were the best in their air arm.

They did but when you look at the over all impact, the contribution to the war effort, the versatility and ultimate longevity, there's no other aircraft that comes close.

[wingnuts]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

The C47 had something no aircraft from Germany could dream of it was a simple and not overly engineered aircraft. In the RCAF/CAF they designed a replacement for it it was called a DHC 4 Caribou a good aircraft in its own right with a fair combat record in Viet Nam . The Dak out lived the Caribou in the RCAF/CAF . That says a great deal .

The Caribou is still in use with the RAAF, the DC3/C47s were finally retired in the early 90s

[Soren]

Well FLYBOYJ I guess we have to agree to disagree on this.

The DC-3 didn't evolve any more than most other a/c, and I doubt it was anymore easily adapted than most other a/c either. The thing that made the DC-3 a success was mainly that it was reliable & cheap, something which often seems to win out over superior performance & technology.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

The C47 had something no aircraft from Germany could dream of it was a simple and not overly engineered aircraft. In the RCAF/CAF they designed a replacement for it it was called a DHC 4 Caribou a good aircraft in its own right with a fair combat record in Viet Nam . The Dak out lived the Caribou in the RCAF/CAF . That says a great deal .

Well I'm not just comparing it to German a/c, I'm comparing it to all a/c.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

Well FLYBOYJ I guess we have to agree to disagree on this.

No problem

Originally Posted by Soren

The DC-3 didn't evolve any more than most other a/c, and I doubt it was anymore easily adapted than most other a/c either.

Wanna bet?





It lended it self for modification for specific roles in an efficient and cost effective manner. Other aircraft could be modded the same but again its a matter of an "harmonized design."

Originally Posted by Soren

The thing that made the DC-3 a success was mainly that it was reliable & cheap, something which often seems to win out over superior performance & technology.

And you actually spelled out why this aircraft is not only the greatest aircraft to emerge from WW2, but probably the greatest aircraft of all time.

BTW - I show about 200 still flying operationally.

[Soren]

The pictures don't prove anything though, many a/c were reengined numerous times with no problem. And as for rockets, well the nr. of a/c whihc used this with success is impossible to count, the Germans often used it on their transport a/c when hauling extreme loads off of short airfields.

Also what is greater about the DC-3 compared to the C-113 Hercules for example ? I don't see anything.

Was the DC-3 for example capable of acting as a bomber ? No. By comparison the Ju-290 for example could act both as a long range heavy bomber, transport, passenger & reconnaissance a/c. I'm not saying the Ju-290 is a´better a/c, but it could fulfill more roles. The downside is the far higher complexity of the Ju-290.

[Juha]

Soren
licence built DC-3s, that is Soviet Li-2s were one of the main types of ADD, Soviet long range bomber force. Other main types of ADD were Il-4 and B-25 Mitchell. So there were many more DC-3 bombers around than Ju-290s.

Juha

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

.

Was the DC-3 for example capable of acting as a bomber ? No. By comparison the Ju-290 for example could act both as a long range heavy bomber, transport, passenger & reconnaissance a/c. I'm not saying the Ju-290 is a´better a/c, but it could fulfill more roles. The downside is the far higher complexity of the Ju-290.

Can you prove that the C-47 could not be used as a bomber? I am sure they could rig bombs under the wings...

Besides the C-47 was used as an attack aircraft. Ever heard of the AC-47. Sure it was not used that way in WW2, but in Vietnam it was.

I do not think you can say that the Ju 290 was able to be used in more roles. Please list all the roles that the Ju 290 could perform and all the roles that the C-47 could perform. Lets put this one to the test. Do not take me wrong, I am sure the 290 could perform more roles. It was a bigger aircraft and capable of performing more roles. I just don't think you give the C-47 eneogh credit.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

The pictures don't prove anything though, many a/c were reengined numerous times with no problem. And as for rockets, well the nr. of a/c whihc used this with success is impossible to count, the Germans often used it on their transport a/c when hauling extreme loads off of short airfields.

Also what is greater about the DC-3 compared to the C-113 Hercules for example ? I don't see anything.

Do you mean C-130 probably the 2nd greatest aircraft ever built?

Was the DC-3 for example capable of acting as a bomber ? No. By comparison the Ju-290 for example could act both as a long range heavy bomber, transport, passenger & reconnaissance a/c. I'm not saying the Ju-290 is a´better a/c, but it could fulfill more roles. The downside is the far higher complexity of the Ju-290.[/QUOTE]But did the Ju 290 last after the war even though there were many combatants capable of collecting up the tooling and building her? NO. And you answered your own question - complexity, and I could bet dollars to donuts the DC-3 was a far easier aircraft to keep in the air as well.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ah just found some information here that the Portugese Airforce used the C-47 as a bomber during the Portuguese Colonial War.

Now I am not saying, it would have been a good bomber. It however could be adapted for use as a bomber.

Never say never, Soren...

[kool kitty89]

Did you guys miss Juha's post on the use of the Russian Li-2 as a bomber? (in that context it was a considerably more capable bomber than the Ju 52 had been used as)

Also there was the B-18 (from DC-2) and B-23 developed from The DC-3. THe B-23 was a decent medium bomber for the time, though inferior to the B-25 and B-26.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Nope I missed that, sorry. Juha is correct however. The Li-2 was a DC-3, and them being used as bombers is another example.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Did you guys miss Juha's post on the use of the Russian Li-2 as a bomber? (in that context it was a considerably more capable bomber than the Ju 52 had been used as)

Also there was the B-18 (from DC-2) and B-23 developed from The DC-3. THe B-23 was a decent medium bomber for the time, though inferior to the B-25 and B-26.

The B-18 actually competed against the B-17 and although eventually found inferior, it was widely used as a trainer, same with the B-23. Both aircraft were used in ASW operations and I think the B-18 was one of the first aircraft to carry MAD equipment in the ASW role.