Transports

[Glider]

DB. If you have been in a JU52 the one thing that will strike you is how narrow it is and limiting for carrying cargo. It hasn't got anything like the load, performance, space, range, turnaround time or anything else that the C47 has.

The JU52 might have been OK for people but I would love to see you get some of the more obscure loads (dare I suggest mules) that the C47 had to carry.

If the Germans had decent numbers of C47's they might, just might have been able to supply Stalingrad which could have changed the whole face of the war. With the JU52 they never had a chance.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by d_bader

I do not understand why the ju52 isn't winning. It was used all across europe. If we had the ju52 we would have still been sucessful at d-day. The C-47 was over a virtually empty sky of enemies on d-day. How this can be compared to a plane who had lots of enemy air opposition is unbelievable.

While I love the Ju-52, you can not even compare it to a C-47. The C-47 is superior to the 'Tante Ju' hands down anyday. Yes the Ju-52 was a good transport but as was stated, was not very good for cargo.

What I am really wondering is what makes you think the Ju-52 would handle better than the C-47 did in the same environment?

[evangilder]

Good point on the engines, Joe. In early testing with the DC-3, it took off and flew an entire airline route including landing...all on ONE engine! The C-47 was a real workhorse and a lot of people in Berlin were thankful for it and the other cargo aircraft used for the Berlin airlift.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

If you go to Rein Mein you can still the memorial for it next to the autobahn.

[Glider]

One example of how good the design of the DC3 was. In 1944 a competition was organised for a new transport glider to be towed behind the C54. Douglas submitted a DC3 designated XCG-17 with no engines, tanks or other mechanical piping and it was the best performing submission. Its maximum towing speed was 270-290mph and its stalling speed was 35 (yes Thirty five) mph which was 20mph less than the CG4. Just to cap it all it had no ballast requirement at minimum weight and had the best glide angle (14:1) of any transport glider in the USA at that time plus a maximum payload of 14,000Lb.
No contracts were placed as the war ended and the end of the Glider as militery transport was over.
If that doesn't prove how good the basic design was of the DC3, I don't know what will.

[elmilitaro]

I agree with you all the way Glider.

[evangilder]

It was a really remarkable airplane. Here is a shot of the XCG-17 glider and the XC-47C floatplane. Both taken from the C-47 In Action book.

Also, the B-18 Bolo (called the Digby in Canadian service) and B-23 Dragon bombers were all projects based on the DC-3/C-47 design.

When I prepared my presentation on the C-47, I had no idea before I started what an amazing airplane it really was.

[plan_D]

There's nothing comparable service wise to the C-47. The C-46 is the only true contender, in my mind, ability wise.

And try doing this with a Ju-52:

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Hell the 47 is still used today around the world.

[HealzDevo]

Define effect, the Me-323 proved how large transports could get and still fly. In that respect the Condor, Cossack and the C-5 Galaxy are its modern descendents. Large aircraft which were built on the proof that the Me-323 offered that large transport aircraft could be built and prove very useful.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Um dude if you are meaning the Fw-200 Condor, it was in service before the Me-323 was even built. If you are meaning a different aircraft, I apologize for misunderstanding.

The 323 really had no effect on the war or anything. I was not built in large eneogh numbers to do anything.

[FLYBOYJ]

The 323 proved a concept but was severly underpowered. The C-5, although big, had lots of power...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeap