# Poll: Which was the best WWII transport?



## ShVAK (Aug 18, 2012)

Pick your favorite. 

I'm going with the C-47. Very successful in multiple theaters, widely copied, used well after the war.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 18, 2012)

I voted other because my favourite transport aircraft is the DeHavilland DH 89 Dragon Rapide. I have had a flight in one and it was the highlight of the year. 






http://www.military-aircraft.org.uk/trainers/de-havilland-dh-89-dominie.htm

2nd place is quite obviously the C 47 Dakota my late father was an RAF instrument technician and worked on dozens of aircraft from bi-plane initial trainers in 1944 to his final Squadron 22 years later working on Avro Vulcans. He always said the Dak was the best plane he ever worked on and he reckoned it had been designed by a man or men who truly knew there job.


----------



## DonL (Aug 18, 2012)

Dakota!

Please ad the Ju 252, because it was a very good tranport a/c and the best german. So I think it should be on the list.


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 18, 2012)

Only 15 of them were made though. That's barely even a production aircraft. Although I did include the Arado and that had about the same number, now I want to edit the poll.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 18, 2012)

Going with C-47 since it was THE workhorse of the allies. 

The Ju-52 is my favorite though in terms of the looks and stuff.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Aug 18, 2012)

> Only 15 of them were made though. That's barely even a production aircraft.



I agree and understand your opinion, but it was only rejected, because it was built with too much important raw materials for more war important a/c's for germany, not because it had problems or enough performance.
Anyway it was pretty good for 1942/43 with it's range, speed, payload and the Trapoklappe, a hydraulically powered ventral rear loading ramp.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 18, 2012)

I'm going with the C54. As much as the C47 deserves the accolades it earned, deservedly so; it was still a tactical transport. The C54 is what carried critical supplies and personnel around the world. I think the global reach of the USAAF would not have been as successful without this workhorse flying around on long haul flights.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 18, 2012)

As for best, I voted for the C-47. It is an amazing aircraft, and the fact that so many Gooney Birds are still flying today shows how great of an aircraft it is. 

My favorite however is the Ju 52. I just love how that tin can looks. 

Honorable mention for best however have to go to the Arado Ar 232. It can be argued that it was the first true "modern" military cargo/transport aircraft. Not built in very significant numbers however.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 18, 2012)

I had to go with the Me 323, it was the forerunner of heavy transports.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 18, 2012)

C-47 hands down. Some aircraft carried more, some flew faster and higher, but the C-47 was a benchmark and IMO was probably the best aircraft ever built.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 18, 2012)

I too agree that it was the best aircraft ever built. 

Of course vikingberserker's post does bring something up, as well as syscom's. There are just too many different kinds of transport/cargo aircraft. Tactical, heavy, medium, etc...

Can't really put the C-47 in the same category as the Ju 252 for instance.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 18, 2012)

Definitely the C-47 Dakota/Skytrain.

The most used and most significant.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 18, 2012)

I'm with Adler, Wuzak, Flyboy, B-17 Engineer; C-47 hands down. Ju 52/3m for looks though!


----------



## GregP (Aug 19, 2012)

I like the Curtiss C-43 Commando. Hauled more cargo, farther, and into and out of the same size airfields as the C-47. Of course, the C-47 was more numerous and a great plane, but the C-46 outperformed it everywhere in the envelope.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 19, 2012)

GregP said:


> but the C-46 outperformed it everywhere in the envelope.


Except where it counted - $$$$.


----------



## GregP (Aug 19, 2012)

Even today it is more expensive to operate and maintain a C-46 since the R-2800 is more expensive than the R-1820. 

But you can also haul about twice as much stuff, and I do not know if the operational costs are twice that of a C-47 or not since I don't fly one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 20, 2012)

GregP said:


> Even today it is more expensive to operate and maintain a C-46 since the R-2800 is more expensive than the R-1820.
> 
> But you can also haul about twice as much stuff, and I do not know if the operational costs are twice that of a C-47 or not since I don't fly one.


I remember reading the C-46 was twice as expensive to operate, maintenance, fuel, etc.


----------



## glennasher (Aug 20, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Except where it counted - $$$$.





They were also prone to catch fire quickly when hit by AAA, they were a disaster on the jump over the Rhine. As an old 82nd. Abn. Div. trooper, I tend to look at such things a bit differently than you airedales. :^) IIRC, that was the only combat jump they were used for, the double jump doors would have made things a lot better, but for their tendencies to flame "really badly".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## futuredogfight (Aug 20, 2012)

Go Sky Train!


----------



## davebender (Aug 20, 2012)

IMO you need separate categories for tactical transports and long range transports.

Ju-52 was the best tactical transport during the early 1930s. It was eclipsed by C-47 during late 1930s but still a useful and effective aircraft throughout WWII and beyond. Ju-52 had better short / rough field performance and it was dirt cheap (162,00 RM with engines). During the 1930s and 1940s either aircraft would be an excellent choice.

Ar-232B gets the "might have been best" award. Only 10 built but it had all the desirable characteristics of a modern tactical transport aircraft.






Long Range Transports.
Expensive to purchase and operate but if you need to haul heavy / bulky cargo over long distances then you need the big boys. C-46 doesn't have any serious competition.

Ju-252 gets the "might have been best" award. Only 15 built but unlike C-46 the fuselage was optimized for loading / unloading cargo. That's a big deal when moving large / bulky cargo.


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 20, 2012)

Yeah wish I had included the Ju 252/352. I was just more familiar with the Arado.


----------



## davebender (Aug 20, 2012)

Superficial resemblance but performance was very different. 

Jumo 211 powered Ju-252 was a world class design. 

IMO Bramo 323 powered Ju-352 was mediocre. Not enough engine power for a fuselage of that size. It doesn't help that the Ju-352 fuselage was made of inferior materials.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 20, 2012)

With the majority...c-47. Just the best mix of cost, reliability, ruggedness, flexibility, simplicity and dependability. Pushes evrything else out of contention for those reasons


----------



## wuzak (Aug 20, 2012)

davebender said:


> IMO you need separate categories for tactical transports and long range transports.
> 
> Ju-52 was the best tactical transport during the early 1930s. It was eclipsed by C-47 during late 1930s but still a useful and effective aircraft throughout WWII and beyond. Ju-52 had better short / rough field performance and it was dirt cheap (162,00 RM with engines). During the 1930s and 1940s either aircraft would be an excellent choice.
> 
> ...



What about the Junkers Ju 290?


----------



## davebender (Aug 21, 2012)

It's my understanding the Ju-290 did not enter mass production. Otherwise it might be a contender in the very long range transport category, competing against aircraft such as the B-24 transport variant.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 21, 2012)

davebender said:


> It's my understanding the Ju-290 did not enter mass production. Otherwise it might be a contender in the very long range transport category, competing against aircraft such as the B-24 transport variant.



They built more Ju 290s than Ju 252s....unless Wiki is wrong! 65 Ju 290s built vs 15 Ju 252s. Not all the Ju 290s were in the transport configuration, though.


----------



## davebender (Aug 21, 2012)

I agree but what does that prove? Neither aircraft was placed into mass production.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 21, 2012)

Why do a lot of these polls state the best of whatever catagory we're talking about, but when you get to the poll, it's changed to favorite? 
The "best" and someone's favorite are not neccessarily the same aircraft.


----------



## Roostergod (Aug 7, 2016)

Does anyone know the cargo load of the ju 252 and ju 352?


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 8, 2016)

Wiki has the JU-252 empty weight at 29,000 lbs and loaded weight at 49,000 lbs. So that is about 20,000 lbs

Similarly, it shows the empty and loaded weight for the JU-352 at 27,000 and 43,000, so about 15,000 lbs

I'm positive someone has more exact weights that what wiki shows, but that will give you an idea.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 8, 2016)

one aircraft that has been passed over in this poll is the Italian SM-82. I this aircraft was the best axis transport used in quantity of the war. . as such it deserves an honourable mention.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Aug 8, 2016)

"Best", the C-47/R4D. General Eisenhower called it one of the most important weapons of the War. My favorite is the C-54. My runner up is the FW-200 Condor. I think the Condor was one of the most elegant transports of the era.


----------



## aurora-7 (Aug 8, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> "Best", the C-47/R4D. General Eisenhower called it one of the most important weapons of the War. My favorite is the C-54. My runner up is the FW-200 Condor. I think the Condor was one of the most elegant transports of the era.



Definitely gets my vote for 'Best Looking' transport.


----------



## yulzari (Aug 8, 2016)

An honourable mention to the Handley Page Harrow and Bristol Bombay (if I may conflate the two) as the biggest transport the Aliies could put into a small field. Capable bombers to boot. Still in front line use in 1944. Were a pair of Hercules fitted in place of the Pegasus they could drag themselves out of even smaller fields. The limit being set by the power to clear a field rather than to get in.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Aug 8, 2016)

yulzari said:


> An honourable mention to the Handley Page Harrow and Bristol Bombay (if I may conflate the two) as the biggest transport the Aliies could put into a small field. Capable bombers to boot. Still in front line use in 1944. Were a pair of Hercules fitted in place of the Pegasus they could drag themselves out of even smaller fields. The limit being set by the power to clear a field rather than to get in.



If you take the Bombay's wing, slap on a couple of Hercules instead of the Pegasus, and give it a much more useful transport fuselage, you have the Bristol Freighter. And a very nice bit of kit that would have been in 1944.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 9, 2016)

yulzari said:


> An honourable mention to the Handley Page Harrow



Always thought the Harrow (or Sparrow as it was unoficially known when used as a transport) was quite a handsome beast in a very 30s way.







Interior when in use as a flying ambulance


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 9, 2016)

It's 2:00am, closing time at the bar, nothing else around, pretty. Not bad at the time, just don't look at it in the sun light!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2016)

As compared to the Ju-52 which would be the old broad at the end of the bar whose make up is falling off in chunks big enough to be trip hazards on the floor and wig with a 15 degree tilt.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 9, 2016)

Thorlifter said:


> It's 2:00am, closing time at the bar, nothing else around, pretty. Not bad at the time, just don't look at it in the sun light!


Hey you talking about my girlfriend

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 9, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> Hey you talking about my girlfriend



Everybody likes a little love every now and then!


----------



## davparlr (Aug 12, 2016)

While the C-47 was everywhere and did everything, my favorite is the C-54, which went on and won the first conflict of the cold war, the Berlin airlift. From the Boeing site, "During the war, C-54s flew a million miles a month over the rugged North Atlantic — more than 20 roundtrips a day". Except for the Ju 52, all the other planes were footnotes in history. The C-47 and C-54 wrote it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2016)

C-54 had a little help from the C-46. 
They built around 3180 C-46s compared to 1241 C-54s.
Granted the C-46 had more than it's share of problems and was not used in Europe until the spring of 1945 but the war in China and the Pacific would have been very different without it.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Aug 13, 2016)

I have to wonder, was the C-46 sent to the Pacific due to its longer range over the C-47? or was it that Europe First strategy relegated the C-46 to the Pacific. Wiki says Rigdeway did not want to use the for Airborne troops.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 13, 2016)

Ridgeway didn't forbid it's use for airborne operations until after March 24th 1945 so that wouldn't had any effect on deployment in the preceding 3 years. 
While the C-46 had enough range to fly the Atlantic it really couldn't carry a worthwhile payload while doing so and probably required auxiliary fuel tanks. 
A lot of the C-46s were used flying "Hump" into China.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 13, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> C-54 had a little help from the C-46.
> They built around 3180 C-46s compared to 1241 C-54s.
> Granted the C-46 had more than it's share of problems and was not used in Europe until the spring of 1945 but the war in China and the Pacific would have been very different without it.


I agree. I like the C-46. It had some development problems, but so did others that became great, like the B-29. I also wanted to say that the C-46 got a bad rap during Operation Varsity. It was basically unarmored and the fuel tanks were not self-sealing. Flying at low level in the daylight into prepared German air defenses with this type of aircraft was almost suicide. Any other aircraft not protected, including the C-47, would have met a similar fate. Its powerful engines, large load, and high altitude made it a valuable asset in flying hump. Unfortunately, flying the hump did not make the news as many other missions, but still required extremely brave aircrews.


----------



## Pinin (Aug 18, 2016)

Arado Ar.232 and Me 323 were the only modern military transport aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 18, 2016)

OK, when can we stop laughing?


----------



## Pinin (Aug 18, 2016)

We?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 19, 2016)

WE!


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 19, 2016)

Pinin said:


> Arado Ar.232 and Me 323 were the only modern military transport aircraft.


The Me323 is the grandfather of heavy lift military transport.

Keyword: Grandfather.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 19, 2016)

Or maybe great-grandfather!


----------



## parsifal (Aug 19, 2016)

I think he means in the context of WWII. even so its a tall claim to make and Im interested to see the justification for making it......

I would accept they were very capable, but the only modern transport???/ really?????


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 19, 2016)

The Me323 had the hallmarks of a modern MAC heavy lift while others of the day were struggling with side-loading and limited access rear ramp loading (including the Ar232). Even the JRM-1, as big as it was, had to use a gantry to load jeeps and cargo aboard via it's side doors.

The Me323 certainly set the standard, but to say that the Me323 is "modern" is stretching it a little bit.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 19, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of the C-46s were used flying "Hump" into China.


SR, Ive read the c-46 struggled in the mountains and the old DC-3s were a better proposition in that terrain. Any truth to that?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 19, 2016)

I am constantly amazed that the Arado 232 gets so much credit when only about 20 were built. 
The US also had small batches of "Modern" transports and/or prototypes.






About 20 built, first flight Oct 1943 a bit under powered it had the rear ramp and vehicle loading.




Curtiss C-76. The nose forward of the landing gear hinged sideways for loading, All wood. The Concept is there even if the execution was terrible. About 20 built (perhaps 18 too many)





C-82, First flight was Sept 1944 and first deliveries of production planes was in June of 1945. Originally to be built of wood the change to all metal did delay the design process. 





More in next post


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 19, 2016)

First flight Nov 9th 1944. It did have a rear ramp for loading. 

a Just missed. 




First flight Sept 1945. Contract for 50 planes was placed June 25th 1942. Loading was a bit complicated. 




Not drive on/drive off but beat the heck out of manhandling a jeep though the side door of a C-47 with a ramp. 
One of them flew 250,000lbs of coal into Berlin during the Berlin airlift in 6 round trips in 24 hours. A bit of a stunt for AIr Force day but still?

The idea that _ONLY _ Germany had "modern" military transports *is* laughable.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 19, 2016)

parsifal said:


> SR, Ive read the c-46 struggled in the mountains and the old DC-3s were a better proposition in that terrain. Any truth to that?



It depends. A number of C-47s were built with two stage superchargers like the F4F Wildcat used. Obviously these aircraft performed much better flying the hump than C-47s with two speed superchargers. The C-46 may have performed in between and lot depended on how loaded (or over loaded) the planes were.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Pinin (Aug 19, 2016)

Who adopted the C-47, Ju 52 configuration post war to design military transport? 
S.82 which was first designed proposed military transport aircraft with many specs for diverse loads even if could take a CV tankette or a Fiat Cr42 partially assembled was just a adaptation with equipment being loaded from "bomb bay."

For modern rear and front opening which is essential was Ar-232 and Me-323, some other US examples posted after mine also fit the bill so to speak.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 19, 2016)

Pinin said:


> Who adopted the C-47, Ju 52 configuration post war to design military transport?
> S.82 which was first designed proposed military transport aircraft with many specs for diverse loads even if could take a CV tankette or a Fiat Cr42 partially assembled was just a adaptation with equipment being loaded from "bomb bay."
> 
> For modern rear and front opening which is essential was Ar-232 and Me-323, some other US examples posted after mine also fit the bill so to speak.


And you're talking about one design feature. What good is having a configuration where you could drive on trucks and tanks when the aircraft performs poorly, is hard to maintain and cannot operate cost effectively??? The Ar-232 and Me-323 were innovative I give you that, but performing a world class airlift capability during WW2, one only has to look at their performance history.

The Me 323 had a range of 500 miles and could barely get out of its own way, service ceiling 13K. The Ar 232 had a range of almost 700 miles, service ceiling 23K. The C-47 had a 1600 mile range and a service ceiling of over 26,000 feet. 

Configuration and innovations aside, the Me 323 and Ar 232 were dogs when compared to the C-46 or C-47.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 19, 2016)

It surprises me how so many transports prior to the DC3 were so obviously unaerodynamic. Transports are slow in aviation terms but 150-200MPH is fast for a car and you never see high performance cars looking like a house brick.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 19, 2016)

pbehn said:


> It surprises me how so many transports prior to the DC3 were so obviously unaerodynamic. Transports are slow in aviation terms but 150-200MPH is fast for a car and you never see high performance cars looking like a house brick.



Sometimes the thought process is that a transport is just a "pick up truck." Why make it fast or aerodynamic when all it had to do is haul stuff?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 19, 2016)

Transport aircraft in the 1920s/1930s were competing with ships, trains (mostly coal fired steam engines) and low powered trucks on poor road systems. It was only from the mid 30s on that air-transport speed really became an economic factor. Lockheed Vegas, Orions and He 70s not withstanding. They depended on air mail subsidies or advertising write-offs to actually "make money". 
Even the Boeing 247 couldn't make money on passenger tickets alone.





First flight Feb 8th 1933 which really shows how out of date the Ju 52 really was. 
"Air Freight" often consisted of such things as flying fresh flowers from California to New York. Not a real heavy load and something that was just about impractical using 3-5 day ground transport. Flying heavier things (like fruit) probably would have been out of the question.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 19, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sometimes the thought process is that a transport is just a "pick up truck." Why make it fast or aerodynamic when all it had to do is haul stuff?


Because being aerodynamically efficient increases range/payload.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 19, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Because being aerodynamically efficient increases range/payload.



You're correct but some designers didn't care about that. Ease of construction, ease of operation, lifting capacity, cost effectiveness and range seemed to be the thinking

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 19, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You're correct but some designers didn't care about that. Ease of construction, ease of operation, lifting capacity, cost effectiveness and range seemed to be the thinking


That is what surprises me, when moving a lot of cargo the quickr you get there the better.


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 19, 2016)

pbehn said:


> That is what surprises me, when moving a lot of cargo the quickr you get there the better.



Or with using less fuel.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 19, 2016)

You also have to remember that airfields, even at major cities, were best described as _tiny_. 
The Boeing 247 pictured above had a stalling/landing speed of 58mph (old books sometimes bounce back and forth on terms) and a take off run of *790ft *at sea level. 
Fastest, most economical plane in the world isn't much good if it can only use a few airports. One reason there were so many flying boats, in effect unlimited runway length.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 19, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> You also have to remember that airfields, even at major cities, were best described as _tiny_.
> The Boeing 247 pictured above had a stalling/landing speed of 58mph (old books sometimes bounce back and forth on terms) and a take off run of *790ft *at sea level.
> Fastest, most economical plane in the world isn't much good if it can only use a few airports. One reason there were so many flying boats, in effect unlimited runway length.


True, however I just came across this.
https://content.historicengland.org...concrete/nine-thousand-miles-of-concrete.pdf/

The construction of runways in UK was probably the biggest "civil" engineering project that we have ever undertaken.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 19, 2016)

actually the major air transport operations since 1945 were dominated by the side loading transports mostly the C-47s. Operations that come to mind include the berlin airlift, the French operations at dien bien Phu, most of the early operations in Vietnam.

I'm not saying that rear loading air transports don't have advantages, clearly they do. But there re other issues most notably range, payload and reliability. there are other more important factors to consider. for tactical transport a/c, more important issues are the STOL and rough strip handling capabilities where a/c like the caribou really set the standard, for long range strategic airlift the roll on roll off capabilities are significant, but more significant are range, payload, reliability issues.

The Germans mounted some very successful sir transport operations, most notably crete and Norway. Less successful were the operations over Holland and an outright failure at Stalingrad. they never had the numbers to make a difference after that.

in none of these operations, and certainly none of the allied operations either during the war, or even after the war until about 1965 or so, are socalled modern tansports of any consequence. Of far greater singnificance was the survivability reliability and range of the transport fleet.

We don't have any operations to measure the AR232 by, but the me 323 was not a success in its one big deployment, the air bridge to Nth Africa, where its lack of performance made it particularly vulnerable. if the germans had been equipped with a more highly performing transport like the c-47, it is an open question whether they may have had more success.

in answer to the question of who adopted the c-47 or Ju-52 in the design of new military transports, the answer is nobody, but then again, c-47s remained the dominant military transport cross the world until the 1960's. no changes were needed to this design and it was not really displaced from its dominant position for over 20 years

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 20, 2016)

For the vast majority of nations after WW II there was just no money for _new _transport aircraft. Just getting good combat aircraft sucked up the budget. And many nations had no real need for heavy lift aircraft with roll-on/roll-off capability (Switzerland needed to air lift trucks from the French border to the Italian border?) 
Surplus C-47s and C-46s were available for dimes on the dollar (around 10%) of the price of even new versions of these aircraft let alone new designs, and the US may have simply given a number away to allies at the beginning of the Cold war as the US reequipped with newer aircraft. 
The old tail draggers were more aerodynamic than many of the "modern" transports with raised tails and loading ramps and used less fuel per mile. When transporting personnel and small items this was also a consideration. 
Transports also got to the point where the idea of using them in "hot" zones was really too expensive and wasteful for most nations to really deal with. The idea sounds good for airborne forces but as the Germans found out (and some people seemed to forget) the loss of aircraft landing in hot zones was extremely high (the German transport fleet never really recovered from Norway and the low countries). 
Tanks driving down aircraft ramps with guns blazing looks cool on magazine covers but if there is anything for the tank to actually hit it is shooting the crap out of the transport aircraft with what ever rounds are missing the tank. 
Most nations had transport fleets numbering in the dozens of aircraft, not hundreds and for the decade or two after WW II the need to replace the WW II surplus transports wasn't a high priority.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 20, 2016)

Same is true today SR, most EU countries have very little in the way of lift or heavy lift capacity.


----------



## PStickney (Dec 7, 2016)

Coming late to the party, but - The airplane on the list that had the most influence was the C-54.
Not only was it the first economically practical transoceanic transport, it changed the face of air travel from its point of introduction on.
That being said, my only regret was that I also couldn't upvote the C-47 and C-46.
The C-47 doesn't need any justification - If I'm flying one, I'm sure that I can take it anywhere and get in and out with it. The USAF is still flying some DC-3s - they have some Basler conversions used for Special Ops stuff.
The C-46 was the unsung workhorse - As has been pointed out, It can haul twice the load of a Goon, and has much more volume. While it didn't do a lot of paratrooping during World War 2, it was the backbone of the Troop Carrier Command through the postwar era until replaced in regular units by the C-119 through the early '50s, and in the Air Force Reserves in about 1957. The Air Commandos flew them in the early '60s.
They were the solid runner for tactical airlift in Korea, carrying the full load in the periods when the C-119s were grounded or restricted from carrying passengers (Happened a lot - engine and propeller troubles), and they dropped troops from the 187th Airborne RCT on at least 2 occasions.

The others just don't stack up - for some reason, the European designers have never been able to hit the sweet spot of maximum load with a strong lightweight structure - this means that for a given airplane, you have less disposable load for a given airplane size, and the payload -> range tradeoffs are less favorable.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 8, 2016)

PStickney said:


> Coming late to the party, but - The airplane on the list that had the most influence was the C-54.
> Not only was it the first economically practical transoceanic transport, it changed the face of air travel from its point of introduction on.
> That being said, my only regret was that I also couldn't upvote the C-47 and C-46.
> The C-47 doesn't need any justification - If I'm flying one, I'm sure that I can take it anywhere and get in and out with it. The USAF is still flying some DC-3s - they have some Basler conversions used for Special Ops stuff.
> ...



Great points - keep in mind that although the C-54 ushered "the next generation," the DC-3/ C-47 was still more cost effective in some circles due to an extensive and well established supply chain. Although the C-54 offered greater performance, you had 2 more engines so twice the maintenance tasking and fuel consumption on shorter routes. That's where the DC-3 held it's dominance. 

BTW - the USAF doesn't operate C-47s. The Basler conversion aircraft are leased and not part of the official inventory. I believe they are maintained and operated by civilians.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 10, 2017)

I voted for the C-54, but my heart is with the Connie. I'm sorry, but there was not a more beautiful piston-engined airliner built.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 11, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> I voted for the C-54, but my heart is with the Connie. I'm sorry, but there was not a more beautiful piston-engined airliner built.



Perhaps the de Havilland Albatross?


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jan 11, 2017)

wuzak said:


> Perhaps the de Havilland Albatross?



Looks like a Connie-Lite


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jan 11, 2017)

pinehilljoe said:


> Looks like a Connie-Lite


Lockheed Constellation first flight 9 January 1943
de Havilland Albatross first flight 20 May 1937

Constellation looks like an Albatross-heavy?

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Jan 11, 2017)




----------



## GregP (Jan 12, 2017)

We all know the Albatross was wood and the Connie was metal, right? And it had 3 tails, not 2, and the Albatross was basically a scaled-up light aircraft that cruised at about 220mph. The Connie was a real transport that cruised at 340 mph, a speed the Hurricane could not reach behind a Merlin, and was only 20 mph slower than the max speed of the early Spitfires. At max speed, it went 377 mph, FASTER than an early Spitfire.

Fighter Rebuilders is currently restoring a Connie. It was General McArthur's personal aircraft, and is coming along nicely for the new owner. What a plane! It is amazing, up close and personal. It had range of 5,400 miles and 3,500 HP engines. Then Albatross had a 900 mile range and 525 HP engines. No comparison and termites would not hurt a Connie, unlike an Albatrosss. Not that it encountered Nazi termites ... it didn't. It encountered wood rot due to wet conditions. In fact, a crash grounded the surviving Albatrosses for wood rot.

No Connie ever rotted away from wood issues. They built 7 Albatrosses and 877 Constellations. You decide which was a better bet for airline profit!

I'm leaning Constellation myself, by something like a landslide ...


----------



## wuzak (Jan 12, 2017)

GregP said:


> We all know the Albatross was wood and the Connie was metal, right? And it had 3 tails, not 2, and the Albatross was basically a scaled-up light aircraft that cruised at about 220mph. The Connie was a real transport that cruised at 340 mph, a speed the Hurricane could not reach behind a Merlin, and was only 20 mph slower than the max speed of the early Spitfires. At max speed, it went 377 mph, FASTER than an early Spitfire.
> 
> Fighter Rebuilders is currently restoring a Connie. It was General McArthur's personal aircraft, and is coming along nicely for the new owner. What a plane! It is amazing, up close and personal. It had range of 5,400 miles and 3,500 HP engines. Then Albatross had a 900 mile range and 525 HP engines. No comparison and termites would not hurt a Connie, unlike an Albatrosss. Not that it encountered Nazi termites ... it didn't. It encountered wood rot due to wet conditions. In fact, a crash grounded the surviving Albatrosses for wood rot.
> 
> ...



Seriously Greg, the Albatross was only ever designed as a light transport/mail plane.

And the numbers you quote were for the Super Constellation L-1049G, Its first flight was 17 years after that of the Albatorss, 18 years after the first flight of the Spitfire, 19 years after the first flight of the Hurricane and 12+ years after the Hurricane was withdrawn from front line service as a fighter.

When the Super Constellation was entering service de Havilland weren't building Albatrosses - they were building the first jet liner, the Comet.

While the Comet didn't enjoy the success the Constellation did, there were some factors involved in that - like de Havilland finding out about the not so well understood phenomenon of fatigue.

The Comet I's first flight was 2 years before the Super Constellations's first flight. It entered airline service shortly after the Super Connie.

The Comet I didn't have the range, was slightly short of seating capacity but had a cruising speed more than 100mph better than the Super Constellation, 

The first Super Constellation to have the Turbo-Compound R-3350 was the L-1049C, which first flew in 1953. It's cruise speed was 304mph, Top speed 330mph.

Nearly 3/4 of all Constellations built were Super Constellations, and just under half of those were military variants.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 12, 2017)

The DH 91 Albatross had seating for 22 passengers, a range of 1,040 miles, a cruise speed of 210mph and a top speed of 225mph using 4 x 525hp motors with 2 position props.

It's near contemporary, the DC 3 (first flew a couple years earlier), had seating for 21-32 passengers, cruised at 207mph and had a top speed of 230mph using 2 x 1,100hp motors with constant speed propellers.

So, teh Albatross wasn't too far out in performance for a mid 1930s light passenger transport.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 12, 2017)

Both the DC-3 and DH 91 Albatross were at least medium if not medium/heavy transports of their time. The US certainly had nothing heavier in commercial service in 1938-39 although designs were in the works. 
The British had:





but numbers could be counted on the fingers of one hand most of the time in first year or two. 

The Connie first flew in 1943 but introduction was slow (glacial might be a better term) due to problems (same engine as B-29).
Early ones could be pretty zippy as they weighed less loaded than the L-1649 did empty, had 27ft less wingspand and a fuselage about 20ft shorter. Even with 2200hp Engines for take-off they were good for around 330mph depending on altitude.


----------



## Old Wizard (Jan 12, 2017)




----------

