Best transporter

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

They were used in times when air superiority hadn't yet been achieved. That's why...
 
Yeah, like I said, the fault of the Germans and not the Ju-52. I was just saying it's hard to overlook loses like that.
 
That would be a pretty good line up. I think though that the C-46 would have been higher if more had been built.
 
Yes, but unfortunately they weren't built in high numbers. Why is that?
 
Well, Curtis was a manufacture kinda on its way out. It spent alot of effort churning out P-40s and Helldivers and I imagine that ate up alot of its production capacity. Additionally, the fabulous success of the C-47 probably had something to do with it.
 
I suppose the C-47 was the main reason, I mean they could have moved C-46 production elsewhere. Why have two transports?
 
Well America did like to have redundancy . . . B-17 and B-24, B-25 and B-26, P-38 and P-47 and P-51. I know they all managed to find their own little roles but they all did the same basic mission.
 
In different places. And as you said with different missions, most of them were two or more role planes anyway.
 
You are right there. It also had the better service record, which is why we all agreed that the C-47 was the best transport plane of the war.
 
nope :D lets talk about the SM.81 for a bit :D ooo on the subject of savoia-marchettis, does anyone have a picture of an SM.85 :?:
 
The C-46 was actually better though, wasn't it? The C-47 has more of a record though, so it obviously had the bigger effect.
 

Attachments

  • sm.85.jpg
    sm.85.jpg
    7.9 KB · Views: 719
The C-46 could carry more but the C-47 had a longer range. The C-46 had a higher top speed but the C-47 actually cruised faster.
 
The sources I've been able to check show the C-47 cruised about 2mph faster which isn't much until you consider that the C-46's top speed was 40mph faster.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back