Best transporter

• May 14, 2004

• #21

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

They were used in times when air superiority hadn't yet been achieved. That's why...

 

• May 14, 2004

• Thread starter
• #22

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

yup, the sm.81 was faster and it had a higher ceiling

 

• May 14, 2004

• #23

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

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.

 

• May 14, 2004

• #24

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

the C-47 wins easily, the 52 second.....................

 

• May 14, 2004

• Thread starter
• #25

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

sm.81 3rd...

 

• May 14, 2004

• #26

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

Agreed. C-46, fourth

 

• May 15, 2004

• #27

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

That would be a pretty good line up. I think though that the C-46 would have been higher if more had been built.

 

• May 15, 2004

• #28

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

Yes, but unfortunately they weren't built in high numbers. Why is that?

 

• May 15, 2004

• #29

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

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.

 

• May 15, 2004

• #30

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

I suppose the C-47 was the main reason, I mean they could have moved C-46 production elsewhere. Why have two transports?

 

• May 15, 2004

• #31

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

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.

 

• May 15, 2004

• #32

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

In different places. And as you said with different missions, most of them were two or more role planes anyway.

 

• May 15, 2004

• #33

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

the C-47 looks better than the C-46 IMO.............

 

• May 15, 2004

• #34

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

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.

 

• May 16, 2004

• #35

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

so is this topic dead now???

 

• May 16, 2004

• Thread starter
• #36

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

nope lets talk about the SM.81 for a bit ooo on the subject of savoia-marchettis, does anyone have a picture of an SM.85

 

• May 17, 2004

• #37

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

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

  7.9 KB · Views: 733

• May 17, 2004

• #38

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

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.

 

• May 17, 2004

• #39

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

Amazing, really...

 

• May 17, 2004

• #40

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

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.