Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It still ain't a DC-3. 10,000 of them built and used by EVERY major airline of the world. The Beaver and Otter changed a very adverse region. The DC-3 changed the world.I disagree to a point
there is one aircraft that is being overlooked the DHC2 Beaver/DHC3 Otter and its follow on DHC 6 Twin Otter (Twotter) although not a heavy hauler its versatilty and reliability are unmatched
Untill we have another 100 years of aviation pass us - in my book it goes to the DC-3.Hence there's no one best a/c of all time.
Limited use? It was used in EVERY theater of WW2!!!!I disagree. The DC-3 was very limited in its use, while other a/c such as the Ju-290 could fly trans Atlantic flights, carry a whole lot more faster. Just its range limits the DC-3 allot.
In post war Trans atlantic service, DC-3s flew the Atlantic Via Newfoundland, Greenland, Iceland, Ireland and eventually the European continent - Agree its size and range limited it and that's why we eventually seen aircraft like the DC-4, 6 and 7 and the Lockheed 049 and 1049 appear.It was the trans Atlantic a/c that brought the world together, not the DC-3.
The DC-3 was/is a great small passenger or transport plane, possibly the greatest small passenger transport a/c of all time, but IMO it's definitely not the greatest a/c of all time.
And a Merry Christmas to you Soren - I spoke to Santa and I asked him to leave a C-47 model in your stocking!Anyway I have to join my family now for Christmas celebrations. A merry Christmas to you all!
Limited use? It was used in EVERY theater of WW2!!!!
I spoke to Santa and I asked him to leave a C-47 model in your stocking!
Gotcha..You misunderstood me, when I say it was limited in its use I mean that it couldn't carry allot, its range was short, it wasn't very fast. It is possibly the most used a/c of all time so I'd never claim it to have ever been in limited use.
But it was the first aircraft to economically and safely accomplish this on a regular basis while making money in the process...The DC-3 needed a whole lot of time stops to cross the atlantic, hence it wasn't the aircraft that really brought to two continents together, that job was fullfilled by the trans atlantic a/c.
Really ?? Now I can't wait to open it!
I seriously wouldn't mind getting one though...
Merry Christmas!
Santa didn't bring me a DC-3 modelOh well, might go buy one then, haven't got one in my collection (Big mistake! I know!), and then I'll have something to pass my time with tommorrow, helps lower the blood pressure
Where you at, Soren? Asia?
Actually it doesn't - the fuselage was built in a large production jig, there were actually several of them to support the production line. They would be placed in a large building side-by-side and the fuselage built up from bulkheads and then longerons and stringers added. I seen some of these jigs before they were ultimately scrapped.And if you look at the production cost I don't think the Constellation was very cheap to built. The fuselage changes the changes very often, that may have been some sort of expensive/intensive on manhours to built.
I stand corrected it was the Tu 16 that used an enlarged Tu 4 fuselage
Although one of the great COMBAT aircraft of WW2, let's not forget the limitations of the Spit (range) as well as the mauling it received in the post BoB sweeps into France by the Fw 190.The Tu 16 had a completely different fuselage than Tu-4/B-29 because of his flying profile - with the "widebody" like Tu-4 you can't even reach the subsonic speeds in a diving flight without the airframe destruction. It was not larger ,but rather thinner with both engines almost integrated to it.
However, I completely agree with you - it was a milestone in a soviet bomber engineering , especially in a system development.
It was also a useless plane from the strategic point of view - you could barely reach targets inside the UK , not to mention the US (only in a kamikadze one way mission). That's the reason why various adventurous plans like capture of american bases in Iceland or Greenland with invading forces transported by submarines were developed .
Back to the topic - the Spitfire easily beats others from the general point of view - great airplane, good combat record and a winner of the war
As argued, the DC-3/ C-47 was a benchmark and the fact that is served on all fronts, was used by dozens of Airforces and civilian operators since it's inception and is still in service today is more than enough proof to support the claim of it being the Best Aircraft of WW2 and probably the greatest aircraft ever built.
The C-130 has had the longest front-line operational history, the next in line for the title is the B-52. The DC-3 still holds the title for the longest operational history because a lot of nations still hold on to aircraft. The B-747 doesn't come close.
I stand corrected - Aft Fuselage - I've seen reference stating that a section of the Tu 16 aft fuselage was derived from the Tu 4 - a very common practice in aircraft construction.The Tu 16 had a completely different fuselage than Tu-4/B-29 because of his flying profile - with the "widebody" like Tu-4 you can't even reach the subsonic speeds in a diving flight without the airframe destruction. It was not larger ,but rather thinner with both engines almost integrated to it.