r2800doublewasp
Senior Airman
P-51D!
The F4U-4 was good too.
The F4U-4 was good too.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Every pilot wants to be a fighter pilot whether they admit to it or not , . Its like asking a driver if he wants to drive a Plymouth Caravan or a Ferrari .There was quite a bit on interchange between VT, VSB and VF pilots. My suspicion is that most of the Navy pilots wanted to be VFs. I believe that Swede Vejatsa (spelling) was an SBD driver and then switched to fighters. Boone Guyton was a dive bomber pilot before getting the job as chief test pilot on the Corsair. A number of the AVG pilots were former USN VSB pliots.
This one is easy. The Yak-9. It helped the Russians fight off Germany. That was critical for the Allies.
Still doesn't look as cool as the Corsair though...
8)Wow, I didn't know the C-47 had carried cargo that size.
As for the C-47 being the best a/c of WW2, I still don't agree with that, probably the most important a/c but not the best. It was truly a great a/c, very reliable, but the reason I wouldn't call it the best is because there were a/c which could do what it could do better.
Could do better, sure, but were they as cost effective to operate, built in the same numbers, showed the same longevity, were as easy to fly and operate, had the potential for multi-use and design growth and have a better safety record?
No.
Could do better, sure, but were they as cost effective to operate, built in the same numbers, showed the same longevity, were as easy to fly and operate, had the potential for multi-use and design growth and have a better safety record?
No.
It is what it is, Lufthansa flew DC-3s and I'm sure they wold of continued to do so had Germany won the war, but then again "what ifs" don't make history.Well FLYBOYJ there can be many reasons for that, such as the discontinued production of excellent designs because of a war lost.
It is impressive for one of the best fighters made IMO, but by the end of the war the -109 was facing obsolescence as you well know and "if" the war continued we would of seen less and less of her - the fact that she was produced in the cold war years was because of a broke dictator (Franco) who had cheap resources at his disposal. And we won't forget about the Avias that went to Israel, but I think there too yo had the Czechs who had the airframes available and the Israelis who would of grabbed anything at the time.The C-47's production numbers and years in service are impressive, there's no doubt about that, but the same can be said about other WWII a/c, such as the 109 for example, the most successful fighter design of the war with over 33,000 built and serving as frontline fighter well into the 50's (Which is quite astonishing considering the replacement rate esp. fighters undergo).
The number are UNKNOWN because the Japanese and Russian built their own and although the Russians had a license, they probably built way more than they were licenced to. Additionally the design led to a whole series of Ilyushin transports with their roots directly attributed to the C-47. But as far as official numbers, over 10,000 C-47s, 487 by the Japanese and 4937 by the USSR that we know about. Oh yea, there were about 600 plus plain old DC-3s built as well.As for cost effectiveness, well I don't have the numbers for each a/c but I doubt the C-47 was much better than most other a/c of WWII. But perhaps you have some numbers ?
Actually it did, aside from numerous engine mods including turbo props, installation of modern avionics the fact that the basic design remained the same but allowed for much internal growth was one of the reason why the design lasted so long - the cockpit layout, placement of instruments and little things like shaping the flap handle like the shape of a flap or the shape of a wheel on the landing gear handle, all innovations that were made mandatory by regulation through out the world thanks to the C-47/DC-3.And as to multi-use design growth, the C-47 was hardly at the forefront really. I mean how much did the design change over time ? Not much.
It was revolutionary because the simplicity of the systems combined with the airframe design gave it a very "harmonized" design where rather than being the fastest or biggest, but all the systems and functions worked in harmony, and the key word here is "worked."Now don't get me wrong the C-47 is great design, one of the best of WW2, but it wasn't THE best or the most revolutionary of the war. Now if you were to say it was the most important a/c of the war, then I could somewhat agree, without it the allies wouldn't have won.
They did but when you look at the over all impact, the contribution to the war effort, the versatility and ultimate longevity, there's no other aircraft that comes close.As to which a/c was the overall best of the war, I think that is impossible to answer as most a/c from both sides were carrying out their own vital roles at which they were the best in their air arm.
The C47 had something no aircraft from Germany could dream of it was a simple and not overly engineered aircraft. In the RCAF/CAF they designed a replacement for it it was called a DHC 4 Caribou a good aircraft in its own right with a fair combat record in Viet Nam . The Dak out lived the Caribou in the RCAF/CAF . That says a great deal .