Best World War II Aircraft? (1 Viewer)

[Soren]

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 .

Well I'm not just comparing it to German a/c, I'm comparing it to all a/c.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well FLYBOYJ I guess we have to agree to disagree on this.

No problem

The DC-3 didn't evolve any more than most other a/c, and I doubt it was anymore easily adapted than most other a/c either.

Wanna bet?

It lended it self for modification for specific roles in an efficient and cost effective manner. Other aircraft could be modded the same but again its a matter of an "harmonized design."

The thing that made the DC-3 a success was mainly that it was reliable cheap, something which often seems to win out over superior performance technology.

And you actually spelled out why this aircraft is not only the greatest aircraft to emerge from WW2, but probably the greatest aircraft of all time.

BTW - I show about 200 still flying operationally.

 

[Soren]

The pictures don't prove anything though, many a/c were reengined numerous times with no problem. And as for rockets, well the nr. of a/c whihc used this with success is impossible to count, the Germans often used it on their transport a/c when hauling extreme loads off of short airfields.

Also what is greater about the DC-3 compared to the C-113 Hercules for example ? I don't see anything.

Was the DC-3 for example capable of acting as a bomber ? No. By comparison the Ju-290 for example could act both as a long range heavy bomber, transport, passenger reconnaissance a/c. I'm not saying the Ju-290 is a´better a/c, but it could fulfill more roles. The downside is the far higher complexity of the Ju-290.

 

[Juha]

Soren
licence built DC-3s, that is Soviet Li-2s were one of the main types of ADD, Soviet long range bomber force. Other main types of ADD were Il-4 and B-25 Mitchell. So there were many more DC-3 bombers around than Ju-290s.

Juha

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

.

Was the DC-3 for example capable of acting as a bomber ? No. By comparison the Ju-290 for example could act both as a long range heavy bomber, transport, passenger reconnaissance a/c. I'm not saying the Ju-290 is a´better a/c, but it could fulfill more roles. The downside is the far higher complexity of the Ju-290.

Can you prove that the C-47 could not be used as a bomber? I am sure they could rig bombs under the wings...

Besides the C-47 was used as an attack aircraft. Ever heard of the AC-47. Sure it was not used that way in WW2, but in Vietnam it was.

I do not think you can say that the Ju 290 was able to be used in more roles. Please list all the roles that the Ju 290 could perform and all the roles that the C-47 could perform. Lets put this one to the test. Do not take me wrong, I am sure the 290 could perform more roles. It was a bigger aircraft and capable of performing more roles. I just don't think you give the C-47 eneogh credit.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The pictures don't prove anything though, many a/c were reengined numerous times with no problem. And as for rockets, well the nr. of a/c whihc used this with success is impossible to count, the Germans often used it on their transport a/c when hauling extreme loads off of short airfields.

Also what is greater about the DC-3 compared to the C-113 Hercules for example ? I don't see anything.

Do you mean C-130 probably the 2nd greatest aircraft ever built?

Was the DC-3 for example capable of acting as a bomber ? No. By comparison the Ju-290 for example could act both as a long range heavy bomber, transport, passenger reconnaissance a/c. I'm not saying the Ju-290 is a´better a/c, but it could fulfill more roles. The downside is the far higher complexity of the Ju-290.[/QUOTE]But did the Ju 290 last after the war even though there were many combatants capable of collecting up the tooling and building her? NO. And you answered your own question - complexity, and I could bet dollars to donuts the DC-3 was a far easier aircraft to keep in the air as well.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ah just found some information here that the Portugese Airforce used the C-47 as a bomber during the Portuguese Colonial War.

Now I am not saying, it would have been a good bomber. It however could be adapted for use as a bomber.

Never say never, Soren...

 

[kool kitty89]

Did you guys miss Juha's post on the use of the Russian Li-2 as a bomber? (in that context it was a considerably more capable bomber than the Ju 52 had been used as)

Also there was the B-18 (from DC-2) and B-23 developed from The DC-3. THe B-23 was a decent medium bomber for the time, though inferior to the B-25 and B-26.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Nope I missed that, sorry. Juha is correct however. The Li-2 was a DC-3, and them being used as bombers is another example.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Did you guys miss Juha's post on the use of the Russian Li-2 as a bomber? (in that context it was a considerably more capable bomber than the Ju 52 had been used as)

Also there was the B-18 (from DC-2) and B-23 developed from The DC-3. THe B-23 was a decent medium bomber for the time, though inferior to the B-25 and B-26.

The B-18 actually competed against the B-17 and although eventually found inferior, it was widely used as a trainer, same with the B-23. Both aircraft were used in ASW operations and I think the B-18 was one of the first aircraft to carry MAD equipment in the ASW role.

 

[Soren]

Well nearly every twin engined a/c of the war could be used as a bomber (Th Mosquito for example), but not nearly to the extent of a/c like the Ju-290, I mean the DC-3 had ZERO defensive armament.

The DC-3 was designed as a transport passenger a/c and performed best in these roles, as a bomber it would've been miserable. Slow, none to poor defensiev armament, very light bomb load etc etc, add to that the operating alt which would've been very low as a bomber because of the much added weight of the bombs armament.

 

[Soren]

I do not think you can say that the Ju 290 was able to be used in more roles. Please list all the roles that the Ju 290 could perform and all the roles that the C-47 could perform. Lets put this one to the test. Do not take me wrong, I am sure the 290 could perform more roles. It was a bigger aircraft and capable of performing more roles. I just don't think you give the C-47 eneogh credit.

Ok this confuses me abit, what is your position exactly ?

I mean you say "I do not think you can say that the Ju 290 was able to be used in more roles" and then you say "I am sure the 290 could perform more roles. It was a bigger aircraft and capable of performing more roles."

I agree that it was capable of performing more roles more effectively than the DC-3, no doubt about it. The Ju-290 was used as a long range heavy bomber, heavy transport, large passenger a/c recon plane. The DC-3 was used as transport passenger a/c during the war, that's it. After the war it was used in numerous other roles.

The Soviets experimented with some DC-3 designs, but none proved successful besides the original.

 

[kool kitty89]

Well nearly every twin engined a/c of the war could be used as a bomber (The Mosquito for example), but not nearly to the extent of a/c like the Ju-290

Huh? The Mosquito was designed as a bomber.

And the Li-2 could be armmed with a 12.7 mm UBK dorsal turret and 3 flexible 7.62 mm ShKAS. Up to 4x 250 kg bombs could be carried underwing on racks. (for short range missions, half that for longer range)

And as to its operational use (in addition to Juha's previous statement)

Lisunov Li-2: the Soviet DC-3, reviewed by Scott Van Aken

The aircraft was also modified when it entered Russian Air Force service to act as a bomber and night attack aircraft, so bomb bays were incorporated along with external bomb racks and an upper fuselage turret for defense. This turret was also incorporated into the cargo/passenger versions as the PS-84/Li-2 had to operate in a hostile environment, often without fighter cover.
===
Also included are numerous war-time exploits of these planes as they often had to carry out bombing raids or cargo missions without fighter escort. PS-84/Li-2s were the main equipment of several bomber regiments as there was little in the way of a pure cargo requirement until much later in the war.

The B-18 actually competed against the B-17 and although eventually found inferior, it was widely used as a trainer, same with the B-23. Both aircraft were used in ASW operations and I think the B-18 was one of the first aircraft to carry MAD equipment in the ASW role.

The B-23 was also the first operational US bomber with a glazed tail turret.

 

[Soren]

The B-23 isn't the DC-3, they are quite different.

As for the Russian use of the Li-2 as a bomber, it was no success, and 4x 250 kg bombs, heck a Fw-190 can carry more! By comparison the Ju-290 could carry up to 8 tons of bombs. And the defensive armament of the Li-2 was like I said, miserable.

The DC-3 simply couldn't be used as an effective bomber, so that really can't be counted as one of its capabilities. You are seriously overrating the a/c.

The Ju-290 could by comparison operate highly effectively in all of its roles, esp. as a heavy bomber and transport a/c.

 

[Soren]

Now if being the best is all about being simple cheap, then I think the Ju-52 deserves a mention. This a/c was also used well after the war for a variety of roles. But I wouldn't consider it the best a/c of the war or ever to fly at all.

 

[Soren]

Btw, what makes the DC-3 a much better a/c than the DC-4 for example ?

 

[Soren]

IMO the best WW2 a/c is the a/c which could substantially outdo each of it's main contempories in its field while being cheap simple to make. But then comes the question, was there such an a/c ?

The DC-3 was an important a/c, but it wasn't the best at anything. It was cheap, simple very dependable and could carry out a number of roles well, that's it.

 

[pbfoot]

Now if being the best is all about being simple cheap, then I think the Ju-52 deserves a mention. This a/c was also used well after the war for a variety of roles. But I wouldn't consider it the best a/c of the war or ever to fly at all.

That depends where you live , I'm sure aviation meant alot in Europe but it was nowhere near as important as it was in North America or Australia . The Junkers aircraft were well respected in the aviation communities

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Btw, what makes the DC-3 a much better a/c than the DC-4 for example ?

Simplicity. The DC-4 brought in a new era when airliners weren't operated on dirt and grass strips anymore. In the post war years the DC-3 was looked upon like the 737 or the A319/320 is today. It was perfect for short/medium routes and in the end was more cost effective to operate.

. It was cheap, simple very dependable and could carry out a number of roles well, that's it.

And that's what made it "the best."

 

[Juha]

Soren
Quote:" As for the Russian use of the Li-2 as a bomber, it was no success"

Again you have ready opinion on a/c on which you clearly only just heard. I'm not claiming that Li-2 was a good bomber, but at least it was used attacks against for ex. many Axis held cities.

Quote:" The Ju-290 could by comparison operate highly effectively in all of its roles, esp. as a heavy bomber and transport a/c."

Can You enlighten us against what targets Ju 290s were used as highly effective heavy bomber? And I don't mean its use as a patrol bomber against shipping.

Allied didn't have later in the war need to use converted/modified transports as patrol bombers because they could use versions (PB4Y-1 and Liberator GRs) of a good long range bomber, B-24, as patrol bomber before a dedicated long-range patrol bomber version, PB4Y-2 Privateer, was ready.