Best World War II Aircraft?
- Thread starter Aggie08
- Start date
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The C-54 was also comparable, though still not as good on paper as the C-46. Of course, one of the biggest drawbacks is that these planes weren't available in nearly as many numbers as the C-47.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Agree! The Mosquito is the second highest ranking in the 2-engine fighters poll. (second to the P-38 ). Overall I'd have to say these two craft are both great, each having advantages over the other.
And as said a few C-47s still flying in an active cargo transport roll. As is the C-46.
And as said a few C-47s still flying in an active cargo transport roll. As is the C-46.
the su-47 is gangsta
Banned
the horten 229 was most adcanced
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
And u would be thinking incorrectly...
yes you are right with your personal view. Dakota do it's job very good...but in my opinion,there is other airplanes(attack/denfense)tha may it's job very well
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
But did they have the technical and operational impact of the C-47? I would venture to say no, no matter what type of other aircraft is compared. The C-47 was the benchmark for military cargo and civilian aircraft that is still cast in stone almost 70 years after its first flight. Not only was the C-47 the greatest aircraft of WW2 but probably the greatest aircraft of all-time.yes you are right with your personal view. Dakota do it's job very good...but in my opinion,there is other airplanes(attack/denfense)tha may it's job very well
DBII
Senior Master Sergeant
Well said Flyboy. The C47 has done everything: cargo, troop transport, towed gliders, airborne assults and medivac. The Russins even strapped on bombs for night raids. The C47s were later used as gunships. They flew over the Hump, air lifted supplies to cut off units and saved Berlin. The C47s were everywhere and did everything.
DBII
DBII
They didn't do everything...but that's irrelevant. Neto, you seem to miss the idea - the C-47's design achieved what it was supposed to do without need of improvement. All the 'attack/defence' aircraft were constantly changing through the war; the Spitfire (for example) did not do its job good enough to be left alone , it went from Mark I to Mark 21 by the wars end (And Mk.24 by the end of its career.)
The C-47 was only made obselete by the introduction of the gas turbine engine; when the likes of the C-130 took the biscuit. And then the C-130 has been put on the backseat by the C-18 which has been created through (genius) modern science and engineering.
No fighter or bomber of World War II did the job they were designed to as well as the C-47 did theirs.
The C-47 was only made obselete by the introduction of the gas turbine engine; when the likes of the C-130 took the biscuit. And then the C-130 has been put on the backseat by the C-18 which has been created through (genius) modern science and engineering.
No fighter or bomber of World War II did the job they were designed to as well as the C-47 did theirs.
evangilder
"Shooter"
And c-47s are STILL hauling cargo today in some places in the world!
many people in this thread put the c 47 on the top... it is a nice airplane yes, but i do not conform that a cargo airplane may be the best ww2 aircraft.
I think that a attack or defensive aircraft may be the best choice.
Yeah but there is more to fighting a war than throwing bullets and dropping bombs. This thread is about the contribution to the war. The C-47 flew in supplies to the ground troops that could not fight the war without it.
The C-47 was the allied work horse and it is still in use today.
evangilder
"Shooter"
The C-46 also came out a bit after the C-47. The C-46 got heavy use in the CBI, flying the hump. It could actually get to altitude while fully loaded faster than the C-47. The C-46 was used a couple of times in Europe, like in operation varsity, but for the most part, the C-47 handled most of the cargo duties in Europe. I have seen them side by side, and the C-46 is considerably bigger.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Here's an interesting candidate:
The Savoia Marchetti SM.82.
Kris
The Savoia Marchetti SM.82.
Kris
Explain how that aircraft could contend for being the best.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Well let me say first that I NEVER consider an aircraft bad or good because of what it actually performed. Remember the discussion about best carrier attack aircraft and me voting for the Fieseler Fi 167 even though it never proved itself.
So even though the SM.82 didn't achieve the same as the C-47 I consider it a better aircraft, as a transport aircraft but especially because it was such a versatile aircraft which was also cheap to build.
Even though it had the same power as the Ju 52 or C-47 it could transport much more and at greater distances.
It was a very rugged aircraft, made out of an advanced mixed structure of welded steel tubes, skinned with mertal, plywood or fabric. Inside the fuselage there was much volume that they could create two decks. It had such a big fuselage that it was used to transport light tanks and fighter aircraft to Africa. It achieved great things in supplying the troops in Africa, flying under extremely difficult circumstances and still getting the job done.
As a bomber it could carry an impressive 4 tons, all internal. But of course - like the Ju 52 - it was no longer suited as a real bomber. Instead it could fly night bombing missions or special long-range missions. They managed to reach very long distances, bombing Gibraltar at 1,600 km from Italy. They also bombed an oil refinery somewhere in the Persian Gulf some 4000 km away creating much confusion amongst the allies, and leading to better defences in these areas and thus taking away resources from the front.
It could be powered by several types of engines. After the war it got American P&W engines. With these some stayed in service until 1960 showing its great durability.
Incredible bird! By far, the best Italian aircraft of WW2 (though the Caproni Ca.313 could have been even better
)
Kris
So even though the SM.82 didn't achieve the same as the C-47 I consider it a better aircraft, as a transport aircraft but especially because it was such a versatile aircraft which was also cheap to build.
Even though it had the same power as the Ju 52 or C-47 it could transport much more and at greater distances.
It was a very rugged aircraft, made out of an advanced mixed structure of welded steel tubes, skinned with mertal, plywood or fabric. Inside the fuselage there was much volume that they could create two decks. It had such a big fuselage that it was used to transport light tanks and fighter aircraft to Africa. It achieved great things in supplying the troops in Africa, flying under extremely difficult circumstances and still getting the job done.
As a bomber it could carry an impressive 4 tons, all internal. But of course - like the Ju 52 - it was no longer suited as a real bomber. Instead it could fly night bombing missions or special long-range missions. They managed to reach very long distances, bombing Gibraltar at 1,600 km from Italy. They also bombed an oil refinery somewhere in the Persian Gulf some 4000 km away creating much confusion amongst the allies, and leading to better defences in these areas and thus taking away resources from the front.
It could be powered by several types of engines. After the war it got American P&W engines. With these some stayed in service until 1960 showing its great durability.
Incredible bird! By far, the best Italian aircraft of WW2 (though the Caproni Ca.313 could have been even better
)Kris
