Curtiss C-46 Commando v Douglas C-47 Skytrain....

How do they compare to each other, pros and cons etc., etc?

Lucky13 said:

How do they compare to each other, pros and cons etc., etc?

Click to expand...

Even though the two aircraft often overlapped in the jobs they were asked to do, they were quite different. The C-46 was much larger than the C-47. The C-46 had twice the cargo volume and weighed almost twice as much both empty and loaded. The C-47 had the benefit of being a derivative of the DC-3 which was already a proven and debugged design when the war started. It was just a matter of optimizing the design for mass production, which Douglas did, and more than 10,000 were built during the war, versus just over 3,000 C-46.

The extra capability of the C-46 came at a cost in terms of complexity and maintainability, and I'm sure, cost. For many jobs the C-47 was good enough. For other jobs, like flying cargo over "the Hump" in the CBI theater, the C-46 was more suitable. (At least until C-47s with two-speed superchargers were specially built.)

The Airborne had high hopes for the C-46, but it didn't work well in the one operation (Varsity) where it was used. The two jump doors at the back of the aircraft would be helpful, but the Commando didn't handle AAA as well as the C-47. As noted above, though, it worked well flying the Hump, it just wasn't that great for parachutists.

glennasher said:

The Airborne had high hopes for the C-46, but it didn't work well in the one operation (Varsity) where it was used. The two jump doors at the back of the aircraft would be helpful, but the Commando didn't handle AAA as well as the C-47. As noted above, though, it worked well flying the Hump, it just wasn't that great for parachutists.

Click to expand...

The C-47s used for troop drops late in the war typically were modified with self-sealing fuel tanks, the C-46s did not hav protected fuel tanks.

glennasher said:

The Airborne had high hopes for the C-46, but it didn't work well in the one operation (Varsity) where it was used. The two jump doors at the back of the aircraft would be helpful, but the Commando didn't handle AAA as well as the C-47. As noted above, though, it worked well flying the Hump, it just wasn't that great for parachutists.

Click to expand...

It's always informative to look at the postwar careers of airplane types - with the drawdowns at the end of the War, the respective Air Forces kept the aircraft they liked - or deemed useful.
(For example, the quick disapperance of the B-24, Martin B-26, A-20, and P-38)
The C-46 and C-82 were the standard equipment of the USAF's Medium Troop Carrier Groups. The C-47 equipped a few Light Troop Carrier Squadrons, but were mostly used as utility aircraft (Pretty much every Squadron of every type had a C-47 for logistical support) and other second line roles.
In the Active USAF, in the late 1940s, and early 1950s, the C-46s were being replaced with C-119s, until the outbreak of the Koream War, and the large expansion of the Troop Carrier forces.
C-46s were the backbone of Combat Cargo operations in Korea, particularly when the C-119s were grounded or were restricted from carrying people.
They were used in the drops of the 187th Airborne Regimental Combat team. along with C-119s.
The C-46s were also the main equipment of USAF Reserve Troop Carrier units until about 1957, when they were replaced by C-119s.
The last active C-46s in service flew with the Air Commandos (319th ACS, Troop Carrier) into the late '60s.

I was too late for using C-119s, though I did make one jump out of a C-123 (supposedly the last flying C-123 in US inventory at the time). All my other jumps were out of C-130s and -141s, or helicopters (Hueys and Chinooks, Blackhawks were still too new for us to use as a jump aircraft). I liked the C-130s best, but the -141s were good birds, too. I'd often get guard duty at the 82nd Abn. Museum, and it had a C-47 and a C-46 as static displays. It was fun jumping, but the bad knees and bad back are the price being paid for the fun. That was long ago. but not that far away.

glennasher said:

The Airborne had high hopes for the C-46, but it didn't work well in the one operation (Varsity) where it was used. The two jump doors at the back of the aircraft would be helpful, but the Commando didn't handle AAA as well as the C-47. As noted above, though, it worked well flying the Hump, it just wasn't that great for parachutists.

Click to expand...

That's because the C-46 was never intended to drop troops, it was intended to fly cargo, not paratroopers. The C-47 was best suited for that. When choosing an aircraft for a mission you have to play to it's strengths. The C-47 flew at relatively low altitude no more than 5,000 ft. because it wasn't pressurized and you have to drop troops at no more than 1 or 2 thousand feet and lower. The C-46 was pressurized and routinely flew "The Hump" over the Himalayas at 22 thousand feet, had much more cargo capacity than the C-47 and longer range. Not good for dropping troops, that was not it's strength. It wasn't a bad aircraft, I've flown one several times, there's nothing like the sound of those piston pounders coming to life! Although it could be a handful to fly at times. It should not have been used for operation "Varsity", I reiterate, it was not a paratrooper aircraft. Mine had 3 tho usand horsepower Prat and Whitneys and weighed twice as much as the C-47, both empty and loaded. I flew one of them several times and never bent an airplane AND I lived to tell about my experience with it.

glennasher said:

The Airborne had high hopes for the C-46, but it didn't work well in the one operation (Varsity) where it was used. The two jump doors at the back of the aircraft would be helpful, but the Commando didn't handle AAA as well as the C-47. As noted above, though, it worked well flying the Hump, it just wasn't that great for parachutists.

Click to expand...

While the CW-20 was pressurized, I'm not aware of any AAF C-46 being pressurized. I'm also not aware of any R-2800 variant being used in the C-46 making 3000hp. Do you have more details?

Sheikyerbuti said:

That's because the C-46 was never intended to drop troops, it was intended to fly cargo, not paratroopers. The C-47 was best suited for that. When choosing an aircraft for a mission you have to play to it's strengths. The C-47 flew at relatively low altitude no more than 5,000 ft. because it wasn't pressurized and you have to drop troops at no more than 1 or 2 thousand feet and lower. The C-46 was pressurized and routinely flew "The Hump" over the Himalayas at 22 thousand feet, had much more cargo capacity than the C-47 and longer range. Not good for dropping troops, that was not it's strength. It wasn't a bad aircraft, I've flown one several times, there's nothing like the sound of those piston pounders coming to life! Although it could be a handful to fly at times. It should not have been used for operation "Varsity", I reiterate, it was not a paratrooper aircraft. Mine had 3 tho usand horsepower Prat and Whitneys and weighed twice as much as the C-47, both empty and loaded. I flew one of them several times and never bent an airplane AND I lived to tell about my experience with it.

Click to expand...

The C-46 had hydraulic powered flight controls I believe or were they just servo tabs?