Transports

Which transport had the most effect?

  • Total voters
    9

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I do not understand why the ju52 isn't winning. It was used all across europe. If we had the ju52 we would have still been sucessful at d-day. The C-47 was over a virtually empty sky of enemies on d-day. How this can be compared to a plane who had lots of enemy air opposition is unbelievable.
 
The C-47 and the DC-3 are the quite possibly the most successful aircraft ever built. We are talking about cargo aircraft here, not fighters or bombers. If you totalled up cargo carried during WWII, the biggest percentage by far would be the C-47. Prior to the war, almost all worldwide air travel was carried by DC-3s. The C-47 flew in all theaters by many countries in all different types of weather. Over 13,000 C-47s were built by America, Japan and the USSR. Today there are still over 300 of them flying, some STILL performing cargo duties to remote locations.

Yet you think the Ju-52 was better?
 
d_bader said:
I do not understand why the ju52 isn't winning. It was used all across europe. If we had the ju52 we would have still been sucessful at d-day. The C-47 was over a virtually empty sky of enemies on d-day. How this can be compared to a plane who had lots of enemy air opposition is unbelievable.
Click to expand...

The JU52 looses an engine, any engine and it could barely get out of it's own way!
 
yes the C-47 is really the only contender, although it's nice to see the horsa's got some votes.........
 
DB. If you have been in a JU52 the one thing that will strike you is how narrow it is and limiting for carrying cargo. It hasn't got anything like the load, performance, space, range, turnaround time or anything else that the C47 has.

The JU52 might have been OK for people but I would love to see you get some of the more obscure loads (dare I suggest mules) that the C47 had to carry.

If the Germans had decent numbers of C47's they might, just might have been able to supply Stalingrad which could have changed the whole face of the war. With the JU52 they never had a chance.
 
d_bader said:
I do not understand why the ju52 isn't winning. It was used all across europe. If we had the ju52 we would have still been sucessful at d-day. The C-47 was over a virtually empty sky of enemies on d-day. How this can be compared to a plane who had lots of enemy air opposition is unbelievable.
Click to expand...

While I love the Ju-52, you can not even compare it to a C-47. The C-47 is superior to the 'Tante Ju' hands down anyday. Yes the Ju-52 was a good transport but as was stated, was not very good for cargo.

What I am really wondering is what makes you think the Ju-52 would handle better than the C-47 did in the same environment?
 
Good point on the engines, Joe. In early testing with the DC-3, it took off and flew an entire airline route including landing...all on ONE engine! The C-47 was a real workhorse and a lot of people in Berlin were thankful for it and the other cargo aircraft used for the Berlin airlift.
 
One example of how good the design of the DC3 was. In 1944 a competition was organised for a new transport glider to be towed behind the C54. Douglas submitted a DC3 designated XCG-17 with no engines, tanks or other mechanical piping and it was the best performing submission. Its maximum towing speed was 270-290mph and its stalling speed was 35 (yes Thirty five) mph which was 20mph less than the CG4. Just to cap it all it had no ballast requirement at minimum weight and had the best glide angle (14:1) of any transport glider in the USA at that time plus a maximum payload of 14,000Lb.
No contracts were placed as the war ended and the end of the Glider as militery transport was over.
If that doesn't prove how good the basic design was of the DC3, I don't know what will.
 
It was a really remarkable airplane. Here is a shot of the XCG-17 glider and the XC-47C floatplane. Both taken from the C-47 In Action book.

Also, the B-18 Bolo (called the Digby in Canadian service) and B-23 Dragon bombers were all projects based on the DC-3/C-47 design.

When I prepared my presentation on the C-47, I had no idea before I started what an amazing airplane it really was.
 

Attachments

  • 0xc47c_116.jpg
    0xc47c_116.jpg
    25.8 KB · Views: 528
  • 0xcg-17_905.jpg
    0xcg-17_905.jpg
    37.7 KB · Views: 525
There's nothing comparable service wise to the C-47. The C-46 is the only true contender, in my mind, ability wise.

And try doing this with a Ju-52:
 

Attachments

  • warhorse_247.jpg
    warhorse_247.jpg
    17.6 KB · Views: 518
Define effect, the Me-323 proved how large transports could get and still fly. In that respect the Condor, Cossack and the C-5 Galaxy are its modern descendents. Large aircraft which were built on the proof that the Me-323 offered that large transport aircraft could be built and prove very useful.
 
Um dude if you are meaning the Fw-200 Condor, it was in service before the Me-323 was even built. If you are meaning a different aircraft, I apologize for misunderstanding.

The 323 really had no effect on the war or anything. I was not built in large eneogh numbers to do anything.
 
The 323 proved a concept but was severly underpowered. The C-5, although big, had lots of power...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back