pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Ok I'll cede that point flying into Stalingrad in the winter was not the equal of that
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Ok I'll cede that point flying into Stalingrad in the winter was not the equal of thatThe C47 ops in the SW Pacific and CBI were hazardous even if no one was shooting at you.
Ok I'll cede that point flying into Stalingrad in the winter was not the equal of that
Think about flying at about 100 knots low over antiaircraft ,small arms , the temp is cold with blowing snow and then landing on an airfield that is being shelled. I think given the options my chances of survival would be far greater in the 47 .Flying in cloudy weather over the Owen Stanley mountains in NG was probably one of the more exciting things any pilot can do. Even today.
Same with the air routes into China and Burma from India. They named the line of wreckage of the planes that crashed "The Aluminum Highway"
I am soooo sry i didn't mean fuselage i meant the Engines sry i am tired from staying up all night.........This is a quote from a bomber pilot (He-177)"The fuselage was beggining to break up on us then our engine caught fire"
The He 177 "Grief" was the closest Germany came to developing a Strategic Bomber during the war. Due to its faults and the Luftwaffe doctrine, it never appeared in numbers to strike a decisive blow on any target. As with the Manchester, dive bombing was one of the intended roles, the fuselage couldn't take the punishment. But 43 177's suffered from structual failure in flight. To acheive high performance though low drag, the He-177 was fitted with its 4 engines mounted in pairs one behind the other, driving a common crankshaft. THe surface-evporation radiator system proved inadequate and the rear engines often overheated and caught fire. The enormous torque from these powerful motors coupled with the long fuselage could casue the sircraft to swing on take-off and landing and crash or collapse. Hundreds of faults 64% had to do with the fuselage were found only a few were corrected this was because the Luftwaffe though better engines would fix the problems
Both great aircraft - the C-46 was more expensive to operate and maintenance was more extensive. The C-54 was the next step up for carrying personnel but was not as easily loaded as the C-47 - it also could not really operate on dirt strips, something the C-47 can easily doC-47 gets my vote... But, what about the C-46 Commando and C-54 Skymaster?
The British used the Halifax as a paratroop aircraft and sometimes to drop supplies as well. As for the best it has to be the C-47.
B-17s and B-24s were used to drop supplies, but they weren't fitted with enough seats to drop paratroopers.
Providing no one landed in front of you!The best method of landing paratroops is of course, the Glider
Technically, any aircraft could carry troops, it's a matter of how many the aircraft could carry. The B-17 could easily be used to parachute from the bomb bay, but the problem was that there were not a lot of places for a fully outfitted paratrooper to sit, much less get into the airplane. The crew doors are narrow and not easily entered when carrying all the gear a paratrooper would be wearing.
Providing no one landed in front of you!
The best carrier would probably have been the C-46, but the C-47 was cheaper and easier to build thus giving it more presence on the battlefield and being the overall winner in the argument.
Big airplane when compared to C-47. Some are still flying commercially
Did either side ever use bomber aircraft to transport troops or supplies? Or was it not practical?
I know that a few transport hacks were made from both B-17s and B-24s, but I don't have what they could carry in terms of numbers of personnel.