C-47A vs. Ju-52 as aerobatic aircraft

[Avimimus]

Opinions? Tests? Fly-offs?

[AndyJWest]

Heathen! ?

[Halon]

More engines more power... right?

[=621=Samikatz]

Surprised at the C-47's stability doing vertical maneuvers in sim. You can do a vertical loop without losing much altitude with low (30% maybe?) fuel and no cargo/paratroopers. I don't know if it should do that? It does have fairly big wings (better wingloading than a Hurricane!) but its power/mass isn't great

[BlitzPig_EL]

I managed an Immelmann, just.  Also it's quite easy to shed wings in a tight "high speed" turn.  I found that a bit surprising considering I had low fuel and no cargo, and the Douglas has a reputation as a stout airframe.

 

Still need to work out best RPM and manifold pressure to obtain maximum speed in level flight.  Love the instrument lighting.

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Also it's quite easy to shed wings in a tight "high speed" turn.

 

How fast? I consider my 'do not exceed' speed for the Ju-52 to be about 215 MPH. I don't own the C-47 yet, so can't test it.

 

This was the most I could do in the '52:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Max G pulled was about 3.3 or so.

 

Edit: in a following test, I entered a tight turn in which I reached 3.7G briefly. No damage.

Edited November 23, 2022 by oc2209

[BlitzPig_EL]

The ASI on the C47 panel is red lined just above 250mph.  I was in a dive chasing an AI in an FW 190 A8 (Hans didn't know I was unarmed I guess) indicating just above 250 and pulled hard left to try to follow his turn and the wings popped off outside the engines.

[Avimimus]

Flying the C-47 inverted seems to be much dicier than the Ju-52... which makes it fun to do.  Honestly, I think the Ju-52 will have an edge in most areas due to its higher roll rate.

 

However, I recall an account of a C-47 in Burma encountering a couple of Japanese fighters and using low speed turns in the mountain valleys to survive... eventually one of the Japanese fighters crashed and the other broke off its attacks... so it wasn't unmanoeuvrable be any means!

 

It will be interesting to see if there is some manoeuvre which the C-47 has a real edge in.

 

P.S. To fly inverted it helps to dive to increase airspeed. This gives the elevator (and tail) enough authority to hold the nose up. This technique is also required for WWI aircraft (contrary to popular belief the Sopwith Triplane can be flown inverted, but it requires a dive first to attain enough speed).

[oc2209]

7 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The ASI on the C47 panel is red lined just above 250mph.  I was in a dive chasing an AI in an FW 190 A8 (Hans didn't know I was unarmed I guess) indicating just above 250 and pulled hard left to try to follow his turn and the wings popped off outside the engines.

 

Oh, that makes sense. I can't even get the '52 to 220 in a dive. With the fixed gear acting as air brakes, it stands to reason that the cleaner C-47 picks up speed much faster in a dive.

 

I'd guess you pulled well in excess of 4Gs.

[MAJ_stug41]

Depends on if bond is piloting it, ?

 

 

 

[Rjel]

I was able to dive and the complete two loops back to back in the C-47. The second one wasn't very good but the old girl completed it. Then I thought I'd see what dive speed she could hit and remain in one piece. I hit 400 MPH in a straight line dive. I lost all control surfaces but the wings and tail stayed on.

[Strewth]

I caught up with a JU52 and nudged his tail with the bottom edge of my nose cone.

End result?
My ailerons failed and I took a long spiral towards mother earth while trying to compensate with rudder and elevator.
I managed to bail out and found that the 52 was sill flying.

[Lusekofte]

10 hours ago, Rjel said:

I lost all control surfaces but the wings and tail stayed on

Because of the first, the last happened. This wing fall off is one of this sims early faulty DM that I expect they fix pretty soon. 
C 47 / DC 3 never had that happened. And wing break is one of the major source of complaint from the beginning. One thing US machinery never failed on is one main problem here. Engines was reliable in rl. Not here. Airframe was best in war but not here. We had a p 38 splitting in two for years if only a 109 looked at it. Now that is fixed. Still I do not agree on the tender engines 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Very true, I don't think a DC3/C47 has ever gone down due to structural failure.  The Navy had some corrosion issues at the joint between the outer wing and inner wing, just outside of the engines, however.

[Rjel]

1 hour ago, 216th_Lusekofte said:

Because of the first, the last happened. This wing fall off is one of this sims early faulty DM that I expect they fix pretty soon. 
C 47 / DC 3 never had that happened. And wing break is one of the major source of complaint from the beginning. One thing US machinery never failed on is one main problem here. Engines was reliable in rl. Not here. Airframe was best in war but not here. We had a p 38 splitting in two for years if only a 109 looked at it. Now that is fixed. Still I do not agree on the tender engines 

I wouldn't disagree with what you said. But I doubt in real life any pilot would ever dive a C-47 at 400 MPH. Not purposely anyway. I just wondered what would happen.

 

As to the engines, it is a sore point for everyone. But overtime, I've gotten pretty good at not cooking my R-2800s and Merlins every time I go up. They don't run as hard as I've read about in real life but they do hold together most of the time. I've flown Mustangs back to base several times with the damaged engine message showing the entire way. I haven't flown any Allison P-39s or P-40s in the sim for several years now oddly but I feel confident in the P-38. Still, I hope the engine timers disappear someday soon.

[Lusekofte]

11 minutes ago, Rjel said:

I wouldn't disagree with what you said. But I doubt in real life any pilot would ever dive a C-47 at 400 MPH. Not purposely anyway. I just wondered what would happen.

 

As to the engines, it is a sore point for everyone. But overtime, I've gotten pretty good at not cooking my R-2800s and Merlins every time I go up. They don't run as hard as I've read about in real life but they do hold together most of the time. I've flown Mustangs back to base several times with the damaged engine message showing the entire way. I haven't flown any Allison P-39s or P-40s in the sim for several years now oddly but I feel confident in the P-38. Still, I hope the engine timers disappear someday soon.

Of course one learn to mend the engine as you go. But you described what would happen. Witch was pretty realistic. Frozen controls and very difficult aerodynamic behaviour making the plane go down due to lost control.  
B 17 going vertical has been seen in photos. One B 17 pilot said once a b 17 went over a specific degree sideways it was uncontrollable and these loops and rolls you do in sims. You can do it in fs 2020 is probably going to create an uncontrollable situation most of the time in real life. On a C 47 you need weight to brake off the wings. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

The C47 has really good short field performance as well.

I set up the airfield at Verdun on the new West Front 1918 map, as I intend to flesh it out for WW1, but on a whim I added the C47.

 

 

Not knowing her performance envelop well, I set the fuel load to 30%, with no cargo.  Used 30% flaps, full emergency power, and it got off the ground with about half the field to spare.  I was quite surprised.   I flew out for a bit then came back and landed safely coming over the tree line at about 65 to 70 mph, and put her down with runway to spare.  I was amazed.

[Lusekofte]

Dc 3 in msfs 2020 act like that too with light weight. I think those wings can fly with light breeze and no engines. 

[Avimimus]

3 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Not knowing her performance envelop well, I set the fuel load to 30%, with no cargo.  Used 30% flaps, full emergency power, and it got off the ground with about half the field to spare.  I was quite surprised.   I flew out for a bit then came back and landed safely coming over the tree line at about 65 to 70 mph, and put her down with runway to spare.  I was amazed.

 

Yes. An example of a good 1930s design which permits flying off smaller and less prepared airstrips!

 

I'm finding it is a great deal of fun to fly at (or below) treetop level. It really makes me want a Fw-189 actually (similar larger wing with limited roll rate, but docile and manoeuvrable low speed characteristics).