The Fleet Air Arm would be the largest customer for this aircraft as its performance in close to the Hurricane but doesn't take aircraft from fighter command. It would do fine in the Mediterranean campaign through to the end of 1941. Also as it's built in the Commonwealth Britain can pay in Sterling rather than scarce dollars.The Dominion Day celebration, in Ottawa, July 1, 1939, was highlighted by the flights of various aircraft, including DeHavilland Moths, Avro Prefects and Hawker Harts. The last aircraft to appear, were 3 FDB-1s, which overtook the other flights at over 300 mph.
Over the next few weeks orders began to come in. The Canadian Government had previously ordered 25 but had increased this to 50. Finland ordered 25, France ordered 25 and the Duchy of Grande Fenwick 3. The FAA also showed some interest but were limited by Treasury as to what they could purchase.
I could maybe See it being used in sub-Saharan Africa or Latin America under the 1960s? Hell they used the DC-3 until the 70sThere is nothing on the technical side that would prevent such a use, though the rather narrow fuselage would likely result in a substandard transport if used for that. Its otherwise not a particular fast aircraft by postwar standards but its a proven and reliable design that should be usable in the other roles you listed if an airforce does not have anything else better suited to use and the french actually did use the 188 until 1951.
If I remember correctly the 188 was also only build in reconnaissance and bomber versions so there are no night fighters that you would have to either scrap or modify extensivly.
Its just overall not a very economical thing to do (the way the weapons stations are set upf for example makes kicking out the armament less beneficial than on some other types), as I think there are better aircraft available for all of these jobs after the war, even if you want a victorious germany to continue with their use. The likeliest scenario would be for a small ATL airforce with no access to other options a bit like the Avia S-199 used by Israel.
Very trueYeah, export for nations that can't aford jets,(at least early on) would be it's best chance. Then again, with the USAAF disposing of thousands of medium bombers (B-25, B-26...) it would face stiff competition, cost-wise...
There are DC-3 still in service to this day in certain niche applications and I always wondered if it wouldnt be justified to try and manufacture modernized new ones. As the saying goes: "You can only replace a DC-3 with a DC-3".I could maybe See it being used in sub-Saharan Africa or Latin America under the 1960s? Hell they used the DC-3 until the 70s
There short post-war career can be very easily explained by a total lack of purpose after the war: Both are conventional strategic bombers of rather short range compared to the B-29 (and in general much less modern) which is just not something anybody that could afford a fleet of such an aircraft had any need for in the 50s and 60s. Converting them to transports also makes little sense in a world thats awash in surplus transport planes at the same time.And even in that scenario the B-17 and the B 24 had ridiculously short lives
Also the USAAF/USAF view of bombing post WW2 was completely myopic toward A-bomb delivery. Only the B-29 was ready to fill that role, so all other bombers were viewed as scrap. After all, now that they had “the bomb”, why would they ever want/need to deliver conventional explosives?🤔There short post-war career can be very easily explained by a total lack of purpose after the war: Both are conventional strategic bombers of rather short range compared to the B-29 (and in general much less modern) which is just not something anybody that could afford a fleet of such an aircraft had any need for in the 50s and 60s. Converting them to transports also makes little sense in a world thats awash in surplus transport planes at the same time.
And they hashed and re-hashed that whole conventional vs A-bomb thing over the decades since. We've got nuke bombers lugging conventional loads and the B-52 soldiering on, due in part to its adaptability.Also the USAAF/USAF view of bombing post WW2 was completely myopic toward A-bomb delivery. Only the B-29 was ready to fill that role, so all other bombers were viewed as scrap. After all, now that they had “the bomb”, why would they ever want/need to deliver conventional explosives?🤔
ric350
It all depends on need and availability. India had a need and they had B-24s available so scoured the dumps of ex-lend-lease aircraft and came up with two dozen used B-24s to use them as maritime recce machines, which they did until the late 1960s, finally replacing them with Il-38 May.There are DC-3 still in service to this day in certain niche applications and I always wondered if it wouldnt be justified to try and manufacture modernized new ones. As the saying goes: "You can only replace a DC-3 with a DC-3".
In contrast to the Ju 188 the DC-3 has the advantage of being extremly good at its job, the 188 is not really a great bomber in the post-war context and COIN is a much more limited area. If you go by events of OTL with germany loosing the war you will also run into supply issues as @Gokbay pointed out.
There short post-war career can be very easily explained by a total lack of purpose after the war: Both are conventional strategic bombers of rather short range compared to the B-29 (and in general much less modern) which is just not something anybody that could afford a fleet of such an aircraft had any need for in the 50s and 60s. Converting them to transports also makes little sense in a world thats awash in surplus transport planes at the same time.
The Czechs and the Spanish kept building Bf-109 for several years, I suppose they could buy spare parts from one of those, but is not a long term good idea...A big issue with using German aircraft post-WW2 would be lack of spare parts.
Note that Spain had to swicth the engine of the Bf-109, because they couldn't get the original DB605 engine.The Czechs and the Spanish kept building Bf-109 for several years, I suppose they could buy spare parts from one of those, but is not a long term good idea...
Note that Spain had to swicth the engine of the Bf-109, because they couldn't get the original DB605 engine.
Yeah... looks like pilot error, by the P63's pilot.Have y'all seen the video of the P63 crashing into the B-17 over the weekend in texas
Are you sure you mean the SU-25 "Frogfoot"? That thing is a pure ground attack bird in the same vein as the A-10, has basically zero air-to-air ability and a max speed below Mach 0.8.I always thought that the Sukhoi SU 25 Could have been far more successful in the export market if it was 1.5 Mach capable had some degree of air to air capability
What if Soviets Designed an aircraft That was a mix of F5E freedom fighter / kfir and A-10
Essentially engines that are powerful enough to give decent low to medium altitude Performance Yet at the same time wings that are big enough to carry a variety of air to ground munitions
Think ot a F5E plus ( The improvement mostly in air to ground capability) or F16 minus ( Mostly inferior performance avionics and range)
I always thought that the Sukhoi SU 25 Could have been far more successful in the export market if it was 1.5 Mach capable had some degree of air to air capability
What if Soviets Designed an aircraft That was a mix of F5E freedom fighter / kfir and A-10
Essentially engines that are powerful enough to give decent low to medium altitude Performance Yet at the same time wings that are big enough to carry a variety of air to ground munitions
Think ot a F5E plus ( The improvement mostly in air to ground capability) or F16 minus ( Mostly inferior performance avionics and range)