Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Raptor05121 on June 04, 2011, 02:03:34 AM

Title: C-47 inappropriately named?
Post by: Raptor05121 on June 04, 2011, 02:03:34 AM
There's a "DC-3" here locally getting restored. On the AAC serial plate, its listed as a C-53D. Quickly browsing Wiki, its shows the C-47 as a transport/cargo plane and the C-53 as a C-47 but a sturdier floor and larger door specifically made for paratroop application. Certifying this claim is that the "DC-3" getting restored was used in the paratroop drops on D-day and even pulled some CG-4A Wacos.

tl;dr- Should the name be changed to C-53 or am I missing something?
Title: Re: C-47 inappropriately named?
Post by: Greebo on June 04, 2011, 04:48:43 AM
I think Wiki got it a bit wrong. The C-53 was basically a militarised version of the DC-3 airliner. It was used mostly for ferrying troops from base to base. It was the C-47 that had the reinforced floor and large two piece cargo door on the LH side of the fuselage. There were many thousands of C-47s built but only a few hundred C-53s.
Title: Re: C-47 inappropriately named?
Post by: Bodhi on June 04, 2011, 09:37:19 AM
You are going to find many paint schemes or liveries applied to aircraft might not necessarily match up with the data plates.  It is usually a concession to the fact that the original model is not available.  It's simply a fact of life.
Title: Re: C-47 inappropriately named?
Post by: Guppy35 on June 04, 2011, 10:38:20 PM
Are you suggesting that HTC change the designation of the game Gooney to C53?  Or are you just referencing the one under restoration being designated C53?
Title: Re: C-47 inappropriately named?
Post by: Raptor05121 on June 07, 2011, 02:55:43 PM
Well from what I read the C-53 was a C-47 specially made for paratroop operations. I wanted someone to confirm this. If it is the case I think it would be a typo of sorts but I still dont see HTC changing it- it would throw so many people off.
Title: Re: C-47 inappropriately named?
Post by: olds442 on June 07, 2011, 03:21:43 PM
Well from what I read the C-53 was a C-47 specially made for paratroop operations. I wanted someone to confirm this. If it is the case I think it would be a typo of sorts but I still dont see HTC changing it- it would throw so many people off.
  :rolleyes:


I think Wiki got it a bit wrong. The C-53 was basically a militarised version of the DC-3 airliner. It was used mostly for ferrying troops from base to base. It was the C-47 that had the reinforced floor and large two piece cargo door on the LH side of the fuselage. There were many thousands of C-47s built but only a few hundred C-53s.
Title: Re: C-47 inappropriately named?
Post by: Krusty on June 07, 2011, 03:37:48 PM
Don't forget: Wiki is just user-supplied data. Even when an entry is quoting a book, some books get things wrong too!

(Heck, I've even seen Jane's series of books get stuff wrong, and that's one with a decent reputation!)
Title: Re: C-47 inappropriately named?
Post by: Wedge1126 on June 07, 2011, 03:39:15 PM
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-53) says the C-53 is the" Troop transport version of the C-47."
Title: Re: C-47 inappropriately named?
Post by: MiloMorai on June 07, 2011, 04:22:44 PM
There's a "DC-3" here locally getting restored. On the AAC serial plate, its listed as a C-53D. Quickly browsing Wiki, its shows the C-47 as a transport/cargo plane and the C-53 as a C-47 but a sturdier floor and larger door specifically made for paratroop application. Certifying this claim is that the "DC-3" getting restored was used in the paratroop drops on D-day and even pulled some CG-4A Wacos.

tl;dr- Should the name be changed to C-53 or am I missing something?

Squadron/Signal InAction on the C-53.

A purpose built troop transport. No triple opening large door but a single small door. The floor was not reinforced as troops were the cargo carried. Some had a small cleat added for towing a glider. 28 metal seats were attached to the fuselage wall. P&W R-1830-92 engines.