C-46 Commando: In Defense of a Deathtrap

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Turns out saying C-46 followed by C-47 followed by C-46 followed by C-47 followed by C-46 followed by C-47 followed by C-46 followed by C-47 followed by C-46 followed by C-47 followed by C-46 is too much for my brain to handle

[@guaporeturns9472]

Understandable

[@billmmckelvie5188]

I think you have done very well, even more so for a none native English speaker. Even we native speakers can have our off days and yes going from C47 to C46 and back again does raise its challenges probably as much as the C46 when flying. I am staggered at the fact the C46 didn't have self sealing fuel tanks am led to believe that the C47 at some point in its military career didn't either. This maybe down to the fact that they're both pre WWII aircraft and whether they could procure a bladder big enough to keep its operational range! That could be subject of a new video, allied losses due to the lack of self sealing fuel tanks.

[@davidhimmelsbach557]

Stay with Dakota and Commando.

[@darrenprong2632]

C47*

[@aldenconsolver3428]

@@davidhimmelsbach557 An inspired thought

[@ParkerUAS]

I had a flight instructor when I was starting out as a pilot whose father had been a crew chief on C 46s in Burma, "flying the Hump". He raved about how great the plane was.for performance and space. He never knocked the C47, just said it was better at tossing people out the door then carrying supplies in. He had a lot of great stories that I wish had been written down.

[@jponeill2151]

I have a cousin in the US whose Dad had flown C-46s over the hump. He died before I could ever meet him. It was a difficult, horrible duty, respect to any pilot who flew it.

[@ParkerUAS]

@@user-pz9ct8zi3d Oh, I've seen tons of documentaries and the like. I was commenting that this man's personal stories that I remember some of were what I wish had been recorded before he passed. Tons of little funny things that happened that wouldn't be momentous enough to make it into a documentary or biography.

[@gcrauwels941]

They sure earned their keep there.

[@vasilis23456]

C-47s couldn't fly the hump cause it was above maximum altitude. The C-46 really shined in that role.

[@Subpac_ww2]

Larger aircraft is better for flying the hump too since it's a long trip and more cargo makes more out of said long trip. Those air lifts were the only reasons B-29s could operate out of China. Short term as that arrangement was.

[@philrulon]

We still fly these airplanes in air freight service, here in Alaska. We have a vigorous maintenance and upgrade program involving all aspects of the C-46, with particular emphasis on engines and navigation equipment. We have dozens of them, but only a handful are kept at or near flying condition. It’s a very capable aircraft, when no one is shooting at it.

[@cliffh1975]

Everets Air? I worked on a job in western Cook Inlet. Salmon Ella (C46) brought fuel to our job site often.

[@philrulon]

@@cliffh1975, yes Everts. We have one freighter still flying N54514. There are also several fuel tankers either flying or being overhauled for service, including N7848B, the last known flying C-46R.

[@420BulletSponge]

My dad worked with a guy who had been a radio operator in a B-17 over Europe but then wound up in C-46's flying over the hump in Burma. He said flying over the hump on instruments socked in with clouds was more nerve wracking than any flak he experienced in B-17's.

[@markfryer9880]

Understandable! Flak bursts you can see and hear, feel, but flying in clouds all you can see is cloud until THAT mountain with your name on it, pops up in your windscreen and it's too late to do anything about it except scream and pray!

[@afs101]

planes, clouds, mountains. pick any 2

[@jamesrussell7760]

Wasn't the Burma Road referred to as the road paved by aluminum scrap metal, or words to that effect? Those pilots flying over the hump had cajones of epic size.

[@lwilton]

For anyone that doesn't know, it is highly unlikely that the "original sound" on that old C-46 was really original, as in sound captured from the camera. Almost all WW II military footage was shot silent (usually on 16mm film) and then the "atmospheric sound effects" were added in the studio back in the US, along with the narration. This resulted in the same "airplane crash" sound appearing in dozens of films, since they all used the same airplane crash sound effect off of a "stock sound effects" record. (No SoundDogs web site back then!)

[@papadopp3870]

That must be why it seemed that during the war, filmed dive bombers, whether Navy or Army, Allied or Axis seemed to be equipped with “Jericho Trumpets” from Ju-87 Stukas

[@roberteicke2540]

I enjoyed your video, thanks for your efforts. My father participated in the CBI area of operation, based in Eastern India. His unit transported fuel and supplies "over thr hump" into China. Bulk avgas was carried by C-109's that he had many hours in. C-46's didn't have rubber bladder avgas tanks rather they carried all types of materials. Dad liked the aircraft but commented that they always carried Hydraulic Fluid to top-off before their return from China. Late War they transitioned to C-54's that were then state of the art. Once he and I were watching History Channel Berlin Airlift a C-54 was shown on final he said "That's my aircraft" I said "That type" He said "No, my plane Tail No. 010, tenth C-54 produced" To sum up my rambling, Dad spoke highly of their C-46's.

[@tomsippel308]

My Dad flew both C-46s and C-47s in the WW2 Pacific Theatre, and preferred the C-46, due to it's power and handling. He transitioned from 47's to 46's in New Guinea, and ended up flying them through the Philippines, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. He did do a wheels up landing on Ie Shima, near Ernie Pyle's grave marker. His squadron (68th of the 433rd Troop Carrier Group, 54th Wing, 5th AF) landed at Atsugi Airdrome, Japan, on 28 August 1945, 5 days before the Japanese surrender, carrying the 11th Airborne, who fanned out looking to recover allied POWs. His favorite missions were when the C-46 carried a lot of POWs back to Okinawa for eventual evacuation home. Dad got to fly over ground zero at Hiroshima in late September 1945, before radiation was fully understood. He passed in March 2021 at the tender age of 97.

[@MissKay1994]

This seems to be a common theme, where issues with an aircraft early on kill it's reputation. Despite the end product being great, people only look at the teething issues and base their opinions off of that. I feel the F7U Cutlass would be a good fit for the In Defense of a Deathtrap series

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Exactly. On paper the C-46 was a fair balance, offering advantages and disadvantages over the SkyTrain as one would expect. However the Commando did have it's fair share of troubles early on, lots of pilots preferred the C-47 overall, and then all it needed was one event to compound the opinions and 'make them official'. The overall consensus is that it was rushed into service.

[@guaporeturns9472]

@@MilitaryAviationHistory Pilots prefer the plane they stated out with and don’t like transitioning into new equipment is a pretty common theme. Many P-40 pilots disliked the P-51 at first. Pretty common

[@24YOA]

Corsair. Helldiver. Marauder. B-24 as well? Probably missing some other ones on the US side.

[@GrigoriZhukov]

👍

[@PeteCourtier]

@@24YOA I was about to say the Marauder. Really great aircraft.

[@cfneveu]

My father flew the Hump in the C-46 in August of 43 when both engines caught on fire and he had to bail out with Stilwell's advisor, someone from FDR's admin, Eric Sevareid and 17 others into Naga headhunter country. Needless to say he wasn't a fan.

[@Gearheadgotajob]

The fail take off footage was caused by failure to raise the tail into the slipstream above the fuselage giving rudder authority. Possibly to much tail weight.

[@stephenwalton9646]

Lemme guess, you’re not a pilot and have never actually flown a C-46 or C-47?

[@Gearheadgotajob]

@@stephenwalton9646 No Pilot F/I Dan Grider Talks about this at length on his youtube channel "Probable Cause: Dan Gryder". He trains pilots with his DC3. Check it out!

[@stephenwalton9646]

@Trepang 412 and you’ve got how many hours in a 46?

[@stephenwalton9646]

@Trepang 412 I respect your opinion. Nobody mentions differential power, brakes or aileron usage which was unique in the techniques of handling the 46. I’ve seen one fiery crash wherein the DC-3 definitely had the tail up. Nuances and all that. A 46 is Not a 47.

[@basiltaylor8910]

Dumbo driving is an experience not to be taken lightly , Ask Dumbo Drivers A J Decost, Scott Blue, both work for 'Buffalo' Joe McBryan who owns two Dumbo,s hauling supplies to mining camps ,isolated communities in Canada,s North West Territories. Dumbo,s bite , they have the worst case of 'Squirreling' of any big twin arse dragger so trying to keep a bolshy Dumbo straight during take off and landing will test the patience of a Trappist Monk , no tailwheel steering or Marstrand tyres. @@stephenwalton9646

[@douglascox9996]

During the early stages of active US military involvement in Vietnam, the USAF created its Air Commando organization as part of its counterinsurgency effort. Among the aircraft it committed to that effort were C-46 Air Commandos and C-47 Skytrains, both of which Special Forces troopers routinely practiced airborne jumps from. Both aircraft were fairly normal to jump, with the C-47 requiring the modified, extra-length static line for each parachute to reduce excessive contact of chute with horizontal stabilizer. Excessive contact could melt and blowout panels of the nylon canopies, thus requiring emergency deployment of the reserve chute.

[@PadraigTomas]

One of the vets at the local Air Force Association flew into China during the war. The Commando enjoyed a dismal reputation in that theater. It is also worth noting that the aircraft had a history of spontaneously bursting into flame. While any faults could in principle have been corrected, the aircraft earned and deserved its reputation.

[@regalplays7135]

My grandpa served as a navigator on one of these. He was a marine aviator in the latter half of the war in the pacific.

[@jucoco1]

Lots of interesting info on the C46’s still packing cargo to this day for Buffalo Airways in some of the worst conditions imaginable. Had never seen much about the C46 till Ice Pilots aired.

[@jpgabobo]

Great footage and info. Would like to hear more about the C-46 as used in China and post war. (You call it the C-47 at 7:30 a lot ;)

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

I had to edit a number of mispeaks when jumping between the C-47 and -46 hah. No wonder one passed the final inspection :/

[@Auggies1956]

In Toledo Ohio there was a C-46 based here in restored condition, named "China Doll" that flew the airshow circuit. Last I saw her was maybe twenty years ago. As for C46's a passenger model crashed here in the early sixties killing a lot of collage athletes headed to a game. In the seventies one landed in a farm field with slight damage to a wing. It sat in that field for over ten years until it was dismantled and a large helicopter took the fuselage away. Last I heard it's owners wanted to put in back into flying condition.

[@Red-rl1xx]

My wife and I flew out to LA in 2013. While we were there, I drove down to the Commemorative Air Force museum and went inside that plane parked out in back of the museum building. It was really cool!

[@redblinddog]

Yes and I believe that field became a shopping mall after they removed the C-46,

[@JBofBrisbane]

The crash that took the lives of the college footballers was pilot error - flew up a progressively-narrowing valley at too low an altitude, and didn't have enough room to turn around when the valley ended.

[@Auggies1956]

@@JBofBrisbane Your right about the collage FB team but it happened at an airport in Toledo Ohio, at night but bad weather was closing in and the pilot took off anyway. I was ten at the time and a Boy Scout on a camp out and heard the crash. I observed a heavy mist in the air at the time.

[@bbbb98765]

16000 paratroopers in one operation is just mind blowing

[@freidelkyle]

The crash looks like the classic failure to "fly the tail". While the tail is on the ground the airflow over it is blocked by the wings. Same reason that Blue Bonnet Belle (C-47) crashed. You have to push and get the tail in the air right away or you'll have no directional control of the aircraft while its on the ground.

[@bluesideup007]

I was going to comment the same. It also looked like there was very little attempted rudder action during the roll. If I saw a line of ground obstacles quickly approaching, I'd be standing on the right rudder pedal even if it didn't help! 😱 (admitted, you can't see the rudder much of the time)

[@jollyjohnthepirate3168]

Curtis wound up with a horrible reputation for shoddy work during WW 2. Their worst example was their SB2C Hell Diver . A dive bomber built for the Navy it was supposed to replace the Douglas SBD Dauntless. It was bigger, faster and could carry a bigger bomb load than it's predecessor. But it was full of faults. It failed it's carrier landing trials and would normally have been canceled but because of the war good money was spent trying to save the plane. They had to set up various shops at airports to apply fixes to the Hell Diver. I've read that their were 14 different fixes needed and that didn't address the failures of the wing locking system. Some carrier skippers would just order them all pushed over the side and put their bomber pilots in another squadron of F6F Hellcats.

[@uwekonnigsstaddt524]

As a kid in the mid 70s, I used to visit BAQ airport in Colombia. They had a few C-46s flying cargo for the airline Aero Sucre. The airline still exist. Of course, those Commandos are long gone. I loved to get onboard while the mechanics worked on it and they ran engine tests. I will never forget the sound of those engines and the propellers. One Commando, not from the airline, can be seen submerged right next to one of the Bahamas island. It is called Norman’s Cay, the cay itself was “owned” by one of the Colombian cartel bosses. The Commando apparently crashed into the water attempting to land on the cay’s runway. It can be seen from space

[@gcrauwels941]

Indeed.

[@legoeasycompany]

Really love the bits where you use and breakdown photo of the actual operations. Also with the earlier mention of issues with it's combat debut its strange you didn't mention the issues it had on the otherside of the world flying over the Hump in the CBI

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

I allude to them in the end but my main focus was to explain its significance to Varsity. The carrying advantage it offered is worthy a discussion and gives a great example of how the design of planes can have an impact on the planning & execution of an operation.

[@johnkelley9877]

This was very interesting and I learned a lot about the C-47 that I had not known before. Thanks for sharing this.

[@petestorz172]

The C-46 did have design issues. As noted in another comment, it was used in the CBI Theater, from 1943-1945. A few are still in use, e.g. in Canada's NWT.

[@andrewwetzel6036]

And in Alaska.

[@davef.2811]

A 96-year-old friend of mine did the flight testing on these for the L.B. Smith "T-Cat" conversion in the 1950s and talked a great deal about his time in the plane. That conversion/modification really helped those planes to soldier on profitably for decades afterward as freighters.

[@joebob1738]

I had an opportunity, nearly two decades ago, to jump a C-46 Commando. There was an airshow in my state with a number of WWII aircraft as part of the show. My National Guard unit participated as paratroopers for a demonstration jump out of the C-46. I think it was called "China Doll." We had to get a special Jumpmaster from Fort Bragg to come out and certify the aircraft for jumping and rig the anchor cables. He jumped with us but also told us that we were probably the first military unit to jump a C-46 Commando since the Vietnam War. I've jumped C-47s too, and the C-46 was definitely bigger and you could 'shotgun' or jump both doors at once. The C-47 Dakota had only one jump door on the left side.

[@johnalden4605]

As a child, I was with my family in Taiwan with Civil Air Transport. They flew C-46 aircraft as passenger aircraft. I have flown on those many times and like them. I even saw on on the airstrip in Quang Tri, South Vietnam flow by one of the pilots I knew a a kid in Taiwan.

[@t5ruxlee210]

C-46 Commando was a very popular surplus equipment buy for fast expanding post WW2 airlines in Latin America in general and Brazil in particular.

[@georgej.dorner3262]

The C46 was the backbone of Air America's fleet when they were operating in Laos in the 60s.

[@johnjephcote7636]

The A W Whitley was briefly used for paratroop training. There was something strange about the airflow around the rear fuselage that resulted in 'chutes 'candle-ing'. Subsequently, it was not used for parachuting.

Up until tonight I didnt know about this controversy. My only point of contact with the C-46 so far was seeing one flying with the Ice Pilots on DMAX :) So I definetly learned something. Very nice Video. Thank you

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Lots of activity by C-46s in South East Asia and Asia as well, worth a read!

[@uwekonnigsstaddt524]

One of those Commandos flying for a Colombian airline, took off from San Andrés island on its way to the mainland. It disappeared in route. Several days later they found one of its tires floating. They’ve never found the wreckage nor the people.

[@cannonfodder4376]

Such is often the case with some aircraft. Some early but fixable flaws combine with a poor showing creates a reputation it can never escape. Even despite changes or the passage of time. Another informative video Chris.

[@stevepringle2295]

Like the V-22.

[@JustinCoyne]

Great video. Just one small correction you may be interested in: The graphic that says "Self-ceiling fuel tank" should be "Self-sealing ..."

[@bigblue6917]

I seem to remember a photograph of a C-46 used in Burma. There was a big chunk missing out of the top of the aircraft, about one third of the way from the tail. Apparently a Japanese fighter pilot had rammed to C-46 after he had run out of ammo but the C-46 survived and got back to its base, which is more that can be said for the Japanese pilot.

[@michaelmoran3946]

My Father transitioned from the C-47 to the C-46. I still have some photos of him posing in front of the plane and in the cockpit. Unfortunately, I only remember one comment about the plane. Basically he really liked it since the cockpit was pressured. As he suffered from hay fever all of his life, he found using an oxygen mask was often very difficult in the C-47.

[@bobclifton8021]

Uh, the C-46 wasn't pressurized. I flew in them a lot in the 60's.

[@Franklin-pc3xd]

Heads-up - It's self-sealing, not "self-ceiling" as you have it at 01:10 in reference to fuel tanks. No, the tanks don't automatically rise to the ceiling when breached, but they do seal themselves from leakage when shot up. Also, at about 07:30, you give the play-by-play on a bad landing by a C-46 that you repeatedly identify and refer to as a C-47.

[@martindice5424]

Always interesting viewpoints Chris. 👍👍 Planning is always a trade off between capabilities and objectives. Very interesting. Bloody good show old chap! 👍👍

[@18robsmith]

Despite it's initial problems and low numbers a few C-46 have survived to today, with Buffalo Airways in Canada operating at least one of them!

[@Subpac_ww2]

Considering the amount of AA the C-47s and gliders encountered over France, I am thoroughly surprised the C-46 didn't have self sealing fuel tanks. That said it performed well in the Pacific in non-vombat rolls, like medivac.

[@k75romeofive]

I was not aware of the fire issues and the problems assocoated with that, but I do know that it was apparently not an easy plane to fly. Buffalo airway in Alaska was flying several up until 6-8 years ago.

[@peterstickney7608]

The final measure of how well-regarded a warplane is, is what happens to it when the War it was built for is over. The C-46 was the mainstay of the USAAF and, after 1947, USAF's Medium Troop Carrier Groups/Wings, until starting to be supplanted by the C-82 and C-119 in the late 1940s, and equipped the Air Force Reserve's Troop Carrier Wings until the late 1950s. The C-46 remained in active service with the Air Commandos (Special Operations folks) until the late 1960s. During the Korean War, nearly all of the Reserve C-46 units were called to Active Service. The C-46 served well in the Korean war - One of the first units created on the outbreak of hostilities was a Troop Carrier Group made up of C-46 drafted from every unit in the Pacific/Far East - there were quite a few C-46s which were used as Base Flight Utility Transports in other units, and 2 augmented (4 Squadron) Troop Carrier Groups. In Korea, they were the most reliable Medium Transports, operating when the C-119s were grounded (They often were) or were deemed to be too dangerous to fly passengers. In Korea, they participated in several Combat drops - so Varsity was certainly not the last. As to vulnerability - While it's often pointed out that the C-46 did not have self-sealing tanks, it must be pointed out that the C-47/Dakota did not have them as well. I suspect that the relative vulnerability was due to the problem noted about fuel pooling in the bottom of the wing carry-through structure in the fuselage. This was unknown at the time - and was remedied immediatlry after discovery by venting the wing structure and installing non-arcing fuel boost pumps. A C-46 is also a large target - bigger than a B-17. Advantages are - not just being able to carry more troops - it had jump doors on both sides of the fuselage, and was able to drop 2 20" man sticks at the same time, limiting exposure and dispersion of the paratroops. The C-47 was a 6,000 lb (2700 kg) load carrier, the C-46 could carry 10,000 lb (4500 kg), and had much more cabin volume. Combat radius was on the order of 1000 miles (1600 km).

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

The C46 was heavily used in the CBI. They along with the CB47 and numerous converted bombers to transport supplies over the hump.

[@CMDRSweeper]

The C-46 is indeed a tricky bird to handle and fly, just ask Buffalo Airways as they have been operating and I believe they are still operating a C-46 in regular cargo service. We used to get updates on this when "PlaneSavers" with Mike running weekly episodes and we got to see a bit of behind the scenes, however he has gone radio silent once again.

[@johnpalmer5131]

The reason Operation Varsity is not talked about is that it was an epic failure.. the problem was not the aircraft.. the real issue is that airborne deployment of troops does not scale. It is useful for small focused operations (like special ops particularly with modern rectangular Ram chutes) but not for massive regiment sized operations.

[@Oligodendrocyte139]

One thing to consider is that many paratroopers had trained extensively to exit from the right door of a C47. Exiting through the left in a C46 meant they were doing their drills the “wrong” way round. It may not sound much but there are several accounts of how difficult they found it.

[@timspringer6681]

Everts Air Cargo still flies one out of Fairbanks along with DC6 s. Love to watch and hear them go over.

[@davesmith1672]

My father was a C46 pilot/aircraft commander during the Korean War. He flew numerous combat para drops in the Commando, so whatever bad rep it had with the airborne was set aside by 1950-51. To my knowledge, only C46s and C119s were used for paratroop drops in Korea, as the C47 was deemed too small to maintain the desired density of men inside the drop zone.

[@WestPac-ny9vi]

My Dad was a C46 Crew Chief in the Philippines, he saw some that would take off a explode a short time later. I read that it was because the fuel tanks leaked and there was no vents in the wings so any electrical short on static would set off the explosion.

[@steveschainost7590]

You could probably do a whole show on all of the planes that were declared to be deathtraps or failures because they were rushed into production or service before they were adequately tested. Also those that were used in a manner for which they were not designed or had built-in design flaws.

[@rhondohslade]

I've always liked the Commando. It is MY understanding that it started life the same way as the DC-3/C-47; that is to say as a commerical airline transport aircraft that was impressed into military service by the necessities of WWII. There was nothing intrinsically wrong with the plane and would have been better/safer had it been equipped with full military gear like self sealing fuel tanks which of course were unnecessary on a commercial transport as it was never intended to go in "harm's way". The C-46 was also fitted with R-2800 engines and four-bladed Curtiss electric props rather than the R-1830 radials with Hamilton Standard Hydromatic props of the C-47.

[@Dave-jd9qn]

The R-2800 was a real jewel. One discussion about the design of the C-46 involved Curtis getting in a hurry to build the plane and dispensed with pressurization and other "modern" developments. Nonetheless, it was a good design.

[@jponeill2151]

You should examine 'The Hump'. One of those sadly forgotten moments in WWII aviation history.

[@andrewwetzel6036]

Also did excellent service in the Berlin Airlift in 48.

[@keithmoore5306]

the main reason they burned so bad was curtis was forced to use magnesium instead of aluminum in the fuselage construction due to aluminum being in shirt supply!! not a unusual practice at times back then Douglas did the same at times but they burn like flares once they catch fire!!

[@FrankC321]

Hi Chris, nice video. There is a C-46 at Camarillo Airport. Sometimes they get it in the air, generally during annual airshow.

[@fasteddie9055]

I remember two C 46 Commandos going down in the Colombian jungle in 1965. They were attached to the 605th Air Commando Squadron at Howard Air Force Base , Panama Canal Zone. I went up with the unsuccessful search party to try to find the wreck. The squadron commander was a bird colonel. He was fired after a loud, vulgar , chewing out by an Air Force general from Washington, DC.

[@alanrogers7090]

Hi Chris. I know English isn't your first language, but the "Non-self-ceiling" fuel tanks should read as "non-self-sealing". The "ceiling" that you wrote is for the top of a room, versus "sealing" which means to close up, as in a self-sealing plastic bag to put a sandwich for your lunch into. By the way, earlier C-27's did not have self-sealing fuel tanks either. They were retroactively fitted during the war. A funny story about that "plastic bag" issue once happened to me in elementary school in the 1950's when my mother had made me a salami sandwich for my lunch. She used wax paper to keep anything wet from getting on the sandwich and make it "mushy", or "soggy" as plastic lunch bags hadn't been developed yet. Wax paper is not air tight, however, and as it warmed up during the morning while I was in class, some teachers were smelling something from my locker. The called me out of my class to ask what I had that smelled like that. (They did not complain about the smell, but from their expressions, I knew that they didn't like it.) So, I opened my locker and only found my jacket and my lunch, which I showed them. As it was now close to lunch time, they said, "OK, go back to your classroom", so I did. When I got home, I found that they had called my mom and told her not to send that kind of sandwich any more. I guess they didn't like the smell of a good salami.

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Yeah, not sure how the spelling mistake happened as it’s a fairly obvious one and since I know the difference. Perhaps autocorrect but even then I am not sure. Sadly it happens

[@alan-sk7ky]

@@MilitaryAviationHistory on the other hand Chris, I do appreciate your command and use of British colloquial exclamations😄 I'd pleased with myself if my German was half as good as your English 😉

[@peterstickney7608]

Alan, I've yet to find a Flight Manual entry, a Characteristics Summary, an Engineering order, or an FAA Type Certificate Requirement to verify that C-47s or C-53s ever had self-sealing tanks installed. If they were, it would show up there - A self-sealing tank adds weight, and cuts the fuel volume by about 10% - that would need to be accounted for in the loading allowances and in the flight planning tables.

[@alan-sk7ky]

@@peterstickney7608 Feels good to right doesn't it, Perhaps you should start a KZbin channel...

[@williamhigdon8728]

The C-46 was well liked by the pilots of the Burma Hump, and lots of civilian operators liked them. They're still popular in Alaska & Canada

[@stephenwalton9646]

The 46 was designed as a four engine transport but it takes the same number of hours to make a R-2800 as a R-1830 so the economical thing was to switch to the 2800 which was newly available. The production line never heard the news so all the 46s have outboard provisions for engine mounts that were never used. As for being tough, the 46 is the only transport certified under FAR 121 to not require a weather radar. The 46 was twice the aircraft the 47 was as far as weight, power and load hauling capabilities. Considering how the manpower in construction was the biggest consumable resource, the 46 was an enormous force multiplier. She is a real handful in ground handling and more than almost any other conventional gear transport, demanded constant attention. The flight wasn’t over until the wheels were chocked.

[@patrickfrank1751]

I worked on C-46's in Miami for a few years. It was the military version of the CW-20. Never designed for 4 engines, no provisions room, or strength in the wing for OB engines. First time I heard this one.

[@stephenwalton9646]

@@patrickfrank1751 well, I got it from the guys who did the ,”Super Tcat,” conversion test flying. Funny note was that they had to cheat by one second to get the gear retraction time to spec. They’d raise the gear handle ant then tell the FAA to start the clock. Literally a second’s delay rained by the FO pivoting in his seat and pointing to the FAA inspector and saying,”Go.” I never crawled out there to see the point in question. It wasn’t like there was a hard point ready to go. Just supporting structure by way of thicker metal and perhaps some tabs. Again, I’m relying on their word as engineers.

[@Pamudder]

The C-46 also played an extremely important role in supplying China from India over the Himalaya Mountains the "Hump"). It had a much greater cargo capacity and higher ceiling than the C-47. It started flying in this theatre in early 1943, so it was not a new aircraft by the time of Operation Varsity. The aircraft was designed for carrying cargo, not for carrying paratroopers into combat and it doesn't appear that the USAAF did anything to reduce its vulnerabilities. Basically, the aircraft, aircrews and paratrooper passengers were considered expendable.

[@stejer211]

1:02 As a building contractor, I wonder where I can order these self-ceilings?

[@tu134pilot]

Great video. I always thought the C-46 was a good airplane with an undeserved reputation. They were rushed into service in a very remote location, flying over the roughest stretch of high terrain in the War...the Hump. No spare parts, bugs not fully worked out, flown by brand new pilots, often with out the best of training on this beast, and usually way overloaded. There was simply no margin for error. Throw in thunderstorms, severe turbulence, icing, Japanese fighters and very unreliable nav aids, and it is no wonder why a number of them were lost. I was fortunate to be able to meet a few of the original Hump pilots and they all spoke highly of "DUmbo," their name for the C-46. It went on to give great service in the demanding high altitude regions of South America after the war.

[@amerigo88]

The C-46 was designed as a four engined transport plane for passengers and cargo. The switch from CurtissWright twin cyclone to Pratt and Whitney R-2800 cubic inch, double wasp, 18 cylinder radials gave it power equivalent to a B-17 but with the reduced drag of two engines. The odd cockpit configuration blended into the nose was similar to the He-111 and B-29 designs. My father-in-law flew the civilian, postwar C-46 and C-47 extensively all through the 1950's. He started his aviation career in the DeHavilland Tiger Moth. He finished his career flying the KLM airlines DC-10's.

[@bob_._.]

Hi, just a spelling correction ( 1:04 ): self-sealing fuel tanks; ceiling is the upper flat surface of a room.

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Doh, I don’t know why I wrote ceiling…

[@andrewcoley6029]

great video - really thought provoking, as ever. Thanks

[@Paul37pyro]

There's a small handful of them flying cargo and bulk fuel in Alaska, I was a mechanic on them and DC-6's for just about 5 years. absolute workhorses but yes, can be very high maintenance. Got to explore every nook and cranny on them (some times involuntarily, fuel tank work is no fun) but its always cool to see them roll by at my new job. says something about the design that its still proving useful all these years later.

[@Dave-jd9qn]

Dad was a fishing guide in Alaska in the 90s when these C-46s were moving fish to the mainland. He discovered one was stations with him at Chabua, India in 1945. He likely flew that plane.

[@garrettanderson7764]

My uncle was a lieutenant who flew C-46s over the Hump. He had a lot of great stories. Once when he was hauling mules, he was told to shoot them with his .45 if they became excited during the flight. Chinese workers believed that the best way to get rid of the "evil spirit" who follow them was to run in front of a C-46 taking off. The logic was if you miss getting hit by the propeller you could be sure that that trailing "evil spirit" was not so lucky. Pilot the C-46 pilot, it was very scary way to take-off. Another time, he was carrying Chinese troops. During the flight heard a commotion. He went back to see what it was. The "BIG" Chinese soldiers were throwing the "little" Chinese soldiers out of the plane. My uncle liked the C-46 and he was a talented pilot who took more risks than most people do. The only real problem he ever had with a C-46 occurred when he was ordered to take one that he felt needed repairs. The commander officer argued with him but my uncle was not do it. The commander officer told him that he was going to be court-martialled for refusing an order and then ordered another pilot to fly the mission. That C-46 disappeared in flight. The court-martial disappeared too.

[@timothymulholland7905]

In the 50’s, surplus C-46s were used as passenger aircraft in Brazil. They were visibly larger than the DC-3.

[@89128]

Used to see C-46s on the ramp at Charleston AFB in the mid 60s.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Oooops the footage around the 8:00 mark is of the C-46 not the C-47.

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

see pinned comment :)

[@Kim-the-Dane-1952]

Don't forget that Buffalo Airways in the Yukon in Canada still flies 2 C46's as cargo planes on a regular basis

[@vulcrider]

Careful Ryan, some of the c-46's don't react well to bullets

[@AudieHolland]

That original commentary on the C-46 not taking off really explained a lot

[@jovianmole1]

My Dad was "Radio" on cargo C-46s in the CBI. He flew 104 missions from Aug '44 to Aug '45 mostley out of Chabua, India. His most common cargo was 55 gallon drums of Av gas for the B-29's in China. He said there was almost always a leaker that he and the co-pilot would have to find and dump out the cargo door without sparking or ...BOOM. Of course they would have their 'chutes on for this dangerous part of their job. One of his jobs as radio-crew chief was starting the "putt putt"...a generator to supply power for engine start. Crawling down under the cargo compartment to the putt putt usually entailed being covered with hydraulic fluid. Lots of prayers were said for no sparks. I asked him once how he kept track of the weight of the cargo. They didn't. You loaded up until the cargo door would not close, then you threw the last thing off. Even though it had its problems, the C-46 was good enough to get him home.

[@jovianmole1]

When he left Uncle Sugar for India, his rookie crew was to report any ships in trouble over the Atlantic. Sure enough they thought they saw a ship on fire on the horizon and reported it. Just after their report they realized they were looking at an orange moon rising. Rookies.

[@tomt373]

Very good pictures! The lady @3:25 seems happy enough. 😉 It is a shame Curtiss got the blame for the problems with its fuel handling system, even stranger still to bypass self-sealing storage tanks especially for aircraft to be used in the heavily defended ETO areas, especially as late as 1945! The RAF was demanding self-sealing tanks of all US supplied aircraft even before we got into the war, (both the Grumman F4F and the Curtiss P-40, as well as the B-17) which actually upgraded our aircraft's combat durability especially when we fought the Japanese with them. I would tend to be suspect of a USAAF representative saying the short-cut was OK in order to hurry its use, and then letting the blame slide off onto Curtiss.

[@ConvairDart106]

Quite a few of those C-46's found there way to Alaska flying freight in the bush. They served very well, and there may still be a couple of them around.

[@leslieorm4905]

My grandpa flew these in the Hump in Burma, he flew the upper lift never had a problem with any of the planes.

[@victoriacyunczyk]

Have you thought about looking at airborne operations in the Pacific theater? I've always thought that area is underappreciated.

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

I haven't really thought about it just yet, thanks for the idea!

[@stanleybest8833]

Most newsreel footage was filmed with Bell and Howell 16 MM Filmo cameras and sometimes 35 MM Elmo, and sound was foley ( studio dubbing ). If color, it was Kodak Aerocolor or Kodachrome A indoor film.

[@bruceparr1678]

The C46 did sterling service flying the Aluminum Trail to China in WW2

[@ConvairDart106]

During the war years, the C-46 was noted for an abnormal number of unexplained airborne explosions (31 between May 1943 and May 1945) that were initially attributed to various causes. In particular, the fuel system, which was quickly designed, then modified for the new, thirstier Pratt & Whitney engines, was criticized. The cause of the explosions was eventually traced to pooled gasoline from small leaks in the tanks and fuel system, combined with a spark, usually originating from open-contact electrical components. Though many service aircraft suffered small fuel leaks in use, the C-46's wings were unvented; if a leak occurred, the gasoline had nowhere to drain, but rather pooled at the wing root. Any spark or fire could set off an explosion. After the war, all C-46 aircraft received a wing vent modification to vent pooled gasoline, and an explosion-proof fuel booster pump was installed with shielded electrical selector switches in lieu of the open-contact type used originally.[20][21]

[@walterg.dinkla2478]

My uncle flew "The Hump" during World War II and flew both C-46 and C-47 aircraft. I asked him which he preferred to fly, and he quickly answered the C-46. I believe he said it was easier to fly.

[@Dave-jd9qn]

My dad also flew the C-46 over The Hump and said the same thing. The best airplane was always the one which brought you home. He had stories of the plane's capacity and reliability.

[@redblinddog]

Father-in-Law was an Aircraft Mechanic in India an worked on the C-46 as well as flew the Hump a few times.

[@phillipnagle9651]

The C-46 was a great transport plane that was misused by the brass in dropping paratroopers. The plane gained its reputation flying the "hump' in China. After WW II, the C-46 was used freight airlines. I remember seeing C-46s flying well into the late 1950's.

[@josephpiskac2781]

Your previous presentation made me extremely interested in the Curtis Commando. It was also nicknamed The Plumber's Nightmare. The fire hazard was apparently solved for later civilian versions by installing vents in the wings that allowed fuel leaks to safely escape. We're the engines also viewed as prone to catch fire?

[@Mikey1951ful]

My uncle, may he rest in peace, flew a Commando "over the hump" in the CBI theater. I don't recall any complaints on his part. Then again, he was not under fire.

[@speedtwin5t]

Great story. How about a video about Corsair carrier operations and how the Brits figured it out.

[@Bob_Betker]

What surprises me is that the USAAC in 1945 would allow planes without self-sealing fuel tanks be used in combat operations. By this time, it was a well known vulnerability for planes without self-sealing tanks.

[@SouthParkCows88]

I find that aircraft do not react well to being fired upon, becomes a real problem for them.

[@ArizonaPoet]

When I was a kid in the early 60's there was a C46 based at Hawthorne, California airport, current home of SpaceX. I read in the newspaper it took out a Cessna because of brake failure.

[@GaryGrumble]

I think that there is a C-46 still flying with Buffalo Airline in Yellow Knife in the NW territory of Canada. They would have some input on the pros & cons of this aircraft.

[@bobclifton8021]

I flew in the C-46 a lot during my time in the Air Commandos in the 60's. I always considered it to be an excellent aircraft that could take a heavy beating and continue on. It could get higher than our c-47's at the time.

[@alan-sk7ky]

What about the two blokes standing at the end of the line of Jeeps/ things just as the C46 ground loops to the left! :O

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Yup a Norduyn Norseman - I plane I had never really heard of till I read a great book about the death of Glenn Miller. NB - did C-47s have selfsealing tanks?

[@georgelevin6134]

Had a uncle who flew 47’s and 46’s in WWII said the 46 was dangerously underpowered on one engine.

[@bobclifton8021]

The C-46 was used with better success in the CBI theater of operations. A commander of mine flew them over the hump then. We had several of them in the early days of the Air Commandos. They were great aircraft then too.

[@kimyseock]

in 1967, Seoul Korea, a C-46 crashed in the city, killing 86 people onboard and ground.. also there were 2 other cases with C-46 crashes in South Korea before.

[@nickdanger3802]

Waco is pronounced WAH co, I visited what was left of the plant in Ohio a few decades ago.

[@mensch1066]

Indeed, for non-Americans there is a city in Texas with the same spelling and pronunciation (older people will remember the Branch Davidians in Waco Texas in the mid 1990s).

[@englishpassport6590]

We never get to hear very much aboout the long range Consolidated Liberator C87 transport which was extensively used during WW2. They were prone to react severely to even minor instances of wing icing due to their high lift laminar wings not maintaining sufficient lift. This was very bad news on the Hump and Greenland - Iceland - Scotland run but the transport divisions had to use them. This led to many unavoidable casualties and unplanned excursions.. DC3s and in particular the DC2s were so much more resistant to icing problems. The privileged pilots knew that flying these two aircraft was a different ballgame altogether compared to the fragile flying machine that was the transport Liberator ..

[@timwedig4814]

I wonder if the C-46's flammability issues stemmed from the combustion heaters and associated fuel lines being unprotected right under the nose.

[@matchrocket1702]

I jumped out of a Norseman once. While it was flying. As I'm here to tell about it, you know I was wearing a parachute.

[@RMJTOOLS]

I’m surprised it got high enough.

[@martijn9568]

​@@RMJTOOLS If its got a ceiling in excess of 10,000 feet it should be fine right? Not to mention that the supercharger on the Norseman's engine is probably geared for peak performance at 5,000 feet.

[@RMJTOOLS]

@@martijn9568 I was being sarcastic. I’ve heard stories about Norseman on floats going forever leaned over on one float just to break water and climb. I’ve never heard they were over powered.

[@loboheeler]

The C-47 can stall on takeoff if the tail is not raised first to have rudder control. I assume the C-46 has the same issue. 3 point takeoffs end in disaster, which rookie pilots would not know.

[@mikearakelian6368]

Need an extra firewall in engine compartment.....move some oil/ fuel lines around...cuff on leading edge of wings( especially DC 3) or stall strip..stay with in operating paramiters,a/c ok

[@mikearakelian6368]

Remember to fly A/C till it comes to complete stop...you need to kno how to fly....those guys in Canada do ok wit them in horrible wx conditions....can you????

[@clrlmiller]

Sorry for nit-picking and I realize English is not your first language. But at the 1:00 mark, you're looking to mention "self-sealing" fuel tanks, ...not "self-ceiling" tanks. Sealing is stopping leaks after a puncture/hole. A ceiling is what you see when lying down in bed at night. Still a great video regardless.