# Consolidated PBY vs. Heinkel He-115



## V-1710 (Aug 10, 2006)

O.K., one is a floatplane, the other is a flying boat, but they were designed for roughly the same mission. Compare and contrast.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 10, 2006)

The PBY is a classic of seaplanes and basically defines the WWII versions. It was like the Sherman tank, cheap, available, and good enough to get the job done in quantity. From spotting the Bismark to guadalcanal and Midway and to antisubmarine warfare, it, and the men who flew them were real warhorses. 

For comparison purposes, the PBY-4 and the He 115A-3 (I only have data on the B-1) were both available at the start of the war in Europe. The PBY had a higher top speed (197mph to 189mph) but significantly slower cruising speed (115mph to 183mph). Payload was roughly the same. Where the PBY excelled was in cruising range (2070 miles normal to 740, and 4430 miles max to 1830 miles). The range was significant for this mission, especially in the Pacific, not so much so in Europe (except in the Atlantic).

Both planes could have been superseded in a year or two by much superior aircraft such as the P4Y and PBM. Only they weren't needed, the PBY was doing its job.

For range, durability, and time of service, I would select the PBY.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 10, 2006)

I don't think they are even comparable the PBY all the way


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2006)

I think both aircraft were great designs and served well in there assigned roles but I go for the PBY as well.

A more interesting comparison would be the PBY vs. Do-18, Do-24, and Do-26.

*Do-18*

Type: Reconnaissance and Air/Sea rescue
Origin: Dornier-Werke GmbH
Models: D, G, H, N
Crew: Four
First Flight:
Do 18a: March 15, 1935
Do 18F: June 11, 1937
Do 18L: November 21, 1939
Service Delivery: September 1938
Final Delivery: 1940
Production: 100+

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine:
Do 18D:
Model: Junkers Jumo 205C
Type: diesels in tandem push/pull configuration
Number: Two Horsepower: 600 hp

Do 18G, H N:
Model: Junkers Jumo 205D
Type: diesels in tandem push/pull configuration
Number: Two Horsepower: 700 hp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions:
Wing span: 23.7m (77 ft. 9 in.)
Wing Surface Area: 1054.89 sq. ft (98.00m²)
Length: 19.25m (63 ft. 2 in.)
Height: 5.45m (17 ft. 9 in.)

Weights:
Empty: 5,850kg (12,900 lbs.)
Loaded: 10,000kg (22,046 lbs.)
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 162 mph (260 kph) at sea level
Cruise Speed: 106 mph (170 kph)
Range: 2,175 miles (3,500km)
Initial Climb: N/A
Service Ceiling: 13,780 ft. (4200m)

Armament:
Do 18D-1:
Two 7.92mm MG 15 machine guns manually aimed, one mounted in the bow and one mounted in the rear cockpit.

Do 18G-1:
One 13mm MG 131 in bow cockpit
One 20mm MG 151 in powered dorsal turret

Do 18H and N: Unarmed

Payload:
Do 18D-1 Do 18G-1:
1,000kg (2,204 lbs.) of weapons or stores mounted on wing racks.

*Do-24*

Type: Reconnaissance flying boat
Origin: Dornier-Werke GmbH, production by wesser, Aviolanda and Potez-CAMS (SNCAN); post-war, CASA, Spain.
Models: N and T
First Flight: Do 24V3: July 3, 1937
Service Delivery: Do 24K: November 1937
Withdrawal From Service: Spain: 1967
Production: N/A

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine:
Model: Bramo Fafnir 323R-2
Type: Nine-cylinder radials
Number: Three Horsepower: 1,000hp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions:
Wing span: 27m (88 ft. 7 in.)
Wing Surface Area: 1,162.5 sq. ft. (108.00m²)
Length: 22m (72 ft. 1 in.)
Height: 5.45m (17 ft. 10 in.)

Weights:
Empty: 13,500kg (29,700 lbs.)
Loaded: 18,400kg (40,565 lbs

Performance: 
*Maximum Speed: 211 mph (340 kph) at 9,840 ft. (3000m)*
*Cruise Speed: 183 mph (295 kph)*
Range: 2,950 miles (4750km)
Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
*Service Ceiling: 19,360 ft. (5900m)*

Armament: 
One 7.92mm MG 15 machine gun in bow turret, one MG 15 in tail turret and one 20mm MG 151/20 or 30mm MK 103 cannon in dorsal turret behind wing.

Bomb Load: 
Underwing racks for *twelve 110lb. (50kg) bombs or other stores.*



*Do-26*

Type: Transatlantic Mail or Coastal Patrol flying boat
Origin: Dornier-Werke GmbH.
Models: V1 to V6, and D
First Flight: May 21, 1938
Service Delivery: 1940
Final Delivery: N/A
Crew: Four

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine: 
Do 26V6:
Model: Junkers Jumo 205D Diesels
Type: Each with six double-ended cylinders
and 12 opposed pistons
Number: Four Horsepower: 880 hp

Do 26A:
Model: Junkers Jumo 205 Diesels
Type: Each with six double-ended cylinders
and 12 opposed pistons
Number: Four Horsepower: 600 hp

Do 26D:
Model: Junkers Jumo 205Ea Diesels
Type: Each with six double-ended cylinders
and 12 opposed pistons
Number: Four Horsepower: 700 hp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions: 
Wing span: 30m (98 ft. 5¼ in.)
Wing Surface Area: 120.0m² (1,291 sq. ft.)
Length: 24.60m (80 ft. 8½ in.)
Height: 6.85m (22 ft. 5¾ in.)
Weights: 
Empty:
Do 26V6: 11,300kg (24,912 lbs.)
Do 26A: 10,700kg (23,589 lbs.)
Loaded:
Do 26V6: 22,500kg (49,601 lbs.)
Do 26A: 20,000kg (44,092 lbs.)

Performance: 
*Maximum Speed: 201 mph (324 kph)*
Cruise Speed: N/A
*Range: 7100 km (4,412 miles)*
Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: N/A

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armament: 
20mm MG 151 in a bow turret
Three aft firing 7.92mm MG 15 machine guns.

Payload: 
12 Fully-Equipped troops

*PBY*

Type: Maritime Patrol Flying Boat
Origin: Consolidated
Models: PBY-1 to PBY-5A (Specs for 5A)
Crew: Seven
First Flight: XP3Y-1: March 21, 1935
Service Delivery: PBY-1: October 1936
Final Delivery: After December 1945
Production: 4,000+

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powerplant:
Model: Pratt Whitney R-1830-92 Twin Wasp
Type: 14-cylinder twin row radial engine
Number: Two
Horsepower: 1,200 hp 
Dimensions:
Wing Span: 31.72m (104 ft.)
Length: 19.5m (63 ft. 11 in.)
Height: 5.65m (18 ft. 10 in.)
Wing Area: N/A

Weights:
Empty: 7974 kg (17,465 lb)
Maximum: 15,436 kg (34,000 lb)

Performance:
Max. Speed: 314 km/h (196 mph)
Climb to 5,000 ft (1525m): 4.5 minutes
Service Ceiling: 5550m (18,200 ft.)
Range at 100 mph (161 kph): 4960 km (3,100 miles) 

Armament:
U.S. Navy Configuration: (Typical)
Nose turret with either 0.3 or 0.5 in. Browning MG
One 0.5 in. Browning MG in each waist blister
One 0.5 in. Browning MG in tunnel in underside behind step

RAF Configuration: (Typical)*
Nose turret with one 0.303 Vickers K MG
Two 0.303 Vickers K MG in each waist blister
One 0.303 Vickers K MG in tunnel in underside behind step
*Vickers K sometimes replaced with Browning MG

Bomb Load:
2000 lb (907 kg) of stores on wing racks


Based off of this info the Do-24 and Do-26 were superior to the PBY in most respects. The Do-24 was also the most beautiful as well. They had one flying around here the other day. It was painted in silver and owned by some Czech company. I wish I could have taken a picture of it.

Dornier made mostly flying boats and was a real expert at it.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 11, 2006)

I don't know if I have told this before, but one day I heard a airplane flying that sounded unusual. I ran out side and a Do-24 was flying low overhead heading for San Pedro to land. It was a UN bird. You are right about it being beautiful. Very graceful. I could imagine an old China Clipper flying overhead.

One of the first memories of an air show I have was of a PBY rolling down the runway and then leaping off in a column of smoke as it lit off two JATO boosters.

The PBY was obsolete at the beginning of the war but still soldiered on.

I agree with you on the Do 24 and 26. The Do 26 was clearly superior, the Do 24 was only marginally so.


----------



## Twitch (Aug 11, 2006)

Well gee, my reference materials show the PBY-5A with a tope end of only 169 MPH @ sea level and 179 MPH @ 7,000 feet. Range is 2,545 miles.

The He 115B-1 could do 186 MPH @ sea level and 203 MPH @11,150 feet with a range of 2,080 miles. The later 115D of 1941 could do 248 MPH with its 1,600 HP BMWs.

Total ordnance loads were about 4,000 lbs for the Cat and around 3,000 lbs for the Heinkel.

A brief review of the 115's use shows it was quite adequate in its role and we know the Catalina was. I feel it isn't all about maximum range and ordnance load but whether each successfully carried out its missions and both craft did. So it's a tie in that area for me. 

I'd simply give the nod to the Cat for the fact of sentimentality and that its far flung use was legendary plus 2,398 were built versus some 273 He 115s.


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 11, 2006)

I did bot bothered to compare performances, but in terms of beauty...



Nome / Name Fiat CMASA Rs. 14 




Carattestistiche/ Type Idrovolante monoplano bimotore bombardamento / ricognizione 
Anno di Costruzione Year of constr. 1939 
Primo Volo/ First flight maggio 1939 pilota Ferdinando Trojano 
Progettista/ Eng. Ing. manlio Stiavelli Ing. Lucio lazzarino 
Equipaggio n. /Crew 4-5 
Ap. Alare / mt. Span wings 19,54 
Lunghezza/ mt. Lenght 14,10 
Altezza/ mt. Height 5,63 
Sup. Alare mq / Wing area 50,00 
Motore -i / Power Plant-s 2 Fiat A.74 RC38 da 840cv ciascuno a 3800mt. 
Peso max / Max weight 8470 kg. 
Peso a secco / Empty weight 5470 kg. 
Carico utile / Loaded weights 400 kg di bombe 
Armamento / Armament 1 mitr. da 12,7 mm + 2 mitr. da 7,7mm 
Vel. max/ Max speed 390 km/h a 4000mt. 
Tangenza prat. / 6300 mt ( max) 
Autonomia / Range 2500 km 
Produzione / Production circa 184 esemplari 
Varianti / Special Type Fiat AS. 14 con carrello retrattile e 6 mitragliatrici da 12,7 mm + cannone da 37mm 
Note / note: Matricole Militari : MM380-383 ( 1° E 2° prototipo) / MM35386-35397 n.12 / MM35401-35422 n.22 / MM35639-35788 n.150


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 11, 2006)

I would pick the PBY, but I am biased.

We live on the coast about 20 km from the New Zealand Warbirds base at Ardmore airport.

Dakato, P-51, P40N, Harvards, Spitfire, BAC Strikemaster, And the PBY all flap their wings overhead and use the air in front of us for practice most weekends.

Watching the PBY come crawling along you get the distinct feeling that the crew could get out and walk along side to stretch their legs.

But the real gotcha is listening to the P-40 go past, sounds ok. THEN you hear the growl start, and grow, and the Merlin powered P-51 honks past, bloody awesome.

But that PBY just hanging there, is stunning.


----------



## Wildcat (Aug 11, 2006)

Yup, PBY all the way.


----------



## V-1710 (Aug 12, 2006)

I don't think the Germans were ever in a position to really utilize a large seaplane, outside of the search and rescue role. The Catalina was well suited for search and rescue, long range patrol, night attack, sub hunting, mine laying, and surface vessel attack. Yes, it was slow, but it was also strong and had a very long range (even longer with one engine shut down!). The Dornier's were very impressive indeed, but most could not match the PBY's range (the Do 26 comes very close to the non-amphibious PBY). If anything came close to the PBY's equal, it might have been one of the Cant designs.


----------



## Smokey (Aug 12, 2006)

H6k

Theres also the Kawanishi H6K Mavis

Role Patrol flying boat
Crew 9
First Flight July 14 1936
Entered Service January 1938
Manufacturer Kawanishi
Dimensions
Length 25.63 m 84 ft 3 in
Wingspan 40.00 m 131 ft 2 in
Height 6.27 m 20 ft 6 in
Wing area 170 m² 1,830 ft²
Weights
Empty 11,707 kg 25,755 lb
Loaded 17,000 kg 37,400 lb
Maximum takeoff 21,500 kg 47,300 lb
Powerplant
Engines 4x Mitsubishi Kinsei 43 or 46
Power 2,984 kW 4,000 hp
Performance
Maximum speed 331 km/h 207 mph
Combat Range 4,650 km 2,906 miles
Ferry Range 6,580 km 4,112 miles
Service ceiling 9,610 m 31,520 ft
Rate of climb 370 m/min 1,213 ft/min
Wing loading 100 kg/m² 20 lb/ft²
Power/Mass 0.17 kW/kg 0.11 hp/lb
Avionics
Armament
Guns 1x 7.7 mm Type 97 machine gun in bow
1x Type 97 machine gun in spine
2x Type 97 machine guns in waist blisters
1x 20 mm Type 99 cannon in tail turret
Stores 2x 800 kg (1,760 lb) torpedoes
or 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) of bombs

Kawanishi H6K - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 12, 2006)

Just throwing another aircraft into the mix, the Short Sunderland :-

Specifications (Sunderland III)
Data from Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II[1]

General characteristics
Crew: 8—11 (two pilots, radio operator, navigator, engineer, bomb-aimer, three to five gunners) 
Length: 85 ft 4 in (26.0 m) 
Wingspan: 112 ft 9½ in (34.39 m) 
Height: 32 ft 10½ in (10 m) 
Wing area: 1,487 ft² (138 m²) 
Empty weight: 34,500 lb (15,663 kg) 
*Loaded weight: 58,000 lb (26,332 kg) *
Max takeoff weight: lb (kg) 
Powerplant: 4× Bristol Pegasus XVIII nine-cylinder radial engines, 1,065 hp (794 kW) each 
Performance
*Maximum speed: 210 mph (336 km/h) at 6,500 ft (1,980 m) *
*Cruise speed: 178 mph (285 km/h) at 5,000 ft (1,525 m) *
Stall speed: 78 mph (125 km/h) 
Range: 1,780 mi (2,848 km) 
Service ceiling: 16,000 ft (4,880 m) 
Rate of climb: 720 ft/min (3.67 m/s) 
Wing loading: 39 lb/ft² (191 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: .018 hp/lb (.030 kW/kg) 
Armament
8× .303 calibre machine guns 
various munitions, including bombs and depth charges, carried internally and winched out beneath the wings 

(sourced from Wikipedia)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2006)

V-1710 said:


> I don't think the Germans were ever in a position to really utilize a large seaplane, outside of the search and rescue role. The Catalina was well suited for search and rescue, long range patrol, night attack, sub hunting, mine laying, and surface vessel attack. Yes, it was slow, but it was also strong and had a very long range (even longer with one engine shut down!). The Dornier's were very impressive indeed, but most could not match the PBY's range (the Do 28 comes very close to the non-amphibious PBY). If anything came close to the PBY's equal, it might have been one of the Cant designs.



The only think the Catalina had over the Do-24 was range, otherwise performance and payload went to the Do-24. The Do-26 beat out the Catalina in everything including range.


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 12, 2006)

I think that the discussion expanded a bit, from the PBY vs He115 comparison.

Italian designs (Cant and Fiat) were conceived for the mediterranean area, where 2500km of patrol range was enough, so the machines could be lighter and faster.
But for Atlantic or Pacific missions this range was inadequate.

If long patrol range was requred, then the aircraft must be heavier and (generally speaking) with lower performances.

The ultimate long range flying boat could be the Emily, that also carried a good defensive armament of 5x20mm plus some 7.7 mg:

KAWANISHI H8K2 EMILY:

```
_____________________   _________________   _______________________
 
   spec                    metric              english
   _____________________   _________________   _______________________

   wingspan                38 meters           124 feet 8 inches
   wing area               160 sq_meters       1,722 sq_feet
   length                  28.15 meters        92 feet 4 inches
   height                  9.15 meters         30 feet

   empty weight            18,370 kilograms    40,520 pounds
   normal loaded weight    24,500 kilograms    54,010 pounds
   max loaded weight       32,500 kilograms    71,650 pounds

   max speed               465 KPH             290 MPH / 252 KT
   cruise speed            295 KPH             184 MPH / 160 KT
   service ceiling         8,760 meters        28,740 feet
   range                   7,150 kilometers    4,440 MI / 3,865 NMI
   _____________________   _________________   _______________________
```

it is anyway a design of a younger generation compared to the PBY

The point is that after 1943 aircraft design progressed so much that the land based patrol aircraft (the Liberator/Privateer for instance) could take the job without the performance handicap connected to flying boats, making them obsolete.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 12, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The only think the Catalina had over the Do-24 was range, otherwise performance and payload went to the Do-24. The Do-26 beat out the Catalina in everything including range.



My sources agree with this.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2006)

The PBY was reliable, sturdy and for the most part, self contained. The crew was able to perform required maintenance while deployed in forward areas. But it biggest asset, reliability - something that many WW2 flying boats lacked...


----------



## V-1710 (Aug 13, 2006)

I was sort of limiting this discussion to twin engined flying boats/seaplanes. There were many fine 4 engined flying boats, as the Sunderland, 'Emily', PB2Y, and the Martin Mars. How about the PBM Mariner?


----------



## trackend (Aug 13, 2006)

PBY all the way brilliant design and as FBJ and others have pointed out extremly reliable (very hand when your several hours from home) I love the idea of the drop down wing floats to reduce drag


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2006)

If you want to talk about large multiengine than you have to go with the Emily, Bv-222, Bv-238, PB2Y, PBM, Marlin, Mars, and Sunderland.


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 14, 2006)

Have a search for the night cats "Black Cats" from the pacific theatre.

or just go here Black Cats - U.S. Navy fighting PBY Catalinas in the Pacific during WWII

The Japs just LOOOOVED those guys. Couldn't hear them coming, sure as [email protected] new they had been.


----------



## Twitch (Aug 15, 2006)

Yeah big, 4-engine flying boats are another category entirely. The Mariner had a penchant for leaking gas a old PBY guy that flew both told me.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 17, 2006)

The point here there were better WW2 flying boats, but they either weren't reliable or not deployed effectively or with the right on board equipment (MAD). That's where the PBY takes it!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2006)

That I will agree with FBJ.


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 25, 2006)

Back to the original comparison there isn't one. The Catalina could alight on rough seas. The He115 was a floatplane and really was limited to sheltered water flying, though no doubt there were many hairy landings on rough seas by brave He115 crews.

Widen the debate to compare like with like and the Do-18 is superior to the PBY


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 26, 2006)

well remember you weren't ever supposed to sand any sort of seaplane in rough seas, many were lost that way, yes it obviously happened at times but it was never autherised, not even in larger ones like the Sunderland or E8K (please tell me if that's the right designation i can never remember  )..........


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 26, 2006)

I think from memory it was the HK8. 

As a general principle a flying boat can handle rougher water than a floatplane. The Do-18 excelled at this because it did not rely upon wing sponsoon floats.

Catching a float on a wave can be quite fatal too as happened to (I think it was) Phillipe Cousteau the son of Jaques Cousteau using a Catalina.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 26, 2006)

As I said in other posting above you can not compare the PBY to the He-115 because they are 2 totally different type of aicraft.

The best aircraft compare the PBY to (seaplanes in her class) are the Do-18, Do-24, and Do-26. The Do-18, Do-24 and Do-26 outperform the PBY and are actually better seaplanes than the PBY but for reasons that FBJ stated such as onboard equipment and effective deployment the PBY takes the catagory of best seaplane of WW2.

I personally like the Do-24 the best though because of her looks.


----------



## USS HERON (Dec 20, 2007)

The comparison is useful from a technical viewpoint, but operationally the issue of one vs. the other remains academic.

The PBY was designed as a long ranged patrol plane, then had torpedo / level bomber duties added. The He 115 was designed as a fast floatplane, and there was a record attempt made at one point before the war, and then militarized as a torpedo bomber, scout plane. Chronologically parallel, technically very diverse.

The PBY's long ranged was critical in the Pacific and the Atlantic. The He 115's speed very useful in the Biskaya, Norway, and the Baltic. Against slow, unarmed merchant ships without fighter cover, as in the Russian convoys, the He 115 had a real chance. The PBY as a Black Cat did well in the South Pacific. Both, nevertheless, were very vulnerable to enemy fighter interception.

Most beautiful? Depends entirely on individual criteria. For merchant captain in the Norwegian Sea, an He 115 was an ugly sight. For a Marine pilot in the water off Bougainville, a PBY DUMBO was beauty without comparison.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 20, 2007)

An interesting comparison of PBY and Do-24 was in the Dutch Naval Air Force in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) early in the Pacific War; it operated both types, and alongside USN units operating PBY-4's and -5's. Some of those Dutch Do-24's had a 20mm dorsal turret, providing considerably more protection than the .50 cal waste hatches (PBY-4) or blisters (PBY-5), but not many Do's happened to be caught by Japanese fighters. They sank a Japanese DD though, while neither US or Dutch PBY's happened to score any signficant sinkings in that period (Dec '41-fall of DEI in late Feb '42). However from the Dutch perspective in early '42, the PBY-5's they received were new planes while the Do's were pretty worn out after a few months of war.

I agree He-115 is not a comparable plane to the PBY, but here's an interesting picture, an He-115B of Kusten-flieger Gruppe 406 shortly before its destruction by F4F-4's from USS Ranger off the coast of Norway Oct 4, 1943, one of the relatively few Luftwaffe a/c shot down by the USN in WWII.







Joe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2007)

I still dont believe a true comparison can be made between the 115 and the PBY.

Take the PBY and the Do 24 and then you can make a comparison. The Do 24 wins in my opinion as well.

You have to love the PBY however.


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 30, 2007)

In this case I'll go with the Cat, absolutely love that bird....PBY-5A..*droool* Doesn't the float plane have a disadvantage when it comes to floats v. smooth body as with Catalina? More drag and all that? Have to admit that the Dornier Do-24 is my favorite German sea plane though, the Viking was a tad bit on the large side...


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 1, 2008)

Its hard to compare a Flying boat to Floatplane.......hmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## Skip391 (Apr 15, 2017)

I am new to this site and I am reading from the first topics toward current topics. One reason for the PBY being the best is time on station. In the Atlantic due to the slow speed of the cruise the PBY could stay over a convoy for a longer time then most of the planes listed. It would take longer to get there but then it could stay longer. Also for scouting it could keep looking longe


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 16, 2017)

Seaplanes are intrinsically superior to float planes, so, of course the PBY is better than the He115, _but _the issue is whether either was _good_ _enough._ They both were.

(stupid tablet; replacing "seaplanes" with "warplanes": fixed; everything below was added in edit)

Neglecting the "everything the Germans did was better," (and the somewhat less silly "seaplanes are intrinsically superior....") memes, these were different aircraft optimized for different roles. The floatplane would be more restricted in its ability to operate in rough seas, would probably have greater drag, most of it due to the floats, and would have a lower payload fraction than a seaplane designed for the same role. On the other hand, sticking floats onto a generic airframe is possible (prototype floatplane conversions were made of, among other aircraft, the Wildcat, the Spitfire, and the DC-3. They even tried a Blackburn Roc floatplane, which strikes me more as an expensive method of executing pilots and air gunners than as a useful aircraft) so one can use the same basic airframe as a floatplane and something else.

The PBY was adequate for its role, but it, and all other seaplanes and floatplanes ran into the simple problem that unless landing on water was a role, as it was for SAR aircraft, or there were no runways to be found landplanes were better at just about everything: faster, better payload fraction, able to operate with fewer weather restrictions, lower maintenance, .....


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2017)

Skip391 said:


> I am new to this site and I am reading from the first topics toward current topics. One reason for the PBY being the best is time on station. In the Atlantic due to the slow speed of the cruise the PBY could stay over a convoy for as longer time then most of the planes listed. It would take longer to get there but then it could stay longer. Also for scouting it could keep looking longe



Welcome to the Forum.

The PBY was big airplane, 1400sq ft of wing with small engines. This meant it had a slow top speed but it had good endurance at low speed due to low power needed while wing provided the lift (large fuel tanks didn't hurt either). 
You never get something for nothing so each plane mentioned in the thread has pluses and minuses. Which was more important could depend on situation but it is very hard (impossible?) for a 23,000lb airplane (He115) to equal the range/payload of a 30,000lb airplane (PBY-3&4) let alone a 35-36,000lb airplane (PBY-5A)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Apr 17, 2017)

While speed can be a good thing, for an aircraft whose primary role is search, and search and rescue, being as slow as possible can be a better thing. It can be very difficult to spot something as small as a life raft while zooming by at 200 mph. Being slow means a better opportunity to see detail in what is otherwise a vast expanse. However, being too slow when a fast egress is necessary can of course be a bad thing.

For the purpose of the OP, I am inclined to say PBY.


----------



## GregP (Apr 18, 2017)

The PBY was a 35,000-pound plane with edit (Thanks, Milosh!): 2,500 mile range. The Do-18 was a 22,000-pound plane with 2,100 mile range.

The advantage is the Catalina here, but perhaps only slightly.

They built 3,300 Catalinas, including Canadian units. They built 170 DO-18s. There is no comparison there, the Catalina is the winner, rather overwhelmingly. 3,300 even largely inferior planes are going to contribute more than 170 superior planes. One-on-one, they might have been close. Collectively, they aren't. Perhaps you meant one-on-one?

Add this; they are still flying Catalinas. No WWII German flying boats are still flying with the excpetion of maybe one Do-24 that was rebuilt as a possible turboprop new-production unit some time in the last 20 years. It did not make production Here is a link to a video of it.


_View: https://www.facebook.com/JukinVideo/videos/957551014333169/_


About halfway through, note the altogether unique landing maneuver. Now THAT's something you surely don't see every day! This was and IS a very nice flying boat. That spin-out was an anomaly caused no doubt by a pilot who put it down while it still had flying speed. That is, he didn't hold off until it stalled into the water. Notice when he touched down that he touched way forward, more or less about at the 1/3-chord line. When that happens, interesting things follow. Rather, he landed when it still had enough speed to lift a bit when the nose came up.

I'd chalk that up to simple pilot error, and I'd bet it never happened again!

First flying boat toe loop I ever saw, and it wasn't even in an ice rink!


----------



## GregP (Apr 18, 2017)

Here's another one where the pilot tried to drive it on. More interesting things happen.


_View: https://youtu.be/EzPSjBPAlMQ_


Moral of the story is slow down and drop in out of a stall, and touch down behind the CG / CL, not in front of it! Also, it helps to touch down wings level. It's OK to raise a wing on takleoff, but I'd avoid that when landing, unless you like sudden adventure.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 18, 2017)

GregP said:


> The PBY was a 35,000-pound plane with *25,000 mile* range. The Do-18 was a 22,000-pound plane with 2,100 mile range.!



The PBY can fly around the earth without refueling?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 18, 2017)

Thanks Milosh! I added an edit. The PBY was long range, but probably slightly less than around-the-world legs ...

I was only off by 22,500 miles! What's the beef? Ha!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Apr 19, 2017)

German seaplanes sank only three western allied subs for the entire war that I am certain of. not sure about their success or lack of it in the east against the Russians, but up until December 1941 I am only aware of one successful sinking, carried out in conjunction with DKM surface forces and the a/c in that situation was a Ju-88 not the more maritime oriented seaplanes. Some subs were lost to mines laid by LW a/c, but it is impossible to tell which boats were loss to mines laid by surface craft and which were laid by a/c. Point is, DKM and even more so the LW ability to sink submarines by air was abysmal.

During the war, DKM admitted and Allied sources confirm, to the loss of over 250 U-boats to solely Allied air attacks, of which the PBYs are thought to be responsible for about 50 of that number. Other U-boat losses in which the dominant cause of the loss arose from air action of some sort are calculated to have caused the loss of an additional 100 or so boats. The allies put in a massive effort at airborne ASW and most of the kills were achieved after 1942, but impressive results were nevertheless achieved.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 19, 2017)

I want to see a dogfight between a Martin Mars and a BV 238! The crisp maneuvering would no doubt be something to see ... maybe one could firebomb the other?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2017)

How about a Supermarine Walrus vs a He 59?









Notice the *4 *bladed prop.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 19, 2017)

That's the first thing I noticed. Looks like two (2 bladed props) bolted together...

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## pbehn (Apr 19, 2017)

BiffF15 said:


> That's the first thing I noticed. Looks like two (2 bladed props) bolted together...
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


Easiest way to make a four bladed prop from wood?

The Supermarine flying boats had Schneider trophy heritage Supermarine Sea Lion II - Wikipedia while the Sunderland was a big ungainly looking beast that was surprisingly agile and heavily armed for a sea plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Apr 19, 2017)

There were two occasions that ive heard of in which a supermarine walrus (or more correctly supermarine Seagull V) engaged in a dogfight. The first one involved a fight between an RA CR 32 and the onboard seagull from HMAS HOBART. The other incident was an RN cruiser, but the details I would need to look up.

In the case of HOBART's Seagull, I understand the seaplane got low and fought it out with the CR-32 fighter at deck level . Fighting at sea level covered her vulnerable blind underbelly and prevented close range high speed passes by the Italian fighter. It got down to a fight about sturdiness and stability of the gun platform, and the seagull evidently won on those criteria.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 19, 2017)

parsifal said:


> German seaplanes sank only three western allied subs for the entire war that I am certain of. not sure about their success or lack of it in the east against the Russians, but up until December 1941 I am only aware of one successful sinking, carried out in conjunction with DKM surface forces and the a/c in that situation was a Ju-88 not the more maritime oriented seaplanes. Some subs were lost to mines laid by LW a/c, but it is impossible to tell which boats were loss to mines laid by surface craft and which were laid by a/c. Point is, DKM and even more so the LW ability to sink submarines by air was abysmal.
> 
> During the war, DKM admitted and Allied sources confirm, to the loss of over 250 U-boats to solely Allied air attacks, of which the PBYs are thought to be responsible for about 50 of that number. Other U-boat losses in which the dominant cause of the loss arose from air action of some sort are calculated to have caused the loss of an additional 100 or so boats. The allies put in a massive effort at airborne ASW and most of the kills were achieved after 1942, but impressive results were nevertheless achieved.



In defense of the Germans, there were a lot more German submarines to sink: they were operating in a somewhat less target-rich environment than the Allies' ASW forces. Once the Axis was defeated in North Africa (and how much of their materiel and personnel got back to Europe?), there would seem to be fairly little for German ASW to do.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 19, 2017)

All true to an extent. nevertheless the germans entered the war with about 2 million tons of shipping and seized or captured around 3 million tons up to the fall of France. a lot was seized from Holland and Norway, but the germans at the beginning of the war also seized a vast quantity of Baltic shipping from the neutrals. It caused major diplomatic incidents with Sweden Norway and even Finland. At the outbreak of the war with Russia, vast quantities of Soviet shipping was seized by the Germans in German ports.

During the war the Germans constructed about 1.5 million tons of shipping. The short end of the story is that Germany, like every other industrialised nation needed maritime traffic even in the context of local coast trade that they were limited to after 1942.

My best estimate is that then Germans either built, or acquired about 7.5 million tons of shipping during the war (hard figures on this subject are incredibly hard to find) , and lost in that period 6.5 million tons to all sources. About 30-35% of those losses arose from the actions of allied submarines, amounting to 2.3 million tons of shipping lost in northern waters.

that's more than enough to be considered a significant impact. yet the germans were never able to respond effectively to this threat to their mercantile trade by an effective airborne ASW effort.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 20, 2017)

Parsifal, 
I didn't have those numbers. Thanks; I had also forgotten about coastal shipping.


----------

