# Best flying boat/amphibian of WWII?



## Lucky13 (Jul 27, 2008)

Was the PBY Catalina the overall best of the lot or? What's your opinion?
I think that it certainly was one of the best in the whole conflict looking at their "Dumbo" and "Black Cat" missions....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2008)

I have to go with the venerable Dornier Do 24. She outperformed the venerable Cat (which also was a great aircraft by the way!).

To me she is also the most beautiful sea plane.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 27, 2008)

I agree Adler, the Do-24 is second only to "my" Cat....can't but love the Dornier....any idea how many there still in existence today?


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 27, 2008)




----------



## ccheese (Jul 27, 2008)

Germany and Japan both had quite a few seaplanes, during the war, each
[almost] with a different mission. Britain had some, too, most in a ASW
role. Martin and Consolidated pretty well had the US seaplanes nailed down.
Most of Martin's seaplanes were in a Patrol, Passenger/Cargo or ASW role.
The Consolidated "Coronado" was a monster, pretty much in the passenger/cargo role, also. 
The PBY did everything !

Dive bomber, torpedo bomber, rescue, ASW, you name it. It's hard not to 
pick the PBY...

Charles


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 27, 2008)

ccheese said:


> Dive bomber, torpedo bomber, rescue, ASW, you name it. It's hard not to
> pick the PBY...
> 
> Charles



Agree all the way Charles!

TO


----------



## Juha (Jul 27, 2008)

Even if Do 24 is one of my favorites, IMHO H8K Emily was the best flying boat of WWII,

Juha


----------



## merlin (Jul 27, 2008)

Sorry to disagree, but to my mind the best has to be the Japanese Kawanishi H8K1-H8K4 (Emily).
It being the fastest, with the best hydrodynamics of any of the combatants, well protected, and well defended.
Who comes next? Take your pick from, Catalina, Dornier 24, and Sunderland.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 27, 2008)

Hey did anyone see my pic from the Museum thread?

I was amazed when I saw this flying boat was made in {1968 -oops}!

Oops, my bad wrong era....


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 27, 2008)

Built in 1917?

No way!

TO


----------



## hunter0f2 (Jul 27, 2008)

The Sunderland had firepower staying power. It could also absorba load of punishment.
In one incident , over the Bay of Biscay, a Sunderland was attacked by 7 Me 110 . It shot down 5 of them sent the other 2 , home smoking.
3 Sunderland crew were killed, but it returned to base, somewhat in tatters.


----------



## merlin (Jul 27, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> Built in 1917?
> 
> No way!
> 
> TO



Yes no!

The answer is that the photo, is not the aircraft in the written details! Note the engine h.p. whilst that of the photo looks like a turbo-prop of at least 3,000 hp.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 27, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> Built in 1917?
> 
> No way!
> 
> TO



I was scratching my head too TO, it says "first flight July 25 '16, in service 1917 1918.

I looked up on the 'net, didn't find any info {probably only in Russain}


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2008)

The thing about the Do-24 is that it could perform any mission (and did perform) the Catalina could, but could do it with better performance, more pay load, etc.

It was a better aircraft overall.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> I agree Adler, the Do-24 is second only to "my" Cat....can't but love the Dornier....any idea how many there still in existence today?



There are quite a few of them in museums around the world today including two here in Germany I believe. There is however only one flying example that I know of.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 27, 2008)

merlin said:


> Yes no!
> 
> The answer is that the photo, is not the aircraft in the written details! Note the engine h.p. whilst that of the photo looks like a turbo-prop of at least 3,000 hp.




I think you are right Merlin, it had a wingspan of much more than 11 m.

Sneaky bastards! Putting the wrong sign in front of the aircraft...

I think that you are right, the aircraft looks like a WWII or 1930's design, I wonder what it is? 

Any of our Russian members have any idea?


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 27, 2008)

merlin said:


> Yes no!
> 
> The answer is that the photo, is not the aircraft in the written details! Note the engine h.p. whilst that of the photo looks like a turbo-prop of at least 3,000 hp.



No doubt that it's a way more modern airplane.

It also says engine: "Salmson" 1 x 150 HP

But I haven't been able to ID the aircraft. Any ideas?

TO


----------



## Waynos (Jul 27, 2008)

The plaque seems to be describing the Anatra DS, a two seater in the BE 2 mould, the aircraft pictured is the Beriev Be 12 from the 1960's.

On topic I go with the flow on this one; to a point;

Kawanishi Emily, Sunderland, Do 24/Catalina (one of which I saw flying yesterday!)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> No doubt that it's a way more modern airplane.
> 
> It also says engine: "Salmson" 1 x 150 HP
> 
> ...



It is a Beriev Be-12. Nato Code: Mail

First flight Oct. 1960.

Number built: 150

Max Speed: 343 mph/552 kmh

Rankge: 1592mi/2562km


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 27, 2008)

Emily
Sunderland
Dornier
Catalina

Its worth noting that the Cat is competing with aircraft that have more engines...

Link with good info and photos:

Pantobase Seaplane transports

,


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 27, 2008)

Thanks Adler.

TO


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 27, 2008)

Somehow I don't see any other of the flying boat/amphibians doing the same amount work of as the Catalina....ASW, torpedo/dive bombing attacks, rescue, transport, ambulance (I think)...certainly not the torpedo/dive bombing attacks at night....

Btw Adler, what do you think about the Blohm Voss BV 138?


----------



## Freebird (Jul 27, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It is a Beriev Be-12. Nato Code: Mail
> 
> First flight Oct. 1960.
> 
> ...



Thanks Adler, I just figured out that I mixed up the pics!   


Anyways back on topic!    


Who did make the first flying boats? Was it in the 20's or in the 30's?


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 27, 2008)

Mr Curtis was one of the early ones I think...


----------



## Waynos (Jul 27, 2008)

Yes, Curtiss was first as far as I know. Another interesting little factoid you might not be aware of is that the Pemberton Billing company of Great Britain proposed a series of 'Flying Life-Boats' in the years before World War One. 

As these were the opposite of submarines (passing over the waves instead of under them) they coined the name 'Supermarines' for this invention, some years after adopting it as the company trade mark they went on, of course, to invent the Spitfire.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 27, 2008)

Waynos said:


> Yes, Curtiss was first as far as I know. Another interesting little factoid you might not be aware of is that the Pemberton Billing company of Great Britain proposed a series of 'Flying Life-Boats' in the years before World War One.



Wow! Great trivia waynos! But I don't think Supermarine even had any Flying boats in the WWII era did they?


----------



## Graeme (Jul 27, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> Link with good info and photos:
> Pantobase Seaplane transports



Great site comiso!



freebird said:


> Who did make the first flying boats?



Regarded as the first *British* hull-type flying boat, the Sopwith Bat Boat of 1913...








freebird said:


> Wow! Great trivia waynos! But I don't think Supermarine even had any Flying boats in the WWII era did they?



The Stranraer, Walrus and Sea Otter spring to mind freebird.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 27, 2008)

Graeme said:


> Regarded as the first *British* hull-type flying boat, the Sopwith Bat Boat of 1913...
> .




What do you mean by "British" hull type?


----------



## Soren (Jul 27, 2008)

I can't believe no'one has mentioned this baby yet:

*The Blohm Voss 222*


----------



## Graeme (Jul 27, 2008)

freebird said:


> What do you mean by "British" hull type?



Jumbled my words?...





...modified later, it became one of the first amphibious flying boats to be produced in Europe.

The first British floatplane? The Gnosspelius Hydro-monoplane No.2 of 1911...


----------



## Freebird (Jul 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> I can't believe no'one has mentioned this baby yet:
> 
> *The Blohm Voss 222*



What comparison can you make Soren?

Was it's performance superior?


----------



## parsifal (Jul 27, 2008)

when we say "best amphibian", I believe we have to consider the whole range of floatplanes that were fielded, and not just the "best seaplane", which you guys are concentrating on.

The Japanese completely dominated this area of aviation, in every category.

IMO, the categories to consider are:

Best ship based Fighter
F1M pete (1939-42), A6M Rufe (1942-43), N1K Rex (1944-5)

Best Ship Based Recon:
E-13 Jake, E-16 Paul

Best Submarine Float plane

E14Y glen, M6A Aichi Seiran

Best Large Seaplane
H8K Emily


----------



## Freebird (Jul 28, 2008)

parsifal said:


> when we say "best amphibian", I believe we have to consider the whole range of floatplanes that were fielded, and not just the "best seaplane", which you guys are concentrating on.
> 
> The Japanese completely dominated this area of aviation, in every category.
> 
> ...



What would your criteria be? Range? Durability? Payload?

Did the Japanese have different mission priorities than US/UK amphibeans?


----------



## Old Wizard (Jul 28, 2008)

You ought to see the two remaining Martin Mars flying boats practising water drops on Vancouver Island BC.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 28, 2008)

Best flying boat, and this is a aircraft that using its fuselage as a floating hull, is surely the H8K. in this field there isn't challenge


----------



## Juha (Jul 28, 2008)

Freebird
“But I don't think Supermarine even had any Flying boats in the WWII era did they?”

Supermarine Flying boats/amphibians in service use during WWII
Stranrarer
Walrus
Sea Otter


----------



## Bernhart (Jul 28, 2008)

I kinda like the Walrus, remember reading somewhere they could do loops with the thing.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> I can't believe no'one has mentioned this baby yet:
> 
> *The Blohm Voss 222*


Wasn't that one called "Wiking" with less than 10 built?


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 28, 2008)

Yes it was. It had like two or three decks it was huge!


----------



## timshatz (Jul 28, 2008)

Better question would be what was the worst seaplane. Too many good ones (Dornier, Cat, Sunderland, ect) to pick a really good one. But a really bad one, that might be easier. 

But none come to mind offhand.


----------



## ccheese (Jul 28, 2008)

Old Wizard said:


> You ought to see the two remaining Martin Mars flying boats practising water drops on Vancouver Island BC.



You mean like this ....

These were uploaded by FlyboyJ some time ago...

Charles


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 28, 2008)

Sweeeeeet Mr C!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Somehow I don't see any other of the flying boat/amphibians doing the same amount work of as the Catalina....ASW, torpedo/dive bombing attacks, rescue, transport, ambulance (I think)...certainly not the torpedo/dive bombing attacks at night....



The Dornier Do 24 did everything the Cat did. It was a jack of all trades for the Germans.



Lucky13 said:


> Btw Adler, what do you think about the Blohm Voss BV 138?



I dont have much an opinion on it. I would have to read up on it some more.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Jul 28, 2008)

> Better question would be what was the worst seaplane. Too many good ones (Dornier, Cat, Sunderland, ect) to pick a really good one. But a really bad one, that might be easier.



If we are looking for worst, the Be-4 (KOR-2) was pretty bad. The thing could barely even stay afloat in the water. It wasn't allowed to be used based out of water, which is slightly inconvinient for a flying boat


----------



## Soren (Jul 28, 2008)

freebird said:


> What comparison can you make Soren?
> 
> Was it's performance superior?



Well here's its performance figures:

Top speed: 390 km/h
Service Ceiling: 7300m
Range: 6,100 km
Cargo load: 8 tons

I can't think of any other WW2 flying boat with such performance ?

It was one massive a/c:


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Well here's its performance figures:
> 
> Top speed: 390 km/h
> Service Ceiling: 7300m
> ...


Martin Mars all the numbers are about the same except it had a larger payload and they made more then 4 of them


----------



## Soren (Jul 28, 2008)

Thats completely wrong Pbfoot;

The Martin Mars has service ceiling of a mere 4,450m, a top speed of 354 km/h and crucially no defensive armament. Oh and only 6 were made, while 13 BV-222's were made.

As for cargo load capability, how much could the JRM Mars carry ? 

The BV-222 could carry 92 troops, while the JRM Martin could carry 133.

Furthermore the JRM Mars first entered service in June 1945.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Thats completely wrong Pbfoot;
> 
> The Martin Mars has service ceiling of a mere 4,450m, a top speed of 354 km/h and crucially no defensive armament. Oh and only 6 were made, while 13 BV-222's were made.
> 
> ...


apology was thinking of BV 238


----------



## Juha (Jul 28, 2008)

Soren
H8K was definitely better and it entered service in early 1942
Max speed 467 km/h
Max range 7180 km
service ceiling 8760m

Only thing in which 222 was better was as transport plane but after all 222 was a civil design when H8K was designed as maritime patrol a/c.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jul 28, 2008)

I'd say the BV-222's defensive armament was better, and it could carry a larger cargo load as-well.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 28, 2008)

H8K and BV 222 are one for patrol other for trasport it's not a good comparison.
but the defensive armament of H8K is good (5 guns and 5 mgs if i remember right)


----------



## Juha (Jul 28, 2008)

Now H8K had 5 20mm cannon and 4 7,7mm mgs and a tail turret was always a plus. As I wrote as transport 222 was better.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jul 28, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> apology was thinking of BV 238



Pbfoot the BV-238 was faster, larger and had a longer range than both.

The BV-238 is the largest and heaviest a/c of WW2.


----------



## Soren (Jul 28, 2008)

Juha said:


> Now H8K had 5 20mm cannon and 4 7,7mm mgs and a tail turret was always a plus. As I wrote as transport 222 was better.
> 
> Juha



The BV-222's armament was better as-well with 3x 20mm 5x 13mm guns, and better controlled as-well. And the guns mounted on the wings provided an excellent area of fire.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Pbfoot the BV-238 was faster, larger and had a longer range than both.
> 
> The BV-238 is the largest and heaviest a/c of WW2.


and they are all sitting on the bottom of a lake


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> and they are all sitting on the bottom of a lake



Yeap the only completed one was sunk by 3 P-51D's at a lake in Schleswig-Holstein in Germany.

I wonder why no one has gone down and taken pictures of her. Would be neat to see it. If she were still some what intact, it might be neat to raise her, restore her and put her in a museum.


----------



## Juha (Jul 28, 2008)

Soren
Quote: "better controlled as-well"

Have you facts or is that again only your oppinion?

5*20mm + 4* 7,7mm vs 3*20mm + 5 * 13mm, which was better? It is very close even if 7,7 mm was rather useless weapon in later war years but MG 131 wasn't .5" Browning or 12,7mm Berezina either.

Juha


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 28, 2008)

Best to me means produced in numbers and with a proven track record in many, if not most theaters and in a variety of missions.

13 BV-222's, or 13 of any aircraft for that matter, could not have had any impact at all.

TO


----------



## parsifal (Jul 28, 2008)

The h8Ks performance figures are as follows

Max Speed: 289 mph (465 kmh
Weights: empty 40520 lb, fully loaded: 71650 lb
Range: 4443 miles (7150 km)
armament: 5 x 20mm 4 x 7.7mm, 4409 lbs bombs, or 2 x 1764 lb torps. As a transport, the Emily could move up to 64 troops, depending on their role, this might be as few as 29. 

BV 222 carried a normal defensive armament of 3 x 20mm and 5 x 13mm. AFAIK, the BV 222 was not used as a bomber, it was used mostly as a transport, buts carrying capacity was very impressive, with 76 equipped troops able to be carried, although once again this could vary depending on the role they were being carried for.


----------



## Juha (Jul 28, 2008)

Hello Parsifal
for Emily I have seen 29 passanger or 64 troops, that was for the transport version H8K-2L. I have interpired that meaning 64 soldier or 29 navy officers and gentlemen but Your explanation might well be the correct one.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jul 28, 2008)

Parsifal, the BV-222 could carry *92* troops.


----------



## Soren (Jul 28, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> and they are all sitting on the bottom of a lake



Your point being ? Remember you brought up the Mars of which only 6 were made!


----------



## parsifal (Jul 28, 2008)

Not disagreeing with that, but my source says "fully laden troops". Transport only, not an assault function.

The source for Emily is not clear whether the 64 troops mentioned are "fully laden" or not. I suspect not, ie they are just travelling as passengers, but im not completely sure


----------



## timshatz (Jul 29, 2008)

BV is a honking big flying boat. Not the Mars, but they only made something like half a dozen of those.


----------



## Lancaster630 (Jul 29, 2008)

Reading the post saying 13 of any aircraft wouldn't make much difference made me think, surely even small numbers would all play their own part in that sides effort to win the war, it goes back to that "for the want of a nail" that ends up with a battle being lost because a message doesn't get delivered.

Best flying boat of the war for me would be either the Shagbat (Supermarine Walrus) or the Short SUnderland with the Catalina following closely behind, am I allowed 3? lol it gets difficult to chose one really because I start thinking this one was good at this, and the that one was good at something else and before I know it I have a list of 30 diffrent aicraft


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 29, 2008)

Lancaster630 said:


> Reading the post saying 13 of any aircraft wouldn't make much difference made me think, surely even small numbers would all play their own part in that sides effort to win the war



Yes they probably would, however when comparing similiar types in a "which is best" type thread, I don't think you can compare an aircraft of which only13 examples were built to one that was produced in the thousands. There's just no body of work to make the comparison. That was the point I was trying to make.

TO


----------



## CA-35 (Aug 2, 2008)

Hi everybody. I've really enjoyed reading your forum so I signed up today. Hope I can contribute something useful.

As to the question. If by best you mean potential and/or the top specifications then that's something that can include many planes with potential that made very little or, for whatever reason, no contribution to the war.

However, if you mean having a tangible impact then it's difficult to imagine a more effective plane that the PBY for so many reasons- the floating-flying swiss army knife: recon, attack, rescue of downed pilots, etc. For a plane deemed obsolete at beginning of the war, not too bad.

That being said it's a pity that the spruce goose and the BV-238 never had a chance to go into service!


----------



## Dragonsinger (Aug 3, 2008)

Hi Lanc603
Last Shagbat allive is in captivity at the FAA Museum Yeovilton. Helped transport it there in 69(ish) from HMS Condor at Arbroath.

And just for the argument I don't think it qualifies as the best but it certainly had a lot of roles, Rescue, reconnaissance, spotter. It was carried on various large warships as a messenger/artillery spotter.

There is a poem dedicated to them, don't know who wrote it but is is a direct plagiarism from Alice in Wonderland.

The time has come the Shagbat said,
To talk of many things,
Of pusher props and Lewis guns,
And strutted swept back wings,
I'm an aeronautical wonder,
And if that's not enough,
I've whell that I can land on,
If the sea getsa a bit to rough.​
Dragonsinger


----------



## Juha (Aug 3, 2008)

CA-35
Quote: "However, if you mean having a tangible impact then it's difficult to imagine a more effective plane that the PBY for so many reasons- the floating-flying swiss army knife: recon, attack, rescue of downed pilots, etc"

While not denying that PBY was a great and effective plane, all those missions you mentioned were also done for ex. by Dutch and LW Do 24 crews. 
Of course the question of effectiveness is a complex one but even if PBY was much cheaper than H8K Emily the latter has much longer range and so could do missions that were impossible to PBY for example the bombing raid on Pear Harbor in early 42, which missed its target because of thick overcast but was noticed by US radars. They also flew succesful bombing raid for ex against Canton Is. And it also could carry 2 torpedoes.

But PBY was better than Emily in air-sea rescue, I think, but Do-24 and Walrus were probably as good as PBY in that. Do-24 was a bit faster and had longer range than PBY but could carry less ordanance than PBY.

Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2008)

Juha said:


> but could carry less ordanance than PBY.
> 
> Juha



Really?

I would think it could carry more. Sure its standard load was no more than 600lb of bombs, but I am sure she could carry more.


----------



## Juha (Aug 3, 2008)

Hello Adler
PBY could carry max 4*1000lb bombs or 2*Mk 13 torpedoes, so max appr. 1814kg
Do 24K-1, Dutch version which actually flew bombing sorties, 4*661lb (300kg), 6*441lb (200kg) or 12*110lb (50kg), so max 1200kg.

Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2008)

I find it hard to believe that it could not carry more. It certainly had a higher payload than the PBY, so it could not be that it could not carry the weight.


----------



## Juha (Aug 3, 2008)

Hello Adler
I cannot help it, so the specs say. In fact the difference was bigger, checked from Creed's PBY book, Mk 13 torpedo weighted 2200lb not 2000lb I had remembered so max for PBY was 2000kg.
Why PBY could carry more ordanance, I don't know. My guess is that because both carried their ordanance under wings, no bomb bays here, the limiting factor was how the wings were stressed and Dutch demanded only 600kg bombload at the beginning. So Do 24 wings were designed for certain load at there was a limit which cannot be safely exceed. But that is only my guess.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Aug 3, 2008)

Hello again Adler
checked that excellent Do 24 site Dornier Do-24 Homepage
and according to it K-2 could carry 300kg more than K-1 so max for Do 24 was 1500kg.

Juha


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2008)

Soren said:


> Your point being ? Remember you brought up the Mars of which only 6 were made!


and 2 are still flying....


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 3, 2008)

There are other criteria to consider on wat was best.

1) *Sea state capability for takeoff and landings*. All the load figures mean nothing if it cant land or take off except in ideal conditions.

2) *Low speed handling and endurance*. If you're escorting convoys, you need endurance. Same with sub hunting. Low speed handling is mightly important when hanging around keeping a sub submerged.


----------



## Juha (Aug 3, 2008)

Good points syscom
Do 24 had excellent seekeeping qualities and its crews doesn't need to worry on digging a side floats into heavy seas or on loosing one because it depends on sponsons for stability on the water. Both PBY and H8K had good seekeping qualities but in both cases digging a float into sea during take off or landing could have been fatal.

Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2008)

Juha said:


> Hello Adler
> I cannot help it, so the specs say. In fact the difference was bigger, checked from Creed's PBY book, Mk 13 torpedo weighted 2200lb not 2000lb I had remembered so max for PBY was 2000kg.
> Why PBY could carry more ordanance, I don't know. My guess is that because both carried their ordanance under wings, no bomb bays here, the limiting factor was how the wings were stressed and Dutch demanded only 600kg bombload at the beginning. So Do 24 wings were designed for certain load at there was a limit which cannot be safely exceed. But that is only my guess.
> 
> Juha



I think that is a very good guess, and I am inclined to agree with you.


----------



## Soren (Aug 5, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> and 2 are still flying....



Winning side doesn't have to scrap its a/c as parts are in plentyful supply and the design is native, that's the explanation for why those two are flying today. Had Germany won you'd probably have seen BV-222's BV-238's still flying..


----------



## Graeme (Aug 7, 2008)

Waynos said:


> Pemberton Billing



'Interesting' man...

Noel Pemberton Billing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Trial of the Century



> Pemberton Billing's journal was then renamed Vigilante, and published a second article, "The Cult of the Clitoris". This implied that the actress Maud Allan, then appearing in a private production of Salome, was a lesbian associate of the conspirators. This led to a sensational libel case, at which Billing represented himself and won. Lord Alfred Douglas, a former lover of Oscar Wilde, testified in Billing's favour. Billings' victory in this case created significant popular publicity, and he was re-elected to parliament in the next election.


----------



## gfydad (Oct 26, 2008)

ccheese said:


> You mean like this ....
> 
> These were uploaded by FlyboyJ some time ago...
> 
> Charles



Those are my shots taken last year during the fires and the Mars is coming over the orth shoreline of Lake Elsinore. I shot the side view at 48mm.
Jim Mumaw
Lancaster, CA


----------



## wingnuts (Oct 26, 2008)

It may not have been the best in every role but a lot of downed pilots, allied and axis would have been very happy to see the Shagbat/Steam Chicken (Supermarine Walrus). Oddly enough, designed by R.J. Mitchell before moving on the the Spitfire. 

This URL might interest a few:

Down in the Drink 1


----------



## Venganza (Oct 27, 2008)

wingnuts said:


> It may not have been the best in every role but a lot of downed pilots, allied and axis would have been very happy to see the Shagbat/Steam Chicken (Supermarine Walrus). Oddly enough, designed by R.J. Mitchell before moving on the the Spitfire.



Good for you mentioning the old Shagbat. Not the greatest flying boat/amphibian of WWII, but tons of character and always a favorite of mine (now I've just to find my Shagbat, Sea Otter and [postwar] Seagull and start working on them again).

Venganza


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 27, 2008)

Not sure if people new this but the RAAF operated 6 Do24's in the Pacific. I believe the plane was built in the Netherlands by Fokker (correct if im wrong). The planes were shipped to the Dutch East Indies where once invaded, managed to escape to AUS.


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 27, 2008)

As for the best, I think the Emily was the best flying boat of WW2. They all were very effective at their intended roles though. 

My favourite is the Sunderland.


----------



## mhuxt (Oct 27, 2008)

I must go with the Sunderland, however I'm partial as my Dad was on Sunderlands post-war.


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 27, 2008)

Just to throw a cat among the pidgeons Let us consider the ruggedness of the Famous Flying Porcupine. This is best illustrated by the events of29 /30th May 1943 Capt. Gordon Singleton, Winstanley 461Sqdn. RAAF lands his Sunderland on rough oceans to rescue the crew of a downed whitley bomber {Possibly one of the last operational whitley missions of history}as well as the crew of the previous Sunderland sent to save them the crews are rescued but it is deemed to rough to take off so a nearby patrolling French destroyer is enlisted to transfer the rescued airmen and to put the Flying boat under tow. This all went to plan for a while untill the constant pounding by the ocean resulted in the towing bollard breaking off from the Sunderlands Bow so nothing left for it but to take off or abandon. Singleton chose to take off and with waves breaking over the cockpit itself he lifted the wallowing beast into the air. Unfortunately this takeoff tore large peices off the hull of rendering her no longer able to float. The Skipper decided to land on the grass airfield near to their own base. Sinleton placed the A/C down with such precision that there was only one furrow in the Airstrip and the Plane didnt settle onto its wing floats untill it was stationary all hands exited the A/C unharmed. One member had ben injured prior to the post tow takeoff. These details are from memory so there may be some errors but this is one of the more famous Flying Boat actions of the war and is well documented including a series of photo's taken from varios vantage points including from the stern of the French destroyer showing the waves breaking entirely over the Aircraft. So just thought i'd put my two cents in. In our country the boys who flew the bombers and coastal command A/C haven't received the credit they deserve i beleive.


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 27, 2008)

Have you got the pictures, I would love to see them!


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 27, 2008)

In addition to the above if anyone knows of location online of the Photo's of this event i would be most apreciative of directions. Cheers


----------



## wingnuts (Oct 27, 2008)

Watanbe said:


> Not sure if people new this but the RAAF operated 6 Do24's in the Pacific. I believe the plane was built in the Netherlands by Fokker (correct if im wrong). The planes were shipped to the Dutch East Indies where once invaded, managed to escape to AUS.



Some more info on the Dutch/RAAF Do24s, 

NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Dornier Do 24

Seems some were destroyed by the Japanese in a raid on Broome

Attack on Broome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


March 3, 1942 Air Raid Against Broome


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 30, 2008)

Well I'll have a lash at this and just so were all clear I got these immages from the Australian War Museum and i am not trying to get anyones back up so let me know if i've crossed a copyright boundary. Ah well i would of if i could upload pics from my computer {pffft internet my eye }


----------



## claidemore (Oct 31, 2008)

P-Popsie said:


> Well I'll have a lash at this and just so were all clear I got these immages from the Australian War Museum and i am not trying to get anyones back up so let me know if i've crossed a copyright boundary. Ah well i would of if i could upload pics from my computer {pffft internet my eye }



Hi Popsie,
If you scroll down on the homepage of this site, there is a section/tutorial on signatures and uploading images. Took me a bit to get on to it, but it's simple once you get it figured out.


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 31, 2008)

Here you go P-Popsie. All photos from Australian War Memorial
Sunderland "E" 461 sqn RAAF.


----------



## Juha (Oct 31, 2008)

Rather wild
Thanks Wildcat

Here is a photo taken during Do 24 sea trials, Do 24V3 to be exact.
Dornier Do-24 Picture

Juha


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 31, 2008)

Well done wilcat cheers for that as we can all see singleton managed an amazing feat


----------



## runningdog (Oct 31, 2008)

In no particular order of preferance, knowing that most, if not all, of the particulars have been aired. Catalina, Do24, Emily and Sunderland. Pushed to make a choice, a toss-up between Emily and Sunderland. My favourite, the Sunderland, such a wonderful line from C-class to Solent! To the Walrus fans, like the Stringbag, obsolete yes, outclassed? Not in that war.
A while back somebody mentioned the worst. Saro Lerwick............


----------



## Venganza (Oct 31, 2008)

runningdog said:


> A while back somebody mentioned the worst. Saro Lerwick............



I'd have to go with that. It was to flying boats what the unlamented Botha was to light bombers. I have a model of the Lerwick - an old Contrail vacuform kit. It's actually not a bad looking plane, something like a twin-engined Sunderland, but unstable both aerodynamically and hydrodynamically.

Venganza


----------



## wingnuts (Nov 4, 2008)

Like with most of the "Best of" threads, I can't really pick one particular favourite but I have a soft spot for the looks of the PBY Catalina/Canso, also for it's longevity.... some were still being used commercially up to the late 80s (maybe longer). .... not bad for an aircraft designed in the 30s. An aquatic DC3/C47 maybe.

The Do24 is another I like, for looks and capability. But hampered by being on the "wrong side" in WW2 and not getting a lot of exposure worldwide

The Sunderland would be rated highly due to it's role in the Atlantic war

The Emily was probably the best and most capable of all the the main ones discussed here but also hampered by being on the "wrong side" in WW2 and not getting a lot of exposure worldwide.

But I think if I had to pick a personal favourite I would pick the Walrus, although not the best looking and most capable definitly deserves a mention....


----------



## blobs (May 3, 2010)

Walrus
Thanks guys plenty of material for consideration.
A free weekend and lots of links to take in.
My attempt to use them in a constructive manner.
regards
blobs

PS any further details, particularly of the internal views would be to die for.


----------



## zoomar (May 4, 2010)

Again, it matters what one means by "best". I would generally go with either the Catalina and/or Sutherland if we are considering overall war record, numbers produced, versatility, reliability, and basic "greatness". If we are going for the "best", I'd tend to agree with those who put the Kawanishi H8K as the top flying boat. If we include floatplanes, virtually any Japanese naval scout should be chosen in the single-engine category, and the He-115 would be a good twin engined shore based choice. I would not include either the Mars or Bv222 because they were produced in such small numbers.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 5, 2010)

He-115, or Fiat AS.14 - those are beauties


----------



## Waynos (May 5, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> He-115, or Fiat AS.14 - those are beauties



Neither of which are flying boats or amphibians 8)


----------



## tomo pauk (May 5, 2010)

Ooops, my bad 

Than one Martin Mariner for me, please


----------



## fastmongrel (May 5, 2010)

I know it was too late for the war but the Supermarine Seagull 1948 version is in my eyes the most beautiful amphibian ever to fly. It never went into production because helicopters were comind in to service in the ASR role.

http://www.letletlet-warplanes.com/2009/10/16/vickers-supermarine-type-381-seagull-asr-1/


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 5, 2010)

For me, I will always have to go with the Dornier Do 24 and the Catalina.


----------



## smackers (May 8, 2010)

What gives??? Just entered this thread and got a pop up stating - A user name and password are being requested by http://pictures.werkenbijdemarine.nl. The site says: "Beveiligde Pagina" - there were 2 boxes for name and password.

Is the site getting hacked?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2010)

Interesting, I have not seen that one yet. There are some interesting things going at the moment, and we are looking into them.


----------



## fastmongrel (May 8, 2010)

I got the same message Thursday got out of the page as fast as I could


----------



## smackers (May 9, 2010)

Got the same thing when i just came back now but did same as yesterday and clicked cancel.
Also, page 3 and 4 of this topic never seem to fully load. In the bottom left of my browser window (i use Firefox so it may be displayed elsewhere on other browsers) where url is displayed when you hold mouse pointer over a link on page there is a message stating "Waiting for www.hotlinkfiles.com" even though the page appears to be fully loaded.

I thought i'd just try something and entered something random as username and password and the authentication box did not reappear for a short time but it came back.

Just found out Beveiligde Pagina translates to Secure Page. Very strange things are going on indeed.


----------



## cherry blossom (May 10, 2010)

I think that Lucky13 linked to a picture at http://pictures.werkenbijdemarine.nl/gallerie/maritiem/marhist_high_jpg/Dornier Do 24K .jpg and that subsequently the site has introduced a password requirement. Thus we cannot see his picture but get asked for a password.


----------



## DGraham (May 18, 2010)

I do not see a Martin Patrol Bomber listed anywhere.


----------

