# What was the best Flying boat in WWII?



## mosquitoman (Apr 29, 2005)

For me it's between the Sunderland and the Catalina.
Anybody else's views?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 29, 2005)

The H8K _Emily_ had it all over the Sunderland.

http://www.ijnafpics.com/

You should buy this book, if you have not already.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 29, 2005)

Catalina


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 29, 2005)

I agree, Catalina. The most versatile by far.


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 30, 2005)

Catalina!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

Sunderland!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

Catalina 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

sunderland.........


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 30, 2005)

The Emily looks ok, but what was it's performance like in comparison to the Cat and the Sunderland.

BTW about that book, I'm a skint student


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

Specs for H8K:


Type: Reconnaissance and attack flying boat
Origin: Kawanishi
Crew: N/A
Allied Code Name: Emily
Models: H8K1 H8K2, Type 2
First Flight: Late 1940
Service Delivery: H8K1: August 1941
Final Delivery: N/A
Production: 167

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powerplant:
H8K1, Model 11:
Model: Mitsubishi Kasei 12
Type: 14-cylinder two-row radial engine
Number: Four Horsepower: 1,530 hp

H8K1, Model 12:
Model: Mitsubishi Kasei 22
Type: 14-cylinder two-row radial engine
Number: Four Horsepower: 1,850 hp

Dimensions:
Wing Span: 38m (124 ft. 8 in.)
Length: 28.1m (92 ft. 3.5 in.)
Height: 9.15m (30 ft. 0.25 in.)
Wing Area: N/A

Weights:
Empty (H8K1): 15,440 kg (34,000 lb)
Empty (H8K2): 18,380 kg (40,500 lb)
Loaded (H8K1): 31,000 kg (68,343 lb)
Loaded (H8K2): 32,500 kg (71,650 lb)
Performance:
Max. Speed (H8K1): 433 km/h (270 mph)
Max. Speed (H8K2): 454 km/h (282 mph)
Initial Climb: 1,575 ft/min (480 m/min)
Service Ceiling: 8,770m (28,800 ft.)
Max. Range (Typical): 4800 km (3,000 miles)
Max. Range (Overload): 7200 km (4,474 miles)

Armament:
Typical:
Five 20mm cannon in power driven turrets in nose,
dorsal tail turrets.
Three 7.7mm machine guns manually aimed from beam
and ventral rear windows.

H8K2-L:
One 20mm cannon and one 12.7mm machine gun, both
manually aimed

Bomb Load:
Racks under inner wings for two torpedoes or other
ordnance up to 4,410 lb. (2000 kg)

Avionics: N/A

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production:
H8K1: 17
H8K2: 114
H8K2-L: 36

Variants:
H8K2-L: Transport Version


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments:
Designed in response to a 1938 specification for a replacement for the Kawanishi H6K, the result was the H8K. Comprising the single greatest leap in flying boat technology, the H8K was the most advanced flying boat of WWII and for many years after the war.
In service 24-hour long patrols were typical. In fact, their first sortie was to have been a bombing raid on Oahu, Hawaii, with a stop for refueling by submarine. The mission was aborted due to weather over the target.


www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org



From other bits I have read about the H8K, it was a very good plane.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 30, 2005)

Not bad stats


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

Not bad at all. I do not know how it would compare to the Cat and Sunderland though. My personal favourite fly boat has always been the Bv-238, Incidentally the largest plane to fly during the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

hang on a minute, that's supposed to have radials aint it


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

No the Bv-222 has radials.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

i see.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

Were there any Italian flying boats? I know of some of their seaplanes but I wasnt sure about flying boats. The Sm.55 was the closest I know of


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

ah yes i saw them in a documantary once, although i didn't think they were used in military service??


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 30, 2005)

What is the difference between a seaplane and a flying boat?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

Seaplane I belive is just a normal plane with floats, Ar-196 for instance.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 30, 2005)

Okay, thanks
Best seaplane the Ar-196


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

No no best seaplane Fiat RS.14.

STOP PRESS! I found an Italian Flying Boat: The CANT Z.501.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 30, 2005)

It looks ugly compared to the Shagbat though


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

The what?


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 30, 2005)

Supermarine Walrus, it's nickname was the Shagbat for some reason


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

Thats cheek, the Walrus is one of the most foul looking planes ever to hobble in to the skies


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 30, 2005)

Compared to that CANT monstrosity, it looks like a Spitfire


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

i like the looks of the walrus........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

Ok, the CANT isnt great but theres nothing really bad about it - To be honest I dont really think there are *any* good looking flying boats.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

the sunderland and the walrus were...........


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 30, 2005)

And the Catalina


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

don't push it


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

Im sorry but they just werent!


----------



## evangilder (Apr 30, 2005)

Did you guys know that Fiat is actually an acronym?
Fix
It
Again,
Tony


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 30, 2005)

Just like CAN'T fly


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)




----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 1, 2005)

FIAT

Fearsome

Invincible

and

Thunderous


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

errrrr, no


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 1, 2005)

Another acronym

F - fix
O - or
R - replace
D- daily

or

F - found
O - on
R - roadside
D- dead


----------



## pbfoot (May 1, 2005)

without a doubt the h8k2 emily had it over all contemporaries range defensive armament and a reasonabke weapons load and speed


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 1, 2005)

I still like -

T
L
S
L
A


----------



## mosquitoman (May 1, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> I still like -
> 
> T
> L
> ...



Huh?


----------



## luiz camacho (May 29, 2009)

i need to see more data baout sunderland and h8k emily . how many enemies they destryed , how many were in actin in 1945 , for example .

luiz camacho ( city : belem . state : para . country : brazil ) .


----------



## renrich (May 29, 2009)

My choice, as far as influence on the war would be the PBY.


----------



## pbfoot (May 29, 2009)

DAVIDICUS said:


> FIAT
> 
> Fearsome
> 
> ...


or 
Fix it again Tony


----------



## davparlr (May 30, 2009)

The h8k2 has impressive stats but these were often accomplished with reduced capability in other areas like armor. It was a pretty good looker for a flying boat.

By far, the one with the biggest impact to the war was the PBY.


----------



## Waynos (May 30, 2009)

Posting here from maybe a point of ignorance, but why thew PBY rather than the Sunderland ? The flying porcupine did, after all, help prevent the fall of Britain through its exploits in the Atlantic war which would have been game over for the allies.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 30, 2009)

I think for historical aspect and its contribution to the war I have to go with either the PBY or the Sunderland, but if I were to go based off of all around capability and performance I would go with the Do 24.


----------



## comiso90 (May 30, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> the PBY or the Catalina, .



Is that anything like the "Ju-87 or the Stuka."



I've always liked the Emily...

5 x 20 mm cannons for defense.

.


----------



## davparlr (May 30, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think for historical aspect and its contribution to the war I have to go with either the PBY or the Catalina, but if I were to go based off of all around capability and performance I would go with the Do 24.



I saw a Do 24 fly overhead one day, a beautiful, graceful aircraft. However, it barely holds up to the PBY (it is faster, but otherwise falls short in range and load), and nowhere near the capablility of the H8K2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 30, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> Is that anything like the "Ju-87 or the Stuka."
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Ooops! I meant to wright PBY or Sunderland...


----------



## Doughboy (May 30, 2009)

Probably the Catalina.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 30, 2009)

davparlr said:


> I saw a Do 24 fly overhead one day, a beautiful, graceful aircraft. However, it barely holds up to the PBY (it is faster, but otherwise falls short in range and load), .



Where do you come up with that?

*Dornier Do 24*

Weights:
Empty: 13,500kg (29,700 lbs.)
Loaded: 18,400kg (40,565 lbs.)
Click on image for slightly larger version 
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 211 mph (340 kph) at 9,840 ft. (3000m)
Cruise Speed: 183 mph (295 kph)
Range: 2,950 miles (4750km)
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. (

*PBY-5A*

Weights:
Empty wt: 20,910 lb (9,485 kg)
Max takeoff wt: 35,420 lb (16,066 kg)

Performance:
Maximum speed: 196 mph (314 km/h)
Cruise speed: 125 mph (201 km/h)
Range: 2,520 mi (4,030 km)
Service ceiling: 15,800 ft (4,000 m)
Rate of climb: 1,000 ft/min (5.1 m/s)
Wing loading: 25.3 lb/ft² (123.6 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.034 hp/lb (0.056 kW/kg)
Lift-to-drag ratio: 11.9

Armament
3× .30 cal (7.62 mm) machine guns (two in nose turret, one in ventral hatch at tail)
2× .50 cal (12.7 mm) machine guns (one in each waist blister)
4,000 lb (1,814 kg) of bombs or depth charges, torpedo racks were also available

The only area that the Cat beats out the Do 24 is in armament and bomb load. The Do 24 has a faster speed, farther range and a higher ceiling. I believe the Cat has a slightly higher payload (as in cargo, not armament).

Don't sell the Do 24 short, overall I think it was a much more capable aircraft.


----------



## renrich (May 30, 2009)

The PBY (Catalina) played a major role in both the ETO and PTO during the whole war. Scouting, bombing, torpedos, life saving, anti sub. I don't say it was the best of it's type but it was omnipresent, versatile and a workhorse. I don't understand about Sunderland and saving Britain? How?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 30, 2009)

renrich said:


> The PBY (Catalina) played a major role in both the ETO and PTO during the whole war. Scouting, bombing, torpedos, life saving, anti sub. I don't say it was the best of it's type but it was omnipresent, versatile and a workhorse.



I agree, and that is what I said in my original post. I said that for historical aspect and for its contribution to the war I would have to go with the Cat. But overall capability and performance (all things considered), I take the Do 24. Fact of the matter is the Do 24 does hold up rather nicely to the Cat...



renrich said:


> I don't understand about Sunderland and saving Britain? How?



I don't know? I never said it did.


----------



## Cromwell (May 30, 2009)

Didn't Air Marshall Balbo or someone *fly to NY *in a formation of these wee beasties ?  (the Savoia-Marchetti *Sm.55 *I mean)

Comments on a post card please




the lancaster kicks ass said:


> ah yes i saw them in a documantary once, although i didn't think they were used in military service??



Did you ever see the Super Stranraer ? Beautiful in its very own way 









cheddar cheese said:


> Thats cheek, the Walrus is one of the most foul looking planes ever to hobble in to the skies



GRUMMAN DUCK 


Don't forget the Grumman Duck which was used throught Dubya-Dubya 2 and seemed to have been a handy little plane -









renrich said:


> The PBY (Catalina) played a major role in both the ETO and PTO during the whole war. Scouting, bombing, torpedos, life saving, anti sub. I don't say it was the best of it's type but it was omnipresent, versatile and a workhorse. I don't understand about Sunderland and saving Britain? How?



And the Trusty Kingfisher - which was a also very useful for spotting and liaison

I think we maybe also need to define 'Best' flying boat / floatplane ? What do we mean by 'best' - 'aggression' versus perhaps 'usefulness' or 'reliability' ??


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 30, 2009)

I think over all I have to go with the Emily, though the Dorniers IMHO(WIR) were remarkable


----------



## renrich (May 31, 2009)

Chris, my question about Sunderland saving Britain was referring to another post further back in the thread, which post was somewhat disjointed. Not one of yours.


----------



## Glider (May 31, 2009)

I came across this site on the Do24 which may be of interest. Loads of information and a good number of photo's
Dornier Do-24 Homepage


----------



## Cromwell (May 31, 2009)

Glider said:


> I came across this site on the Do24 which may be of interest. Loads of information and a good number of photo's
> Dornier Do-24 Homepage



In Aeroplane Monthly June 2006 there is an article about "The White Samaritans" who were Luftwaffer flying boat crews who were allowed to keep flying AFTER the German Surrender 

They operated All-White Do 24s without guns (obviously) and without markings.

Mostly out of Norwegian waters



renrich said:


> Chris, my question about Sunderland saving Britain was referring to another post further back in the thread, which post was somewhat disjointed. Not one of yours.



I think that the Sunderland probably Helped to save Britain through it's Transport and Anti-Submarine activities during some rather touch and go early years of the war 40-42.

BTW some Sunderlands were built and operated Inland next to and on Lake Windermere - see below

Flying Boats and Fellow Travellers

Note: It seems to me that flying boats were employed in pretty much every capacity due to their range and ability to land on water - obviously - without necessarily being the optimum aircraft for any one role.

For example, I do not suppose that the Sunderland was the best aircraft as a bomber or to dogfight with Ju88s - but it did !


----------



## Waynos (May 31, 2009)

Yes, it was me (at the top of this page) that said that it helped to save Britain during the Atlantic war. What is disjointed about that?


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 3, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Yes, it was me (at the top of this page) that said that it helped to save Britain during the Atlantic war. What is disjointed about that?



I am not quite sure how this has grown up, but perhaps the two parties involved can arrive at some kind of understanding on what they both meant.

I would be interested to hear both sides on this one.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 4, 2009)

Well from my side Cromwell I just think the Sunderland in its anti u-boat and patrol missions during the Atlantic war helped to prevent the collapse of Britain, through strangultaion, as per the German plan. I believe it was an essential part of the overall effort as, just as with the Battle of Britain, if Germany had succeeded in taking the UK out of the war that would have been it, game over and the Germans would have held Europe for as long as they wished for no UK means no US participation in Europe and no 2nd front to distract them from Russia. I'm not saying this is all down to the Sunderland of course, that would be silly.

I was not having a dig at the prev poster, I just don't understand what was disjointed about what I wrote. It seemed rather a dismissive thing to say.


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 4, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Well from my side Cromwell I just think the Sunderland in its anti u-boat and patrol missions during the Atlantic war helped to prevent the collapse of Britain, through strangultaion, as per the German plan. I believe it was an essential part of the overall effort as, just as with the Battle of Britain, if Germany had succeeded in taking the UK out of the war that would have been it, game over and the Germans would have held Europe for as long as they wished for no UK means no US participation in Europe and no 2nd front to distract them from Russia. I'm not saying this is all down to the Sunderland of course, that would be silly.
> 
> I was not having a dig at the prev poster, I just don't understand what was disjointed about what I wrote. It seemed rather a dismissive thing to say.



This seems to make perfect sense to me. In many ways the Sunderland, like the Stringbag or the Walrus, performed surprisingly well. 

As a child I remember a friend of mine had a Sunderland Airfix model, and you could slide the bombs out on racks beneath the wings up to the first engines. I think this is how the early marks of Sunderland dropped Depth Charges


----------



## renrich (Jun 5, 2009)

"but why thew PBY" threw me off but I now realise that it was a typo and apologise. Indeed the Sunderland played a role, especially early in the war in antisub warfare. I question, however, if it's role was as major as that of the ASW ships. Later in the war the electronics armed land based patrol planes made it extremely difficult for U boats in the Bay of Biscay. The PBY also did good work in ASW in the area of the central Atlantic. The PBY served with the British well before Pearl Harbor. It also served as a night intruder in the PTO.


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 5, 2009)

renrich said:


> "but why thew PBY" threw me off but I now realise that it was a typo and apologise. Indeed the Sunderland played a role, especially early in the war in antisub warfare. I question, however, if it's role was as major as that of the ASW ships. Later in the war the electronics armed land based patrol planes made it extremely difficult for U boats in the Bay of Biscay. The PBY also did good work in ASW in the area of the central Atlantic. The PBY served with the British well before Pearl Harbor. It also served as a night intruder in the PTO.



I think the PBY was a tremendous plane - excellent duration and able to fulfill pretty much anything it was asked to do. It was powered by the Twin Wasp and later this was used on the the Mark V Sunderland also.

IMHO the PBY and the Sunderland were on both sides of the same coin. They were both great sea-planes that performed beyond expectations.

The Sunderland was much improved in later versions like the MkIII and V with a re-designed hull so it could unstick more readily. Even the early versions could put up quite a fight even against planes like the Ju88 - and all versions carried some very effective anti-sub ordinance.

[ The ultimate version, the MkIV became an entirely new plane - the Short Seaford - but too late for WWII sadly ]

They carried up to 16 machine guns ultimately including 0.5 as well as 303s

You might like to read this from Short Sunderland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 " The rifle calibre .303 guns lacked hitting power but the Sunderland retained its reputation for being able to take care of itself. This reputation was enhanced by an air battle between eight Ju 88C long range heavy fighters and a single RAAF Sunderland Mark III of No. 461 Squadron RAAF on 2 June 1943. 

This battle was one of several stories of the type's operations related by author Ivan Southall, who flew in Sunderlands during the war. There were 11 crewmen on board the Sunderland; nine Australians and two British.] The crew was on an anti-submarine patrol and also searching for remains of BOAC Flight 777, an airliner that had left Lisbon the day before and subsequently had been shot down over the Bay of Biscay.

In the late afternoon, one of the crew spotted the eight Ju 88s. Bombs and depth charges were dumped while the pilot, Flt. Lt. Colin Walker, "redlined" the engines. Two Ju 88s made passes at the flying boat, one from each side, scoring hits and managing to disable one engine while the Sunderland went through wild "corkscrew" evasive manoeuvres. 

On the third pass, the dorsal turret gunner managed to shoot one down. Another Ju 88 disabled the tail turret but the next that made a pass was hit by the dorsal and nose turrets and was shot down as well.

Still another attacked, destroying the Sunderland's radio gear, wounding most of the crew in varying degrees and mortally wounding one of the side gunners (Flight Sergeant "Ted" Miles). A Ju 88 tried to attack from the rear but the tail turret gunner had managed to regain some control over the turret and shot it down. 

The surviving Ju 88s continued to attack but the nose gunner damaged one of these, setting its engines on fire. Two more of the attackers were also hit and the final pair disengaged and departed. Luftwaffe records indicate that the latter were the only two that made it back to base."


----------



## Waynos (Jun 5, 2009)

I see the typo renrich, I don't know how I missed it before. No problem, I can be a bit ham fisted sometimes.


----------



## renrich (Jun 6, 2009)

As a hunt and peck, two fingered typist, I can relate. I don't question the Sunderland being a good airplane. What tips the scale in favor of the Cat for me is that it was used almost everywhere for so many tasks. I went through a civilian version of the Sunderland at a air museum in Florida once and I envisioned a much larger airplane than it was. Quite a lot of space inside though.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 6, 2009)

Can anyone tell me the difference between the Canadian built Catalina known as the Canso as opposed to the US built version I've been told the Canadian one had longer range but can't confirm this


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 6, 2009)

The Canso was just the PBY-5 in Canadian service. I believe the Canadian production aircraft were the same as the US built.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 7, 2009)

Thought that this discussion was familiar....started one some time ago.  http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-flying-boat-amphibian-wwii-14255.html

The PBY Catalina always gets my vote, hands down! 8)


----------



## cherry blossom (Jun 8, 2009)

It is quite surprising that the discussion has not mentioned how any of the flying boats performed on water. The performance of the H8K in the air was very impressive. However, the prototype performed very poorly on water and I do not think that any model actually performed well. The performance of the Sunderland on water was also not ideal. By contrast the Do 24 was noted for its ability to operate from rough water, which is why the survivors were used for rescue after WW2 until spares ran out. I guess that the Cat also performed well on water.


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 9, 2009)

cherry blossom said:


> It is quite surprising that the discussion has not mentioned how any of the flying boats performed on water. The performance of the H8K in the air was very impressive. However, the prototype performed very poorly on water and I do not think that any model actually performed well. The performance of the Sunderland on water was also not ideal. By contrast the Do 24 was noted for its ability to operate from rough water, which is why the survivors were used for rescue after WW2 until spares ran out. I guess that the Cat also performed well on water.



Later Marks of Sunderland i.e. 3, 4 5 were Much Improved


They had a Smooth transitioning hull - rather than a Stepped hull 


BTW the Mark 4 was so different it was renamed The Seaford


Note See my earlier postings too


----------



## Amsel (Jun 9, 2009)

The Catalina for me.


----------



## renrich (Jun 10, 2009)

Am I wrong in assuming that the Sunderland was not an amphibian? That would possibly impact it's operations because if the water was too rough at it's bases, it would not be able to take off or land.


----------



## FlexiBull (Jun 10, 2009)

Remembering that Airfix kit again , the Sunderland had undercarriage legs that could be attached so that it could be brought ashore, but unlike the PBY these had to be fitted whilst in the water and where not integral to the airframe


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 10, 2009)

renrich said:


> As a hunt and peck, two fingered typist, I can relate. I don't question the Sunderland being a good airplane. What tips the scale in favor of the Cat for me is that it was used almost everywhere for so many tasks. I went through a civilian version of the Sunderland at a air museum in Florida once and I envisioned a much larger airplane than it was. Quite a lot of space inside though.



was that the fantasy of flight museum?
Fantasy of Flight, World's Greatest Aircraft Collection

I want to go there just for the B-26 and the Sunderland.

.


----------



## renrich (Jun 11, 2009)

Yes, it was. The Sunderland was inside and the B26 was out on the tarmac. I was suprised at how big the B26 seemed although I could not go inside. They had a nice collection, including a beautiful P51C, I think, and a nice F4U. All in all, however, I don't believe that museum has qite as nice a collection as the Cavanaugh Museum in Addison, Texas. Addison Air Port is where I learned to fly. It was a little busy for a beginner pilot and I had a few harrowing moments with all the traffic, both in the air and down below. I had night mares about stalling out with all the concrete and cars below me. That was around 1970 and I shudder to think about taking lessons out of there now.


----------



## Yerger (Jun 13, 2009)

Emily 1st
Sunderland 2nd


----------



## Gibbage (Jun 20, 2009)

The Cat, hands down, the most important flying boat/amphibian of the war. Used in every theatre, in every possible way, and a part of some of the biggest and most crutial battle's of the war. Flown by not only the US, but also England and Russia. Russia made an unknown number of Catalina's under license. 

Who found the Bizmark? Catalina.
Who found the Japanese fleet at Midway? Catalina. 
Black Cats?
Rescued thousands of downed pilots or lost seamen in the Pacific.
Delivered vital supplies to small islands all over the pacific.
Inserted Russian troops after landing into an enemy port at night.
Landed in the middle of an enemy fleet, to pick up downed airmen.

It may not of been the fastest, had the most payload, was the best armed, but by god, it was there, in numbers, and were you needed it when you needed it. Jack of all trades, but a master of none, and the most beautiful sight to lost survivors, no matter how ugly they thought it was. That was the Catalina. 

Sure there were "better" but none of them even hold a candle to how important the Catalina was.


----------



## TenGunTerror (Jun 25, 2009)

The H8K is my vote, it had good combat records, good speed, good armament, and was notoriously hard to shoot down. My vote is strictly on performancce, as obviously the Short Sunderland and Catalina played a bigger role in the war effort.


----------



## paradoxguy (Jun 28, 2009)

davparlr said:


> The h8k2 has impressive stats but these were often accomplished with reduced capability in other areas like armor. It was a pretty good looker for a flying boat.
> 
> By far, the one with the biggest impact to the war was the PBY.





TenGunTerror said:


> The H8K is my vote, it had good combat records, good speed, good armament, and was notoriously hard to shoot down. My vote is strictly on performancce, as obviously the Short Sunderland and Catalina played a bigger role in the war effort.



I agree, the H8K had high performance and excellent armament. Unlike many Japanese warplanes of the period, the H8K also was well-protected with armour and fire-extinguishers for the fuel tanks. IIRC, the H8K's fuel tanks also had a bilge system that allowed leaking fuel from punctured tanks to move into intact tanks.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 28, 2009)

paradoxguy said:


> ...IIRC, the H8K's fuel tanks also had a bilge system that allowed leaking fuel from punctured tanks to move into intact tanks.


Most of the large flying boats did, as well as some of the bombers.

This is the engineer's station aboard the Martin Mars (JRM-3) and you can see how the fuel system can be manually routed by way of the switches.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 30, 2009)

Emily or PBM for me.


----------



## paradoxguy (Jun 30, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Most of the large flying boats did, as well as some of the bombers.
> 
> This is the engineer's station aboard the Martin Mars (JRM-3) and you can see how the fuel system can be manually routed by way of the switches.



Thanks for the picture and helpful comments. The photo illustrates the fuel system well and looks cool to boot.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 30, 2009)

paradoxguy said:


> Thanks for the picture and helpful comments. The photo illustrates the fuel system well and looks cool to boot.


You're welcome!

I took that while I was aboard the Mars Hawaii when it was at Lake Shasta last summer


----------



## Behblc (Aug 4, 2009)

Gentlemen , for me it has to be the Sunderland.
She has her faults - greatest problem was that she was underpowered but the aircraft was loved by her crews to them she was second to none. 

The attached photos show 422 RCAF Sunderlands at Castle Archdale on Lough Erne , N.Ireland in 1944.


----------



## davebender (Aug 5, 2009)

Dornier had a bunch of different seaplanes with complementary capabilities. I don't see how you could go wrong using Dornier aircraft.

*Do-18.*
www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org - Luftwaffe Resource Center - Seaplanes Flying Boats
Range = 2,175 miles.

*Do-24*
www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org - Luftwaffe Resource Center - Seaplanes Flying Boats
Range = 2,950 miles.

*Do-26.*
www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org - Luftwaffe Resource Center - Seaplanes Flying Boats
Range = 4,412 miles.
IMO the nicest looking seaplane ever built. 8)


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 5, 2009)

forgot...Was the sunderland as WWII plane?


----------

