# Best Aircraft in Many Different Roles Part II



## cheddar cheese (Jan 25, 2005)

Continued from old topic. Rest of thread in Archive forum.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 25, 2005)

For me it has to be the deHavilland Mosquito, name a job it couldn't do
(BTW, I'm a bit biased as it's my favourite plane)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 25, 2005)

don't worry i totally agree with you but many here will not...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 25, 2005)

I am one of those many. P-38 for me 

Name a job it couldnt do? Ok, Any single mark couldnt do the same wide variety of jobs that any single P-38 could do. Also, I havent seen anything where a squadron was equipped with Mossie's for pure day fighting.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 25, 2005)

Could a P-38 make 2 trips to Berlin in one night with a cookie?
Could a P-38 have carried the variety of guns, bombs and rockets that a Mossie could?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 25, 2005)

Because the P-38 was a fighter, first and foremost, carrying bombs wasnt its primary task. Therefore it is remarkable that it could carry a 5,200lb load. In theory the P-38 could carry a cookie, but as the P-38 was not widely used for bombing the the ETO it would never have been adapted to do this.
And hell, the P-38 could carry a large range of ordinance. Normally it carried 10 or 12 rockets, but models were built with 14 rockets. Bombwise it could carry a large range of bombs summing up to 5,200lbs. The normal payload for a P-38 was 4000lbs, but several instances where they carried 5,200lbs on missions were recorded. Sketches were drawn up of a Lightning with a 75mm cannon housed within the gondola, with the cockpit moved forward. (I didnt know about this until Lightning Guy informed me, theres pictures of this in the Pictures forum.)


----------



## evangilder (Jan 25, 2005)

I know something the Mossie could do that the P-38 couldn't...get termites!


----------



## JCS (Jan 25, 2005)

Any other time I would say the Ju-88, but the other day I developed a sudden liking for the Mosquito...


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 25, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Because the P-38 was a fighter, first and foremost, carrying bombs wasnt its primary task. Therefore it is remarkable that it could carry a 5,200lb load. In theory the P-38 could carry a cookie, but as the P-38 was not widely used for bombing the the ETO it would never have been adapted to do this.
> And hell, the P-38 could carry a large range of ordinance. Normally it carried 10 or 12 rockets, but models were built with 14 rockets. Bombwise it could carry a large range of bombs summing up to 5,200lbs. The normal payload for a P-38 was 4000lbs, but several instances where they carried 5,200lbs on missions were recorded. Sketches were drawn up of a Lightning with a 75mm cannon housed within the gondola, with the cockpit moved forward. (I didnt know about this until Lightning Guy informed me, theres pictures of this in the Pictures forum.)



LG also put up pictures showing alternate bomb hanging layout.

Two other things the P-38 was checked out for:

1. Smoke laying
2. Towing Gliders - the attempt to tow 2 gliders was not successful and it was determined the P-38 was to valuable as a fighter anyway so it wasn't persued.


----------



## Udet (Jan 25, 2005)

I am not sure if the approach you are giving to the topic is the most adequate.

Name a job the mosquito couldn´t do?
If the answer to this would be "NONE", it wouldn´t be telling us the whole picture.

What are you referring to? 
The capability of the plane to be fitted with various kinds of weaponry?
The performance? (speed, climbing, ceiling, etc.)

Perhaps it does not matter that much how many things a given aircraft was capable of doing but rather the performance level achieved on the several tasks the machine would carry out.

Theoretically, all planes have diving capability, in one level or another. Still, how many planes could dive like the Stuka the dive angle reaching nearly 90 degrees?

Frame design also plays its role; if most (or all?) fighters have the capability to see service in many roles, allowance of the frame for fitting it with new gear and equipment is important.

In theory, perhaps most fighters could be fitted with several bombload configurations, rockets, machine guns, cannons, reconaissance cameras; they could perform as fighters, fighter-bombers, ground attack planes and/or reconaissance, but what of the performance on every task?

For example, the Me 410 could unleash an authentic hurricane of fire from the nose, being capable of more than pulverizing anything that could get in its sight; however, and while being superior to the Bf110, it came too late and was not very good against the allied fighters of 1944.

I agree the P-38 was a very capable machine, but against the Fw190s and Bf109s the model took a hell of a pounding. It was in the Pacific where the Lightning saw its more memorable episodes.

What about the Ju88? Excellent both as medium bomber and (fearsome) nightfighter; an extremely versatile model


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 25, 2005)

The Mossie wasn't a dayfigther and if you consider the P-38 out-matched against 109s and 190s (which it wasn't) the Mossie was certainly worse off. A careful study of the history of the P-38 in Europe reveals that the P-38 gave considerably better than in took against the 190 and 109. The trouble in producing an exact kill ration is that the cause of many P-38 losses were never determined. Still, it probably shot down 2-3 109s and 190s for each P-38 lost in air-combat. Certainly not a bad record considering poor training, poor tactics, and poor British fuels. The Mossie certainly wouldn't have faired any better. 

My vote goes to the P-38, but I decided to put together a list of possible "contenders."

US: P-38 Lightning
British: Mosquito
German: Ju-88
Japanese: P1Y Ginga "Frances"

I'm not sure if any of the other countries had anything to compare with these. Any suggestions to this list?


----------



## MikeMan (Jan 26, 2005)

I have to go with the DH.98 here as well.

Without a doubt in my opinion the best aircraft of WW2.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 26, 2005)

CC, the single airframe of a Mosquito could perform the task of another. The British marking system creates a new mark every time a new rivet has been put in place. It's always the same airframe, and the P-38 was DRAWN up to be fitted with a 75mm but never was while the Mosquito 'Tse-Tse' was fitted with a 57mm (6 pdr) Moslin cannon. Plus, the Mosquito was a bomber first and foremost. The P-38 was a fighter first and foremost. 

Add the Fw-190 into that list, LG. Since the Fw-190 did a hell of a lot of different jobs.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

Was the Fw-190 more versatile that the Ju-88?

The only version of the Mossie that was truly multi-role was the FB.VI. Try dogfighting in a B.IV.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2005)

that really bugs me when you say 



> Because the P-38 was a fighter, first and foremost, carrying bombs wasnt its primary task. Therefore it is remarkable that it could carry a 5,200lb load.



because in just the same way the mossie was a bomber first and formost, and how many bombers out there could become the allies' best night fighter??



> In theory the P-38 could carry a cookie



ok due to balance and size of the bomb it wouldn't have been able to have been carried under the wings, and this only leaves the fusilage. I severly doubt it would be put under the fusilage 
1) ground clearance 
2) the HUGE air resistance from the bomb 
3) structural strength (i'll put that down as a maybe because i don't down about the P-38's construction and the rack would have to be small putting allot of strain on the fusilage) 
4) The cookie's a big bomb, how would the nose weel retract??

you say



> Any single mark couldnt do the same wide variety of jobs that any single P-38



however PD is right when he says 


> The British marking system creates a new mark every time a new rivet has been put in place



as pretty much every mossie was the same, just with a different role or armourment, and there were many sub-varients of the P-38...............

i know i've posted this before but here we go, this is wxmaxt's list of the P-38's roles



> Air ambulance
> Fighter
> Level bombing
> Skip bombing
> ...



and this is a list of some of the roles the mossie opperated in, let alone the mods..........

Air Ambulance 
Day fighter
Day fighter-bomber
Day intruder 
Day bomber (which includes dive bombing, skip bombing and level bombing)
Fighter reconnaissance 
Photo Recon
Interceptor
Long range escort
Tank buster
Night fighter 
Night intruder
Night bomber
Night fighter-bomber
Target marker
Target tug 
Anti-shipping 
Anti-Tirpitzing (which is different to anti-shipping) 
Convoy protection
Dual seat/control trainer
Mine layer
Anti-submarine patrol
High altitude bomber
High altitude fighter
High altitude photo recon
Naval target tug
Torpedo fighter
Carrier born torpedo fighter
Carrier born recon fighter
Carrier born strike fighter
High speed mail plane
Long range civil transport with provision for sleeping
Radio jamming and countermeasures


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 26, 2005)

Compromise, the Mosquito was a bomber trying to be a fighter and the P-38 was a fighter trying to be a bomber


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

Well, Lanc has done a lot of duplicating on his list. 
For example he lists day fighter and high altitude fighter. Certainly the P-38 was both of these as well.
I fail to see the true distinction between a day/night fighter-bomber and a day/night intruder.
Nor is there any true distinction between a PR plane and a high altitude PR plane.

Most of the items on his Mossies list the P-38 did do. But he is right that the P-38 couldn't carry the cookie. But the a Mossie couldn't carry two torps.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 26, 2005)

lanc, the term bomber is far broader than fighter. The Mossie was a light bomber, so it isnt really all that amazing that it acted well as a night fighter. Remember, the Ju-88 started off in a similar manner. You cant say that it was the allies best NF, most proven is a more suitable term. P-38M's scored well during the small time they saw service and would probably have been damn good competition for the mossie.



> and this is a list of some of the roles the mossie opperated in, let alone the mods..........



Yes, more roles doesnt make it better. Was the Ju-88 better than the Mossie or P-38? No, it wasnt. Besides, half that stuff is a bit specific. Anti-Tirpitzing? Thats just some shit you made up. wmaxt has also left a couple of things off his list which Ill have to rectify later. You say it was a day fighter, but several times I have asked for evidence of this and I have not been given any, so I do not believe this until I am proven otherwise.

mosquitoman, your statement is incorrect, as the P-38 wasnt a fighter a trying to be a bomber, it was a fighter that was also used as a bomber. The mossie was a bomber used that was also used as a night fighter.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 26, 2005)

LG put up a list of different nations best bombers....which I think was really good, as we've hashed this all out before....

I felt the best Japanese was a Ki. ''Dinah''...

I always vote Mosquito, but if we're going to get into what the P-38M Fighter did in the last stages of the War, then we should include the DH Hornet, which was the ' Fighter' version of the Mosquito, as it was essentially similar to the Mosquito, just smaller being a single-seater and with just 4x 20mm's...They were flying and gearing-up for Squadron strength when the ETO War finished.....A comparative study between that and a P-38M would be a read........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

You are refering to the Ki-46 Dinah. I don't think it was as versatile as the P1Y. The Dinah was a fine recon aircraft. But the only other role they really tried it as was as an interceptor and it did not was not very effective as its climb rate was unimpressive.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2005)

ok but almost any fighter could carry bombs, that's nothing specail, how many bomber could dogfight??

the P-38 could carry two torps, with no guns, the mossie could carry a torp, 1,000lbs of bombs internally and guns, i'd give that to the mossie.........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 27, 2005)

Wrong Lanc. The test conducted with the P-38 was with two torpedoes and a full ammo load. 

And the Mossie was hardly a dogfighter.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 27, 2005)

> ok but almost any fighter could carry bombs, that's nothing specail, how many bomber could dogfight??



Well, lets put 'dogfight' in inverted commas. The Ju-88 could.

Ok, almost any fighter can carry bombs, buit name me another fighter that can carry 5,200lbs of bombs?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2005)

it's not the fighter part that's significant, the P-38 was a twin engined aircraft, 5,200lbs is not specail for a twin engined plane.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 27, 2005)

Its more than many American twin-engined bombers could carry...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2005)

no, the P-38's max of 5,200lbs is more than the normall load carried by the mediums, the mediums were capable of much more than the 4,000lbs some of them normally carried...........


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 27, 2005)

> Ok, almost any fighter can carry bombs, buit name me another fighter that can carry 5,200lbs of bombs?


p-61 widow, its unusal for it 2 carrie bombs but it can carrie more than 7000 if it needs


----------



## evangilder (Jan 27, 2005)

Where did you get the number for the bomb load on the P-61? What I have seen shows the max bomb load of 6,400 lbs.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 27, 2005)

I'm with evan, the highest I've seen for a P-61 is 6,400lbs made up of 4 1,600lb bombs.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> no, the P-38's max of 5,200lbs is more than the normall load carried by the mediums, the mediums were capable of much more than the 4,000lbs some of them normally carried...........



Ive seen the normal load for the B-25 as being 3,500lbs...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 28, 2005)

well i don't know exactly what is was!! it could easy carry 4,000lbs i suppose but do you get my point??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 28, 2005)

NO I dont, cos Ive just stated that the normal load for a P-38 was higher than that of a B-25...which proves my point.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2005)

The B-25 C/D carried 5,200 lbs of bombs, on a normal run. The 3,200 lbs load is for the late marks, such as J and H. The J had the nose filled with .50 cal though, and was not a bomber as such, it had twelve .50 cal in the glass nose and eighteen in the solid nose. 

The H had the 75mm cannon, so obviously could not carry the full bomb load. The B-25 could obviously carry more than the P-38, you'd be foolish to think otherwise.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 29, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it's not the fighter part that's significant, the P-38 was a twin engined aircraft, 5,200lbs is not specail for a twin engined plane.............




Corsairs could carry up to 4,000...



Au-1 Corsairs could carry something like 7,000, but that was in Korea.


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 29, 2005)

a corsair with 2000kg's takeing off now thats something to see


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 29, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The B-25 C/D carried 5,200 lbs of bombs, on a normal run. The 3,200 lbs load is for the late marks, such as J and H. The J had the nose filled with .50 cal though, and was not a bomber as such, it had twelve .50 cal in the glass nose and eighteen in the solid nose.
> 
> The H had the 75mm cannon, so obviously could not carry the full bomb load. The B-25 could obviously carry more than the P-38, you'd be foolish to think otherwise.



Ah right, I never looked into the early marks. Thanks for that.


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 4, 2005)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > it's not the fighter part that's significant, the P-38 was a twin engined aircraft, 5,200lbs is not specail for a twin engined plane.............
> ...



Actully the F4U-1 originaly was not rated to carry anything, By the F4U-1d? it had a 2,000lbs load limit.

TheF-4U-4 was rated at 4,000lbs and was sometines loadded out in the 5,000lbs range.

By Korea the F4U-5 was in common use, It was also a dedicated attack aircraft that rarely broke 400mph. I don't recall load limits but they may have been in the 7,000lbs range. The issue with the Corsair was limited hard points - that's where the Skyraider came in.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> > ok but almost any fighter could carry bombs, that's nothing specail, how many bomber could dogfight??
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah but the Ju-88 was not much of a dogfighter though. It was a good night fighter but not a dog fighter. For me the Ju-88 is the ultimate aircraft to use in different roles though. Mostly just oppionion though.

As for the P-61 from what I have read it rarely carried bombs but it could carry a load of 3200lb to 6400lb of bombs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 16, 2005)

there's a specail feature on the P-61 in the current flypast.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

As was mentioned many weeks ago by someone else...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Heres a few things I never knew about the P-38...

It was the first fighter that was able to fly from Britain to Berlin and back while escorting bombers.

One of the initial production P-38s had its turbochargers removed, with a secondary cockpit placed in one of the booms to examine how flightcrew would respond to such an "asymmetric" cockpit layout. One P-38E was fitted with an extended central nacelles to accommodate a tandem-seat cockpit with dual controls, and was later fitted with a "laminar-flow" wing. 

Very early in the Pacific War, a scheme was proposed to fit Lightnings with floats to allow them to make long-range ferry flights. The floats would be removed before the aircraft went into combat. There were concerns that salt spray would corrode the tailplane, and so one P-38E was modified with a raised tailplane and a rearward-facing second seat for an observer to monitor the effectiveness of the new arrangement. 
This P-38E was not actually fitted with floats, and the idea was quickly abandoned as the US Navy proved to have enough sealift capacity to keep up with P-38 deliveries to the South Pacific. 


Still another P-38E was used in 1942 to tow a Waco troop glider as a demonstration. There proved to be plenty of other aircraft, such as Douglas C-47s Dakotas, available to tow gliders, and the Lightning was spared this duty. 

An F-5A was modified to an experimental two-seat reconnaissance configuration, with additional cameras in the tail booms. 

Standard Lightnings were even used as crew and cargo transports in the South Pacific. They were fitted with pods attached to the underwing pylons, replacing drop tanks or bombs, that could carry a single passenger in a lying-down position or cargo. 
This was very uncomfortable way to fly. Some of the pods weren't even fitted with a window to let the victim see out or bring in light. One fellow who hitched a lift on a P-38 in one of these pods later said that whoever designed the damn thing should have been forced to ride in it. 


Lockheed proposed a carrier-based "Model 822" version of the Lightning for the US Navy. The Model 822 would have featured folding wings, an arresting hook, and stronger undercarriage for carrier operations. The Navy wasn't interested, as they regarded the Lightning as too big for carrier operations and didn't like liquid-cooled engines anyway, and the Model 822 never went beyond the paper stage. However, the Navy did operate four land-based F-5Bs in North Africa, with these aircraft inherited from the USAAF and redesignated "FO-1". 

A single P-38G was captured intact by the Italians during the war when the pilot landed at an Italian base by mistake, and this Lightning was flown in combat against Allied aircraft, but this aircraft was quickly grounded due to lack of parts. Two Lightnings that were forced to land in Lisbon, Portugal, while on a ferry flight from England to Algeria were interned and operated by the Portugese, apparently with American blessing. 

A P-38J was used in experiments with an unusual scheme for mid-air refueling, in which the fighter snagged a drop tank trailed on a cable from a bomber! Astonishingly, they got this to work, but unsurprisingly decided it wasn't practical. A P-38J was also fitted with experimental retractable snow ski landing gear, but this idea never reached operational service, either. 

A P-38L was modified by Hindustan Aircraft in India as a fast VIP transport, with a comfortable seat in the nose, leather-lined walls, accommodations for "refreshments", and a glazed nose to give the passenger a spectacular view. 

After the war, a P-38L was experimentally fitted with armament of three 15.2 millimeter (0.60 caliber) machine guns. This sounds like a misprint, but such guns were actually developed. The 15.2 millimeter cartridge had been developed early in the war for an infantry "anti-tank rifle", a type of weapon developed by a number of nations in the 1930s when tanks were lighter, but by 1942 the idea of taking on a tank with a large-caliber rifle was somewhere between "outdated" and "suicidal". 
The cartridge wasn't abandoned, with the Americans designing a derivative of the German MG-151 15 millimeter machine gun around it and designating the weapon the "T17", but though 300 of these guns were built and over six million 15.2 millimeter rounds were manufactured, they never worked out all the bugs, and the T17 never saw operational service. The cartridge was "necked up" to fit 20 millimeter projectiles and became a standard US ammunition after the war. The T17-armed P-38L did not go beyond unsuccessful trials. 


Another P-38L was modified after the war as a "super strafer", with eight 12.7 millimeter machine guns in the nose and a pod under each wing with two 12.7 millimeter guns, for a total of twelve. Nothing came of this fit, either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2005)

It was deffinatly a nice aircraft and one of the best of the war and one of the best ever built.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Yeah, that I will easily agree with.


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 17, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Yeah, that I will easily agree with.



Me Too!

They also had a Smoke layer model.

CC have you seen the "Planes and Pilots of WWII" web page or the "P38 (CC Jordan:Mankind: CDB100620) sites? There is some great stuff there that includes information Warren Bodie dug up that was never published until 1990 in his book. 
http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Sounds great! Ill have to check that out! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2005)

Yeah thanks for the site.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 18, 2005)

the mossie could lay smoke as well you know...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2005)

Yeah, when the engines were on fire


----------



## Chiron (Feb 19, 2005)

Mosquito was the best 2 engine fighter/bomber ever built in the WWII. It was faster than most of fighters until the near the end of war in Europe, it had bomb load capacity that rivaled B-17, it can conducted low attitude precise bombing, and it was one of most recognized fighters in the war.

Oh, and it was also the most economic fighter as well; it was perhaps last great wood fighter of the 20th century.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 19, 2005)

I couldn't agree more


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

> one of most recognized fighters in the war.



Most recognised nightfighters....Despite asking numerous times, Ive yet to see any evidence it was used as a day fighter...

P-38 was better


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

read up un the exploits of No.23 Squadron, defending Matla by night and day in their F/NF.IIs.................

and day fighting was the only area that the P-38 beats the mossie..............

and i have a picture of a mossie with smoke canisters, which i'm more than willing to show you at school.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

Im not denying that, I was joking. 

I dont wanna get into this agument again, it pisses everyoneoff and its obvious no-one is going to change their mind


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

but i genuinely believe the mossie was the better all rounder than the P-38..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

And I genuinely beleive the P-38 was the better all rounder than the Mossie. But lets not discuss that anymore, it going boring saying the same things over and over again...

2 More planes to compare then?


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 20, 2005)

Spitfire and Tempest?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

good choise, i'll say tempest............


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 20, 2005)

Me too, I like it's looks aswell


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah but depends on the mark allot............


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 20, 2005)

MkV, it's the chin radiator


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

na i prefer the Mk.II, it's the radial, one of few radials i like.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

The Mk.II looks great, and strangely, It came after the Mk.V


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 20, 2005)

Problem with the engine, the Centaurus version was going to be the first but due to development problems, they shoved the Napier Sabre in


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2005)

I dont know which aircraft I would go with on this one. I like them both, however I think I will have to go with later model Spits.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 7, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Problem with the engine, the Centaurus version was going to be the first but due to development problems, they shoved the Napier Sabre in



And the Sabre was no great 'heck' either, though it did get more reliable. One only has to look the loss list for Typhoons and Tempests and note those lost because of the engine.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2005)

The Sabre caused great problems:



> Problems started to appear as soon as volume production started. Up to that point the engines had been hand-assembled by Napier craftsmen, and it proved to be rather difficult to adapt it to assembly line production techniques. In particular, the sleeves tended to fail quite often, seizing the engine in the process. At that time Bristol were developing their own sleeve valve designs, and their Taurus
> 
> The Taurus was a 14-cylinder two-row radial aircraft engine, produced by the Bristol Engine Company starting in 1936. The Taurus was developed by adding cylinders to the existing Aqulia design, creating a design that produced just over 1,000 horsepower (750 kW) with very low weight.
> 
> ...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 7, 2005)

It is understandable that the RR engineers had their own agenda since RR was also developing an H-24 sleeve valve engine, the Eagle.

You can see a 1/5 scale model of the Eagle, with all its bits and pieces here, http://www.enginehistory.org/eagle_22.htm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2005)

I am a big fan of the Merlin Engines especially the later ones built and used in the later Spits.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 7, 2005)

I prefer the Griffon. But the BMW 801 is my favourite engine.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 7, 2005)

The Merlin or the Hercules are the best


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

I know they are not the best engines made but my favorites are probably a tie between the Merlins and the DB-605.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2005)

DB-605 is good engine. Prefer Radials myself though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

I tend to like inlines better just because I think it gives the aircraft a more sleeker look.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 8, 2005)

but CC doesn't think inlines look right on bombers........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 8, 2005)

Merlins look good on anything- even the Battle looked sleek to make up for not looking deadly


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but CC doesn't think inlines look right on bombers........



They dont. At least not 4 engined bombers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2005)

I have to agree, radials look much better on bombers. Some 2 engine bombers and fighters look allright with inlines.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 9, 2005)

Mosquito, Whirlwind and the P-38 looked great with inlines- can you imagine a Mossie with Bristol Hercules engines?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2005)

man that'd be crap, but the lanc looked good with inlines...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2005)

On 2 engine fighters inlines look better obviously, but on 4 engine bombers? Can you imagine a B-17 or B-29 with 4 inline engines?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2005)

It just isnt right. Radials look so much better on bombers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 10, 2005)

I completely agree.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 10, 2005)

but they tried the lanc with radials and she looks better with inlines........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 10, 2005)

No I dont agree. A good looking 4-engined bomber is as rare as a good French plane


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 10, 2005)

but you like the looks of the B-29??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 10, 2005)

I missed the word "inlines" out of that sentence  sorry. I mean a good looking four engined bomber _with inlines _ 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 10, 2005)

The Lanc lookse good with inlines but the Hally and Stirling look just as good


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but you like the looks of the B-29??



I think the B-29 was one of the better looking bombers. She had a sleek quality well as sleek as a large 4 engine bomber can be.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 11, 2005)

I think it was the best looking 4 engined bomber, bar none.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2005)

I am fan of the B-17 when it comes to looks but yeah the 29 was a damn good looking aircraft.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 11, 2005)

Yeah the B-17 was also a beauty.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2005)

I especially the ealier models like the F before they became overloaded with chin turrets and other protruding objects.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2005)

I like the additional turrets, the extra guns make it look meaner.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2005)

I dont know I like the more refined, sleeker, airplane look.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2005)

I like both, although I do prefer the sleeker cleaner lines.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2005)

I know they kind of defeat the purpose of a war bird but as a airplane enthusiast and some one that flys I like the cleaner looks.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 12, 2005)

The best looking 4 engined bomber has to be the Hally MkIII, the nose fairing and clean lines just give it the edge over the Lanc in looks


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2005)

No, B-29 was far better looking! 8) As was the Stirling.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 12, 2005)

Nah, the Halibag had much cleaner lines than the Stirling


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2005)

The Stirling was a beauty. Dont like the Halifax much.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 12, 2005)

Why? it's a great aircraft


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2005)

Dont know too much about British 4 engine bombers. Pretty much just know the basics about them.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2005)

All I know is that the Lancaster was brilliant and the the other 2 were kind of also rans that didnt seem to do very many bombing missions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2005)

The Lanc was deffinatly a first rate bomber. Its also pretty cool in the fact... Wait are you ready for this it applies to this thread! .... It could be used in countless roles and that shows in the fact that it was used long after the war!

Alright that sounded really stupid the way I wrote it, but I figured its all good to be stupid sometimes.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 12, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Lanc was deffinatly a first rate bomber. Its also pretty cool in the fact... Wait are you ready for this it applies to this thread! .... It could be used in countless roles and that shows in the fact that it was used long after the war!
> 
> Alright that sounded really stupid the way I wrote it, but I figured its all good to be stupid sometimes.



And, it evolved into the Shackelton.


DerAdler, you are not a troll, very far from being one.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 12, 2005)

The Hally and Stirling got used for a lot of other missions besides bombing aswell. Stirlings were used for Glider towing and transport as did the Hally. The Hally also got used by Coastal Command sinking several U-Boats


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

ok sorry i aint been on for a day or two (you miss me??).............

but it's time to get some things cleared up, the lancaster was the best looking four engined bomber of the war, "bar none"...........

secondly, CC, the stirling didn't do a great deal of bombing, but the halibag did, wherever there were lancs, there were bound to be a few halibags...........

and yes the lanc is extremely versatile...............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> DerAdler, you are not a troll, very far from being one.



No really I was just playing the part


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but it's time to get some things cleared up, the lancaster was the best looking four engined bomber of the war, "bar none"...........



Damn, we all thought you were away at the opticians getting your vision fixed, but obviously not 

The B-29 was far more beautiful.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2005)

I agree.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

but the lanc looks way better than the B-29..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2005)

No it didnt 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

hey you didn't post a source, naughty naughty..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2005)

Im with CC.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

wow i'm glad you two are finally coming out, i think it's very brave of you........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2005)

Only because we want to show you that it is okay for you to do the same. Its okay man no one will judge you differently no one will think you are a bad person and we wont judge your boyfriend either.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

wow chris will be pleased to hear that...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2005)

Thats your boyfriend huh!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

well not yet but if things go my way..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2005)

Alrighty then! Now you are really scaring me.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 13, 2005)

The best looking has to be the Hally with that streamlinrd nose on the MkIII, there's no spot on the chin as CC has put it before


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2005)

What do you think was the best British aircraft in different roles?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2005)

the mossie.........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 14, 2005)

I agree


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2005)

there really is nothing else in the running


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2005)

For british aircraft I would say mossie or lanc.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 14, 2005)

No it really has to be the Mossie. I suppose you could compare the Beaufighter but it wasnt really in th same league.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 14, 2005)

The Mossie looked beautiful and deadly, the Beau just looked deadly


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2005)

I was never impressed with beau


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 15, 2005)

why not?? name a better pre/early war heavy fighter that had such a long service history and could be used as a fighter, torp. bomber and nightfighter.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2005)

No for me it is just opinion and I dont like the way it looks. Besides by the time the war started she did not stand a chance against a Bf-109E.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 15, 2005)

But if a 109 got in front of the Beau it would be goodbye for the 109


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 15, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> why not?? name a better pre/early war heavy fighter that had such a long service history and could be used as a fighter, torp. bomber and nightfighter.........



P-38 8)


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 15, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > why not?? name a better pre/early war heavy fighter that had such a long service history and could be used as a fighter, torp. bomber and nightfighter.........
> ...



Yup!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2005)

Yeah was deffinatly better, and dont forget about the Bf-110. It was better then a beaufighter and could be used has a heavy fighter, torp, night fighter and such. She does not compare to a P-38 but would outfly a beaufighter.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 15, 2005)

It would be a close one ut I'd take a Beau every time


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 16, 2005)

firstly the P-38 wasn't a heavy fighter, and secondly i'd take the beau as well, a huge punch and could take allot of damage..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 16, 2005)

The P-38 may not have been a heavy fighter but this sure as hell is heavy eneough:

XP-38:
Four 23mm Madsen Cannon with 50 r.p.g.
Four .50 Colt-Browning MG 53 m.g. with 1,000 r.p.g.

YP-38: 37mm Oldsmobile cannon, two .50 and two .30 machine guns

P-38: 37mm Oldsmobile cannon and four .50 machine guns.

P-38E:
20mm Hispano M1 Cannon with 150 rounds
Four .50 Colt-Browning MG 53-2 m.g. with 500 rounds per gun.

P-38L:
20mm Hispano M2(C) Cannon with 150 rounds
Four .50 Colt-Browning MG 53-2 m.g. with 500 rounds per gun.

And now lets compare it to the Beaufighter and the Bf-110

Messerschmitt Bf 110 C-4/B 

Armament:
Nose Fixed firing forward
Four 7.9mm MG 17 Machine Guns with 1,000 rounds per gun
And
Two 20mm MG FF Cannon with 180 rounds per gun

Rear Gun in flexible mounting in rear cockpit
One 7.9mm MG 15 Machine Gun with 750 rounds.

Messerschmitt Bf 110 C-5 

Armament:
Rear Gun in flexible mounting in rear cockpit
One 7.9mm MG 15 Machine Gun with 750 rounds.

Messerschmitt Bf 110 D-3 

Armament:
Nose: Fixed firing forward
Four 7.9mm MG 17 Machine Guns with 1,000 r.p.g.
And
Two 20mm MG FF Cannon with 180 r.p.g.

Rear Gun: In flexible mounting in rear cockpit
Two 7.9mm MG 15 Machine Gun with 750 rounds.

Messerschmitt Bf 110 G 

Armament:
Nose: Fixed firing forward
Two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon with 135 rounds per gun
Two 20mm MG 151 Cannon with 300 rounds(port) and 350 rounds(starboard)
And
Two 20mm MG 151 Cannon in Schrage Musik installation (Firing Obliquely forward)
Or
Two 7.92mm MG 81 in rear cockpit

Optional:
Waffenwanne 151Z ventral tray housing two forward firing 20mm MG 151 cannon

ARMAMENT:
Four 20mm Hispano cannon fixed under nose.
Ammunition: 60 rounds per gun.*
*Initially hand loaded drums, later belt fed.
One .303 in. Vickers K aimed by observer.

Fighter Marks, in addition to above:
Four .303 in. Brownings fixed in starboard wing.
Two .303 in. Brownings fixed in port wing.

So with the exception of the Bf-110G, and some Fighter marks of the Bristol Beaufighter, the P-38's firepower was no different then either aircraft. The Bf-110 would outfly a Beaufighter and the P-38 would outfly both of them and the firepower was about the same. How about that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 16, 2005)

the beau would have no problem sticking with a Bf-110, she also had a supprisingly low wing loading and so was suprisingly manouverable.........


----------



## evangilder (Mar 16, 2005)

One note on the 37mm armed P-38, it only carried 15 roounds! Not much ammo if the the fit hits the shan.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 16, 2005)

and the beau could take more punishment than the P-38 and Bf-110..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 16, 2005)

But they would still fly circles around the Beau.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 16, 2005)

The P-38 can take plenty of damage thankyou very much...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 17, 2005)

but not as much as the beau.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 17, 2005)

Probably not, but the P-38 is far faster and more manoeverable and therefore less likely to sustain damage,


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 17, 2005)

but if the beau can get a few shots on it it's got a good chance of taking the P-38 out...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 17, 2005)

Thats the thing though - It couldnt get a good shot at the P-38. P-38's are quite tough you know, it would take more than "a few shots" to take it out, unless you wasted the pilot...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 17, 2005)

yes but we are talking 4x20mm and 6x.303............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 17, 2005)

Im fairly sure the .303 would do pretty much bugger all. the 4x.50 and 1x20mm would easily cope with a Beau, and added to the the 100mph speed advantage, superior climb and dive rate, superior roll rate and superior manoverability and its almost certain that the P-38 would have it.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 17, 2005)

I seem to remember 618 sdn being formed with mossies to use a smaller version of the bouncing bomb against German battleships... Lanc said "anti tirpitzing" as a role for the mossie, i think this is what he meant .


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 17, 2005)

It has to be the Mossie as the best allrounder. - an aircraft that used non-strategic materials could eventually carry an equivalent bombload to a B17!
Didnt the Japanese call the Beaufighter the whispering death?


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 17, 2005)

Another mosquito admirer, finally!
A Mossie could carry a B-17s long range load on a short range mission but this would include a cookie and the Beau did get called Whispering Death because it's sleeve-valve engines were so quiet. The Corsair got called screaming death I think


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 17, 2005)

The Corsair was dubbed "whistling death" by Japanese ground troops.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 17, 2005)

I knew it was something like that


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 17, 2005)

wonder what tune it whistled!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2005)

The mossie is a great all around aircraft that can be used in many different ways, but if you want to go for the complete aircraft, the Ju-88. Yeah it may not have been the best in performance but you know what it could be used literally for anything and everything. And just to bring this up the P-38 could be used in every way the Mossie could and it could outfly the mossie!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

Yep! EVEN transport, as stupid as it sounds!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 18, 2005)

we've gon through this, the P-38 couldn't do all the roles of the mossie...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

Pretty sure it could.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:
 

> we've gon through this, the P-38 couldn't do all the roles of the mossie...........



Yeah it could, the only thing you could come up with that the mossie could do that the Lightning couldn't was use a turret. Okay and what does that really do, having a turret is not a role! You have to prove to me that the mossie could do more than the P-38, you haven't done it yet.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 18, 2005)

Wer'e back to the highball missions again (the Small bouncing bomb for anti shipping).

I dont think that the P38 could have carried and used one of those!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2005)

Where can you find that says the P-38 could not be modified to carry one. If it could carry 2 torpedos, bombs, radar and even passengers I am sure it could carry one of those too.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 19, 2005)

I'm not talking about it as a weight issue, the P-38 could certainly handle that, I'm thinking more along the lines of a carrying and method of release. They would have to be pretty close to the centreline or "pilots pod" as i call it. and closer to the C of G. to be able to carry two of these bombs, and provide the backspin before release. If Theyre put further out along towards the wings the more the vibration when the backspin starts. and bear in mind that the mossie carried TWO of them. Below is a brief description of the bomb itself. that i found on the internet.

Highball 'Bouncing Bomb'
This spherical bomb was designed by the brilliant Dr. Barnes Wallis to be utilized against ships. Weighing 1,280 lb (580kg) and packed with 600 lb (272 kg) of explosive two Highballs could be carried by a Mosquito fighter-bomber. Prior to release the bomb was imparted with a backward spin of 700-900 revolutions per minute. Dropped at high speed 360 mph (580km/h) and low altitude 60 ft (18.2m) the Highball would skip across the water toward the target. 
Although intended to be used against the battleship Tirpitz this did not come to pass mainly because the ship stayed in ports beyond the range of Mosquitos based in Britain. Focus shifted to possible use in the Far East and a number of Mosquitos were modified for use on escort/jeep carriers. Despite considerable training the weapon was not used in combat.


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 19, 2005)

Concorde247 said:


> I'm not talking about it as a weight issue, the P-38 could certainly handle that, I'm thinking more along the lines of a carrying and method of release. They would have to be pretty close to the centreline or "pilots pod" as i call it. and closer to the C of G. to be able to carry two of these bombs, and provide the backspin before release. If Theyre put further out along towards the wings the more the vibration when the backspin starts. and bear in mind that the mossie carried TWO of them. Below is a brief description of the bomb itself. that i found on the internet.
> 
> Highball 'Bouncing Bomb'
> This spherical bomb was designed by the brilliant Dr. Barnes Wallis to be utilized against ships. Weighing 1,280 lb (580kg) and packed with 600 lb (272 kg) of explosive two Highballs could be carried by a Mosquito fighter-bomber. Prior to release the bomb was imparted with a backward spin of 700-900 revolutions per minute. Dropped at high speed 360 mph (580km/h) and low altitude 60 ft (18.2m) the Highball would skip across the water toward the target.
> Although intended to be used against the battleship Tirpitz this did not come to pass mainly because the ship stayed in ports beyond the range of Mosquitos based in Britain. Focus shifted to possible use in the Far East and a number of Mosquitos were modified for use on escort/jeep carriers. Despite considerable training the weapon was not used in combat.



The P-38 carried it's main payload between the gondola and the booms and when neccessary was able to carry off balance loads that way. Also it was able to carry 1 drop tank and 1 bomb to extend range. It was quite capable of carring anything a Mossie could.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 19, 2005)

Ah, I wasnt aware the P-38 could carry off balance loads, this changes matters 8)


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 19, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Ah, I wasnt aware the P-38 could carry off balance loads, this changes matters 8)



They did many times but by deffinition anything between the engines is in the center of the plane. When testing the combinations P-38s carried 1 torpedo with No, 1 x 165gal and 1 x 300 gal drop tanks. In Europe it was common to carry a 165gal tank(no 300gal tanks in the ETO) and a 2,000lbs bomb.

The lack of 300gal tanks in the ETO is why people sometimes think the P-51 had more range. When it arrived with drop tanks it had a little more range. One comment (paraphrased by me) by Bud Anderson was that if the P-51 didn't exist P-38s would have gotten more fuel, (which they did, leading edge and 300gal drop tanks: my added comment), and done the job or a new plane would have been designed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2005)

Concorde247 said:


> I'm not talking about it as a weight issue, the P-38 could certainly handle that, I'm thinking more along the lines of a carrying and method of release. They would have to be pretty close to the centreline or "pilots pod" as i call it. and closer to the C of G. to be able to carry two of these bombs, and provide the backspin before release. If Theyre put further out along towards the wings the more the vibration when the backspin starts. and bear in mind that the mossie carried TWO of them. Below is a brief description of the bomb itself. that i found on the internet.
> 
> Highball 'Bouncing Bomb'
> This spherical bomb was designed by the brilliant Dr. Barnes Wallis to be utilized against ships. Weighing 1,280 lb (580kg) and packed with 600 lb (272 kg) of explosive two Highballs could be carried by a Mosquito fighter-bomber. Prior to release the bomb was imparted with a backward spin of 700-900 revolutions per minute. Dropped at high speed 360 mph (580km/h) and low altitude 60 ft (18.2m) the Highball would skip across the water toward the target.
> Although intended to be used against the battleship Tirpitz this did not come to pass mainly because the ship stayed in ports beyond the range of Mosquitos based in Britain. Focus shifted to possible use in the Far East and a number of Mosquitos were modified for use on escort/jeep carriers. Despite considerable training the weapon was not used in combat.



All I am trying to say is that there was nothing that the Mossie could do that the P-38 could not do or atleast be modified to do so.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 20, 2005)

fair enough! 

The US did try the highball project. there was a documentary program on TV a long while ago about the dams raid. It had some footage of either an A26, or a B25 I can't remember which now, that dropped a highball on test
Unfortunately, the bomb hit a wave, pitched up and smashed into the aircraft that dropped it. the aircraft plunged straight into the sea, due to the height and speed, all on board perished. I'll try nand see if i can dig out the video that i recorded it on to see what aircraft was actually used.

The Tv prog also showed a photo of the mayor of one of the towns standing next to an unexploded Upkeep bomb from a Lanc that had been shot down on its way to the dams and hadnt exploded - He thought it was a big oil tank!

The Germans took it apart and drew up full technical drawings within a matter of days!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

Interesting


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

but useless as the weapon was never used again...........

and seriously?? you actually think the P-38 could take 2 highball with the range to use it in the anti-shipping role?? they're big mines and need large brackets,the air resistance would be huge if the bombs were in no way concealed, there's no way in hell you're gonna get both under the gondala.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2005)

One on the left of the gondola, one on the right...Couple of droptanks as well...Use the droop snoots with P-38L escort, it will work fine.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

what was the distance between engine and gondala?? and we're talking about one single mossie, no escort was mentioned, one droop snoot (sorry how many were made??) would get torn apart............

and how do you intend on overcoming the huge air resistance??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> One on the left of the gondola, one on the right...Couple of droptanks as well...Use the droop snoots with P-38L escort, it will work fine.



I agree and with simple modicfications to the airframe which has been proven can be done, would account for the drag that it would cause. Yes this would probably cause a reduction in performance but it still could be done.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2005)

Yep. I think about 1000 droop snoots were made. But once the highball was dropped it would just become a normal fighter, and heck, the P-38 was a far superior fighter to the Mossie.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

why fight in a mossie when you can just run away............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2005)

Becuase running away is for cowards with no confidence in their plane. A Dora or a late model 109 could catch a Mossie easy anyway.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

so you would rather run stay and fight (in an un-armed droop snoot??) when you know you've completed your mission, you'd have nothing to gain from staying and fighting but you stand a chance of getting killed??

and doras and -109s could easily shoot down a P-38..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2005)

Unless it dived or climbled rapidly. Anywho, Id rather be fighting Doras and 109's with a P-38 than a Mossie. Hey, it doesnt have to be a droop snoot. The only thing that differs in is having a glazed nose and a bomb aimer. I could use a regular P-38L-5-LO to drop the bombs, waste a few germans and then fly home...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

so how do you intend on aiming them yourself??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

Again my friend modifications would be made. Do you think the Mossie was able to do it without modifications?


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 20, 2005)

I found the video!!
It was a program called "Secret History - The Dambusters Raid" And shown on the BBC. It also had interviews with some of the Survirving 617
Squadron Crew members.
The aircraft the Americans tried it with was an A26 invader, The bomb hit the wave bounced up, and smashed the whole tail unit off - the rest of the aircraft broke up when it hit the sea.

Interestingly enough, The German Plans drawn up on the bomb that didnt explode were complete 10 days after the dams raid!! They tried experiments with a very small bomb roughly three maybe four times the size of a football code named "Kurt" and instead of putting backspin on it like the british ones, they used a small rocket propulsion unit that broke off after the bomb hit the water for the first time.
The video showed an FW190 doing a test drop. - it was wildly inaccurate, the bomb sailed over the little boat and kept on going for some time!!

Its been over a year since i watched it, Glad my memory held true!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> so how do you intend on aiming them yourself??



Well seen as the highball is a low altitude weapon, it doesnt take much more than common sense to know when to drop the thing.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 20, 2005)

It depends on a few things CC,

1. the size of the ship being attacked,
2. the speed of the ship if is moving at all
3. the size of waves, swell etc.
4. the speed of the swell, waves etc.

As the trials with the fw190 showed, it was easy to misjudge these things.
The bomb could either fly over the top of the ship, or stop bouncing and sink short.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

I agree It would be more difficult then just dropping when you think it is right, but I am sure they designed some kind of site that would let the pilot know when to release it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

they did have a specail sight for it, i have a picture of it in a book, there's no way one man could aim it, whislt flying his plane, in a cramped cockpit, it needed a man that was totally dedicated to the aiming of the weapon to aim it.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

Yeah that it would. It is not like just dropping your bomb on a target.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 20, 2005)

True.

the pilot would be too busy trying to keep the correct altitude airspeed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

And if he wasn't he would probably fly himself into the water.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2005)

it's not just that you'd struggle to even fit the sight into the cockpit of the P-38..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2005)

Why? It was fairly large. If an aimer was necessary, The layout used on the P-38M could have been adopted if they wanted to keep the armament on the front, and have the sight in place of where the radar operator normally goes.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 21, 2005)

Yes but there wouldn't be room for the special sight and a bombardier


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2005)

I am quite sure they would modify it some how.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2005)

Yeah. The droop snoot could perform it fine but that means losing the armament. 

Question did the Mossie with a glazed nose have armament?


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 22, 2005)

No they didn't but if they were going that fast and that high, they didn't need it


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2005)

The the P-38 Droop Snoot wouldnt need it, flies faser and higher than the Mossie. 

Problem solved.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> No they didn't but if they were going that fast and that high, they didn't need it



There were plenty of aircraft that could go up there and counter it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2005)

on an anti-shipping mission like this you'd do it all at low level anyway..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

Yeap.


----------



## trackend (May 27, 2005)

Not this low though I hope


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2005)

That is just rediculous, why would you need to be that low?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2005)

Incompetent pilot?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2005)

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOSE IT MAKE, HE'S ONLY GOING 65 MPH!


----------



## trackend (May 27, 2005)

well it does make bringing your ack ack guns to bear a tad more difficult at Taranto one actually dipped his wheels in the water and nearly went arse over tit.
I just found another use for the Stringbag motorbike transporter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2005)

Surely riding the bike to the target would be faster than flying the plane?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Surely riding the bike to the target would be faster than flying the plane?


----------



## trackend (May 27, 2005)

No one believes me when I tell them how versatile they where Fly  they where also used as personel transport (4 passangers) bit of a squeeze though


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2005)

trackend said:


> No one believes me when I tell them how versatile they where Fly  they where also used as personel transport (4 passangers) bit of a squeeze though



Oh I agree, and them being so slow but yet so successful is what amazes me!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2005)

They should have put a merlin in it....


----------



## trackend (May 27, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Surely riding the bike to the target would be faster than flying the plane?


Well you may mock young Cheesy trouble is your not far wrong  heres a tail from the North African campaign.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 27, 2005)

but she could take a huge payload given she had only 730HP to her name........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2005)

Well the SAI 403 could go immensely fast with just 750hp... 8)


----------



## trackend (May 27, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but she could take a huge payload given she had only 730HP to her name........


The supercharged Peggy Mk30 was rated at 775hp at 2200 revs
and her carrying capacity was down to 607sq ft of wing area which is more than a Dornier 17Z


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 28, 2005)

Yes, but thats because it has 2 wings


----------



## trackend (May 28, 2005)

My God  I never noticed that Cheesy  although there is a case where the upper wing was nearly all shot off of a Stringbag and it flew back to base OK and another that upon returning to the Carrier a aircraft fitter put his hand inside a hole that been blown in the lower wing and pulled out a foot of main spar.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 28, 2005)

well she was a tough bird......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

I think the Stringbag was one of the most amazing aircraft for what it accomplished for what kind of aircraft she was.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2005)

Me too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

She did away with many a Capital ship from Germany and Italy. She deffinatly earns her spot in history.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 31, 2005)

I can agree with that!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

Facts will agree with that.


----------



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

she truely was an amazing bird......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 1, 2005)

UH HUH


----------



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

but if you just slook at her stats she is so out of place in WWII........


----------



## trackend (Jun 1, 2005)

Ive found another first for the Stringbag forget the Harrier, a Swordfish made the first vertical landing of any aircraft. During the early days of RN carriers being fitted with crash barriers a Stringbag had trouble getting the arrestor hook down so the only thing was an emergency landing. The pilot who was inexperienced and had not had to use one of these barriers banked his aircraft and made his approach. Unfortunately he came in at a far too steep an angle and bounced heavily on the deck, this shook the arrestor hook free as the tail crashed down and it assumed its rightful position however the Stringbag had now bounced 15ft back into the air, the end result being he missed the crash barrier and soared most of the plane over it but not the arrestor hook this caught the top of the barrier and brought the poor old Stringbag to an abrupt halt in mid air 
it fell from the sky like a house brick and the under carriage splayed out like a gymnast doing the splits both the pilot and his crew only suffered minor injury's and the Swordfish was repaired within 24hrs.
There you go first vertical landing,  it was not unknown in gales for the Swordfish (if unladen-ed) to want to take off vertically either.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 1, 2005)

I once saw a Fiesler Storch actually fly backwards! Just above stal into a headwind, he was actually going backwards. Weirdest thing I ever saw.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2005)

Fieseler were pretty specialised in that sort of thing. The Fi-167 could do the same.


----------



## trackend (Jun 1, 2005)

Thats what you call manourable Evan, I bet the landing approach was a bitch.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 1, 2005)

It was fun to watch, but I had to do a double take. It looked very strange. He had to power up to land!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 1, 2005)

The Storch had a very low stall speed and could take off and land on very short runways and unimproved sites. It actually was a very good aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2005)

The Storch you saw Evan probably belonged to Steve Ericson. He keeps it at Mojave. He used to be John Sharp's (Nemesis Race plane) crew chief. One time I landed right after he did, completing probably the best short field landing in my life. As I taxied to the first turn off I heard him say "nice landing kid, keep practicing, heh, heh, heh!"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2005)

it'd be interesting to see a race between a storch and a lizzie (lysander), where they both start on the ground, go pick up a secret agent or casualty and come back and land in a small feild, just to see who would win.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2005)

Well the Lysander is faster  If it was a long journey it would win easy.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2005)

damn right 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2005)

Talking of vertical landings...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2005)

that reminds me of that B-24 shot........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2005)

And this guy deployed his undercarriage much too late


----------



## evangilder (Jun 2, 2005)

I think you are right, FBJ. He has been at the last few shows and it is quite a site to see. I don't know if you have ever been to CMA, but at the show last year, he took off from the road that goes from the taxiway to the runway! We all just stood there with our jaws on the ground. When he brought it in for a landing, he set it right on the hash marks and turned right onto the taxiway. It was awesome!


----------



## trackend (Jun 2, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Talking of vertical landings...


Been there. Done that and upside down


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I think you are right, FBJ. He has been at the last few shows and it is quite a site to see. I don't know if you have ever been to CMA, but at the show last year, he took off from the road that goes from the taxiway to the runway! We all just stood there with our jaws on the ground. When he brought it in for a landing, he set it right on the hash marks and turned right onto the taxiway. It was awesome!



Its amazing isn't it!


----------



## trackend (Jun 3, 2005)

Id love to have seen that Evan Fly . I think It is a good demonstration that lack of speed in an aircraft has its uses in operations the same as speed does. It must have been about as close as you could get to VTOL with the knowledge available at the time.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 3, 2005)

The Storch was known for it's STOL characteristics. FBJ is right, it is amazing to watch.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

I have never seen one fly. I would love to take one out and fly it around. It is slow but I think it would be beautiful and fun to just joyride and cruise around in.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2005)

There's a kit plane 3/4 size of a real one. If I didn't hate doing dope and fabric work I would consider buying one. It stalls at 28 mph if I remember right.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

Man that is an awesome stall speed. Imagine gliding through the air that slow!


----------



## trackend (Jun 9, 2005)

Bloody hell Fly and I thought the Stringbags 55kts wasnt bad.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2005)

Here's the link, several companies do a storch replica, oh I was wrong about the stall speed, the Australian one stalls at 21 mph, Carlson Aircraft has one that stalls at 19 mph!


http://www.storch.com.au/super_storch.htm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

Wow that is awesome. I really want one.


----------



## trackend (Jun 9, 2005)

That is a really gorgeous looking plane FBJ I luv it.
It must be a dream to fly Literally like floating on air.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2005)

stalls at 19mph!!! my god!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2005)

So if you do the standard landing criteria of being 1.3x above stall speed when coming over the numbers you'll be at 25 mph when on final!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2005)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2005)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2005)

it looks like a toy


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it looks like a toy



It almost is, weighs under 1000 lbs fully loaded!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2005)

It truely is a great plane though! I really do love her.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 10, 2005)

The Storch is great. We all love her!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2005)

Well we come to a consensus.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 10, 2005)

yup, i love her too, and she's net even british!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 10, 2005)

Heres a tribute to it


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 10, 2005)

Oh what the hell. I love it too. 
Nice heart CC.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2005)

FORGOT SOMETHING!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 10, 2005)

MEAN MACHINE!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2005)

8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

Nice touch with the shark mouth. If I had been a Storch pilot in WW2 I would have painted vicous scharks teeth on my Storch just so I coud feel mean and watch the enemy laugh......And then shoot them with my pistol!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 11, 2005)

Yeah, that'd work!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

With the slow stall speed you would have plenty of time to aim at them.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 11, 2005)

Why not just use the Storch's own MG?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 11, 2005)

More fun with a P-38 pistol!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 11, 2005)

More fun with a P-38 plane equipped with rockets


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

The pistol would be more personal and more fun, plus the Storchs MG was rear firing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2005)

yes CC the single MG in the storch fired upwards and backwards on a flxible mount to provide some protection from attack, she had no forward firing armourment, unless you fire a pistol out the window.......


----------



## trackend (Jun 11, 2005)

Right Ive gone through all my lists and this is the final tally on the different rolls of the Stringbag
Torpedo plane 
Dive bomber
Long range Mine layer
AWS rocket and depth charge 
Radar reconnaissance
Sea plane reconnaissance
Scout and target illumination
Smoke layer
Passenger transport (admittedly only 4)

It may not have been the best in any of its rolls but it must come out fairly high on the list for versatility


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

You are right she was a verstatile aircraft.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 22, 2005)

I agree with mosquito man. It has to be the De havlineo Mosquito! Srry abut the spelling though. When it was first created, it served as a reconnasaince aircraft, then it became a fighter, then a fighter-bomber, and before they new it the aircraft outclassed the Supermarine SpitfireVI! I say that this aircraft had to be the best of the best! But since im an American i think the second best would have too be the Northrop P-62 Black Widow.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 22, 2005)

Yet you forgot about the fact it was the P-38 that was better than both, even though you seem to have a P-38 fetish 8)


----------



## plan_D (Jun 22, 2005)

I don't understand what the big deal is about the Mosquito being 'superior' to the Spitfire VI. The Spitfire VI could fly higher and was a better dogfighter than the Mosquito, simply the Spitfire VI was an uprated Spitfire V to intercept the German Ju86P-1 bombers. 

The Mosquito was definately more versatile than the Spitfire. It was a better bomber as well but the Spitfire PR.I, IX and XIX took more pictures of Europe than the Mosquito.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 22, 2005)

Roles of a Mosquito:
Photo-Recconaissance
Fighter-Bomber
Night Fighter
Bomber
Weather Recconaissance
Mine Layer
Fast Transport (people could be taken in the bomb bay)
Cargo ship (products from Sweden put in the bomb bay)
Anti-Ship
Anti-Sub
Target Marker


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 22, 2005)

tut tut, you're making the mossie look bad, this is more like it.......

roles of a mossie:
Air Ambulance 
Day fighter
Day fighter-bomber
Day intruder 
Day bomber (which includes dive bombing, skip bombing and level bombing)
Fighter reconnaissance 
Photo Recon
Interceptor
Long range escort
Tank buster
Night fighter 
Night intruder
Night bomber
Night fighter-bomber
Target marker
Target tug 
Anti-shipping 
Anti-Tirpitzing (which IS different to anti-shipping) 
Convoy protection
Dual seat/control trainer
Mine layer
Anti-submarine patrol
High altitude bomber
High altitude fighter
High altitude photo recon
Naval target tug
Torpedo fighter
Carrier born torpedo fighter
Carrier born recon fighter
Carrier born strike fighter
High speed mail plane
Long range civil transport with provision for sleeping
Radio jamming and countermeasures


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 22, 2005)

All of which the P-38 could do, except anti Tirpitzing cos thats BS  As well as float plane, and one of the first planes to have in flight refuelling experimented on with it. And I still havent seen anything as to Mosquitos being used as regular fighters or interceptors


----------



## plan_D (Jun 22, 2005)

The Spitfire *could* do most of those and the Hurricane did do most of those. Simply because most of those mentioned were just jobs of a fighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2005)

You forgot trainer and racer (post ww2)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 22, 2005)

Oooo yeah! 8) And some were equipped with skis.

The Fw-190 could do a fair share of those roles too.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 22, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Oooo yeah! 8) And some were equipped with skis.
> 
> The Fw-190 could do a fair share of those roles too.



P-38s did the Smoke laying too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

I still have to go with the Ju-88. The mosquito was a great aircraft but I have not found a role that the Ju-88 did not perform. Hell it even performed as a flying bomb!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 23, 2005)

COuld the Ju-88 be launched off a catapult from a ship; a la Sea Hurricane or Re-2000 style?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

I am sure the Ju-88 could have been modded to launch from a catupult. There was not much that it could do. It was even being tested with Duka 88 Recoiless cannons at the end of the war.


----------



## Smokey (Jun 23, 2005)

An article I read in a magazine claimed that "the Ju88 could out turn a Mosquito with ease but against a Mustang it stood no chance". It showed gun camera fim of a Mustang shooting down a Ju88.
I was quite surprised by this claim. I wonder if its true.

As for the best aircraft in many different roles, I think:

1940 - 1941 Bf109 with bomb load (disadvantage: short range)
1942 - 1944 FW190 A and F
1944 - 1945 FW190 D-9


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

Smokey said:


> An article I read in a magazine claimed that "the Ju88 could out turn a Mosquito with ease but against a Mustang it stood no chance". It showed gun camera fim of a Mustang shooting down a Ju88.
> I was quite surprised by this claim. I wonder if its true.
> 
> As for the best aircraft in many different roles, I think:
> ...



As for that claim above, I highly doubt it.  

As for teh best aircraft in many different roles I can not agree with you. The Ju-88 could do more then both of those aircraft. The 109 was never really used more then a fighter, interceptor, fighter bomber, night fighter and recon. And as the disadvantage of what you stated being the short range with a bomb load on the Bf-109. She already had short range as it was.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 23, 2005)

I agree. I think as far as single engined planes went the Fw-190 was about as versatile and as perfect as you could get.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

For single engine maybe the Fw-190 but deffinatly no the Bf-109. And of those two if we are talking about "Best" of all catagories. The Mosquito and the Ju-88 are far better.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 23, 2005)

Single engined I would go with a P-47 or a Tempest


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 23, 2005)

I dunno...Fw-190 could do more.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I dunno...Fw-190 could do more.



"Did more"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 23, 2005)

Both.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 23, 2005)

and CC the FW-190 was far from perfect, all planes are.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 23, 2005)

The Fw-190 was not far from perfect, it was possibly the closest thing to a perfect aircraft that all countries had...Many things ive read have said this...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 23, 2005)

if it was perfect it would be free, so easy to fly a fish could do it, would fly at 600mph, would carry every gun you could think of, could carry a grand slam, wouldn't use any strateigic meterials, could turn on a 6pence and could take off and land vertically.........

perfection depends on your opinion, in my opinion, the Fw-190 was far from perfect.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 23, 2005)

I never said it was perfect, I said it was _close_ to perfect.



> No combat aircraft ever achieved perfection, but at the time of its debut the FW 190 probably came as near to this elusive goal as any other fighter. This aircraft was undoubtedly the finest warplane ever produced by Germany and from the moment it entered the theatre of war, the FW 190 achieved a slim margin of superiority over the RAF aircraft in fighter versus fighter combat. In the ground attack role it subsequently proved its ability to absorb considerable punishment and in return deliver a more than powerful punch.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2005)

CC, its not British!

Just picken on you Lanc!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 24, 2005)

it being closer to perfection than most other planes does not itself make the palne close to perfect..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 24, 2005)

Makes it closer to perfect than any other plane though doesnt it...making it, in truth, the most perfect plane, despite the fact it isnt perfect...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2005)

No planes of WW2 were close to perfect they were constantly being improved. If you really want to go there then the Ta-152H is the closest to it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 25, 2005)

well CC you can't call the Fw-190 "most perfect", firstly because as alder said, the Ta-152 for one was surely more perfect, but you could call the plane that was more perfect than the rest the most perfect, but that does not, by any means, make it close to perfect, just closer than everyone else.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 25, 2005)

The Ta-152 is an Fw-190 as far as im concerned, just renamed to honour Kurt Tank.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2005)

And technically you are correct. The last Fw-190D's were even renamed Ta-152's. It is just a how you look at it. I choose not to think it is the same plane.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 25, 2005)

And I choose to see them as the same plane. I guess its a matter of opinion.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2005)

Yeap that is correct.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 25, 2005)

I see it as a different plane.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 25, 2005)

Looking at some of the later D models, they really do look like Ta-152's.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2005)

The Fw-190D was just an interem until the Ta-152 came online.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 27, 2005)

you agree with me that the -152 was a different plane don't you alder??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2005)

I agree only on the basis that it is an evolution of it but they are more alike then you think


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 27, 2005)

no don't get me wrong i know that they're almost exactly the same plane, but to me the fact that it's been given a different designation means it can't be considdered the same plane.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

Well I guess it is just how you look at it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 28, 2005)

which goes back to what i said about it being a matter of opinion.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

I think we may be agreeing on something here Lanc....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2005)

oh dear god 

quick!! say something i'll object to!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 29, 2005)

Haddock


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2005)

that's more like it........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2005)

The Lanc was a flying turd!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



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

too far........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

Aha I knew that would get you.


----------



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

although, if you mean the lanc could drop allot of shit on the enemy, you have a point 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2005)

No I ment it was!


----------



## GT (Jul 31, 2005)

Update.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 31, 2005)

wow that's a great site........


----------



## GT (Aug 1, 2005)

Update.


----------



## GT (Aug 1, 2005)

Update.


----------



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

yeah i got that for a while too, and i have no idea what it means


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 1, 2005)

Yeah Horse, the site master, is doing some work I think...just ignore it. It is annoying, but im sure it will be fixed soon.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 7, 2005)

Alright it is done.


----------



## GT (Aug 8, 2005)

Update.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2005)

I personally like Michael Caine who played Kurt Steiner in the movie. Have you read any of the books they are great.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 10, 2005)

I dont know who played him, but I like the fat American General with loads of grenades on his belt. He was funny My favourite quote from that film: "My God, he's German! You're all Germans!"

My copy of The Longest Day arrived today I shall watch that after I watch the first 2 episodes of Lost.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2005)

You will enjoy it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 11, 2005)

I did enjoy it!  Priller was funny.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2005)

Yes he was. It is not full of special effects and such not but the movie is just good entertainment and very well done for its time I would say.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 11, 2005)

I agree. It was a great movie. I have a copy in my collection of WWII movies.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2005)

I need to beef up my collection.


----------



## Monkeysee1 (Sep 12, 2005)

I thought this was a best fighter thread? It comes out as a Mossie vs P38 thread?...

Anyway- ETO- best fighter based on the effect it had during the war.

US- (unfortunately) P51. Long range. Pretty good at everything. Air superiority through loiter time and range. Excellent bomber escort for mid altitude fighting which is where the bombers flew. The P38 suffered too many mechanical problems. The P47 (my favorite) was a better high altitude fighter and ground attack but even steven at mid altitudes and not as much range. 

UK - Spitfire. Simply put this plane put the Brits into the airsuperiorty regime. Fast, great turn radius, the airframe was sucessfully modified into several marks, including a carrier borne fighter! (think about the reengineering to turn a land bird into a sea bird). Sure the mossie had great range and amazing payload abilities but fighters don't carry payloads (bombs/ cookies), just fuel and ammo... and one on one, a Spit would eat a mossie. Unfortunately a relatively short range. 

German - FW190. When it began to see service it changed the way air combat would be for the rest of time. Incredibly nimble, it had the fastest roll rates out of any other ETO fighter with its superbly balanced ailerons. It solidified the changing tactics from turning fights (stall fighting) to zoom and boom. It had embarrassing tendicies, like snapping into a high G stall during tight turns but its heavy armament, sleek frame, and good speed made it one of the outstanding fighters of WWII. The 262 was better in almost every department but its effect on the war was little. Too few to late. So I don't think it shouldn't be the 262. Plus the FW190 was flexible enough to eventually adapt into the D9 series and then the Ta152.

So... how'd I do... after of course I qualified my statement by saying that I based it on effect in the war and purely as fighters, not bombers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 12, 2005)

Actually if you read the title of the thread it says *Best Aircraft in Many Different Roles* not *Best Fighter*.

I do agree with your assesement on each countries accept for the 262. I do believe that it was the best jet aircraft to see action in WW2 but even a P-51 as overated as it is could handle a 262. She did not have the best maneuverability of aircraf that the Germans built and her Engines were not very good, being made of metals that did not last long giving them only about 10 hours per engine. Ofcourse if a P-51 could handle a 262 so could a P-47 which I agree with you was better than the P-51.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 13, 2005)

but i'd agree with most of what he said........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 21, 2005)

How can anyone consider the P-51 to be better than the P-38 in a number of roles? The P-51 wasn't even the better fighter.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 21, 2005)

LG, where have you been? Havn;t seen you around in a while.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 21, 2005)

Well, I've been busy. 
Too much spam.
Too many stupid arguments.
And too much instances of the same things being said over and over again.


----------



## Erich (Sep 21, 2005)

....................... < Ju 88 > ....................... multi variants, the workhouse of twin engines


----------



## evangilder (Sep 21, 2005)

Alrighty then. Welcome back.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 21, 2005)

Basically you're going to end up with the same discussion that has been on so many other threads. P-38 vs. Mossie vs. Ju-88. Much further back from those 3 you might have the Pe-2.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 22, 2005)

yeah these things always just break down into a mossie/P-38 argument......


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 22, 2005)

. well, not really! 
I think I say nothing new (too much work to browse 18 pages, I am Italian..) but think: 
FW 190 : air superiority, ground attack (F) fighter-bomber (G + U and R applied to A), night fighter (Wilde sau), bomber destroyer, high altitude fighter (D9 and Ta152), anti-tank, reconnaissance.
Probably some the only role not covered was coffee-maker... 
Excellent in many of the tasks and very good at all others

P47: air superiority, long range escort, fighter-bomber, high altitude fighter, ground attack and more (.. too expensive in fuel consumption, even for the Americans, for use as coffee-maker)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 23, 2005)

Welcome back LG. I agreee the P-51 was deffinatly not better than the P-38 in multi role areas. As others have said I think the best multi role aicraft comes down to the P-38, Mossie, and Ju-88. My vote goes for the Ju-88 and the P-38.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 23, 2005)

Fw-190 was an excellent and versatile aircraft, but it lacked the range to be useful in so many other roles. Same for the P-47. 
Neither aircraft was ever used as a genuine bomber, a role which the Mossie, P-38, and Ju-88 all demonstrated. There was never a recon version of the P-47 produced. Nor a night-fighter version. And it didn't become a true 'long-range' anything until the appearance of the P-47N. The Fw-190 on the other hand was never produced in a long-range version. The virtually elimated the strategic, offensive potential of the aircraft. It also meant that the -190 could only be used in tactical recon whereas the other aircraft discussed could be used both tactically and strategically.


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 23, 2005)

You're right LGuy, I believe we should make a distinction between single engined and twins (with P38 as a kind of hybrid): to much conceptual difference.

True that single engine had not the lift capability and (in general) range of the twins, but twins were structurally limited in other tasks.

About specific roles like long range/recon/bomber/anti tank etc. it also depend if there was the need to produce the related version, I think that rather than 'this is the technical list of versions/roles' we should evaluate if the plane was able to be successful in what was required to it.

As example FW 190 was able to carry 2 underwing long range tank, to lift a 1400kg torpedo (F8/U3 modified with long tailwheel strut), these versions were not put in great series production because the situation only required tactical ground operations. The FW recon version (E) was not put in production because the modified A could do the required (range limited) job.
But the airframe was able to fulfill all the oddest required tasks, like Mistel, variety of anti tank rockets, bomb strikes on UK, 2 seat trainer (S version) etc.
I am pretty sure that all other mentioned planes had several tested versions that did not went in fyull production.

Btw, yes!, I tend to prefer single engined to twins, I think a potential winner could have been the Douglas Skyrider if built in time for WW2.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 23, 2005)

There was a vast distinction between what the Luftwaffe considered long-range tanks and what the USAAF consider long-range tanks. For example, there was nothing in the Luftwaffe to compare with the 165-gallon tanks used on the P-38, let alone the 310-gallon tanks. In was common in the Pacific for the Lightnings to fly with one 165-gallon and one 310-gallon tank. The result was a radius of action that no WWII fighter could match. And as far as torp carrying goes, the P-38 was successfully tested with 2 2,167lb torps.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 23, 2005)

and the mossie was sucessfully tested and saw limited action with 1 torp AND bombs carried internally, flying off a carrier deck..........

but i believe that as far as single engine versatility goes the -190 HAS to win with mybe in corsair second?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

It will be hard to convince Lanc that the P-38 was better than the Mossie because the Mossie had a turret and the turret is another role according to him....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 24, 2005)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 24, 2005)

turret fighter.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

Okay you keep telling yourself that.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 24, 2005)

Monkeysee1 said:


> The P38 suffered too many mechanical problems.



The 8th AF lost 451 P-38s total in the ETO. On further examination the 451 presents Every P-38 lost to the 8th, it does not include the losses of the 9th AF in the ETO. The problems were 
1, Lack of proper support (the first P-51s suffered too but politics focused on the P-38).
2, Improper operating procedures.
3, Bad fuel.
4, Green pilots

The real problems with the early P-38s themselves.
1, Cold cockpits (helped by improper flying technics)
2, Slow roll rates
3, Compressibility (if over 20,000ft)

were accepted by the pilots and were by March '44 eradicated.

Except for faster cruise the J-25 and L P-38s were better in every other way than the P-51 performance wise.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

I think the P-38 was a much better aircraft but then again I think the P-51 was a propoganda machine.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 24, 2005)

A valid point was brought up on the last page. We've been concentrating on the ETO but the F4U-4 was an exceptional multi use fighter, including

Speeds over 440
Heavy armament
Tough
High load of up to 4,000lbs+
Very maneuverable
Radar equiped in +/-6hours
and dare I say it, Every one was carrier capable

The P-38 only exceed its performance in a few areas like acceleration, range, and ceiling.

I still hang with the P-38 but the F4U-4 certainly needs to be considerd.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

Yes but is Speeds over 440, Tough, and Very maneuverable different roles. These are traits or characteristics. What kind of roles could the Corsair due that the P-38, Mossie, or Ju-88 could not do other than Carrier Capable and the Mossie was carrier capable.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 24, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes but is Speeds over 440, Tough, and Very maneuverable different roles. These are traits or characteristics. What kind of roles could the Corsair due that the P-38, Mossie, or Ju-88 could not do other than Carrier Capable and the Mossie was carrier capable.



Those are traits but still important Top speed, strength, and high maneuverability are critical to doing many of those tasks as well or better than another.

The major thing that, for me, relegates the Mossie to second is that each Mosquito was purpose built - the airframe was versatile, the airplanes were not. The fighter/bomber Mossie could not land on a carrier, the F4U-4 fighter/bomber could. 

The same thing was true of the P-38. Had it been desired a PR P-38 could fly photo in the morning and dropped 2 2,000lb bombs that same afternoon (there is no evedence this ever happaned). Most of the equipment and extra fuel of a photo Mossie was in the bombay, it just couldn't happen.

Don't get me wrong they were all great planes and they complimented each other well. The Mossie was great esp at night which with 1 pilot and glowing turbos the P-38 wasn't as good. The main point being that either the Mossie or the P-38 ( the F4U-4 is the best single engine multi-tasker)had extream abilities and could do about anything anyone could think of.

I'd like to see a thread about how many variations of aircraft/abilities have been tried sucessfully on aircraft not so much which plane was best at them. And not just P-38/Mossie we've covered that already.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

I agree with you that those are important traits and I agree that the F4U-4 was one of the best planes ever built but I just dont see how it was more versatile than a Mossie/P-38/Ju-88.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 24, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree with you that those are important traits and I agree that the F4U-4 was one of the best planes ever built but I just dont see how it was more versatile than a Mossie/P-38/Ju-88.



I guess, but it deserves an hounorable mention though.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

What different roles could it perform. I can come up with:
Fighter
Night Fighter
Carrier borne Fighter
Recon
Fighter Bomber

I am sure there are more though.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 24, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What different roles could it perform. I can come up with:
> Fighter
> Night Fighter
> Carrier borne Fighter
> ...



Sure:

Bomber in every configuration including dive bombing.
Escorts
Recon though this was more limited the Navy had dedicated F4F and F6F photo planes. And on land they had access to P-38 photos.

Like the P-38 and Mossie a lot was mearly the fact that it was not required to do other things so they were not attempted. Had they been required they could have been accomodated. The interior of a F4U was huge and empty it didn't even have a floor until the -5 model, just a 4ft hole beneth the pilot.

They were more flexible or at least more competant at what it did than other single engined aircraft but not quite up to the 38/Mossie level. Even with comparable horse power the extra efficency provided by the extra fan means a lot.

wmaxt


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 24, 2005)

Did you know ... Lockheed drew up the specs for a carrier-based P-38. The navy showed little intereted because of the large size of the Lightning (though it would have been a beautiful match for the Midway-class CVBs) and the use of liquid-cooled engines (which the USN despised).

And don't forget the P-38 was capable of (and did perform) missions such as air ambulance and glider-tug (one USAAF pilot who helped develop glider-towing procdecures thought the P-38 was the best aircraft in the USAAF inventory for that type of mission).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 25, 2005)

so what if they drew up plans?? i could draw up a plan for a single engined version of the lanc that would be a lightweight long range escort fighter/bomber, doesn't mean it would've worked........

and i suggested the corsair and Fw-190 in the single engine role, i think we should talk about them separately, so have a separate disscussion for the best single engined plane in many roles, the best twin and possibly even the best 3 or 4 engined........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 25, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> so what if they drew up plans?? i could draw up a plan for a single engined version of the lanc that would be a lightweight long range escort fighter/bomber, doesn't mean it would've worked........



Designers aint dumb, they're only gonna draw up the plans if theyre fairly sure it will work...waste of time, effort and resources otherwise...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

The P-38 would have been a fine carrier aircraft. Its only setback was its size and it is comparible in size to a Mossie so why the hell not.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 25, 2005)

Smaller than a Mossie if anything. Its only slightly bigger than the Stuka there was going to be a carrier version of that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

Yeap I dont see why the P-38 would not have been a good carrier fighter except for maybe its lengthened wing span which could have been folded. I think in the twin engined catagory the winner is still the P-38. Lanc still can not prove otherwise.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 25, 2005)

The tricycle landing gear would have been very useful for a carrier-based aircraft. THe P-38 also had excellent low-speed handling (no torque or P-factor to worry about). I would have been fine as a carrier-based plane.

You can start a second list for single-engine aircraft if you want. But no single-engined aircraft matched those already being discussed for versatility. A twin has the range and lifting capabilities to be a useful bomber. At the same time, it is fast and agile enouh to compete with fighters. 

As far as the Fw-190 is concerned, it was an excellent aircraft. I personally feel it's lack of range hurt it compared to the F4U (at least as far as versatility is concerned).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

That was really the only limiting factor of the Fw-190.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 25, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Smaller than a Mossie if anything. Its only slightly bigger than the Stuka there was going to be a carrier version of that.



The P-38 and the Mossie are almost exactly the same size, the Mossie has 2 more feet of wing, empty weight is comparible and ~200lbs more max allowable weight (P-38L/ Mossie Mk-XIX).

The P-38 worked fine as a glider tow until the second glider hit the brakes 2/3 of the way down the runway.

Everything they tried on the P-38 worked well, it would probably work fine.

wmaxt


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 25, 2005)

In a recent edition of Flight Journal, Brig. Gen. Robert L. Cardenas described his role in testing gliders.

"Everything was evaluated and critiqued as I towed in C-47s, C-54s, C-60s, B-17s and B-24s. I eventually found the best towplane ever built: the P-38 Lightning. I even towed two gliders from Minnesota to Pine Castle, Florida, non-stop in the P-38 just to prove the concept."


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 25, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> In a recent edition of Flight Journal, Brig. Gen. Robert L. Cardenas described his role in testing gliders.
> 
> "Everything was evaluated and critiqued as I towed in C-47s, C-54s, C-60s, B-17s and B-24s. I eventually found the best towplane ever built: the P-38 Lightning. I even towed two gliders from Minnesota to Pine Castle, Florida, non-stop in the P-38 just to prove the concept."



Cool, I haven't heard that one before.  Thats what 1,200mi?

I haven't heard of anything, so far, that was tried by the P-38 that it didn't do well (except when 1 glider locked his brakes).

wmaxt


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 25, 2005)

I'm not sure exactly how far it was. But I think it demonstrates just how incredibly versatile the P-38 was.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

I agree and that is why I put the Lighting ahead of the Mossie in this catagory.


----------



## ollieholmes (Oct 21, 2005)

i personaly would have to say the mossie. the p-38 did an amasing job as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

This arguement will go on and on forever.


----------



## B-24 Driver (Nov 13, 2005)

Nice to see that some recognized the B--24. Most couldn't see past the B-17. Those guys called us the box the B-17 came in. But we were faster, flew farther, and hauled more. Also there were over 18,000 24s and only 12,000 17s. A well known air writer who had flown something like 175 planes named the 24 as one of the worst planes he ever flew. We didn't know that at the time though. B-29 sure was something after we got back stateside.

My favorite fighter was the Jug - P47, the first one to be able to go all the way with us. Although the pretty prize would go to the P38.

The nastiest one to look at from in front was the Bf109.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 14, 2005)

B-24 Driver said:


> Nice to see that some recognized the B--24. Most couldn't see past the B-17. Those guys called us the box the B-17 came in. But we were faster, flew farther, and hauled more. Also there were over 18,000 24s and only 12,000 17s. A well known air writer who had flown something like 175 planes named the 24 as one of the worst planes he ever flew. We didn't know that at the time though. B-29 sure was something after we got back stateside.
> 
> My favorite fighter was the Jug - P47, the first one to be able to go all the way with us. Although the pretty prize would go to the P38.
> 
> The nastiest one to look at from in front was the Bf109.



Did you fly the -24 in WW2?


----------



## B-24 Driver (Nov 14, 2005)

Yes... 448th BGVH, 8th AAF, out of Seething, England.
See you are from Colorado - Was in and out of both fields at Denver. A fun liberty town.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 14, 2005)

B-24 Driver said:


> Yes... 448th BGVH, 8th AAF, out of Seething, England.
> See you are from Colorado - Was in and out of both fields at Denver. A fun liberty town.



Very cool! Welcome!  Many members here will want to hear more about you...

My wife's grandfather flew the -24 in the Pacific, 819th BS, 30th BG 7th AF. His plane is on line: 

http://www.b24bestweb.com/outofthisworld.htm

Again welcome, I know I could speak on behalf of much of the membership here, we're honored!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2005)

B-24 Driver said:


> Yes... 448th BGVH, 8th AAF, out of Seething, England.
> See you are from Colorado - Was in and out of both fields at Denver. A fun liberty town.



Welcome to the site. It is always great to hear from vets from WW2. You give us an insight that we do not get from books or films.

Thankyou also for the sacrifices that you made along with your comrads.


----------



## book1182 (Nov 14, 2005)

I'm going to throw this one out there and see if you all agree with me or disagree. I think the Me-110 was a good aircraft for many different roles. In areas were there was few front line fighters or old outdated fighters, it performed very well as a fighter. Like in Poland, Norway and the low countries. It was a very good platform for a night fighter since it had twin engines and could carry the very heavy radar systems at the time. Also, it was an outstanding ground attack aircraft. I think it proved that in Russia and North Africa. If you can think of anything else that it did please add.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 14, 2005)

like you said though it only worked as fighter if the opposition sucked  and i don't think that in terms of versatility it matched the mossie, oh yea, the P-38 too


----------



## evangilder (Nov 14, 2005)

Welcome aboard, B-24 driver! Good to hear from another WWII vet. One of the gents that is a docent in the museum where I volunteer was an instructor pilot at Maxwell AFB during the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2005)

book1182 said:


> I'm going to throw this one out there and see if you all agree with me or disagree. I think the Me-110 was a good aircraft for many different roles. In areas were there was few front line fighters or old outdated fighters, it performed very well as a fighter. Like in Poland, Norway and the low countries. It was a very good platform for a night fighter since it had twin engines and could carry the very heavy radar systems at the time. Also, it was an outstanding ground attack aircraft. I think it proved that in Russia and North Africa. If you can think of anything else that it did please add.



I believe it was a decent multi role aircraft. It was not a very good day fighter though. It was okay as an intercepter in the beginning of the war and I think it was a pretty good night fighter.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Dec 17, 2005)

Humm… The best aircraft of many different rolls we choose mostly fighters. 

My vote:

Identified as Model 28 by Consolidated it’s producer; its soul innovation (at least to military aircraft that I know of) was the retraction of its stabilizing floats to the wing tip, which greatly aided the aerodynamic efficiency of its quite nearly cantilever parasol wing mount. She was the most extensively built flying boat/amphibian in history.

1st flown March of 1935, the US Navy ordered 60 by the end of June. She was a ‘fully tweaked’ flying boat in time for her second production order placed July 1936. By November 1939 she had developed into an amphibian, an unbeatable multi-roll aircraft, especially for the time. She was named, as many American aircraft by the Brits who ordered 50. The RAF accepting deliveries of these babies (in flying boat form) beginning in early 1941 entering service with Nos 209 240 of the Costal Command.

She served almost everywhere from America to New Zealand. She was a transport, rescue, sub hunting, night intruder, patrol bomber. She was applied, I believe uniquely, at night in the Pacific. Painted black, she attacked Japanese shipping, costal targets, at times getting near the target by day; to come out of hiding at night, approaching thier target by floating up in near silence. 

She was the PBY Catalina.

By the way welcome B-24 Driver. I can't say I'm in love with the look of the B-24, except as the single tailed 'Privateer', maybe because most feel that way in comparison to the '17, she her cerws were 'stripped' of thier duley owed acclaim. I also would like to express gratitude for your srevice.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 17, 2005)

versatile as she may have been, i don't believe she performed in as many rols as the mossie, -38 or -88.......


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Dec 17, 2005)

All aircraft you mention. the mossie, -38 or -88, could have only been called to do the job of a fighter, which the Cat could not do. 

It is the Cat that could do lots they couldn't.
-Fly in bad weather
-Land on water
-Transport Cargo
-Rescue Ops
-Go out on patrol for days at a time...


----------



## plan_D (Dec 17, 2005)

Most of those things you listed are not roles, they're abilities. I do not recall the Catalina bombing many inland targets in comparison to the Mosquito, in fact could a Catalina make it to Berlin and back on it's own? 

All those various roles of the Mosquito were not fighter roles, in fact only a few were. And why discount the roles that a fighter does as roles? The Mosquito could do all fighter roles, and all bomber roles plus many other roles to add to it. 

- Interceptor
- Night Fighter
- Naval Bomber
- ASW
- Tactical Bomber
- CAS
- Fast Transport

Just to name a few for the Mosquito. 

And for the Catalina;

- Naval Bomber
- Transport
- ASW
- SAR

And erh!?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2005)

Im with pD and Lanc on this. Yes the Catalina was a great plane and in my opinion the best seaplane built. She was also very vesatile however planes such as the Mossie, P-38 and Ju-88 in my opinion were more versatile in there roles.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2005)

I agree...

And although it never materialised, P-38's were going to be equipped with floats to increase range over the Pacific, and also so it could land on water. Then it would be able to do more Naval roles. But the Catalina could do that anyway so they didnt bother.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 18, 2005)

Agreed, although the Catalina was versitile the other (Mossie, P-38 and JU-88) where all more versitile and operated effectively in all of the roles assigned to them. As a result although being very versitile the Catalina is not versitile enough to be up with the top 3 of the Mossie, P-38 and the JU-88.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Dec 18, 2005)

...Well, I guess I'll just go eat worms. 

But tell me something... Which of the three was still in active service, as versatile as they were, 10 years after the war. Now lets go fifteen. I'm not 'dead' sure, but I believe the Cat so versatile, she was in the US Navy until 1962 when she finally was relieved form demonstrating her 'capabilities'.

PS the photo below is not meant to represent Cats of the sixties, for that go to the site I refereed last for photos.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2005)

JonJGoldberg said:


> ...Well, I guess I'll just go eat worms.



Why because someone does not agree with you opinion......

Jon no one is saying that the Catalina was not versatile. Also just because the aircraft was in service in the 1960's does not make her more versatile than the Mossie, P-38 or Ju-88. The P-51 and B-29 were still in service 10 years after the war, does that make them more versatile than the Mossie, P-38 or Ju-88? Dont think so.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Dec 18, 2005)

...Worm eating (Tequila) is done when one has no supporters. It helps the sting.

I know you all are agreeing that the Cat was versatile, just not as...

OK, I'll lighten up just watch for a while.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2005)

Ah okay I see, I have never heard of that before. Cool.


----------



## B-24 Driver (Jan 30, 2006)

Hi;
Been a while. But from where I sat I would still rather see a flight of mustangs, or failing that a gaggle of Jugs. The P-38 never were able to go all the way with us. They would get jumped and drop their belly tanks somewhere around the coast.

My least favorite to see from the business end was the Me 109. Maybe because we saw more of them. Heard about them but never met a 262. Range was never much of a factor for the Germans. We were flying right over their bases.

Someone asked when was the last P-boat in service. Tomorrow... The forest srvice is still using them for fire fighting. They have rigged them so they just land on a lake or river and scoop up a load of water without ever stopping.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Jan 30, 2006)

...Wow, wish I saw that months ago B-24 Driver, on the best fighter thread. I too have not bee here for a long time... Interests wander... Seen some of your posts... Interesting stuff most of it. 

This thread is supposed to be about the most versatile, too which I still view the Cat as the ticket, most disagree, you would choose...

I wonder what happened to all the siggie stuff that used to be here? Oh well!!!

Enjoy the P-51.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Jan 31, 2006)

...Must-a taken a while to load... Siggie stuff back... Cool!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

Good post there B-24 Driver. Just have a question in your opinion what did you fear the most when it came to German fighters the Fw-190 or the Bf-109.


----------



## blue swede (Mar 7, 2006)

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the, dive bombing, missile platform, heavy bomber, transport, tank busting HE177 Greif?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 7, 2006)

Cos it was crap and the engines kept incinerating themselves.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 7, 2006)

and most bombers could dive bomb to some extent, dive doesn't mean 80+ degrees, not only did she perform fewer roles than the mossie, -88 and -38 but she excelled in very few of them.......


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 7, 2006)

True the only thing she did excell in was setting herself on fire...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2006)

blue swede said:


> Why hasn't anyone mentioned the, dive bombing, missile platform, heavy bomber, transport, tank busting HE177 Greif?



Because it was crap. Even German Historians and the German pilots that flew the He-177 will tell you that. 

You just dont seem to give up on the He-177 do you? It is getting old.


----------



## blue swede (Mar 21, 2006)

Dear DerAdlerIstGelandet,
I'm sorry that you don't like my opinions or posts. I can respect that.
When I read the posts of others, I find them at different times, informative, funny, interesting and sometimes I dissagree with them.
Either way, I enjoy reading them and the breadth of knowledge they contain. I no way, would I think of trying to silence them, or asking them to be quiet, or suggest that their opinion is wrong. Imagine, a wrong opinion. So, take it or leave it, I respectfully believe you need to lighten up a bit. Maybe I'm wrong about that too, I just my opinion.
I apologize to everyone else here for my rant. I just thought I needed to respond.
(DerAdlerIstGelant, please don't send me anymore nasty e-mails, they won't be read.)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2006)

Actually I respect you opinion and truely believe that you are entitled to it, it just seems that you keep mentioning the He-177 in a bad attempt at humor or to annoy people because of the ways they have shown you that it was not a good multi engined aircraft or bomber.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 21, 2006)

cause why did they have to couple the engines and let it dive bomb?


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 21, 2006)

> I apologize to everyone else here for my rant. I just thought I needed to respond.


And I dont apologize to anyone for calling u a piece of shit... I respectfully believe u need to STFU before I decide to get really pissed off at u for the way u THINK u can talk to a Moderator here, Mr 20 freakin lame ass posts... 

I think we'll start off the meal for the evening with an Official Warning....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2006)

LOL and the Judge and Executioner has spoken.


----------



## blue swede (Mar 22, 2006)

All I can say is WOW! You sure told me off! And then I received the following email:

(Hello, blue swede 

You account on Aircraft of World War II has recived a warning. 
You have now a total of 1 warnings, if you somehow receive more than 5 your account will be blocked. 

The reasons for this are numerous, this warning is received because of this post that you made. 

Here are a reminder of some of the terms you accepted when you registered, we kindly ask you to respect them in the future 

Quote: 
"You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned" 

If you don't see why you've recived this warning you could try contact lesofprimus, who gave the warning, explaining your post, 
and that you don't understand why this warning is given. )

All anyone has to do is read the preceding few posts to see why I of course don't understand the warning. I can only assume that my offense is that I disagreed with a moderator. Thanks, for your civility and fairness.
Is this the way everyone feels about my posts? (I guess you will have to be carefull in how you reply.)
But still, thanks for the input. It's good to know the rules.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2006)

Oh brother, there seems to be a lot of this around here doesn't it Les?


----------



## Henk (Mar 26, 2006)

I know what you mean this is getting realy bad, this VS blah blah blah. There is a topic of best aircraft just go on there and make it like this one VS that one or best dive bomber and keep goin on there.

What do you mods think?

Henk


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 26, 2006)

No there is no reason to close this thread, the idiots just need to stop disrupting it.


----------



## SpitTrop (Mar 27, 2006)

The Mosquito series was in a differant class to anything else built in WW2, that is a simple fact. 
It was a complete multi-role combat airplane that did EVERYTHING well. It could carry the same bombload as the B-17G all the way to Berlin and back, only faster and with just two crewman aboard. Its bombing was pinpoint too. Just imagine the American lives that could have been saved had this aircraft been used instead. 
It was a nightfighter par excellence, a capable and fast fighter-bomber, the perfect recon plane etc. Yep, it was better than anything else fielded by any side. I'm amazed there is any dispute about that!
Someone tried to talk about the P-38 in the same sentence, wow! I know there is a lot of re-writing of WW2 history these days etc, but that's plain ridiculous!


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 27, 2006)

SpitTrop said:


> The Mosquito series was in a differant class to anything else built in WW2, that is a simple fact.
> It was a complete multi-role combat airplane that did EVERYTHING well. It could carry the same bombload as the B-17G all the way to Berlin and back, only faster and with just two crewman aboard. Its bombing was pinpoint too. Just imagine the American lives that could have been saved had this aircraft been used instead.
> It was a nightfighter par excellence, a capable and fast fighter-bomber, the perfect recon plane etc. Yep, it was better than anything else fielded by any side. I'm amazed there is any dispute about that!
> Someone tried to talk about the P-38 in the same sentence, wow! I know there is a lot of re-writing of WW2 history these days etc, but that's plain ridiculous!



Sorry, The P-38 as a fighter was to the Mosquito as a bomber and at night the Mossie had the edge with two pilots. As you haven't followed things to this point lets recap a couple of things:

Mossie MKVI (a Representative model)
Weight E - 14,300lbs, Max - 22,300lbs
Wing Span - 54' 2in
Length - 40' 10 3/4"
Max speed - 362mph (Late re-con versions 425mph)
Ceiling - 33,000ft
Range - 1,650mi With full Bomb Load
Four 20mm 4 - .303 in nose
2,000lbs bombs or 1,000lb 8 rockets

P-38J/L (2/3 of P-38 production), Info from the Pilots Operating Handbook
Weight E - 13,500lbs, Max - 21,400lbs
Wing Span - 52'
Length - 37' 10"
Max Speed - 420mph - 442mph (Test Results)
Climb - 20,000ft in 5.37min (WEP) (AAF test results), 7min @ METO 
Range With full bomb load - 1,200mi
Range with 2,000lbs bombs - 1,770mi
Range max - 2,200mi, later procedures resulted in range increase to 2,600mi range

Further the P-38s were interchangeable in their rolls using only three special mods Photo, Drop Snoot (Both without nose guns), and normal fighter. The PR, and Droop Snoot could not strafe or fight but could still bomb, pathfind etc.

Each Mossie was built for its roll, the Airframe was flexible the aircraft were not. It certainly could not out bomb the B-17G over Berlin on any kind of regular basis, even if a few were specialy set up to do so.

Other than two pilots for night operations I don't see a superiority for the Mossie. The Mossie was a great Plane but to say it was better than an aircraft like the P-38 that was designed for a different purpose but happened to do some of the same things ai least as well is not realistic.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

The mosquito could never have replaced the B-17 or Lancaster. The Mosquito could not carry the same load as either of those the distances that they could carry them. On a raid to Berlin the Mosquito could carry a max of 4000lb bombs. It would not have had eneogh fuel to carry that same amount of bombs farther. The typical Mosquito had a range of 1800 miles without droptanks or internal auxillary tanks. I am not sure I might be wrong but in order to have the 1800 mile range it could not carry 4000lb of bombs but rather no more than 2000lb of bombs. The longest range that a Mosquito had was the PR.34 version and that had a 3500 mile range but it could not carry bombs because of the extra weight of the 1269 gallon aux fuel tank in the buldged out modified belly of the fuselage.

The B-17 had a range of 1850 miles with atypical bomb load of only about 6800lb but it could fly 1100 miles with 12000lb of bombs. 

I am not saying that the Mosquito was not a good aircraft and it is a great pontential best aircraft in many performances but it can not be compared with a B-17.

And with the Lightning, there is not a single thing the Mosquito could do that the Lightning can not do.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 27, 2006)

I have enjoyed this discussion. While I love the Mosquito, I have always wondered why it got more attention than the P-38 since it appeared the P-38 had similar capabilities. However, I do have a question. Since the P-38 carried all its stores externally, it got dirty pretty fast. Would the P-38 carry a similar amount of bombs the same distance the Mosquito could with a clean bomb storage with or without drop tanks? I would also guess cruising speed and dash speed would drop off. Somebody should know.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I have enjoyed this discussion. While I love the Mosquito, I have always wondered why it got more attention than the P-38 since it appeared the P-38 had similar capabilities. However, I do have a question. Since the P-38 carried all its stores externally, it got dirty pretty fast. Would the P-38 carry a similar amount of bombs the same distance the Mosquito could with a clean bomb storage with or without drop tanks? I would also guess cruising speed and dash speed would drop off. Somebody should know.



I am sure performance would have dropped off on the P-38. However even the Mosquito could keep its top performance when it was fully loaded. The aircraft weighted down would effect the performance as it does in all aircraft. Due to it being internal not as much as the P38 because it would not create as much drag. Basically what I am saying is though, the people that think that a Mosquito could do 400mph with 2000 to 4000lb of boms are kidding themselves.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 27, 2006)

Nope. Bombs/fuel don't come free.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2006)

Wow I was tired when I typed that. I just saw all the typos that I made on it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 28, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And with the Lightning, there is not a single thing the Mosquito could do that the Lightning can not do.



Yup, and any single Lightning variant can do a wider range of tasks and is more adaptable than any single Mosquito variant..


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2006)

that's because of the British marking system, give an aircraft a new rivit (or type of glue in the mossie's case) and they give it a new mark, and there were sub-varients of the american aircraft it wasn't always as simple as A, B, C, D, E, F etc..........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that's because of the British marking system, give an aircraft a new rivit (or type of glue in the mossie's case) and they give it a new mark, and there were sub-varients of the american aircraft it wasn't always as simple as A, B, C, D, E, F etc..........



Yep - so remember, never fly a Mk 1 or "A" of anything


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2006)

what's wrong with the Mk.I  the A varients of all the american planes sucked but british designers got it right first time most of the time


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but british designers got it right first time most of the time



MOST OF THE TIME - That's my point!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2006)

well if the Mk.I wasn't very good we vary rarely went any further with the design........


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 28, 2006)

With reason as well normally, although many promising designs where packed in after their MK-1 (Whirlwind/DH Hornet)...


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 28, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I have enjoyed this discussion. While I love the Mosquito, I have always wondered why it got more attention than the P-38 since it appeared the P-38 had similar capabilities. However, I do have a question. Since the P-38 carried all its stores externally, it got dirty pretty fast. Would the P-38 carry a similar amount of bombs the same distance the Mosquito could with a clean bomb storage with or without drop tanks? I would also guess cruising speed and dash speed would drop off. Somebody should know.



Dave,
The P-38 could carry 1 2,000lb bomb and i 300 gal fuel tank for almost 1,800mi. That is the bomb load of the Mossie at ~1,600mi so their capabilities were very close. If you dbl ck those stats I posted earlier you'll see the aircraft are very very close in dimensions, weight, and usefull load.

When carring 300gal drop tanks the P-38 was limited to 250mph indicated which calcs out to ~385 true. The thing with drop tanks is that if you need to it takes about 20 seconds to become clean.

I to like the Mossie. As to the P-38 and its reputation in the ETO, there is a theory going around that I think is probably true.
First it has to be understood that the P-38 arrived in the ETO cold - no support structure, bases, mechanics etc. then add new pilots often with only 20hrs in type, that had never flown above 20,000ft, with no tactics available. They flew in odds of 10 germans to 1 P-38 and the German pilots were tried and true experts that had been fighting as long as the Spanish civil war. Next the 8th AF brass had built their theory, reputations and plans on "Self Escorting Bombers" and had even sent the first P-38 squadrons to the MTO a year earlier. When the bombers losses got so high that the US public started objecting, congress started talking "Investigation", escorts started. The P-38 had done 1,000mi escorts six months earlier and were available so they were put in service, where despite the lack of support, odds, experience, etc they did the job. When the P-51 came along the support structure was in place as was tactics, training and experience. By ignoring the P-38 and its/their contabution and playing up the start-up issues they could say "See we didn't have the right plane, when we did we used it". This scenario becomes clear the more the situation is studied.

wmaxt


----------



## davparlr (Mar 28, 2006)

wmaxt,

Very impressive discussions. You certainly know the P-38. I was always a been fan of it and thought it was underrated vs. Europe. Also, I never fully understood why the allison was so berated in the P-51/P-40/p-39 when it seem to work well in the P-38. I guess it had to do with the turbosupercharger. But then, why not use a turbo there?

Due to your information, I have a further respect of the P-38. Not quite enough to overthrow my selection of the P-51. I need to know more info on the P-38 range on internal fuel in the air-air mode as compared to the P-51D. I am sure you must have some data here.

You've been greatly informative. Keep up the good work.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2006)

Just my opinion here again but the P-38 is completly a better aircraft than the P-51D. What could the P-51D do besides escort bombers? Nothing really, but the P-38 was adapted to do such a large role of missions from fighter, escort, fighter bomber, torpedo bomber, photo recon, etc. just to name a few. It is a better overall aircraft.


----------



## Henk (Mar 28, 2006)

Yes, I agree Erich, but in Europe the P-38 were not very good escort. The P-51 is made such great thing but it were just a fighter and a escort.

Henk


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2006)

Im not Erich.


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 29, 2006)

davparlr said:


> wmaxt,
> 
> Very impressive discussions. You certainly know the P-38. I was always a been fan of it and thought it was underrated vs. Europe. Also, I never fully understood why the allison was so berated in the P-51/P-40/p-39 when it seem to work well in the P-38. I guess it had to do with the turbosupercharger. But then, why not use a turbo there?
> 
> ...



Dave,

I'm with Adler on this, the P-38G/H models were except for top speed a match for the P-51 due to some limitations I'll explain below. The P-38J/L were just plain better fighters that exceeded the P-51 in all performance areas except 
1. cruise speed the P-51 had a ~40mph advantage for a minor decrease in range. 
2. The other thing is top speed the P-51D is capable of 437-443mph top speed. High speed for the P-38L is between 430 443mph. So it could have a small advantage there.

The Allisons esp with the turbo was sensitive in regard to fuel octane, originally in Britain the normal fuel was lower than AAF fuel, attempts made at adjusting it were not always successful. added to that the Flight Procedures then in use recommended ~2,300rpm and ~27" boost this allowed the engines to loaf building little heat to warm the pilot, turbo wastegates and oil. Those conditions led to blown engines. Compounding that the intercoolers were designed for 1,200hp max at 1,350hp-1,600hp could lead to detonation and again a blown engine. HOWEVER, Art Hieden and some others listened to their crew chiefs (yep them again!) and NEVER lost an engine in over 325 combat hours. In the P-51/P-39/P-40 they had no supplemental boost for altitudes over ~17,000ft.

On internal fuel only these are POH recommendations
P-38L single engine - 930mi (this assumes cross feed is not working)
P-38L both engines - 1,210mi
P-51D 1,330 with 240gal (This is approx fuel load at drop tank release. ~40 gallons are available with max fuel load. The P-51 had extream handling/cg issues with full fuel in rear tank).

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 29, 2006)

Henk said:


> Yes, I agree Erich, but in Europe the P-38 were not very good escort. The P-51 is made such great thing but it were just a fighter and a escort.
> 
> Henk



The P-38 after the fuel problems were corrected did fine in the ETO with a 4:1 loss ratio in air to air combat, against more experienced German pilots in situations where there were normally 5 germans to 1 P-38. The first 3 months there were only 200 P-38s flying escort!

But the first P-38s in the ETO did have very cold cockpits, and engine problems. That many of these problems were from inexperience, that doesn't have anything to do with the P-38, doesn't change the fact that they happened.

You are correct about the P-51 though it did get the job done.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2006)

The P-51D did an excellent job for what it did, but I think if it had to fullfill multiple roles such as ground attack it would not have been as well.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 29, 2006)

Sorry gents, still not persuaded. I tried to do some research on the internet and books (pilots opinions, German Pilots opinions, bomber missions supported by fighters, planes shot down, etc.). Got a headache. Some pilots who flew both had both sides, seems more perfered P-51. Read about the argument that he P-38 was held back because of politics. That is hard to swallow when losses in '43 was 15% and unsustainable. Bomber research (which may be affected by popular opinion) indicated that P-38 and P-47 escorts started toward end of 43 but didn't go downtown Berlin. Also states, things turned around when P-51s arrived. General consensus of military historians (history channel, many books etc. seem to perfer P-51). To me this make it the "heavyweight champion" and as such, a pretender to the throne must have overpowering evidence, which seems to be missing.

Top speed is not a tremendous asset although it adds to energy level. The P-51H seems to claim the title of fastest prop plane flown in WWII with a top speed of 487 mph but was not perfered over the D during the Korean War due to the Ds more robust build.

I am both a pilot and a mathematician. I know both pilot opinion and statistics often don't tell the whole story (pilot opinion of user aircraft certainly carries a lot of weight). However, the following stats seems to talk a lot by themselves.

The P-51, with less that one third the sorties of the P-47, P-38, P-39, and P-40 (P-40 and P-39 made up a small sortie number) destroyed almost as many ETO airborne kills as all those put together (4950 to 5348) and had more ground a/c destroyed (4131 to 4009). The P-38 had only half the sorties (but only claimed about a third airborne kills and an insignificant numer of ground a/c destroyed. That is a impressive record for the P-51.

When AF had to choose one of the above to keep after the war, The P-51 became the F-51. When one considers the expertise and experience of those selecting, that also says a lot.

I read an article that made an argument that a best fighter could not be selected because of the varibles. That is my position, it just seems the P-51 stood out a bit more. But it did not warrant out shinning other types that warranted an equal billing.

My statistics are from a book "American Combat Planes" by Ray Wagner. I don't know too much about the author but the book seems pretty good.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2006)

I think the P-51D is a good obvious choice but I think that there are plenty of good arguments out there against the P-51D. I just think that if you put as many P-38s in the air at the same time, you are going to get the same results.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 30, 2006)

I agree Adler, the same or better results.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2006)

davparlr said:


> When AF had to choose one of the above to keep after the war, The P-51 became the F-51.


 That was more economics than anything else - the P-51 was cheaper to operate and the spares supply was huge, besides the "H" model was also being deployed...


----------



## davparlr (Mar 30, 2006)

I agree about the cost of operation. The debate of two verses one engine goes on today. Navy liked two for reliability (something about flying long distances over water and you know those sharks are down there) although they are getting one on the F-35. AF puts two in for performance but one for cost (F-15/F-22) vs. (F-16/F-35).

Oh, by the way the P-47 loss rate was amazing. Half that of the P-38 and almost half that of the P-51. Quite incredible. I suspect the P-47 was used much more in the more deadly air-to-ground role than the P-51.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 30, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That was more economics than anything else - the P-51 was cheaper to operate and the spares supply was huge, besides the "H" model was also being deployed...



I suspect that much of the AF "brass" saw that while the P51 wasnt the best in any single catagory, it was "good enough" in many of them. like you said, In the macro-economic sense of things (I love that word, heheheh) it was cheaper to operate.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2006)

syscom3 said:



> I suspect that much of the AF "brass" saw that while the P51 wasnt the best in any single catagory, it was "good enough" in many of them. like you said, In the macro-economic sense of things (I love that word, heheheh) it was cheaper to operate.


 Also remember about the required multi engine training required to maintain proficiency....


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 30, 2006)

davparlr said:


> Sorry gents, still not persuaded. I tried to do some research on the internet and books (pilots opinions, German Pilots opinions, bomber missions supported by fighters, planes shot down, etc.). Got a headache. Some pilots who flew both had both sides, seems more perfered P-51. Read about the argument that he P-38 was held back because of politics. That is hard to swallow when losses in '43 was 15% and unsustainable. Bomber research (which may be affected by popular opinion) indicated that P-38 and P-47 escorts started toward end of 43 but didn't go downtown Berlin. Also states, things turned around when P-51s arrived. General consensus of military historians (history channel, many books etc. seem to perfer P-51). To me this make it the "heavyweight champion" and as such, a pretender to the throne must have overpowering evidence, which seems to be missing.



You are entitled to your opinion, however you night also think about these variables.

First here is a web thread from several years ago and is pretty accurate. 
http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html

It's a fact the P-38 was sent to Africa in early '43 from the ETO by the 8th AF
It wasn't "Held Back" though reluctently accepted is more the fact. Also I don't feel it was actively hindered, however it was not "embraced either" (because they didn't belive in escorts). Most of the problems were due to the learning curve that involved all aspects of operations 
1. Flight procedures
2. Fuel
3. Parts, maintenance facilities (All different when the P-51 arrived)
4. Green Pilots
5. Combat Tactics
The P-38 had some real problems to
1. No cockpit heat, part cruise procedures a lot Lockheed.
2. Engine problems almost exclusively cruise procedures, no problems in Alaska in worse conditions.
3. Intercoolers to small, but climb was still better than P-51 and speed over 400mph.

The P-38 groups got that 15% to 4/5% 80% of which was Flack. The first two months of P-51 service had a 30% abort rate the same as the P-38 but as feb, '44 came along most of those problems were solved. Also J models were more numerous eliminating the intercooler problems and by early summer the J-25 and L models cured the compressability (though technics had already cured that one), cockpit heat and other minor stuff. The decision to drop the P-38 was logistical, the A-36, P-39, P-40 had left the theater and by summer '44 the P-38 were the least numerous fighter and the only Allison fighter left, so Doolittle dropped It. Doolittle confirmed this. Doolittle also stated for Warren Bodies book on the P-38, That the P-38 was among the top tow or three fighters in WWII and that the P-51 and P-47 wouldn't have done any better under the same circumstances.

The P-38s accomplishments have been ignored in the ETO by the 8th AF is more the truth.

The 55th FG P-38s were over Berlin on March 5, '44 the first AAF Escort fighter to do so. BTW, the P-38s were also based in places like Kings Cliff 80-100 miles from the British coast.

More pilots flew the P-51, also many pilots that flew those long missions in early P-38 with now cockpit heat liked the Mustang even many of those liked the P-38 for ACM. like Zemke, Preddy,and Heiden just plain thought it was a lot better. In another thread a P-51 pilot said, to use a P-51 against a P-38 you have to start a Lot higher and faster to have a chance.



daveprlr said:


> Top speed is not a tremendous asset although it adds to energy level. The P-51H seems to claim the title of fastest prop plane flown in WWII with a top speed of 487 mph but was not perfered over the D during the Korean War due to the Ds more robust build.
> 
> I am both a pilot and a mathematician. I know both pilot opinion and statistics often don't tell the whole story (pilot opinion of user aircraft certainly carries a lot of weight). However, the following stats seems to talk a lot by themselves.
> 
> The P-51, with less that one third the sorties of the P-47, P-38, P-39, and P-40 (P-40 and P-39 made up a small sortie number) destroyed almost as many ETO airborne kills as all those put together (4950 to 5348) and had more ground a/c destroyed (4131 to 4009). The P-38 had only half the sorties (but only claimed about a third airborne kills and an insignificant numer of ground a/c destroyed. That is a impressive record for the P-51.



That first statement is true.

First once the major bombing started the greatest percentage of German fighters were after the bombers. Second, The P-38 escorted almost exclusively in "Close Escort" 2,500ft max from the bombers, to assess the effect of that on kills, check out the Tuskeege Airmen their highest ace had 5 kills but they never lost a bomber.

The P-39/40 didn't have 20,000 sorties together and no escort.
The P-47A/B/C flew normaly uncontested sorties fron Britian to mid France/German border the whole bomber period, The D/Ms started escorting in summer '44, probably 100,000 escort hours and another 50.000/75,000hrs ground support.
The P-38 flew 127,000 sorties about 30/40% of those were ground support so were closer to 60% to 70% of the sorties the P-51 had for those kills which makes them about even and the P-38 flew in worse odds and less experianced pilots.



daveparlr said:


> When AF had to choose one of the above to keep after the war, The P-51 became the F-51. When one considers the expertise and experience of those selecting, that also says a lot.
> 
> I read an article that made an argument that a best fighter could not be selected because of the varibles. That is my position, it just seems the P-51 stood out a bit more. But it did not warrant out shinning other types that warranted an equal billing.
> 
> My statistics are from a book "American Combat Planes" by Ray Wagner. I don't know too much about the author but the book seems pretty good.



When the AAF went to the P-51 first and P-47 second, it was that the P-51 could do a lot of things OK and it was the cheapest and very numerous (suppling spares). The P-38 was expensive, it went. Look at the attitudes of the time pilots were cheap and the US had a Huge debt.

I mostly agree with that statement. The P-38 is one of those that deserve more than it gets. Think about this, The P-38 is the major plane that earned air superiority in every theater (with the P-51 in the ETO) the AAF flew. It always started on the short end of experiance and numbers and was never turned back! The P-51 was in the Pacific from mid '43, it was more numerous starting DEC.'44 than the P-38, it didn't do anything noteable.

There are a lot of numbers out there and if your a mathematician you know the importance of context The 8th AF lost 451 P-38s. If you go by the loss numbers that are commonly used you will find they are more than 3,000 more aircraft lost than the AAF records an ~40% difference. The P-51 got credit in the ETO the others didn't.

wmaxt


----------



## davparlr (Mar 30, 2006)

Overall, great arguments in support of the P-38. You certainly have made your point that the P-38 was an underrated aircraft (including me, although I was reluctantly doing so, since I always liked the P-38, and thought it was somewhat underrated).

I suspect the selection of the P-51 to continue after the war was
1) Low operating cost which is major since the budgets were slashed after the war.
2) Great airplane with good capabilities with little faults.
3) Total quantity available?
4) Large quanity of P-51 pilots to vote for their plane.

The P-47, P-51, and P-38 were outstanding aircraft that stood up well to what ever was thrown at them. And all should be given equal credit for their defense of our freedom. We were fortunate to have such designer and engineers a such men who flew them.


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 31, 2006)

davparlr said:


> Overall, great arguments in support of the P-38. You certainly have made your point that the P-38 was an underrated aircraft (including me, although I was reluctantly doing so, since I always liked the P-38, and thought it was somewhat underrated).
> 
> I suspect the selection of the P-51 to continue after the war was
> 1) Low operating cost which is major since the budgets were slashed after the war.
> ...



Thanks!

Cost was certainly an issue. The P-51 was an excellent escort fighter but a vulnerable lightweight in other capacities. As a transition fighter for jets it was as good as any of the others.
A lot of them went to D-M for storage/sale/spares but a lot were also disposed of, there is supposed to be several hundred buried near Boise, Id, where I live.
I don't really think the Pilots had much say in it.

I don't know if it was really equal but they all contributed as did the P-40.

wmaxt


----------



## lonestarman63 (Mar 31, 2006)

first how can anyone compare 38 to the mossie? different types for different roles with the allies any role could be put on any plane the allies decided so there for when one say different roles for the 38 or the mossies it just depend on what the combat needs were not the type persay but tring to dog fight with a mossies is a little hard to understand same with the other types except the 38 so the 38 wins my vote


----------



## RonRyan85 (Apr 1, 2006)

mosquitoman said:


> For me it has to be the deHavilland Mosquito, name a job it couldn't do
> (BTW, I'm a bit biased as it's my favourite plane)



Hello Mosquitoman:
I'm interested in all the WW2 Warbirds but lately I have the
famous "Wooden Wonder" Mosquito fighter-bomber in my thoughts.
(Reading up on it and building a model of it.) I read where it
was built of plywood and BALSA wood. Is this all correct? (I
can see the plywood used for body and wings and the balsa may
have been used inside glued to corners,ect. to add strength?)
Casine glue was used and came apart in 10 or 12 years ? because
modern glues were not yet invented?

Thanks for any reply.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2006)

lonestarman63 said:


> first how can anyone compare 38 to the mossie? different types for different roles with the allies any role could be put on any plane the allies decided so there for when one say different roles for the 38 or the mossies it just depend on what the combat needs were not the type persay but tring to dog fight with a mossies is a little hard to understand same with the other types except the 38 so the 38 wins my vote



Actually its pretty easy because they could each do all of the same roles. I do agree though that it is kind of wiered because one was more of a bomber and the other more of a fighter.


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 10, 2006)

The overall success of an airframe is related to its longevity. Anyone else thinking Corsair in this? Fighter and attack aircraft even after the introduction of jets (Korea), but more ordnance load than the F-51.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 10, 2006)

Ron, yes the first glue used was Casein glue (based on a milk protein).

But in the tropics (CBI) this did not hold up in the humid climate so they switched to a Urea formaldehyde glue. 

The balsa was a core between the inner and outer layer of plywood. Where re-enforcement was required they used wood, not balsa.

Here is a site on Cdn production at Milton Ont (Toronto), http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm.php?id=exhibit_home&fl=0&lg=English&ex=00000192

There are books put out by Squadron/Signal. They are cheap ie $$$ wise.

A good site on the Mosquito, http://www.mossie.org/Mosquito.html


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 12, 2006)

Just like to put in my vote for the Mossie as the best aircraft in many different roles, norrowly pipping the JU-88 and then the P-38 in the all around ability stakes.

It performed in a multiplicity of roles, including heavy fighter, night fighter, unarmed bomber, pathfinder, search and rescue, high and low altitude reconnisance, maratime strike, torpedo bomber, fighter-bomber and spoofing/jamming roles. While it wasn't a dayfighter, that is about the only role that the Mosquito didn't perform.

Someone posted earlier that the representative speed of a Mk VI Mossie was 362 mph. This is incorrect. A Mk VI Series II Fighter-Bomber Mosquito (which was the most common fighter-bomber mark) could do 378-380mph, depending on which RAF trials you look at. 362 mph would be about right for a Mk IV bomber with a Highball anti-ship bouncing bomb installation. RAF trials clearly state that the FB Mosquito was some 5-10mph faster than the Spitfire V at all heights. Later versions with Merlin 25s were up to 25-30mph faster at below 10,000 feet, and had notable sucess chasing down V1 flying bombs

The initial bomber variant was the Mk IV, which was capable of 385mph loaded, but without the external fuel tanks. Range with 1000 lbs carried internally and external fuel tanks was 2050 miles.

The first night fighters (NF Mk IIs) were capable of around 370mph. Later, most night fighters (mks XIII, XIX)recieved paddle-bladed props which boosted speeds up to around 395mph. They were also known to use nitrous-oxide boost for periods of up to 10 minutes, adding up 30mph above 18,000 feet and 17 mph at low altitude. RAF trials with a NF XIX with Merlin 25s list 377mph at 2000-2000 feet without N2O and 394 mph with N20. 

In mid 1943, the second generation of Mosquitos was deployed in photo-recon, bomber and night fighter variants. Fitted with 2 stage Merlins, they were significantly faster and better at high altitude than the earlier versions fitted with single stage engines. The most produced bomber mark, the Mk. XVI, was capable of around 408 mph fully loaded with a 4000lbs bomb load, and 419 mph after it had dropped the load. It was introduced in January, 1944. The earlier B Mk IX had similar performance, but no pressurised cockpit, so didn't operate above 30,000 feet much and was only built in small numbers. 

The most common night fighter was the NF. Mk XXX, which began service in April, 1944. It was capable of 425 mph at altitude.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 12, 2006)

actually there was a day fighter varient, the F.II, which was considdered saparate from the NF.II, the F.II was used operationally and saw a lot of combat particularly with 23 sqn, and of course all the fighter bomber marks could dogfight, even downing the odd Fw-190........


----------



## hole in the ground (Jun 30, 2006)

I would have to say Mosiquito, with a proviso.
Lets be honest here one mosquito could not due every duty that mosquitos did. They were different aircraft.
However this is also true of many other types. Most photo recce aircraft for instance were unarmed unarmoured(?) versions of their forebarers.

This topic is an odd one to pick for my mind. When you pick a best, it is specialised in its field. Here you are picking an average best, this simply means that it is not going to be as good in any one roll as another more specialised aircraft. 

Anyway my money is on the wooden wonder. Briefly on its construction, those of you who have played about with wood and know that while balsa is a hard wood it is incredibly soft and light. The mossy was built in the same way that yachts used to. They sandwiched the balsa with some layers of a thin ply. I've had a play about with this kind of construction and it is incredibly light and rigid. Doesn't much like puncturing though, fortunately wood does grow on trees.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2006)

I think it should come down to what aircraft could do well in the most number of roles and that goes to the Ju-88. It was the most versatile aircraft.


----------



## Henk (Jul 1, 2006)

Adler that is true. The Ju-88 is really the aircarft that can be used in many roles.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 1, 2006)

> fortunately wood does grow on trees.



is it wrong that that one had me cracking up


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 1, 2006)

Yes it is. You're retarded.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

What flavor is your window?


----------



## hole in the ground (Jul 3, 2006)

What sound is the grass?


----------



## lonestarman63 (Jul 3, 2006)

what sound is grass , good ? you got me there


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2006)

Its a joke question lonestar? Like what flavor is your window. It is meant to say someone is retarded.


----------



## lonestarman63 (Jul 3, 2006)

sorry i was not knowing , sometimes folks think i am , in what were you talking about as being retarded


----------



## lonestarman63 (Jul 3, 2006)

back to the thread at hand i mean is between the two the mossie and the 38 i'll take the 38 for the allies yet for the axis i would have to say the 88 , and for both sides the 88 for it was in service for the whole war , from day one till the end and neither mossie or the 38 were and most other type that were in service that long were nothen more than targets


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2006)

The Ju-88 was deffinatly competative until the end.


----------



## lonestarman63 (Jul 5, 2006)

Yes DerAdlerIstGelandet, they were and that was my point, the 88 was not just a target like many planes that saw action durning the complete war


----------



## daishi12 (Jul 8, 2006)

First of all I'd like to say hi to everyone as I am a new member on the site.

I'd like to say that I have enjoyed reading the thread about the best aircraft in different roles.

The P38 could be classed as a versatile heavy fighter, and the Mosquito could be classed as a versatile medium fighter/bomber. 

The Mosquito was used to great effect as a pathfinder plane (flares dropped before bombing runs by Lancasters, Halifaxes, Stirlings etc.), and to the best of my knowledge P38's did not do this. This being said I think it was because the Mosquito had a crew of pilot and navigator, not just the pilot of the P38.

Also the Mosquito had a couple of big advantages over the P38, first it was relatively cheap to build being of wood/plywood/construction and following on from this it was very stealthy to Radar.

I would like to throw another aircraft into the mix for consideration if I may - the IL2 Sturmovik.

The Sturmovik was originally designed as ground attack, but had varients that included fighter, torpedo carrier, trainer, and could be used as a light transport. The production run was approx 32,000 aircraft.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 8, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> First of all I'd like to say hi to everyone as I am a new member on the site.
> 
> I'd like to say that I have enjoyed reading the thread about the best aircraft in different roles.
> 
> ...



Welcome.

Actually the P-38 did serve as a pathfinder, including radar guided bombing runs. As I see it the P-38 has an edge over the Mosquito (A fine aircraft in its own right) is that it took no special mods to go from toting 5200lbs bombs to a target 450 miles away to fighter escort the next day. If required a P-38M or F-5 could still drop 4000lbs of bombs any time it was asked. I don't know if the Mosquito towed gliders but the P-38 towed two from Wisconsin to Florida a flight of ~1200miles.

One thing that this subject doesn't cover is that versatility depends on several things
1. Need
2. Availability
3. Willingness
4. Ability of the aircraft
5. Ability of the mechanics/fabricators/designers
Need is first because a modification "Just because" means nothing. Availability is important because you need an aircraft suitable for the job (even if its not set up for it) AND the lack of an aircraft that is built for the job and/or unavailable. This one is probably the most important the British and Germans were more inclined to modify existing aircraft for a particular mission IE. Dam Busters, Tall Boy, Mossie, Ju-88 while the US would build a more suitable aircraft if the mission was worth the effort. The exceptions to that were the P-38 and B-25 which were competitive and available from the start of US involvement in the war.

wmaxt


----------



## lonestarman63 (Jul 8, 2006)

welcome, daishi 12 i can agree with IL 2,yet i know little about the plane except they built a lot of themj


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 8, 2006)

the Mosquito was no more stealthy then a P 38 those big things that spin on either side of the airplane called propellors are huge radar reflectors and I'll wager the paint was partly lead based


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 9, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> the Mosquito was no more stealthy then a P 38 those big things that spin on either side of the airplane called propellors are huge radar reflectors and I'll wager the paint was partly lead based



I have heard the Mossie did give a reduced radar return from many angles.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 9, 2006)

Well in my opinion it goes something like this:

1. Ju-88
2. P-38
3. Mossie

Everything after that is debatable.

The Ju-88 obviously was not the best aircraft in any given role but she successfully did the most roles and was the most versatile aircraft.


----------



## hole in the ground (Jul 12, 2006)

Surely all are debatable, this is why it is a discusion.  

I wouldn't have even considered radar as an issue. The technology was in its infancy and unreliable.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2006)

hole in the ground said:


> I wouldn't have even considered radar as an issue. The technology was in its infancy and unreliable.



It helped win the Battle of Britain.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 13, 2006)

baisically you can forget the idea of a stealth aircraft, a large formation of either would get picked up by RaDAR, particularly the all metal -38, when it comes down to the airborn radars carried the mossie wins hands down however not just for the range carried but the roles and ways in which they were used..........


----------



## davparlr (Jul 13, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well in my opinion it goes something like this:
> 
> 1. Ju-88
> 2. P-38
> ...



A reasonable list. I certainly feel that the Ju-88 was more important to the Germans than the other two were to the allies, mainly due to what syscom said about specialized aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> baisically you can forget the idea of a stealth aircraft, a large formation of either would get picked up by RaDAR, particularly the all metal -38, when it comes down to the airborn radars carried the mossie wins hands down however not just for the range carried but the roles and ways in which they were used..........



The problem is this, half the things that you consider roles for the Mossie were not roles. For instance you saying that attaching a turret to the top of an aircraft is a different role. That is not a different role. That is a varient with better defensive armament.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

davparlr said:


> A reasonable list. I certainly feel that the Ju-88 was more important to the Germans than the other two were to the allies, mainly due to what syscom said about specialized aircraft.



Agreed 100%


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 14, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The problem is this, half the things that you consider roles for the Mossie were not roles. For instance you saying that attaching a turret to the top of an aircraft is a different role. That is not a different role. That is a varient with better defensive armament.



it's a turret fighter 

no i know i was being picky i was just trying to show that the mossie could be adapted in a greater number of ways to the P-38.........


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 14, 2006)

I will say in no order:

FW 190

Ju 88

Mossie

Thats just off the top of my head. There is other pics also I just need to think about them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2006)

While the Fw-190 was a versatile aircraft I dont see how it can rank up on the top when there were other great aircraft that could do many more roles than the Fw-190.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 14, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> While the Fw-190 was a versatile aircraft I dont see how it can rank up on the top when there were other great aircraft that could do many more roles than the Fw-190.



True true like I said it was just off the top of my head, but good point there Chris.

Been a while Chris nice to talk to you again.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 15, 2006)

in terms of single engined versatility however the -190's right up there with the Corsair and possibly the hurricane...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2006)

Yes I agree with you on that. Among single engine aircraft she is one of the top. That might be a good thread to start up when I get home. Best Versatile Single Engine Aircaft.

Would be intersting. There are so many that could be number one such as the P-47, Fw-190, Corsair and maybe the Typhoon or Tempest.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 21, 2006)

let's discuss it here we wont be interupting any furious debate at the moment....

so, which single engine aircraft do you guys see as being the most versatile? which was sucessful in as many roles as possible? the current runners seem to be the -190, -47, F4U, Tiffy and i'd say hurricane, they don't have to be fighters however............


----------



## lonestarman63 (Jul 22, 2006)

That is a tuff one so many to choose  from have to be the 47 yet i am thinking in ground support roles and fight vs fighter and anit bomber , vet i am not sure about the anit shipping or recon , so the F4U might be a choice , the the Tiffy's Hurricanes did not have as good of stuff above 30,000 and the 190 lacked the tuffness of the F4U or the 47


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2006)

lonestarman63 said:


> and the 190 lacked the tuffness of the F4U or the 47



You sure about that. The Butcher Bird was as tough as the best of them.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 23, 2006)

he makes a good point about the tiffy and hurricane above 30,000 ft though, that being said the hurricane in particular did prove herself in a huge number of roles............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2006)

The Tiffy and the Hurricane should deffinatly be up for consideration, however I think the Fw-190 or the P-47 will probably take it.

Not sure on this but could the P-47 or the Corsair carry Torpedos? If neither one could then I might have actually give my vote to the Fw-190. The Fw-190 could do what they could plus it could carry torpedos.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 24, 2006)

but could any of them take two 40mm cannon? well yeah proberly but i don't think they did so it's just speculation which is annother feather in the cap of the hurricane, along with her ability to be adapted into a two seat trainer, have over 20 production varients, be launced by catapult from a ship, carry Skis for arctic operations (ok canadian operations) and even be fitted with a second wing!


----------



## lonestarman63 (Jul 27, 2006)

Yet one must try and think hmm on the field is 109 ,190 ,corsair , Hurricane, tempest p40 warhawk typoon,p 51 and thunderbolt the mission is to fly top cover , then come down and search and destroy 
what one bird could do that and have the best chance to make it back and to compltete the job HMMMM


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2006)

The Typhoon wasn't capable of multiple roles. It was fighter-bomber, able to carry rockets and bombs. That's it.


----------



## lonestarman63 (Jul 27, 2006)

Yet other have brought up the tempest and typhoon , so i was asking what bird would they take with the types above .to see what they would take and why is all , thanks for repling


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 28, 2006)

The Typhoon was a bit more than that pD, it's first role was taking down the 190s that were making the hit and run bombing raids at low level over Britain


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> but could any of them take two 40mm cannon? well yeah proberly but i don't think they did so it's just speculation which is annother feather in the cap of the hurricane, along with her ability to be adapted into a two seat trainer, have over 20 production varients, be launced by catapult from a ship, carry Skis for arctic operations (ok canadian operations) and even be fitted with a second wing!



While I agree the Hurry deserves to be in the final vote. 20 production varients are not roles, and fitten with a second wing are not roles.

These are roles:

fighter bomber
fighter, etc.

So lets compare:

*Fw-190*
Fighter
Fighter-Bomber
Dive Bomber
Torpedo Bomber
Anti Shipping
2 Seat Trainer
Carrier launched fighter (there were test versions built and it would have worked)
Photo Recon
Interceptor
Anti Tank/Ground Support

*Hurricane*
Fighter
Fighter-Bomber
2 Seat Trainer
Carrier launched fighter
Photo Recon
Interceptor
Anti Tank/Ground Support
Anti Shipping

If I forgot any for either one, please add it in your post.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 28, 2006)

The Hurricane also ran a "postal service" over Normandy for secure orders etc


----------



## Bullockracing (Jul 28, 2006)

Don't forget the keg-in-the-bomb-rack beverage delivery and coolant role...


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 28, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> Don't forget the keg-in-the-bomb-rack beverage delivery and coolant role...


yes we in the north are quite innovative


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2006)

_"The Typhoon was a bit more than that pD, it's first role was taking down the 190s that were making the hit and run bombing raids at low level over Britain"_

Yes, it's still only a fighter-bomber able to carry bombs and rockets. When not carrying that payload it became a fighter. Hardly multirole. It didn't do anything else. 
Over Normandy it took part in a lot of fighter sweeps and escort missions. But ... it's just a fighter-bomber.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> Don't forget the keg-in-the-bomb-rack beverage delivery and coolant role...



Id like that role.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 6, 2006)

Adler,

I don't know if the Hurricane ever did carrier work but I do know of a version that was catapulted from ships on fighter cover then ditch missions.

Fighter-bomber should not be listed if you detail the type of bombing used, at least in my opinion, fighter-bomber is a category. In my way of thinking there are 

1. Strategic Bombing - Level bombing with over 2,000lbs each from a formation, the only fighter capable of this is the P-38. If you raise the limit to 4,000lbs per aircraft that eliminates many if not most medium bombers (many were rated at 3,000lbs) but still leaves the P-38.
2. Tactical Bombing - Dropping 2.000lbs or less onto a mobile or small fixed target. This includes low level bombing, glide bombing and any other bomb placement techniques that don't fit into the other classes.
3. Skip Bombing - Skipping the bomb off the water into a target.
4. Dive Bombing - Bombing at an angle of more than 45 deg.
5. Torpedo Bombing - The P-38 is the only fighter (or dedicated torpedo plane) capable of dropping two torpedo's.

All other bombing is a function of those categories otherwise a C-54 would be classed as a bomber for dropping candy in the Berlin airlift etc. To my knowledge the only WWII aircraft that is capable of, and has done all 5 is the P-38.

Just my opinion.

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 6, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Id like that role.



Theres a funny story along those lines. I was watching a documentary about the "Bridge Busters" in Burma, a B-25 outfit. They had gotten together and organized a mission to send a bomber to get beer. On approach to their home base they decided to let everyone know they were back with a low pass and a sharp break at the end of the field. They dodn't take into account the jury rigged beer mounts in the bomb bay shackles. At the break all the beer crashed to the bottom of the bomb bay and shattered  . I'm sure you can guess how warmly they were recieved!

wmaxt


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 6, 2006)

just couldn't resist it could you  it's frightfull convenient don't you think, that you're very accurate descriptions of bombing all conform to, yes, the plane you're crazy about, the P-38, geez i know I'm bias to the lanc but you take it to a whole other level, and we're not even discussing twin engined aircraft so quite why, other than to give your "the P-38 is the greatest thing since sliced bread; I don't know why the allied forces used any other planes the P-38 was the best at absolutely everything" speech, you even bothered to make that post? 

and as for the torpedo bombing, no, the P-38 most certainly was not the only plane capable of two torpedoes, furthermore I don't class torpedo "bombing" as bombing, for the simple fact bombs aren't involved, using a torpedo makes it an anti-shipping strike and are dropped in a totally different way to normal bombs, mines however can be dropped under the description of bombing because they're dropped in exactly the same manner............

furthermore, if you were to believe the crazy conspiracies that other planes did exist in the war, and you looked into them you would find that a number of other planes meet most if not all of your criteria, and by the way I'd say your description of Strategic bombing is wrong, weight does not come into it as much as making out, and you've simply included the weights to try and make the P-38 stand out more...........

my final point, yes there was a dedicated carrier variant of the Hurricane, imaginatively named the Sea Hurricane...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 7, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> To my knowledge the only WWII aircraft that is capable of, and has done all 5 is the P-38.
> 
> 
> 
> wmaxt



Yes but right now we have moved on to talk about single engine aircraft.

We were just discussing which was more versatile the Fw-190 or the Hurricane and I voted for the Fw-190 in that race.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 9, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes but right now we have moved on to talk about single engine aircraft.
> 
> We were just discussing which was more versatile the Fw-190 or the Hurricane and I voted for the Fw-190 in that race.



I understand that, my point is that I've seen a lot of other "Bombing Categories" that in reality were just different bomb loads. To me, thats just padding not to mention confusing to people who aren't well versed in the various techniques.

My point was not to reintroduce the P-38, I made my case and backed off that a while ago.

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 9, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> just couldn't resist it could you  it's frightfull convenient don't you think, that you're very accurate descriptions of bombing all conform to, yes, the plane you're crazy about, the P-38, geez i know I'm bias to the lanc but you take it to a whole other level, and we're not even discussing twin engined aircraft so quite why, other than to give your "the P-38 is the greatest thing since sliced bread; I don't know why the allied forces used any other planes the P-38 was the best at absolutely everything" speech, you even bothered to make that post?
> 
> and as for the torpedo bombing, no, the P-38 most certainly was not the only plane capable of two torpedoes, furthermore I don't class torpedo "bombing" as bombing, for the simple fact bombs aren't involved, using a torpedo makes it an anti-shipping strike and are dropped in a totally different way to normal bombs, mines however can be dropped under the description of bombing because they're dropped in exactly the same manner............
> 
> ...



I wasn't sure about the carrier version.

Again Lanc I was not intending to reintroduce the P-38 just to limit the padding in the definition of bombing to something useful, accurate, and consistent.

Strategic bombing does have more to it but the primary consideration is destroying targets large enough to impair the enemy's overall ability to fight or to cause a major change in strategy. That required in WWII large bombs in a quantity large enough to significantly damage those targets. P-38s on a number of occasions in numbers of 50 or more carrying 4,000lbs of bombs each level bombed, with droop snoot lead aircraft, strategic targets like sub pens etc. That places them in the "Strategic Bomber" category.

I listed Torpedo bombing because of the unique approach which diferntiates it from other forms of bombing, again my opinion. If another WWII aircraft is capable of carring two torpedos and making a a standard torpedo approach please tell me about it.

Last, I don't feel I've ever touted the P-38 like you do with the Lanc. The P-38 was, and I've never said it was, not the very best at most/anything but it was exceptionally good at many things. I've studied the P-38 the most throughly and that is why my comments are more focused there. I'm here to learn about the others and I will try to dispel some of the false issues of the P-38 if and when they come out. 

If I have offended you or anyone else I apologize - it was unintended.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2006)

You did not offend me wmaxt, no worries.


----------



## mlpractice (Nov 5, 2006)

i'd have to mo for the mossie, it could do anything, and welll. it was fast, very fast. bomber variants had large bomb loads, large range and fast. as a night fighter it was un supassed. as a strike aircraft it was massive, 8 rockets, all that punch in the nose and a bomb. as a fights bomber it was quick, manuverable and that nose job of guns in 1 cental unit could rip it it,not to mention the awesome anti shipping and pathfinder and recon roles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 5, 2006)

While I think the mossie is a good choice I still go for the Ju-88.

Was the Mossie a better aircraft overall than the Ju-88? Yes ofcourse it was, however the most versatile aircraft was the Ju-88. She could serve in more roles than any aircraft out there and did them very very well, especially the night fighter role and the torpedo bomber role.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 5, 2006)

the bee two bits, everybody.......the b 25..........it was super-operative from the deck to 20m feet...........even with a max cruising of only 270.....


----------



## rochie (Nov 6, 2006)

as far as single engine aircraft go i think its close between the fw190 and the p47 but i go for the fw 190 such a small plane yet it seemed you could hang almost anything from it and it would get the job done


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2006)

It certainly was very versatile. I think we had a discussion about this awhile back in a different thread I believe.


----------



## twoeagles (Nov 6, 2006)

I have a different approach to this discussion. Aircraft are usually designed
to meet a spec that is usually aimed at a primary mission. Kurt Tank designed
his Fw190 to be a fighter pilot's aircraft, a thoroughbred. I doubt he thought
"how many bombs might we hang on her?" as he drafted those beautiful lines.
So there had to be qualities inherent in the design which lended themselves
to other missions...A lot of power? Good range? Ease of production so that
chnages didn't shut down the line for weeks and months...Germany had
two primary front line fighter designs. Imagine if they had the capacity
America had? How many good designs might have been produced? As it 
was, making best use of what was available and in sufficient numbers to
have an impact drove versatility where one wouldn't have anticipated it.

Although I have a personal soft spot for the B-25, I would lean toward
the Ju-88 like Adler...I have never seen a real one, but looking in the literature
I am astounded by the number of roles it played and the variations cobbled
together, and it is generally a very attractive aircraft (always important!).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2006)

I allways thought there was one at the Sinsheim Musuem where I am going tomorrow (I have been sayign that for weeks now, but I am finally going there again tomorrow), but apparantly there are only 2 surviving ones and one is in the US and one in England.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2006)

And yes there is one. I just went to the Museums website and they have an original Ju-88, so I will take a picture for you tomorrow. This one was salvaged from a Lake in Sweden in 1986 and restored.


----------



## red admiral (Nov 11, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> If another WWII aircraft is capable of carring two torpedos and making a a standard torpedo approach please tell me about it.



Savoia Marchetti SM.79, SM.84, Piaggio P.108, PBY, Shackleton, Privateer, TB2D. I'm sure there are more.

General comment of "Best aircraft in lots of roles" not "how many roles did an aircraft do"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2006)

Sorry guys. I ended up not going to the museum on saturday. I got unexpected guests on Friday night and could not kick them out of the house so that I can go to a musuem. We are going to try this weekend though.


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 13, 2006)

red admiral said:


> Savoia Marchetti SM.79, SM.84, Piaggio P.108, PBY, Shackleton, Privateer, TB2D. I'm sure there are more.
> 
> General comment of "Best aircraft in lots of roles" not "how many roles did an aircraft do"



Your right of course, I'm sure the B-29 could have carried a large number but it would not have been very good at being a torpedo plane. Most of the large patrol planes did to and I was not clear in my comment - my bad. 

How many fighters/dedicated torpedo planes could?
How many fighters/dedicated torpedo planes had a max radius of action of 400miles with two torpedos?

There are a number of aircraft that were used as multi roll aircraft most like the P-38, Ju-88, PBY5A, B-25, Fw-190, Mossie, etc were not designed that way to begin with. Many of these aircraft once modifed were limited in there furure use to the roll the had been modified to perform. The P-38 was easily adapted and for most roles did not need to be irreversibly modified with a bonus of being extremly capable in its new roll. Ultimately and in the final analysis there are a number of aircraft that can do a wide range of tasks and no one plane was best in all rolls in which it operated. The P-38 belongs in Both groups, at least in my opinion.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2006)

I still go with the Ju-88 as I said it could be used in the most roles in WW2. It was the most versatile aircraft of WW2. The aircraft did not have to be heavily modified to do these roles with execption of maybe the Mistel project. The aircraft was not the best aircraft but did a damn good job in every role.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 14, 2006)

I have to agree Chris. The 88 was not the best at anything but it was good at alot of them.

Lets here is a list of them:

- Bomber destroyer

- Torpedo bomber

- dive bomber

- level bomber

- fast bomber

- Night fighter

- Pathfinder (enough room inside to store all the extra gear needed)

- Tank buster

- recon plane

Did I miss any of its roles?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2006)

I would group some of yours together such as fast bomber and level bomber. They can be grouped just as bomber.

Ju-88 roles that I can think of:

Bomber
Recon
Transport
Pathfinder
Night Fighter
Day Fighter
Ground Attack
Torpedo Bomber
Naval Attack (not included with Torpedo Bomber because it could use missiles for this role)
Mine Destroyer
Trainer
Cable/Barage Balloon Cutter
Maritime Patrol
Dive Bomber
Heavy Fighter/Destroyer
Anti Tank


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2006)

red admiral said:


> Savoia Marchetti SM.79, SM.84, Piaggio P.108, PBY, Shackleton, Privateer, TB2D. I'm sure there are more.
> 
> General comment of "Best aircraft in lots of roles" not "how many roles did an aircraft do"




The Ju-88 could carry two 1,686 lb (765 kg) LT F5b torpedos.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 14, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would group some of yours together such as fast bomber and level bomber. They can be grouped just as bomber.
> 
> Ju-88 roles that I can think of:
> 
> ...



Good list.


----------



## Parmigiano (Nov 14, 2006)

I just have to repeat my 2 cents for the FW 190A 

In addition to having performed from well to exceptionally well every role that was planned or invented for her, we should not forget some plain basic things:

- None of the 'competitors' was that flexible in configurations and armament: we had armoured belly for the Fighter Bomber versions, Mk103 underwing pods, MK108 in bay, twin MG152 in pods, bombs, rockets and torpedoes hung everywhere: that is something more than just hang different loads to multi-purpose pylons.

- all this in a compact and nimble package, with pure fighter performances that were always at high end of the bunch.

-the STANDARD 190A6-A8 had nearly 1,5 to more than double the firepower of the various P38, Spit, P51, P47 etc (according to Tony Williams table) The only comparable fighter was the Typhoon/Tempest, with the difference that the Hawkers had 150 rpg where the 190 had 140 rpg for the outer and 250 (!) for the inner guns, plus the 12,7. That means that when a Tempest was out of ammo, the A8 still retained the firepower of a fully loaded Spit.
Any doubt about which plane was potentially more effective in ground support and strafing roles?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 15, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Ju-88 could carry two 1,686 lb (765 kg) LT F5b torpedos.



and the mossie could carry 1 torpedo and 2,000lbs of bombs (i'll have to try and look up where ir ead that though) so i think he's blowing the torpedo thing out of the water if you'll excuse the pun, all of the aircraft we're talking about performed many roles they weren't designed to..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2006)

Yes but the Ju-88 performed many roles it was designed to and many that it was not designed to. The Ju-88 easily was the most versatile aircraft of WW2. Oh and adding a turret to the aircraft is not a role but rather a modification lanc....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 15, 2006)

that was to show how versatile it was i never said it was a role!

it does make her a turret fighter though


----------



## Emac44 (Nov 15, 2006)

2 cents not going to comment. this debate reminds me which was better bomber the lancaster or the liberator. i perfer the mosquito but the p38 was just as good in its multi roles it was placed into and as for other aircraft of similar vien they too had their roles to play. what i am going to say its a matter of personal choice and what you consider to your own opinion which was the best aircraft of World War 2


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2006)

That is true Emac, but this way is more fun.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 16, 2006)

yeah we all know that for the most part these aircraft were equals in versatility, even i will admit to the Ju-88 being the most versatile, but there's nothing we love more on this site than to stubbornly fight for your favourite/national pride


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2006)

Especially Lancs national pride...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 16, 2006)

hey hey and syscom too


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2006)

Yeah he is just as bad as you.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 16, 2006)

makes for good debate though


----------



## Chingachgook (Nov 21, 2006)

My vote has to go to the Mossie, but I did bust a gut about the termites.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 21, 2006)

Adler's got it hands down. Ju-88. End of discussion. So what's for dinner?


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 21, 2006)

Plywood and glue sandwich with some Merlin's stapped on the side (on wings) and a 4000lb filling...


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 22, 2006)

Sorry. I must have dreamed that Horse left me in charge.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2006)

God help us all! 

Please dont tell us about your wet dreams.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 22, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> Sorry. I must have dreamed that Horse left me in charge.



I just walked in on this......Matt having a wet dream involving horses???



Thats worse than sheep Matt.....shame shame.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 22, 2006)

Don't worry my dreams are dry. Nothing but comes out but dust and memories.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2006)

Sounds to me like you need to see a specialist.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 22, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Sounds to me like you need to see a specialist.




Sounds like he has been married for too long.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2006)

Hey now, Im married...


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 22, 2006)

Maybe I need to see a specialist. I'll probably need my balls for the appointment. Now where did my wife put her purse...


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 22, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> Maybe I need to see a specialist. I'll probably need my balls for the appointment. Now where did my wife put her purse...




Ohhhh Matt I like you more and more every day. At least you honest.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 22, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hey now, Im married...




How long have you been married?   

As a tell the young guys that work for me, don't get married!

Get the milk for free as long as you can, don't buy the cow.

Its all too often true after you marry the girl, she does not do "everything" anymore or does it only on special days.   

Wifes......can't have more than one and you can't throw them over board in the middle of the lake with cement blocks on their feet. Just can't win.

I love my Wife.......but some days........I would just like to.....


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 22, 2006)

That's a Pink Floyd song...[cue the wind blowing at gale force]

"One of These Days I'm Gonna Cut You Into Little Pieces"


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 22, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> That's a Pink Floyd song...[cue the wind blowing at gale force]
> 
> "One of These Days I'm Gonna Cut You Into Little Pieces"



 

Yup and I have a nice big yard with lots of trees.....no one would ever find something buried in it.  

Lets see I would say 90% of the time I love her.

8% of the time I just want to ignore her.

2% of the time I just want to replace her with the next wife.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Its all too often true after you marry the girl, she does not do "everything" anymore or does it only on special days.



Then you married the wrong girl, or maybe that is just girls from N. America. European women are freaks. I sometimes I have to tell my wife "Not Now".


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 23, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Then you married the wrong girl, or maybe that is just girls from N. America. European women are freaks. I sometimes I have to tell my wife "Not Now".



She used be like that also, but that ended after our first child. Damn. She is starting to get a little better as our child gets older, but more is always better.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 23, 2006)

The pecking order has changed you've dropped down in the standings to the first round draft pick


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 24, 2006)

Yeah just think, Hunter. Your trophy wife is just finishing 5th grade.


----------



## Sky Captain (Nov 25, 2006)

OK so I'm kinda new here and I only made it through the first 19 pages of this thread so far but (considering the topic) is there no love for the DC-3/C-47/R4D/Dakota etc.(and all the other variations)?...I mean that was about as versitile an aircraft as there ever was.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 25, 2006)

whilst she did perform many roles most of them just involved carrying a slightly different cargo to a slightly different place, planes like the Ju-88 and mossie genuinely performed vastly different roles calling on many of the plane's different abilities................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2006)

Sky Captain said:


> OK so I'm kinda new here and I only made it through the first 19 pages of this thread so far but (considering the topic) is there no love for the DC-3/C-47/R4D/Dakota etc.(and all the other variations)?...I mean that was about as versitile an aircraft as there ever was.



So when did the C-47 perform as a night fighter, day fighter, bomber, dive bomber, torpedo bomber, ground attack (okay they used them as gun ships in Vietnam, but we are talking WW2 here not Vietnam), maritime patrol and photo recon?

Sorry the C-47 is a great aircraft and I think she was the most important aircraft of WW2 but she is not as versatile as the Ju-88. Not even close.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 25, 2006)

Agreed Adler. And the sheer engineering that went into the vastly different models, missions, and roles played by the Ju-88 is beyond comparison. That was one versatile airframe. They didn't just hang different armaments below her or fill her bombays up with different equipment. They truly revolutionized the original airframe for all the different roles she played in. Remarkable actually.


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Nov 25, 2006)

Well personally I like Il-2 Sturmovik. It was the best ground attack aircraft in the WW II and there were even types used as fighters, but this is only my personal opinion.


----------



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

she will always be one of the great aircraft of the war but was by no means the most versatile, she was a born and bread close support ground attack aircraft..............


----------



## Bullockracing (Nov 26, 2006)

I agree with Matt Adler - Ju 88 by far, followed by the Do 217, Mossie, Hurricane, Me 110, in no particular order...


----------



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

so far i'd put the 1 and 2 as the Ju-88 then the mossie...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2006)

Milos Sijacki said:


> Well personally I like Il-2 Sturmovik. It was the best ground attack aircraft in the WW II and there were even types used as fighters, but this is only my personal opinion.



While your opinion is yours and it is valid opinion and everyone is allowed to have an opinion, lets look at this seriously.

Could the Il-2 seriously fill these roles:

Transport
Torpedo Bomber
Cargo
Bomber with heavy loads of bombs

There are plenty of aircraft such as the Ju-88 and Mossie that could plus more and everything that the Il-2 could do.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> so far i'd put the 1 and 2 as the Ju-88 then the mossie...........



Damn that is the first time I have ever heard you say something like that you Lancy Bastard!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 29, 2006)

what's the expletive


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2006)

I dont remember.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 29, 2006)

Bast*rd fits... how many other 7 letter explitives can we think of guys


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 29, 2006)

F**king would fit but wouldn't work 

Anyways I would agree with the assessment of the FW190 as best bomber killer. For the BoB the 109's 20mm would be just as effective on bombers as on fighters but I would probably say the Hurricane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 29, 2006)

erm, gnomey, the second part of that post belongs in the other topic


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 29, 2006)

I thought this was that topic...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 29, 2006)

no this's this topic that topic's the other topic


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 29, 2006)

I know that this is this and that is that now...


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 29, 2006)

dikhead
fussbkt
dweeebe
asswipe
stulpok
flaimer
queeene
dipshit
dooofus
hairbal
wainker
yamsack
phlugger
chzpuff
noodledk
dgeffer
...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2006)

Thats it. Bast*rd.

It was Lancy Bast*rd!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 29, 2006)

you've taken a few liberties but impressive all the same


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2006)

Oh you love it, you know it!


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 29, 2006)

Just glad I could help.


----------



## saltlakespitfire (Dec 14, 2006)

How about rating the vought V4U-4 corair. It had gr8 ability as a fighter , could get off carrier decks with more ordnance under it's wing than some twin engined medium bombers. Okay maybe it would lose out to the mossie in range but I'am pretty sure in both fighting and bombing roles it was much better. 
And lanc , what is Anti-tirpitzing and how is it different from anti - shipping


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 14, 2006)

Anti-Tirpitzing uses highballs


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 14, 2006)

saltlakespitfire said:


> How about rating the vought V4U-4 corair. It had gr8 ability as a fighter , could get off carrier decks with more ordnance under it's wing than some twin engined medium bombers. Okay maybe it would lose out to the mossie in range but I'am pretty sure in both fighting and bombing roles it was much better.
> And lanc , what is Anti-tirpitzing and how is it different from anti - shipping



Again Corsair was a great aircraft but could it do all the roles of lets say the Ju-88, Fw-190, Hurricane, Typhoon and P-38?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 14, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> Anti-Tirpitzing uses highballs



Speaking of the Tirpitz. Here are some pics that I took from actuall parts of the Tirpitz Cannon and Armour that was removed from the Tirpitz wreck when she was broken up. They are at the Sinsheim Museum that I went to a few weeks ago here in Germany.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 14, 2006)

that's pretty sweet, one of the biggest inter-service rivalries in the RAF today exists between 9 and 617 sqns as each lay claim to sinking the tirpitz and so each lay claim to ownership of a bulkhead from the Tirpitz presented to the RAF by the Norwiegens (or however it's spelt...), they're always coming up with plans to steal it from each other, once when 9 sqn held it for a short time some crew members of 617sqn dressed as workmen and demolished the wall on which the Bulkhead was given pride of place by 9 sqn then took the bulkhead away in a van


----------



## mkloby (Dec 14, 2006)

Nice pics chris - it's a damn shame she didn't survive the war...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 15, 2006)

I agree. I really wish that atleast one of the great German battleships (there were not many in WW2! ) would have survived and could have been turned in a museum. That probably would not have happened anyhow. One of the allied powers would have tested it and then broken up it.

I need to travel to Bremerhaven where probably the best U-Boot (a surviving one) built during WW2 (Type XXI) is a museum)

Whoah this got way off topic though. lets get out of the water and back into the air.


----------



## goonwid (Dec 15, 2006)

MMMMM, The Corsair was a fine aircraft and certainly looked the part but i feel it is only marginally less over hyped than the P-38, which lets face it wasn't a patch on the Mosquito was it?


----------



## mkloby (Dec 15, 2006)

goonwid said:


> MMMMM, The Corsair was a fine aircraft and certainly looked the part but i feel it is only marginally less over hyped than the P-38, which lets face it wasn't a patch on the Mosquito was it?



both the Mosquito and the Lightning were both VERY capable A/C. The F4U was a damn fine ship - you're right. I wouldn't call it "overhyped." Corsair is a sacred word to us  Another excellent, and also adaptable A/C. If you got sit in the cockpit and fly one - I'd guarantee you wouldn't call one overhyped - or a P-38 either for that matter


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2006)

I have to agree with you there mkloby. The Corsair was one of the best piston fighters ever produced.

Here is my list of the best aircraft in many different roles.

1. Junkers Ju-88
2. Mosquito
3. Lightning
4. Fw-190
5. Corsair
6. Hurricane


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 16, 2006)

mkloby said:


> both the Mosquito and the Lightning were both VERY capable A/C. The F4U was a damn fine ship - you're right. I wouldn't call it "overhyped." Corsair is a sacred word to us  Another excellent, and also adaptable A/C. If you got sit in the cockpit and fly one - I'd guarantee you wouldn't call one overhyped - or a P-38 either for that matter



I agree as well.

Adler, I think it was you who asked about the P-38's 4:1 kill ratio as it applied to '43 when the Luftwaffe had air superiority as well as the most experianced pilots. The 55th and 20th FG's list a 1.5 Luftwaffe aircraft for every P-38 lost in that period. This was offset by the groups flying the L model hitting about 6:1 for an overall ave of 4:1. 

wmaxt


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Dec 17, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Welcome.
> 
> "Actually the P-38 did serve as a pathfinder, including radar guided bombing runs. As I see it the P-38 has an edge over the Mosquito (A fine aircraft in its own right) is that it took no special mods to go from toting 5200lbs bombs to a target 450 miles away to fighter escort the next day. If required a P-38M or F-5 could still drop 4000lbs of bombs any time it was asked. I don't know if the Mosquito towed gliders but the P-38 towed two from Wisconsin to Florida a flight of ~1200miles."
> 
> The maximum bomb load of a p-38 was 3200 lb not 5200 lb and it's combat radius with a 3200 lb bomb load was only 250 miles. In no way could the p-38 be considered a strategic bomber.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Dec 17, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> I agree as well.
> 
> "Adler, I think it was you who asked about the P-38's 4:1 kill ratio as it applied to '43 when the Luftwaffe had air superiority as well as the most experianced pilots. The 55th and 20th FG's list a 1.5 Luftwaffe aircraft for every P-38 lost in that period. This was offset by the groups flying the L model hitting about 6:1 for an overall ave of 4:1. "
> 
> wmaxt



THe P-38 Claim to loss ratio was ~ 1:1 in Europe (ETO and MTO), 1771 aerial claims vs 1758 losses. This compares to the P-51's 4950 aerial claims vs 2520 losses, a claim to loss ratio of ~2:1. Data is from American Fighter Bombers in World War II by William Wolf.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> I agree as well.
> 
> Adler, I think it was you who asked about the P-38's 4:1 kill ratio as it applied to '43 when the Luftwaffe had air superiority as well as the most experianced pilots. The 55th and 20th FG's list a 1.5 Luftwaffe aircraft for every P-38 lost in that period. This was offset by the groups flying the L model hitting about 6:1 for an overall ave of 4:1.
> 
> wmaxt



Nope was not me.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2006)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The maximum bomb load of a p-38 was 3200 lb not 5200 lb and it's combat radius with a 3200 lb bomb load was only 250 miles. In no way could the p-38 be considered a strategic bomber.



Actually the P-38L and P-38J could carry up to 4000lb of bombs not 3200lb.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Dec 17, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Actually the P-38L and P-38J could carry up to 4000lb of bombs not 3200lb.




I stand corrected. The important point is to realize is that in reality the P-38 did perform any more roles that a typical fighter such as an FW190, or for that matter, a P-51. Torpedo carrying and glider towing were interesting experiments, but that's all they were. The Drop-snoot was an evolutionary dead end.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 17, 2006)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I stand corrected. The important point is to realize is that in reality the P-38 did perform any more roles that a typical fighter such as an FW190, or for that matter, a P-51. Torpedo carrying and glider towing were interesting experiments, but that's all they were. The Drop-snoot was an evolutionary dead end.



Sure Stangs and 190s could perform attack roles, but the 51 could carry 2000lbs of ordnance and the 190F could only carry 2646lbs. That's a big difference. 190s had short range also. All this means is that the P-38 was better equipped for attack roles than the other mentioned A/C.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2006)

I dont believe the P-38 was better suited than a 190 for attack roles. The 190 was just as fast, just as maneuverable, and could take a hell of a lot more beating and was easier to fly than the twin engined P-38. A novice pilot could make more out of the 190 than the average pilot out of a P-38.

I am not saying the P-38 was not a great aircraft. She was marvelous. The 190 however could do everything the P-38 could and was a single engined aircraft vs. twin.


----------



## Henk (Dec 17, 2006)

Yup, and she did not have the problems of frost on the windscreen as the P-38 had over Europe.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 17, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I dont believe the P-38 was better suited than a 190 for attack roles. The 190 was just as fast, just as maneuverable, and could take a hell of a lot more beating and was easier to fly than the twin engined P-38. A novice pilot could make more out of the 190 than the average pilot out of a P-38.
> 
> I am not saying the P-38 was not a great aircraft. She was marvelous. The 190 however could do everything the P-38 could and was a single engined aircraft vs. twin.



Good points, Chris - the 190 just couldn't lug a very heavy payload. She was an excellent ship too. Don't forget though, that 2 engines has some strong advantages over a single engine ship. The onvious one being that you lose one - you're still in business. Although, they were liquid cooled vs the 190s radial. I must admit I don't know a whole lot about attrition rates of 190s vs 38s in the ground attack role...


----------



## spit_ace'43 (Dec 17, 2006)

the mosquito gets my vote. Fast like a fighter, strong like a bomber, and wooden like the plane of a country losing the war.


----------



## Seawitch (Dec 17, 2006)

I was thinking the same thing as I entered the thread! Also the Worlds first _Stealth Aircraft_ surely?


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Dec 17, 2006)

mkloby said:


> Sure Stangs and 190s could perform attack roles, but the 51 could carry 2000lbs of ordnance and the 190F could only carry 2646lbs. That's a big difference. 190s had short range also. All this means is that the P-38 was better equipped for attack roles than the other mentioned A/C.




Again the ability to carry 2 x 2000 lb bombs was an academic exercise with no real practical value. The AAF felt that the 500lb GP bomb was effective against almost all targets and hence standardized on it. Over 80% of the bombs dropped by fighter bombers in the ETO were 500 lb GP, less than 10% were 1000 lb GP with the rest including fragmentation, rockets and napalm. The puny little P-51 could carry 2 -500 lb bombs farther than the mighty P-38. P-38 - 260 miles combat radius vs P-51 - 325 miles. (from American Fighter Bomber by William Wolf)


----------



## mkloby (Dec 18, 2006)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Again the ability to carry 2 x 2000 lb bombs was an academic exercise with no real practical value. The AAF felt that the 500lb GP bomb was effective against almost all targets and hence standardized on it. Over 80% of the bombs dropped by fighter bombers in the ETO were 500 lb GP, less than 10% were 1000 lb GP with the rest including fragmentation, rockets and napalm. The puny little P-51 could carry 2 -500 lb bombs farther than the mighty P-38. P-38 - 260 miles combat radius vs P-51 - 325 miles. (from American Fighter Bomber by William Wolf)



I'm having a hard time trying to find range w/ particular bombloads for aircraft. Too bad I can't find the charts. I found one that stated 38 bombload of 3200 lbs w/ a range of 450 miles, while the 51 w/ a 2000lb load a range of 950 miles.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2006)

mkloby said:


> Good points, Chris - the 190 just couldn't lug a very heavy payload. She was an excellent ship too. Don't forget though, that 2 engines has some strong advantages over a single engine ship. The onvious one being that you lose one - you're still in business. Although, they were liquid cooled vs the 190s radial. I must admit I don't know a whole lot about attrition rates of 190s vs 38s in the ground attack role...



Actually the Fw-190G-3 could carry 3968lb of bombs. Thats just about as much as a P-38 could carry.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2006)

and you can't compare the payloads of a single engine against a twin engine, the payload of the P-38 is not something to write home about the P-38 was NOT a bomber (don't bother with the droop-snoots what's the point?) whereas the mosquito was a bomber and well proven in the role, bombing's about more than the mass you can carry, the cookie block buster is widely accepted to be one of the most successful bombs of the war which the P-38 couldn't carry let alone carry internally, what kind of bomber has can't take an internal payload? hence just one of the reasons the droop-snoots might as well be ignored, plus of course the useless strategy of everyone dropping the same time as the lead ship, if that's the case what's the point in being accurate?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2006)

And the only thing that was more versatile than the Mossie was the Ju-88 even though I think the P-38 was possibly just as versatile as the Mossie.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2006)

oh boy, no good can ever come from both of us being online at the same time 

I propose that in trying to become a jack of all trades the mossie became a master of more than the P-38, opinions?


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 18, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> oh boy, no good can ever come from both of us being online at the same time
> 
> I propose that in trying to become a jack of all trades the mossie became a master of more than the P-38, opinions?



That would depend on wheather you define it as an indivdual aircraft or by airframe. The P-38 as an aircraft could do a number of not really related things just based on load-out. The Mossie had a lot of variations allowing particular aircraft to do different jobs but those aircraft were not redily interchangeable.

Another consideration is that the British were more inclined to build aircraft for a specific purpose, the Mossie and even the Fw-190 were excelent aircraft and so was the P-38 but none of these aircraft are directly comparable in many ways and they were all very flexible.

The Radius of operation in the ETO was defined by the 8th AF who never really supported the P-38 to its fullest capability. In the ETO the radius of operation for a P-38J was defined as up to 450mi on escort missions. In the PTO That was where the F model was limit was. In the Pacific a 2300mi mission was flown by P-38's. In the ETO the 8th never did provide the bigger 300 gal drop tanks and with a 300 gal drop tank 2,000lb bomb it was still capable of 600mi radius. Also it has been reported that P-38's with additional pylons flew with 5600lbs, the arangement consisted of several smaller bombs. With that set-up a load of three 500lbs bombs and a 300gal tank could still make that 600 mi radius. This was done in the Pacific (sometimes with rockets to).

With the contenders we have a single "Best" is really unrealistic!

wmaxt


----------



## mkloby (Dec 18, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Actually the Fw-190G-3 could carry 3968lb of bombs. Thats just about as much as a P-38 could carry.



I was trying to find references of this - it seems as though this was a special modification of certain G models to carry a single 1000kg, 1600kg, and 1800kg bombs. I couldn't find references of numbers of modified 190G's though.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and you can't compare the payloads of a single engine against a twin engine, the payload of the P-38 is not something to write home about the P-38 was NOT a bomber (don't bother with the droop-snoots what's the point?) whereas the mosquito was a bomber and well proven in the role, bombing's about more than the mass you can carry, the cookie block buster is widely accepted to be one of the most successful bombs of the war which the P-38 couldn't carry let alone carry internally, what kind of bomber has can't take an internal payload? hence just one of the reasons the droop-snoots might as well be ignored, plus of course the useless strategy of everyone dropping the same time as the lead ship, if that's the case what's the point in being accurate?



I didn't know there was a rule barring comparison of planes w/ a different number of engines! Well said, we all agree the P-38 was not a bomber. Lanc, all I want is 1 post w/o touting the clear superiority of all things british!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2006)

i'll give you a post where i'm not singing the praises of the British when wmaxt conceeds the versatility issue...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2006)

mkloby said:


> I was trying to find references of this - it seems as though this was a special modification of certain G models to carry a single 1000kg, 1600kg, and 1800kg bombs. I couldn't find references of numbers of modified 190G's though.



No the G version of the Fw-190 was a fighter bomber version of the Fw-190. There were hundreds of G models built. They were not special modificiations either but purpose built models of the Fw-190. 

Fw-190G-0 could carry 2205lb Number built: unknown
Fw-190G-1 could carry 3968lb of Bombs Number built: 49
Fw-190G-2 could carry 3968lb of bombs Number built: 469
Fw-190G-3 could carry 3968lb of bombs Number built: unknown

Fw-190G-4 and G-8 the same as above.

There was only one 1800kg 3968lb bomb in German inventory and that bomb had to have its fins modified to fit under the Fw-190. However the Fw-190 could have up to 4 underwing hard points the 2 inner could carry 1000lb bombs and the two outer could carry 500lb bombs for 3000lb of bombs total.

Either way the Fw-190 could carry almost 4000lb of bombs.



mkloby said:


> Lanc, all I want is 1 post w/o touting the clear superiority of all things british!



That is impossible for Lanc.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 18, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> There was only one 1800kg 3968lb bomb in German inventory and that bomb had to have its fins modified to fit under the Fw-190. However the Fw-190 could have up to 4 underwing hard points the 2 inner could carry 1000lb bombs and the two outer could carry 500lb bombs for 3000lb of bombs total.
> 
> Either way the Fw-190 could carry almost 4000lb of bombs.



Hey Chris do you have an internet link w/ good information on the 190G's... I can't seem to find any w/ detailed information... or is this coming from the home library?


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 18, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is impossible for Lanc.




 Didn't he once say the 109 was equal to the spit? Oh sorry I must of been thinking of someone else.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2006)

mkloby said:


> Hey Chris do you have an internet link w/ good information on the 190G's... I can't seem to find any w/ detailed information... or is this coming from the home library?



Most of my information comes from my home library.

I will post some links for you tomorrow. All have some good info and all have some innacuracies too ofcourse.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Dec 20, 2006)

mkloby said:


> I'm having a hard time trying to find range w/ particular bombloads for aircraft. Too bad I can't find the charts. I found one that stated 38 bombload of 3200 lbs w/ a range of 450 miles, while the 51 w/ a 2000lb load a range of 950 miles.



I highly recommend "America's Hundred-Thousand" by Francis Dean. On pages 599 and 600 there are AAF pictogramas depicting the combat radius of the P-38, 47 and 51. 
For the record at 25,000 feet, with 5 minutes at WEP and 15 minutes at full military power, 30 minutes 
reserve:

Internal fuel only 
P-38 J/L 410 gallons 275 miles
P-47 D 305 gallons 125 miles 
P-47 D 370 gallons 225 miles 
P-47 N 556 gallons 400 miles 
P-51 B/C 184 gallons 150 miles 
P-51 B/C/D 269 gallons 375 miles 

Internal + external fuel
P-38 J/L 410+330 gallons 650 miles
P-47 D 305+300 gallons 425 miles
P-47 D 370+300 gallons 600 miles
P-47 N 556+440 gallons 1000 miles
P-51 B/C 184+150 gallons 460 miles
P-51 B/C/D 269+150 gallons 700 miles

Internal fuel with 2000lbs Bombs
P-38 J/L 410 gallons 200 miles
P-47 N 556 gallons 300 miles 
P-51 B/C/D 269 gallons 350 miles

The book is the most complete study of AAF fighters I have ever seen.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Dec 20, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> That would depend on wheather you define it as an indivdual aircraft or by airframe. The P-38 as an aircraft could do a number of not really related things just based on load-out. The Mossie had a lot of variations allowing particular aircraft to do different jobs but those aircraft were not redily interchangeable.
> 
> Another consideration is that the British were more inclined to build aircraft for a specific purpose, the Mossie and even the Fw-190 were excelent aircraft and so was the P-38 but none of these aircraft are directly comparable in many ways and they were all very flexible.
> 
> ...



A P-38 and an F-5 were not interchangeable! An FB VI mosquito could and did perform as many roles as any P-38

There are so many unsubstantiated claims for the P-38, I would love to see any proof that P-38s flew with 5600 lb of bombs or even a picture of one with 4 pylons. 

If you put 2 x 300 gallon drop tanks on a P-38 you are carrying more fuel outside the aircraft, that means you are planning to fight with the drop tanks still on. Not a good idea in a P-38, witness Tom McGuire.


----------



## exec228 (Dec 21, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Fw-190G-0 could carry 2205lb Number built: unknown
> Fw-190G-1 could carry 3968lb of Bombs Number built: 49
> Fw-190G-2 could carry 3968lb of bombs Number built: 469
> Fw-190G-3 could carry 3968lb of bombs Number built: unknown


did A-4/Jabo Einsatz, A-5/Jabo Einsatz and A-6/Jabo Einsatz carry the same amount as G-1, G-2 and G-3?



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> There was only one 1800kg 3968lb bomb in German inventory and that bomb had to have its fins modified to fit under the Fw-190.


PC 1800RA Panther, SC 1800 Satan, SD 1700 Sigmund or PC 1600?



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> However the Fw-190 could have up to 4 underwing hard points the 2 inner could carry 1000lb bombs and the two outer could carry 500lb bombs for 3000lb of bombs total.


well... having SC 500 under fus, it carried not further bombs, but 2x 300L fuel tanks.
and having 2x SC 250 under wings, it carried not an additional bomb, but 1x 300L fuel tank.
it's for A-5/U13 jabo-rei, later reindexed to G-2.

technically G-8 could lift 1x SC 500 + 2x SC 250, but typical load was 1x SC 500.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Either way the Fw-190 could carry almost 4000lb of bombs.


with 1x ETC 501 (probably with additional 1x ER 4) and 4x ETC 50 (A-5/U17), or 1x ETC 501 and 2x V.Fw Trg (A-5/U13), HOW?



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is impossible for Lanc.


popular kits:
2141KG "Usual" 1x1814KG(HE, Cookie)+24x15KG(In) or 1x1814KG(HE, Cookie)+236x2KG(In)
4994KG "Plumduff-Plus" 1*3632KG(HE, Double Cookie)+6*227KG(HE)
5448KG "Tall-Boy" 1*5448KG(AP)
5900KG "No-Ball" 1*1814KG(HE, Cookie)+18*227KG(HE)
6123KG "Piece" 6*907KG(AP)+3*227KG(HE)
6356KG "Abnormal" 14*454KG(HE)
4086KG "Gardening" 6*681KG(paramine)
etc...
http://www.nucleus.com/~ltwright/aircraft.HTM


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2006)

exec228 said:


> PC 1800RA Panther, SC 1800 Satan, SD 1700 Sigmund or PC 1600?



Yeah there were others but I think the Fw-190G was only fitted with a SC 1800.



exec228 said:


> popular kits:
> 2141KG "Usual" 1x1814KG(HE, Cookie)+24x15KG(In) or 1x1814KG(HE, Cookie)+236x2KG(In)
> 4994KG "Plumduff-Plus" 1*3632KG(HE, Double Cookie)+6*227KG(HE)
> 5448KG "Tall-Boy" 1*5448KG(AP)
> ...



What does that have to do with my off comment remark to Lanc.


----------



## exec228 (Dec 22, 2006)

1)1800kg required almost a kilometer runway, and as Reluctant Poster said, it was an academical curiosity. i haven't found combat usage references.

2)fw 190 never lifted 2000kg of bombs.

3)


DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What does that have to do with my off comment remark to Lanc.



what does it really mean?


DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is impossible for Lanc.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 22, 2006)

exec228 said:


> what does it really mean?



I was not talking about a Lancaster or anyother other aircraft for a matter of fact exec228, *(or should I call you killercrayon, the gigs up)* I was talking about thelancasterkicksass.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 22, 2006)

exec228 said:


> 2)fw 190 never lifted 2000kg of bombs.



No **** shirlock. Did I ever say it could carry 2000kg of bombs. NO! I said it could carry 1800kg of bombs which is a little over 3600lb. So if you read the post I said up there (yes actually read the post) I said it could carry almost 4000lb of bombs.

Please read all the posts before comenting.


----------



## exec228 (Dec 22, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> (or should I call you killercrayon, the gigs up)


he is my colleague.


----------



## exec228 (Dec 22, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No **** shirlock. Did I ever say it could carry 2000kg of bombs. NO! I said it could carry 1800kg of bombs which is a little over 3600lb. So if you read the post I said up there (yes actually read the post) I said it could carry almost 4000lb of bombs.
> 
> Please read all the posts before comenting.


how many those bombs were dropped? do you have statistics?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 22, 2006)

Here's a history of JG5. Look up other Jabo units that flew the 190 and do the math! 

A History of 14.(Jabo)/J.G. 5


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2006)

exec228 said:


> he is my colleague.



Nice try, last guy that tried that got banned too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2006)

exec228 said:


> how many those bombs were dropped? do you have statistics?



No I do not. And what does that prove. Nothing. Could the Fw-190 carry a 1800kg bomb. Yes. That is the point, so stop skirting around it.


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2006)

Pretty amazing when you think about it, a 4,000 kg monoplane carrying a 1,800 kg bomb - that might as well have been an SUV


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 25, 2006)

Skirtin around invisible again...


----------



## exec228 (Dec 27, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Skirtin around invisible again...


said 'just pressed'
was called n00b by so named heavyweight.
every1 happy.
imho incident closed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2006)

You still skirting around my question. What does the number of 1800kg bombs dropped by a Fw-190 have to do with whether the Fw-190 could do it or not?


----------



## mkloby (Dec 27, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You still skirting around my question. What does the number of 1800kg bombs dropped by a Fw-190 have to do with whether the Fw-190 could do it or not?



Simple - it doesn't have much of anything to do w/ it...


----------



## exec228 (Dec 28, 2006)

well, it does relate. if 1800kg could be lifted only with 1500m concrete runway carried at 1000m altitude and dropped at 10km range, it usually means that it was done very rarely in combat conditions.

for example, discussing load of Pe-8 i prefer to recall FAB-5000 (5000kg GPB) that was really used against enemy, and i absolutely don't remember which FAI record load Pe-8 can lift (i just remember that it done some records). actually i ain't even interested in abstract records of combat planes.

but if we talking about FAI records, and not combat usage, you are absolutely right.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2006)

However the Fw-190 could carry 1800kg of bombs. Yes or No, it was simple question. The answer was yes.

Now was that hard...


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Dec 29, 2006)

The point is that the abilty to carry 4000 lb of bombs does not make a FW-190 or a P-38 a multirole aircraft. They are fighter bombers filling the same roles as a P51 or even an ME-109 or, god forbid, a Spifire. A Mosquito could and did take off from the UK, fly to Berlin, drop a 4000 lb bomb and return to base, a 550 mile round trip. This is what is known as strategic bombing. The other aircraft may have been capable of lifting 4000 lb of bombs, but about the only thing they could bomb was their own airfield.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 29, 2006)




----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 29, 2006)

Reluctant Poster said:


> A Mosquito could and did take off from the UK, fly to Berlin, drop a 4000 lb bomb and return to base, a 550 mile round trip. This is what is known as strategic bombing.


----------



## Parmigiano (Dec 29, 2006)

I don't know about the range of the 190 with 1800kg bomb, but for sure several 190 were built to carry the 1400kg torpedo and assigned to an operative group (can't remember the details, must check one of my books).

The unit was not used in combat and later the ac redeployed to fighter-bomber roles, but all this clearly indicate that the 190 could lift and carry a 1400kg load with a more than decent range (you don't organize a torpedo group if you have aircafts with 50km of useful range...)


----------



## mkloby (Dec 29, 2006)

Reluctant Poster said:


> A Mosquito could and did take off from the UK, fly to Berlin, drop a 4000 lb bomb and return to base, a 550 mile round trip. This is what is known as strategic bombing. The other aircraft may have been capable of lifting 4000 lb of bombs, but about the only thing they could bomb was their own airfield.



So your definition of strategic bombing is being able to T/O with a bombload, drop it on an enemy nation, and RTB? Seriously???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2006)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The point is that the abilty to carry 4000 lb of bombs does not make a FW-190 or a P-38 a multirole aircraft. They are fighter bombers filling the same roles as a P51 or even an ME-109 or, god forbid, a Spifire.



No actually the Fw-190 is a multi role aircraft. It could perform more roles than just fighter-bomber and was used in many different roles. In fact it could be used in many more roles than a P-51, Spitfire or Bf-109 as a matter of fact. I dont think there is a single engined aircraft of WW2 that could be used in more roles than the Fw-190.

I could list the roles but I have allready done that about a 100 times in this thread. You can go back and read them, I am not going to post them again.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2006)

Does Reluctant poster seem to think that the only roles the Fw-190 and the P-38 was were fighter bomber?


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 29, 2006)

Perhaps. I love the quote I used from him. That one made me laugh. 

Chris here is a jem for you:

Originally Posted by Reluctant Poster View Post
A Mosquito could and did take off from the UK, fly to Berlin, drop a 4000 lb bomb and return to base, a 550 mile round trip. This is what is known as strategic bombing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2006)

Okay....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 29, 2006)

i agree with him though, not so much on the Fw-190 as i'm staying out of this one, but some people seem to think that any plane, but namely the P-38, that could carry a reasonable payload is the world's greatest strategic bomber when they can't even pull off a strategic raid, the ability to carry bombs doesn't make an aircraft a bomber............


----------



## mkloby (Dec 29, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i agree with him though, not so much on the Fw-190 as i'm staying out of this one, but some people seem to think that any plane, but namely the P-38, that could carry a reasonable payload is the world's greatest strategic bomber when they can't even pull off a strategic raid, the ability to carry bombs doesn't make an aircraft a bomber............



This is true. But who really thinks that all you need to be a bomber is to be able to hang a bomb on a rack? Nobody will argue the P-38 was a stat bomber...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2006)

Exactly I dont know anyone here that thinks teh Fw-190 and the P-38 were strategic bombers. They were not. That has never been an arguement here.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2006)

havce you guys not been reading wmaxt's posts


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Dec 30, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No actually the Fw-190 is a multi role aircraft. It could perform more roles than just fighter-bomber and was used in many different roles. In fact it could be used in many more roles than a P-51, Spitfire or Bf-109 as a matter of fact. I dont think there is a single engined aircraft of WW2 that could be used in more roles than the Fw-190.
> 
> I could list the roles but I have allready done that about a 100 times in this thread. You can go back and read them, I am not going to post them again.



Fw-190
Fighter
Fighter-Bomber
Dive Bomber
Torpedo Bomber
Anti Shipping
2 Seat Trainer
Carrier launched fighter (there were test versions built and it would have worked)
Photo Recon
Interceptor
Anti Tank/Ground Support

I never said the FW 190 was restricted to the fighter and fighter - bomber roles. However the P-51 performed all the roles you have listed above with the exception of torpedo bomber, which as far I as know was limited to a few experimental aircraft, and the the anti - tank role. In the P-51's favour, it could perform the role of long range escort. 
What I am trying to point out is that converted fighters generally lacked the capabilties of aircraft such as the JU88 and Mosquito, which were the true multi-role champions of WWII


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2006)

Reluctant Poster said:


> What I am trying to point out is that converted fighters generally lacked the capabilties of aircraft such as the JU88 and Mosquito, which were the true multi-role champions of WWII



That has never been an arguement either. All I am saying is the Fw-190 was the most versatile of the single engine aircraft. 

If you read through the posts again I and most people agree (even though the decision between the Ju-88 and the mossie goes back and forth depending on the poster ) that the most verstile aircraft of WW2 were the Ju-88 and the Mossie then followed by the P-38.

I have repeated over and over that my top three (and listed reasons why over and over and over again) are as follows:

1. Ju-88
2. Mossie
3. P-38


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2006)

and the leaders in the single engined role are

1) Fw-190
2) Corsair
3) Hurricane

any arguments there?


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 2, 2007)

mkloby said:


> So your definition of strategic bombing is being able to T/O with a bombload, drop it on an enemy nation, and RTB? Seriously???



I'm guessing the bit about long range escaped you.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 2, 2007)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I'm guessing the bit about long range escaped you.



There's more to it than that my friend.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 2, 2007)

wmaxt said:


> Dave,
> First it has to be understood that the P-38 arrived in the ETO cold - no support structure, bases, mechanics etc. then add new pilots often with only 20hrs in type, that had never flown above 20,000ft, with no tactics available. They flew in odds of 10 germans to 1 P-38 and the German pilots were tried and true experts that had been fighting as long as the Spanish civil war. Next the 8th AF brass had built their theory, reputations and plans on "Self Escorting Bombers" and had even sent the first P-38 squadrons to the MTO a year earlier. When the bombers losses got so high that the US public started objecting, congress started talking "Investigation", escorts started. The P-38 had done 1,000mi escorts six months earlier and were available so they were put in service, where despite the lack of support, odds, experience, etc they did the job. When the P-51 came along the support structure was in place as was tactics, training and experience. By ignoring the P-38 and its/their contabution and playing up the start-up issues they could say "See we didn't have the right plane, when we did we used it". This scenario becomes clear the more the situation is studied.
> 
> wmaxt



More revisionist history from the P-38 defenders. The actual dates of introduction of the P-38 and P51 to the ETO were (first mission to Germany):

55th Fighter Group [P-38] October 20, 1943
354th Fighter Group (P-51) December 11, 1943
20th Fighter Group [P-38] December 30, 1943
3547h Fighter Group (P-51) February 20, 1944 (start of Big Week)
3637h Fighter Group (P-51) February 25, 1944 (end of Big Week)

In other words, the P-51 was a little over a month behind the P-38. The P-38 flew a grand total of 10 missions before enjoying the company of P-51’s. In addition these were not deep penetration missions, in fact 7 of them were within P-47 range. The 3 missions to Bremen were the only ones where P-38’s were the sole AAF fighters over the target.

P-51’s were flying the same missions, with the same weather conditions, the same lack of training (the 354th had never even seen a P-51B before reaching England), the same “bad fuel” (fuel that the Germans, Japanese and Russians could only dream of), the same support structure and they were far more successful. In fact the 354th outscored the 55th and 20th combined in the period leading up to Big Week:

P-38 Sorties 1476 Claims 61 Losses 59
P-51 Sorties 746 Claims 69 Losses 18
(October 20 to February 11)

Big Week was even more lopsided:

P-38 Sorties 373 Claims 10 Losses 5
P-51 Sorties 425 Claims 69 Losses 11
(February 20 to 25)

No wonder the 8th AF decided to standardize on the P-51.


----------



## YakFlyer (Jan 15, 2007)

cheddar cheese said:


> Because the P-38 was a fighter, first and foremost, carrying bombs wasnt its primary task. Therefore it is remarkable that it could carry a 5,200lb load. In theory the P-38 could carry a cookie, but as the P-38 was not widely used for bombing the the ETO it would never have been adapted to do this.
> And hell, the P-38 could carry a large range of ordinance. Normally it carried 10 or 12 rockets, but models were built with 14 rockets. Bombwise it could carry a large range of bombs summing up to 5,200lbs. The normal payload for a P-38 was 4000lbs, but several instances where they carried 5,200lbs on missions were recorded. Sketches were drawn up of a Lightning with a 75mm cannon housed within the gondola, with the cockpit moved forward. (I didnt know about this until Lightning Guy informed me, theres pictures of this in the Pictures forum.)



The P38 would be my favourite non-single engine aeroplane, ever, but it can't possibly have exceeded the Mosquito for versatility. 
Don't forget, Junkers did produce the model 88, how many medium bombers could drop it's bombload if under attack and simply run away, the 88 could.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 15, 2007)

"In theory the P-38 could carry a cookie"

Really, exactly where would it fit? Is there the necessary ground clearance? How does the CofG of the bomb line up with the airplane CofG? Can the wing take a doubling of the weight? Statements like this are meaningless. 

"but several instances where they carried 5,200lbs on missions were recorded."

I would love to see ANY record of a P-38 carrying 5200lbs of bombs on a mission.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 17, 2007)

and i'd love to see them carry it further than the airfeild perimeter...


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 21, 2007)

very interesting opinions here
if the question been most versatile ac with most success in any roles, i stick to the majority of you with Mosquito/Ju88 as twin-engined, B-24 for four-engined,and single..erm..it aint easy..Hurricane,Fw190,P-47 imo


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2007)

oh boy, he just said B-24


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 23, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> oh boy, he just said B-24




Be nice Lanc he is new here. LOL


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2007)

in that case it's only right i do my duty and educate him- the lancaster was the most versatile heavy bomber of WWII


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 23, 2007)

hihi
sure im newbie and sure my knowledge is far of yours.i just told my opinion.
the Lanc been very nice,but if that versatile as the liberator,im not sure.

for sure the Lanc wasnt the best interceptor ,do we agree?  *gg* ok,joke.yes i am here to learn a lot


u got a point,been a nice bomber.for sure the best british 4engined,many historical moments like dam-busting,Tall Boys @ Tirpitz etc. etc. 
but if i think of the Lanc i think of night-bombardments,i dont think at first of coastal patrols or transport,i dont think of anti-sub/ship actions,mine laying or daylight-bombing,sorry


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2007)

don't worry we're all here to learn it's not a problem, and i don't want to spark this debate again (the last time it went on for weeks) so i'll just educate you as to some of the roles the lancaster did perform

she did bomb by day a lot more than people think, to the tune of over 40,000 daylight missions, she did a LOT of minelaying to the tune of over 27,000 mines (that's from memory so don't quote me) she was used as not only a military transport and a civilian airliner and post war she was developed into a number of coastal patrol/anti-shipping variants........


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 23, 2007)

i didnt know the ammount.impressive.
maybe its role and reputation been a bit underestimated later.thats y its nice if guys like you open the eyes  it must have a reason if u love this AC that much.
i only mentioned..that IF sum1 sais: patrolling ..i think of the Cat. if daybombing i think more of a Fortress or Liberator,transport -Dakota.
its a matter of fact. the lib dropped 625 000 tons! of bombs 4 example if i remember correctly.thats why i told this opinion of mine. it wasnt an offense on the Lanc,and i dont want to 'discuss' either, i still doubt that we would 'spark the debate again' for weeks,since i admire the senior members and listen to them,appreciating their teaching and advises.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2007)

I think the B-17 was just as versatile as the Lancaster.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2007)

do we have to do all this again


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2007)

No because we proved that it was atleast just as versatile.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2007)

no no, you proved that to _others_, i didn't believe any of that witchcraft for one second, if you ask me the Lanc's more versatile, but there's no point in arguing that because we both know i'll never give in


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 27, 2007)

Witchcraft lmfao...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2007)




----------



## Civettone (Feb 1, 2007)

The Lancaster bomber??? Isn't that like ... a wannabe Halifax??  



To me the most versatile and THUS the best aircraft of WW2 is the Mosquito. It excelled in every role (leaving out the day fighter) from 1941 to post-war. Plus, it was reliable, beautiful, cheap in resources and easy to fly. It was held in high regard by every Luftwaffe pilot who had tried to intercept it.

Kris


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2007)

she did perform some day fighter duties, not only in her fighter-bomber forms but the Mk.II was originally known as the F.II before some being converted to NF.II, so there were a few dedicated day fighters early on...........


----------



## Civettone (Feb 3, 2007)

You misunderstood me. I didn't say that it didn't fight as a day fighter but that it didn't EXCELL in that role.

Not saying it was bad. IMO its main enemy was the RAF itself who did not believe in two engined fighters until the American Lightnings showed that they could be at least as good as single engined fighters. 

Kris


----------



## joebong (Feb 3, 2007)

Mossies, F4u, Pby cat, sounds about right.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2007)

i don't think the cat _really_ deserves to be there..........


----------



## joebong (Feb 4, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i don't think the cat _really_ deserves to be there..........



You might be surprised it really was an invalueble asset. Recon, anti-sub, rescue to name a few. Heck it found Bismarck for the R.N.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2007)

yes i know she found different roles but nowhere near as diverse as the roles carried out by the mossie and -88, from night fighters to strateigic bombers, transports to anti-shipping, those two really did do everything.....


----------



## joebong (Feb 4, 2007)

Oh alright, I'm just a sucker for underdogs, and the Cat is really overlooked, popularly that is. She was a night
attack machine, thats sort of like a nightfighter. In fact short of the fighter role,she did all those roles as well.
No she does deserve to make this list.


----------



## joebong (Feb 4, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes i know she found different roles but nowhere near as diverse as the roles carried out by the mossie and -88, from night fighters to strateigic bombers, transports to anti-shipping, those two really did do everything.....



88's and Mossies are more accurately tactical bombers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2007)

joebong said:


> 88's and Mossies are more accurately tactical bombers.



No that is actually wrong.

Tactical bombers was just one thing that they did. There were dedicated versions of the Ju-88 and the Mossie to each role that were built for that purpose. YOu would be surprised what they actually did. Here is a list for the Ju-88.

*Ju-88*

Ju-88A-0, A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-9, A-11, A-12, A-14: Bomber/Ground Attack (normal versions)

Ju-88A-3, A-7, A-16: Trainer

Ju-88A-4/Torp, A-17: Torpedo Bomber

Ju-88A-6, A-8: Pathfinder/Balloon Cutter

Ju-88A-6/U: Maritime Patrol/Anti Shipping with Anti shipping Missiles

Ju-88A-13: Ground Attack/Support

Ju-88A-15: Pure Bomber

Ju-88C-2, C-4, C-5, C-6a C-7: Heavy Fighter

Ju-88C-6b, Ju-88-6c: Night Fighter

Ju-88D-0, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4: Photo Recon

Ju-88P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, R-1, R-2: Anti Tank

Other roles fullfilled by the Ju-88 were Dive Bomber, Transport, Mistel Carrier, and Mistell Bomb piece, and these are just to name a few.

The Mossie was just as versatile as well, with the Ju-88 only a slight edge over the Mossie in roles that could be performed.


----------



## joebong (Feb 4, 2007)

I do agree the 88 and D.H are widely considered wonder weapons. Lanc said they were strategic bombers, But in the litteral sense they were not. And i stand
by my vote for the PBY, as its resume is nearly as varied as the others. Bearing in mind it was a flying boat so its roles were limited to maritime.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2007)

No they could be strategic bomber and more so than you PBY because they could carry a larger bomb load.

Strategic bombing is just a way of bombing and there were dedicated bomber roles for the Mossie and the Ju-88.


----------



## joebong (Feb 4, 2007)

I give up.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2007)

Why do that? It is fact though that the 2 most versatile aircraft of WW2 were easily the Ju-88 and Mossie follwed by the P-38 and Fw-190. Now the places of these aircraft can be argued.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2007)

when a force of several hundred mossies take off and fly as a stream towards a major target like a city, each of them operating in the level bombing role from mid- altitude, carrying 4-5,000lbs, they are operating strategically, the same can be said of the Ju-88..............


----------



## Civettone (Feb 7, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Mossie was just as versatile as well, with the Ju-88 only a slight edge over the Mossie in roles that could be performed.


Could be performed? Or _were_ performed?
Perhaps the British were just more rational in their use of variants. Less variants but more succesful.

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 8, 2007)

I dont quite understand what you mean. 

The Mossie was certainly a better aircraft but the Ju-88 could perform more roles than the Mossie could, hands down.

It does not come down to being rational. The Germans built these different varients because they had to. The British had the luxury of building more purpose built aircraft as did all the allies.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 8, 2007)

I'll rephrase. The Ju 88 did perform more roles than the Mosquito but that doesn't mean it was also capable of more roles. I hope this is a bit clearer...

Not only was the Ju 88 mediocre in several roles, it was also unsuited for a couple others. Just think about the Ju 88P and C-heavy fighters. 

Above all, the Mosquito was the Jabo the Ju 88 could never be. Instead the Ju 88 was a bomber with mediocre speed, range and a lousy internal bomb capacity and defensive gun arrangement. Even Göring once said that Junkers had tricked him into the Ju 88 on false promises of its capacities. Not that Göring is really a credible source, but still...



> The British had the luxury of building more purpose built aircraft as did all the allies.


And what does that mean?

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 8, 2007)

What I meant is that the Germans especially toward the end of the war were not at the luxury of building purpose built torpedo bombers (just one example, there are many more purposes that could be listed) and therefore had to build varients of existing aircraft that could perform the roles.

The allies as a whole could afford to build different aircaft for many different roles.

As for the Ju-88 I agree that the Mossie was a better aircraft and the aircraft that the Luftwaffe needed but the Ju-88 was simply the most versatile aircraft of WW2 and performed most of her roles very well. She may not have been the best in any given role but to perform those roles well she was able to do so.


----------



## Udet (Feb 8, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Instead the Ju 88 was a bomber with mediocre speed, range and a lousy internal bomb capacity and defensive gun arrangement.
> Kris



Is it possible for you to elaborate a bit further on that part of your comment?


----------



## Civettone (Feb 8, 2007)

I know my comment on the Ju 88 would attract some attention!   

The Ju 88A was designed as a high speed bomber but could never run away from enemy fighters. Its speed was ok for the early war years (though there were faster bombers around, like the LeO 451) but in the second half of the war a maximum speed of 470 km/h was really the minimum. Also important is that the Ju 88 carried most of its bombs externally which is a serious disadvantage towards bombers with a bigger bay.
Its range was ok but not spectacular, especially considering Junkers told Göering that their 88 could fly around England with bombload. There were bombers with a better range.
The gun arrangement of the Ju 88 was folly and resulted in a cramped cockpit and inefficient defensive armament.





Finally, an internal bombload of 500 kg is not good.

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 8, 2007)

I do agree the defensive armament was definatly a bust.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 8, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I know my comment on the Ju 88 would attract some attention!
> 
> Kris



Careful what you wish for. 8)


----------



## Soren (Feb 8, 2007)

Why choose the 1939 Ju-88A for comparison with the 1942 Mosquito ?? There were better versions of Ju-88 by that time...


----------



## Civettone (Feb 8, 2007)

Soren said:


> Why choose the 1939 Ju-88A for comparison with the 1942 Mosquito ?? There were better versions of Ju-88 by that time...


No, there weren't. 

Kris


----------



## Udet (Feb 9, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I know my comment on the Ju 88 would attract some attention!
> 
> The Ju 88A was designed as a high speed bomber but could never run away from enemy fighters. Its speed was ok for the early war years (though there were faster bombers around, like the LeO 451) but in the second half of the war a maximum speed of 470 km/h was really the minimum. Also important is that the Ju 88 carried most of its bombs externally which is a serious disadvantage towards bombers with a bigger bay.
> Its range was ok but not spectacular, especially considering Junkers told Göering that their 88 could fly around England with bombload. There were bombers with a better range.
> ...




Ok...by parts here.

The idea of the "schnell bomber" indeed was conceived before the outbreak of the war. Once deployed to frontline units when the war commenced, the Ju 88 became a multi-role plane, serving mainly as medium bomber throughout the first half of the war.

The idea of bombers leaving fighters behind is a pre-war notion; when the war commenced the Germans knew of the Hurricane and Spitfire and they were perfectly aware none of their bombers could surpass the speeds of both enemy planes much less when carrying the bombload. So what´s with the speed issue here? You are not suggesting the Germans commenced the BoB believing the speed of their bombers surpassed the Spitfire´s are you?

The Ju-88 A could never run away from fighters. Do not know of anyone who would claim the opposite. Now, besides the Mossie -a multi role plane-, can you mention any other kind of bomber that was capable of running away from German fighters? I think there were none. 

Any allied medium bombers whose speed you might want to compare with the Ju 88?

The B-26? B-25? Vickers Wellington? The old Whitworth Whitley which is definetly inferior to every German medium bomber...In fact the maximum speed of any of those medium bombers remained either inferior or matched to that of the Ju 88 A, so if i follow your logic the speed of any allied bomber in the ETO was mediocre.

It´s speed was ok? Do you know what the difference between the max speed of the Ju 88 A and Hurricane Mk I was in 1940?

_"Also important is that the Ju 88 carried most of its bombs externally which is a serious disadvantage towards bombers with a bigger bay."_

"Most of its bombs" carried externally? Are you sure? Got to check that out.

Why was carrying bombs externally a disadvantage? Because of the drag caused by the bombs carried externally? You should know the Ju 88 could also function as dive bomber...so when dive bombing would be the type of mission to perform the bombs get affixed externally -especially for anti-shipping missions-. There could be sometimes when bombs got affixed externally when dive bombing would not be the type of mission though.

Whatever was it Junkers promised Göring is irrelevant...the range of the Ju 88 as medium bomber was more than adequate to attack the required targets in England and return home. 

Finally, the fact the cockpit was cramped did not result in poor performance of the bomber. Quite the opposite as a bomber it was accurate and very deadly and the defensive machine gun arrangement was also adequate for the type of plane it was but just like the defensive armament arrangement of the heavy bombers of the RAF and USAAF the whole thing points out to the fact bombers lose to intercepting fighters.

You bet a Ju 88 A that had delivered its bombload over England was in a better condition to return to base if compared with the case of a B-17 or B-24 over the Reich during 1943 or 1944.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 9, 2007)

Civettone said:


> No, there weren't.
> 
> Kris



Can you prove that. There were different versions of the Ju-88 that were designed to perform specific roles such as night fighter and they performed rather well and with good decent performance.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 9, 2007)

Hello Udet, 
in the past I've seen many of your posts and I pretty much always agree with you. Now it's no different. However, there is nothing you're telling me that I hadn't in the back of my mind when I was writing my post. 

So also ... in parts:

I mentioned the Schnellbomber (one word - sorry nitpicking here) concept to point out the difference in how both the Mosquito as the Ju 88 were designed to rely on speed above anything else to get away from enemy bombers. Does any bomber that doesn't have the necessary speed, categorize as a bad bomber? Surely not, and like I said, the speed of the Ju 88A was more than ok. It's less than ok when you consider what the aircraft gave up for aerodynamics: tail and side gunners and a large internal bombload. The latter also meant that the maximum speed dropped when carrying an external load. 

_"Most of its bombs" carried externally? Are you sure? Got to check that out._I'm sure. Check it out.

_Any allied medium bombers whose speed you might want to compare with the Ju 88?
The B-26? B-25? Vickers Wellington? 
The old Whitworth Whitley which is definetly inferior to every German medium bomber...In fact the maximum speed of any of those medium bombers remained either inferior or matched to that of the Ju 88 A, so if i follow your logic the speed of any allied bomber in the ETO was mediocre._
Glad you agree with that. So do you also agree that 470 km/h was the minimum for bombers of the second half of WW2? The bombers of that era are the A-20J, A-26, Tu-2, Buckingham and B-29. Am I forgetting any? 

Ok so again, the speed of the Ju 88A was ok but hampered by the fact that it carried most of its bombs externally. 
Yet, you give the dive bombing argument to counter the importance of a large bomb load. That doesn't make sense. 

_Finally, the fact the cockpit was cramped did not result in poor performance of the bomber._ 
Where did I say this? I said its gun arrangement was folly. That's why I provided the model image even though that only shows half of it. It doesn't show the stupidity of the frontal gun arrangement. Try shooting down an aircraft with that... 
rcepting fighters.

_You bet a Ju 88 A that had delivered its bombload over England was in a better condition to return to base if compared with the case of a B-17 or B-24 over the Reich during 1943 or 1944._
There's a world of difference between 1943 and 1944. To be sure, in 1944 it was 10 times safer to be in a B-17 over Berlin than in a Ju 88 over Dover in 1940 (daytime). The B-17 would stay in enemy territory for hours while the Ju 88 could 'hop over' to the Channel and be back in an hour! So you really can't compare. But even then, the B-17 managed to get through to the center of Germany with acceptable losses until Schweinfurt. 




> Can you prove that. There were different versions of the Ju-88 that were designed to perform specific roles such as night fighter and they performed rather well and with good decent performance.


Adler, that's not how these things work... Soren makes an unfounded statement which I challenge. Then he had to prove which improved versions he's referring to. 
Also,we were talking about the Ju 88A bomber so it's irrelevant for you to come up with night bombers and such. What's more, these arguments are false. The Ju 88 nightfighter of 1942 was the Ju 88C which couldn't even get to 500 km/h. You really want to compare that with a Mosquito NF? 
And when we look at the bombers in 1942, it was still the Ju 88A-4 which was produced as the standard bomber. The Ju 88A-14 didn't show much improvement. Both were no radical improvement over the Ju 88A-1 of 1939. In 1943 you had the Ju 188 which was outdated before it entered production. (It was called a stop-gap for something.)

Kris


----------



## Jank (Feb 9, 2007)

"_ ... Soren makes an unfounded statement which I challenge. Then he had to prove which improved versions he's referring to._"

There's been a lot of that going around lately.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 9, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Adler, that's not how these things work...



How does that not work. I can say what I please...



Civettone said:


> Also,we were talking about the Ju 88A bomber so it's irrelevant for you to come up with night bombers and such.



No it is not. You said that the Ju-88 was a mediocre aircraft. You did not mention a specific varient in the part and therefore I gave you proof that the aircraft was an adequate aircraft.

Also one more thing. If you disagree with someone and that is anyone on this forum, that does not make them irrelevent. Choose your words wisely...



Civettone said:


> What's more, these arguments are false. The Ju 88 nightfighter of 1942 was the Ju 88C which couldn't even get to 500 km/h. You really want to compare that with a Mosquito NF?



Negative they are not false. You know why? I never said the Ju-88 was a better night fighter than the Mossie. I said the Ju-88 was a good night fighter. It served well for its purpose against the British bombers. Go to the Nightfighter thread and you will see that no one is stupid eneogh to say the Ju-88 was overall better than the Mossie. I think you are reading too much into this thread and only understanding what you want to understand. If I am wrong, please excuse me.



Civettone said:


> And when we look at the bombers in 1942, it was still the Ju 88A-4 which was produced as the standard bomber. The Ju 88A-14 didn't show much improvement. Both were no radical improvement over the Ju 88A-1 of 1939. In 1943 you had the Ju 188 which was outdated before it entered production. (It was called a stop-gap for something.)
> 
> Kris



Again you shooting past everything that we have been saying. No one is saying that the Ju-88 was the overall best aircraft, what we are saying is that it improved (even if only somewhat) and it served well and in many roles.


----------



## Udet (Feb 9, 2007)

Civettone said:


> ...Instead the Ju 88 was a bomber with mediocre speed, range and a lousy internal bomb capacity and defensive gun arrangement.
> Kris



Hi Civ/Kris.

I understood you very well but the part above quoted was what prompted first my inquiry later my "bigger" posting.

You said the speed of the Ju 88 was mediocre there didn´t you? during the initial stages of the war the speed of the Ju 88 A was more than ok Civ...the maximum speed of fighters in service of any combatant nation during the BoB era did not reach the 600km/hr barrier...the Ju 88 A had a maximum speed of ~480km/hr against the barely 540km/hr of the Hawker Hurricane Mk. I; yup, the difference was sufficient to catch up with the enemy bomber but not what you´d call a critical difference and there are many first hand accounts i have from RAF fighter pilots who got tricked by the manouverability of the Ju 88, and had to see the medium bomber escaping back to France at full speed.

Now compare the speed scenario of German medium bombers of 1940 -which were of course the only type of bomber they had available to carry on with their offensive over England- with that one can observe in the case of the allied air fleets of heavy bombers during 1943 and 1944, where the bombers would be ~200km/hr slower than the prop-driven German interceptors -and even slower when flying like pigs with the bombload still inside-...and more radically as twice as slow when the attacker was the Me 262.

So that is why i was kind of surprised to read you´d consider the speed of the Ju 88 mediocre.

I am of course aware 1943/44 was kind of a very different world in aerial warfare when compared with 1940, i know that Civ. But the comparison is to some extent valid. During 1940, and following the bomber doctrine of the Luftwaffe, medium bombers were the mainstay of the kampfgruppen just as the USA guys brought their fleets of heavy bombers as the main type of plane.

I do not think i agree it was safer to be in a B-17 over Berling during 1944 than in a Ju 88 over England Civ. As i stated here, the Ju 88 had the chance to attempt manouvering to shake off a pursuing enemy fighter, a steep dive, and many times it worked for Ju 88 pilots during 1940. Now see the B-17, the large metallic tube with four engines uncapable of virtually anything regarding manouvering...yes give the crewmen all those .50 cals to make them feel safe, but the B-17 and B-24 crews got gutted by German interceptors Civ.

I agree 470km/hr can be rated as the "minimum" speed requirement for bombers during the second half of the war, but please note by that such time the Ju 88 had the nightfighter role as the main role and was by then fitted with more powerful engines and the speed had been increased to 580km/hr. (Ju 88 G-6)

In case you are interested Civ, read on the "What of the Me 410" thread where we´ve discussed the defensive armament of German medium bombers, do not have time to discuss that here today.

Cheers!


----------



## Civettone (Feb 9, 2007)

No it is not. You said that the Ju-88 was a mediocre aircraft. You did not mention a specific varient in the part and therefore I gave you proof that the aircraft was an adequate aircraft.
 Here I said that the Ju 88 is a mediocre bomber. I hope that clarifies it.

_Also one more thing. If you disagree with someone and that is anyone on this forum, that does not make them irrelevent._
I couldn't agree more, my friend. But respectfully, I think that was the right choice of words. I was talking about the Ju 88 bomber. You started talking about the NF. As such your comment is irrelevant. Above that, I also disagree with the Ju 88C being a good NF but that's just my opinion. But still, your night fighter argument is irrelevant. No pun intended. (And I would never call people irrelevant even though that is what you were implying - see quote).

_Negative they are not false. You know why? I never said the Ju-88 was a better night fighter than the Mossie. I said the Ju-88 was a good night fighter. It served well for its purpose against the British bombers. Go to the Nightfighter thread and you will see that no one is stupid eneogh to say the Ju-88 was overall better than the Mossie. I think you are reading too much into this thread and only understanding what you want to understand. If I am wrong, please excuse me._
No need to excuse you because you're entitled to your opinion and I don't respect you any less. 
My reply to this follows from my previous statement. Soren said _Why choose the 1939 Ju-88A for comparison with the 1942 Mosquito ?? There were better versions of Ju-88 by that time_ So then I said there were no better versions. You then said there were better versions such as the Ju 88C night fighter.
So again with all respect - and I mean that - it's you that reads what you want to read from it. This happens quite often with long discussion, and many times I screw up. But just not this time.

_No one is saying that the Ju-88 was the overall best aircraft, what we are saying is that it improved (even if only somewhat) and it served well and in many roles._
Agreed!

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 9, 2007)

I think we were both blowing right past each other, because I am looking at the Ju-88 more than just a bomber. I am looking at it as a multi-role aircraft.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 9, 2007)

Udet said:


> Hi Civ/Kris.
> 
> I understood you very well but the part above quoted was what prompted first my inquiry later my "bigger" posting.
> 
> ...



Hi Udet, 

In all honesty I don't really disagree with you. Perhaps it's just a different viewpoint: I cannot say the Ju 88A was slow, and I cannot say it was fast either. So ... I call its maximum speed mediocre just like I would call that of the B-25 or even B-26 mediocre. A while ago I say a figure of the max speed of the Ju 88A with 2 x 1000kg or with 4 x 500kg but I cannot find it again...  In any case, most allied bombers carried most of its bombload internally, so please consider that when you're comparing bomber speeds.

A final remarks, the Ju 88 could outmanoeuvre its opponent but let's be honest... that's hardly a consolation, or do I really have to believe that the u 88 has a better roll or turn rate than the Hurricane?? The B-17 didn't try this, not because it couldn't but because the Americans used the close formation strategy. Quite possibly the B-17 manoeuvred like a stranded whale but that's not important because it wouldn't have mattered in the American strategy of combat boxes. 

I will try to find that Me 410 topic. Although I haven't posted much - I spend more time at Luftwaffe Experten and JPs Panzers - I have been a avid reader of topics here at WW2aircraft.net and have enjoyed many of them, including many posts by the regulars, including you.

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Feb 9, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think we were both blowing right past each other, because I am looking at the Ju-88 more than just a bomber. I am looking at it as a multi-role aircraft.


That's ok Adler but please don't blame me for diverting from the subject which was my comment that the Ju 88A was a mediocre bomber.

I would love to discuss the Ju 88 as a multi-role aircraft. 
Kris


----------



## Udet (Feb 9, 2007)

Civ, hi again.

Of course all bombers flew at lower speeds when carrying a full bombload.

I am thinking you are not thinking i am thinking the Ju 88 A had a smaller turn or roll rate when compared with RAF fighters the model faced during 1940 are you?

Basically what i am saying here is the Ju 88 could provide a skilled and well trained crew with the opportunity to find the way out of a situation involving enemy fighters by means different to that of defensive armament.

This resource was by far more feasible and effective than the only resource B-17/B-24 crews had at their disposal during 1943/44 over the Reich -referring to their .50 cals to "defeat" enemy fighters-.

It is, again, undeniable that seasoned Ju 88 bomber pilots during 1940 managed to trick RAF fighter pilots and made it back to base in France. Yes, a much lighter, single engined plane manned by one pilot many times failed to intercept Ju 88s -larger twin engined plane with a crew of 4- because of the capabilities of the plane and the skill of the German pilots.

So no, you do not have to believe the Ju 88 was more nimble than RAF fighters of 1940 simply because it was not Civ; there is, however, one thing you should believe and that is the fact the bomber vs. fighter scenario as seen during 1940 over England represents the narrowest "gap" in performance between bombers and fighters deployed in combat.

And the bombload of the Ju 88 and the two other main types proved so adequate you know there was a moment during the BoB when it seemed the Luftwaffe was in fact going to gut the RAF and its ground facilities...until fateful decisions took the whole issue to different directions.

After that, and with the arrival of the 8th AF then the 15th AF in the ETO, and also as a consequence of combat doctrines each country had conceived, the whole scenario, as you correctly pointed out, was an entirely different one.

The guys of the USAAF knew their bombers were large, clumsy and heavy, so they put to test the silly doctrine of self defense armament as the fundamental and only mean of survival of the bombers; it took only a few months and several thousands of pilots and crewmen dead to prove them very wrong. If anyone would come and say it was not only defensive armament but also the soundness of the bombers i will say something similar about the German medium bombers of 1940: i have a good deal of photos of He 111s, Do 17Zs and Ju 88 A-4s making it back to base with very bad damage keeping in mind the rifle-caliber guns fitted to RAF fighters during the BoB against the certainly heavier guns of the Luftwaffe during 1943/44...ask Erich about the brutal effectiveness of German ammo against bombers.

So the gap in performance between the main bombers in action and the fighter scrambling to intercept them grew and grew, all German fighters being comfortably capable of catching up with the bombers and leaving them all behind with utmost easiness..


----------



## Civettone (Feb 9, 2007)

Hi Udet



> I am thinking you are not thinking i am thinking the Ju 88 A had a smaller turn or roll rate when compared with RAF fighters the model faced during 1940 are you?


 Wait a sec...  ... No, I'm not thinking that.    




> This resource was by far more feasible and effective than the only resource B-17/B-24 crews had at their disposal during 1943/44 over the Reich -referring to their .50 cals to "defeat" enemy fighters-.


What makes you say this? Do you have figures to support this? I would think the German bombers got a bigger beating than the American B-17s when you take the exposure time and the number and quality of the interceptors into the equation.




> one thing you should believe and that is the fact the bomber vs. fighter scenario as seen during 1940 over England represents the narrowest "gap" in performance between bombers and fighters deployed in combat.


I want to believe it, but I'm also thinking of the German bombers versus the interceptors of countries like Russia and France...




> And the bombload of the Ju 88 and the two other main types proved so adequate you know there was a moment during the BoB when it seemed the Luftwaffe was in fact going to gut the RAF and its ground facilities...until fateful decisions took the whole issue to different directions.


That's an outdated theory. The RAF could not be defeated. First of all, because BC and CC were still intact. FC could always retreat further north where they would do some R&R. I could provide with some good sources that show that the Luftwaffe units were draining empty, they could not keep up with their losses - dead or captured. (Same story for FC but they could recuperate half of their pilots, and they still had BC ready to act in case of an invasion with the weakened Luftwaffe unable to prevent it.) The switch to night attacks was also inspired by the strategical defeat of the Luftwaffe. 
But back on the Ju 88, weren't more Ju 88s lost than He 111s even though there were about twice as many He 111s? How can you explain this? And IIRC the Do 17 lost about the same number versus total operational.




> The guys of the USAAF knew their bombers were large, clumsy and heavy, so they put to test the silly doctrine of self defense armament as the fundamental and only mean of survival of the bombers; it took only a few months and several thousands of pilots and crewmen dead to prove them very wrong.


No, the doctrine was set before the US joined the war. Even if the B-17 turned out to be manoeuvrable, they would still have used the box formations. The stayed faithful to this tactic until the end of the war, because it proved succesful when used in combination with escort fighters. Bombers shot down thousands of German fighters, and contributed to defeating not only the Luftwaffe but Germany itself. 



> If anyone would come and say it was not only defensive armament but also the soundness of the bombers i will say something similar about the German medium bombers of 1940: i have a good deal of photos of He 111s, Do 17Zs and Ju 88 A-4s making it back to base with very bad damage


I like pictures and first-hand stories and whatever ... but I try not to draw too many conclusions from them if statistics are available. Especially the 'ruggedness' of aircraft are a common claim. I've seen the same being said about pretty much every British, American, German or Russian bomber... So thanks, but I'll just stick to the official number of how many German bombers were shot down by a relatively small number of British fighters who according to you had the smallest speed surplus you could find.

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2007)

Civettone said:


> That's ok Adler but please don't blame me for diverting from the subject which was my comment that the Ju 88A was a mediocre bomber.
> 
> I would love to discuss the Ju 88 as a multi-role aircraft.
> Kris



No worries man, its been an interesting discussion anyway.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 10, 2007)

Kris


----------



## joebong (Feb 12, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why do that? It is fact though that the 2 most versatile aircraft of WW2 were easily the Ju-88 and Mossie follwed by the P-38 and Fw-190. Now the places of these aircraft can be argued.



Okay lets get one thing straight, I never said any thing to minimalize the achievements of the mosquito or Ju 88, I know these type were unequaled in their multi role accomplishments. My original thread even listed the Mossie, I do not think the PBY could out pluralize these machines, only that for a flying boat
it did a hell of a job in this cappacity. Lanc I conceed to your statement about
lg bomber streams of D.H.s bombing civil targets, I somehow overlooked or didn't
absorb these facts in my readings/watching His channel. I gave up the last time as it was a long day, and it seemed to be decaying into a pissing contest and frankly I was about out of piss.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2007)

Trust me it was far from a pissing match...


----------



## Udet (Feb 13, 2007)

What makes me say German bomber pilots had better chances of escaping interception if compared with the very poor guys of the 8th AF flying in the clumsy B-17/B-24 tubes?

Very easy Civ...and i told you this: speed and manouverability of their bombers, especially the Ju 88 A. 

*German bombers:* especially Ju 88 and Do 17.

*- Fast* (by 1940 standards when compared with enemy fighters of the moment).
*- Manouverable *(by 1940 standards).
*- Capable of absorbing damage* (keeping in mind the ammo fired by British fighters during the BoB).
*- Well defended* (all crew located in the forward -nose- section of the bomber manning several defensive machine guns of the same caliber of British fighters.)

*USAAF heavy bombers: *B-17 and B-24.

*- Slow.*
*- uncapable of manouvering.*- 
*- Capable of absorbing combat damage.* (But please read below)
*- Well defended.* (Due to the large number of .50 cals).

The essential element in defining whether a bomber was fast or slow is the type of enemy fighters it was confronted with. Although the maximum speed attained by a Ju 88 A during 1940 and a B-17 of 1944 could be nearly identical, they did not face the same type of enemy interceptors, get my point?

While it is widely known and accepted the B-17 could take barbaric punishment and take the crew back to base, i do believe such capability has been greatly overhyped...let´s not forget that by early 1944 Germans refined their methods and ammo: 21 cm rockets, guns and cannons of heavier calibers and of great destructive power were fired at the bombers and thousands of them were pulverized with the crew inside.

German bombers during the BoB were never confronted with such occurences and many many times German bomber crews returned to base in France with a badly damaged He 111, Do 17 Z or Ju 88 A. The only Brit fighter fitted with cannons by the time was the Spitfire Mk. I B but were so few and their weapons useless.

So if you take a closer look it seems the German medium bombers of 1940 are more likely to escape interception if compared with the large clumsy tubes of the USAAF during 1943/44.

The heavy bombers of the 8th, 9th and 15th AFs did not shoot down that too many German fighters. You say they shot down thousands of German fighters...i am not so sure about that. 

For every German fighter the bombers shot down no less than 5 heavy bombers were destroyed by them german boys, so try to figure the math out...get the number of heavy bombers destroyed by the Luftwaffe and you might then have an approximate idea of the number of German fighters lost to B-17s and B-24s.

*Russian fighters. *I was of course focusing my viewpoint in the aerial combat over western/northern europe...but if you want to talk about the aerial warfare in the east the russians were clearly behind the western ally; i can say that when Barbarossa was launched the Ju 88 was faster than the main soviet fighters...I-16 and I-153...talk about being superior.


----------



## renrich (Feb 13, 2007)

Comparing performance of JU 88 with other bombers: JU88A-1 top speed of 286 mph and bomb load of 3960 lbs. JU88C-6 top speed of 311 mph. Douglas A-20G top speed of 317mph, bomb load 4000 lbs


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2007)

I'm sorry Udet but your argument is void - you're comparing medium bombers with heavies and in their basic roles at the start of WW2 both the JU-88 and Do-17 suffered at the hands of the RAF and later VVS (when they got their sh*t together) when they were assembled in mass and attempted to bomb in large formations as they did in the BoB. Although you claim that many shot up bombers retured to France, many of them never flew again. It's when these aircraft came down on the dirt (the Ju 88 and Do 17) and were used in a more tactical role and when they were developed into fast attack aircraft and fighters that they did shine.

As far as your claim about the USAAF not destroying as many fighters as claimed, I agree somewhat but again I think your numbers are still skewed - if they were as you claim the Luftwaffe would of been able to deal with the 8th AF bombers AND marauding fighters - somethings as history tells us, did not happen.

BTW a B-24 with a "light" bomb load was very maneuverable - just don't get a hole in the wing or loose an engine...


----------



## Civettone (Feb 14, 2007)

You also have the tendancy to support your pro-Luftwaffe stand with accounts of veterans and of "I've seen images of ..." while you pretty much refute the same accounts on behalf of the allies.

I would prefer to stick to statistics. The Germans lost a lot of planes in the BoB though the situation was easier: short distance missions and relatively slow interceptors with nothing but MGs. 
What's more, your champion the Ju 88 suffered more losses than the Do 17 and He 111. The latter was the slowest though received only half of the Junkers losses. 

And to conclude, what is now your proof that _German bomber pilots had better chances of escaping interception if compared with the very poor guys of the 8th AF flying in the clumsy B-17/B-24 tubes?_
I also have my doubts about 5 heavy bombers shot down for every German fighter. What is this based on?
Kris


----------



## Udet (Feb 14, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'm sorry Udet but your argument is void - you're comparing medium bombers with heavies and in their basic roles at the start of WW2 both the JU-88 and Do-17 suffered at the hands of the RAF and later VVS (when they got their sh*t together) when they were assembled in mass and attempted to bomb in large formations as they did in the BoB. Although you claim that many shot up bombers retured to France, many of them never flew again. It's when these aircraft came down on the dirt (the Ju 88 and Do 17) and were used in a more tactical role and when they were developed into fast attack aircraft and fighters that they did shine.
> 
> As far as your claim about the USAAF not destroying as many fighters as claimed, I agree somewhat but again I think your numbers are still skewed - if they were as you claim the Luftwaffe would of been able to deal with the 8th AF bombers AND marauding fighters - somethings as history tells us, did not happen.
> 
> BTW a B-24 with a "light" bomb load was very maneuverable - just don't get a hole in the wing or loose an engine...




fLYBoy hello.

I am simply comparing the performance of bombers that were the workhorses of each air force in specific period of times.

If the _kampfgruppen_ committed to bomb England during 1940/41 could have had heavy bombers -four engine- to fly combat missions then i would be comparing them with the heavy bombers of the USAAF of the 1943/44 period.

Medium bombers were the only kind of bombers the Luftwaffe had to wage aerial war for 1940/41 while the USAAF´s B-17s and B-24s bore the brunt of the battle only a couple of years later.

I do not see how the comparison could be considered void. 

Although Germany never really intended to invade much less occupy England, in reality trying to prod the Brits onto the negotiation table to attain peace, the objective of the bomber force of the Luftwaffe over England during 1940/41 was similar to the goals outlined by the USAAF and RAF bomber fleets during 1943/44, so to me it seems the comparison is valid.

Do not forget i am not suggesting bombers could surpass the performance of fighters...also not forgetting the cases of the I-16 and I-153 which were slower than the Ju 88; the I-153 barely surpassing the speed of the He 111. Bouncing could virtually be the only choice for those aging fighters to shoot down the Ju 88.

Where there any periods of the war when German fighters could not catch up with any allied bombers medium or heavy alike? 8) 

I agree there were many times when German bombers returning from England had to written off due to bad damage, but exactly the same thing can be told about the USAAF heavies flyboy; how many of the B-17s which survived the Schweinfurt slaughter had to be written off upon return to base?

Look i will have to rescue my papers but i clearly recall the heavy bombers did not shoot down that many German fighters and that the exchange ratio remained -at minimum- 4 bombers destroyed for each German fighter shot down by the defensive guns, if not higher than that figure.

I was once told by some guy that the "actual" ratio remained close to 1 fighter shot down per 1 heavy bomber brought down: crap. My response to the gentleman was that if such a thing had been true, then the doctrine of the heavy bombers would have been proved correct and escort fighters would have never been required. But we know such a thing did not occur and the losses of the USAAF were so horrible that by the end of 1943 the allied air forces could not yet dare to affirm the battle would be won.

Cheers!


----------



## Udet (Feb 14, 2007)

Civettone said:


> You also have the tendancy to support your pro-Luftwaffe stand with accounts of veterans and of "I've seen images of ..." while you pretty much refute the same accounts on behalf of the allies.
> 
> I would prefer to stick to statistics. The Germans lost a lot of planes in the BoB though the situation was easier: short distance missions and relatively slow interceptors with nothing but MGs.
> What's more, your champion the Ju 88 suffered more losses than the Do 17 and He 111. The latter was the slowest though received only half of the Junkers losses.
> ...



You can call it whatever you want Civ; to you i am "pro-Luftwaffe", while in my view i am "Anti-bull*hit" wherever it comes from, i do not care. The point being it is mostly and mainly arguments that put down the Luftwaffe we get to hear or read about.

I will definetly not discuss in here the way you apparently want me to, but i´ve been "lucky" enough to have a family that to some extent is connected with the military and with people who were there; so talking and hearing such people helped me discover most allied accounts are crap, big time manipulated and distorted.

Also i will rejoice to dispute your argument the Luftwaffe had "an easier" scenario during 1940; it would be the very first time in history of wars when a sole branch of the armed forces of one nation -the air force- had been requested to achieve the ultimate goal of forcing the enemy to conclude its participation in a war. Nobody quite knew how things would progress, not the Germans not the Brits.

You bet that the "i´ve seen images..." thing has been of great help; the example of the Bf 109 G-6/R6 depicted on most accounts as _"no match against enemy fighters"_ -a tale i had swallowed- is of great value; watching guncamera of that particular version getting tailed by USAAF fighters helped me learning allied accounts lied and that the plane was more than capable of shaking off its pursuers.

The BoB is manipulated from its very outset when Winston the Liar made a speech in the house of commons right after the French collapse. You can not expect to have accurate figures from a battle that has been distorted by the propaganda machinery even before its commencement and much less objective when during such battle the hated enemy failed to achieve its goals...

So i guess that when you say the Ju 88 suffered higher losses than any of two other german bombers you are proving "my champion" was a bad plane or something like that. Tell me, do you consider the difference between Ju 88s and say He111s lost in action critical?

I will conclude this by telling you the only thing coming from the allies that is 100% true and will neither admit doubt nor debating is the fact Germany surrendered meaning they won the war. Everything else can be subjected to more than reasonable doubt and inquiry.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 14, 2007)

Hi guy's as you can see I am new on this Forum

and the best multirole aircraft in WWII? off course it could only have been a Me-262, no matter if as a "Blitzbomber" or fighter).

What could deliver a 1000kg bombload, at 800km/h and armed with 4x30mm MK 108 and 24 R4M-rockets?

Yes, a *Me-262*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 14, 2007)

Okay but how many roles can it perform...


----------



## Wespe (Feb 14, 2007)

Hey, the Me-262 can "role" around it's own axis as long as there is fuel in it's tanks 

The missions it could fullfill are resulting out the numerous derivates. e.g.

Reconnaissance Me 262 A-1a/U3
Fighter Me 262 A-1a
Bomber Interceptor Me 262 A-1a 
Night fighter Me 262 B-1a/U1FuG 218
Ground attack (Jabo)	Me 262 A-2a
Trainer Me 262 B-1a,

In other words, except swimming = everything


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 14, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Hey, the Me-262 can "role" around it's own axis as long as there is fuel in it's tanks



 



Wespe said:


> The missions it could fullfill are resulting out the numerous derivates. e.g.
> 
> Reconnaissance Me 262 A-1a/U3
> Fighter Me 262 A-1a
> ...



Yeap but there were other aircraft that could perform those same roles plus more including Torpedo Bomber, Transport, etc....

Just in my opinion the Me-262 was too little too late and could not perform the most roles and do all of them with pretty well.


----------



## Denniss (Feb 14, 2007)

Me 263 had only 500 kg bombload, either one 500kg or two 250kg. 1000kg were stressing the airframe too much as it got too heavy then.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2007)

Udet said:


> fLYBoy hello.
> 
> I am simply comparing the performance of bombers that were the workhorses of each air force in specific period of times.
> 
> ...




Good points Udet, but here is where I disagree...



> Medium bombers were the only kind of bombers the Luftwaffe had to wage aerial war for 1940/41 while the USAAF´s B-17s and B-24s bore the brunt of the battle only a couple of years later.
> 
> I do not see how the comparison could be considered void.



The entire deployment of bombers from both air arms were entirely different. The Luftwaffe did not employ "the box" to mutually defend the entire bomber formation from attack, their formations were looser and they flew at much lower altitudes. At the same time the Luftwaffe formations were a bit more flexible and yes they did fly aircraft that were way more maneuverable with their full bomb loads although B-17s and B-24 carried more ordnance. With that said, I see the USAAF as a line of Napoleonic or Civil War infantry squaring off point blank with their opposition and firing their muskets in mass. In the case of WW2 you had hundreds of bombers hovering over Germany at 125 mph, lobbing bombs out their bombays while squared off against fighters and flack and as we know the carnage on both side was enormous.

Although I would admit the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe bomber killers cannot be denied, the fact still remains that the allied bomber armada did prevail. You could blame the Luftwaffe failure on lack of gas but still in the long run its apparent that lack of gas and overwhelming numbers did the luftwaffe in...


----------



## Civettone (Feb 15, 2007)

Perhaps it's the historian in me talking but I simply refuse to take pictures and stories as facts. Like you, I'm a non-BS kind a guy. And I can admit that I'm pro-Luftwaffe. On other boards I'm always the sucker who takes the German side in WW2 discussions. But nevertheless I try to use arguments based on facts though most of the information one comes across is based on opinions or even fiction. Everybody remembers that article by Kit Carson about the Bf 109 and Fw 190, right? I myself have only last week been completely taken off guard when I found out that the German Tiger wasn't as unreliable as I always thought. In fact, figures show that it had a better operational ratio than the other German tanks! 
But sure, opinions, pictures and stories from veterans are great information and important pieces to the puzzle. But they are only indications. 

What are the facts in this discussion? The German bombers flew short-range missions, were usually escorted by fighters, suffered high losses at the hands of relatively few MG armed British fighters, and the Ju 88 suffered more losses than the other bombers.
The American B-17s flew a thousand miles over enemy airspace, they usually lost 10% on these missions, though being outnumbered against cannon armed fighters, and once they were properly escorted they lost about 3.7% of their bombers.

These are all facts, or at least that's the way I remember them without looking stuff up.

Seeing many German bombers coming back with damage, and knowing stories of Ju 88s outmanoeuvring British fighters, are not to be taken as general facts ... IMHO.



> So i guess that when you say the Ju 88 suffered higher losses than any of two other german bombers you are proving "my champion" was a bad plane or something like that. Tell me, do you consider the difference between Ju 88s and say He111s lost in action critical?


I've never called the Ju 88 a bad aircraft. From the top of my head, there were twice as many He 111s in the BoB though not much more or much less He 111s were lost than the Ju 88. In any case, you made a case that the Ju 88 was the best because it had speed and manoeuvrability which you claim were its best weapons against the British fighters. If these best weapons lead to more losses than with an aircraft like the He 111, I question if those weapons were so good.

Kris


----------



## Wespe (Feb 15, 2007)

Denniss said:


> Me 263 had only 500 kg bombload, either one 500kg or two 250kg. 1000kg were stressing the airframe too much as it got too heavy then.



 Are "you" trying to put down my beloved Me-262 ?  Aaaaarrrrrgghhhhhh.

So: What could deliver a 500 kg bombload, at 800km/h and armed with 4x30mm MK 108 and 24 R4M-rockets?

Yes, only a Me-262


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 15, 2007)

Okay and what effect did the Me-262 have on the war? Not a thing...

I would rather have 100 B-17s, Lancasters, B-24s or Ju-88s with more bomb load than a few Me-262s with 500kg.

The Me-262 simply could not perform as many roles as the other aircraft and because of its engine problems was too limited in what it could do. You could only get about 10 hours out of each engine anyhow?

Dont take me wrong I think the Me-262 was far more advanced than any of the other jets to actually see service in WW2 but it was too limited.

Just because you like the Me-262 is so beloved to you, does not make it the best "multi-role" aircraft. That is like me saying the Bf-109 was the best aircraft to see service in WW2 because it is my favorite aircraft. It is simply not the truth...

Where in Germany do you live anyhow Wespe?


----------



## Wespe (Feb 15, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Okay and what effect did the Me-262 have on the war? Not a thing...
> 
> I would rather have 100 B-17s, Lancasters, B-24s or Ju-88s with more bomb load than a few Me-262s with 500kg.
> 
> ...





Why do you forward such grueling words to me? Can’t you leave me my dreams?
Don’t you posses some feelings? 

Okay, the 262 wasn’t really ready yet, but it marks a new era in aviation. Therefore I would say that it could have been the most versatile a/c for the Lw, if it would have been recognized as such by 1942. So the most versatile a/c the Lw had during the whole war would have probably been the Ju 88, but producing Ju 88’s in 1944 instead of 262’s that just hurts. 
I am a Augsburger but right now I am making a living in Malaysia.

Have fun
Wespe


----------



## Civettone (Feb 15, 2007)

Correction, the 004B could operate for 10 hours before being revised (mainly replacing the turbine blades). The Jumo 213 or Russian VK 107 didn't achieve a much better maintainability level either.

And sorry Wespe but we all have dreams and favorites. I love pretty much all German and Italian aircraft but you have to become emotionally unattached if you want to discuss them. Else you'll just state opinions and hopes as facts...

The Me 262 was a very versatile aircraft and had the war dragged on langer, we would have seen large numbers of various variants including ground attack and night fighter versions. Surely the Me 262 design was suited for these modifications. 

But IMO it was too advanced. A simpler and/or single engined jet fighter would have been a better option, in combination with the Ar 234 which would have become operational before the Me 262 had it too given the same priority as the Me 262. 

See ... that's defending and attacking the Me 262 in the same post!  

Kris


----------



## Wespe (Feb 15, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Correction, the 004B could operate for 10 hours before being revised (mainly replacing the turbine blades). The Jumo 213 or Russian VK 107 didn't achieve a much better maintainability level either.
> 
> And sorry Wespe but we all have dreams and favorites. I love pretty much all German and Italian aircraft but you have to become emotionally unattached if you want to discuss them. Else you'll just state opinions and hopes as facts...
> 
> ...




Hi Kris,


mmmmphfffff...   mmmhfff ...  Ital...mmmpfff Italian ..   Italian Aircr..mppffff sorry I cant hold myself back.
But on the Ar 234 I would agree ..mmmffhf.  Itali...mpfff
that's a good one.

Have fun
Wespe mmffppf...Ital...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 15, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Why do you forward such grueling words to me? Can’t you leave me my dreams?
> Don’t you posses some feelings?
> 
> Okay, the 262 wasn’t really ready yet, but it marks a new era in aviation. Therefore I would say that it could have been the most versatile a/c for the Lw, if it would have been recognized as such by 1942. So the most versatile a/c the Lw had during the whole war would have probably been the Ju 88, but producing Ju 88’s in 1944 instead of 262’s that just hurts.
> ...



The only reason I disagree with you is because okay the 262 could night fight, fighter, recon and fighter bomber.

Fw-190 could perform more roles than that and so could the Ju-88. Then you also have the Mossie and the B-25.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 15, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The only reason I disagree with you is because okay the 262 could night fight, fighter, recon and fighter bomber.
> 
> Fw-190 could perform more roles than that and so could the Ju-88. Then you also have the Mossie and the B-25.



Bahhhh. the mossie was just good for termites,

I had to say something negative, sorry I can't help it.
But on the B-25 or even the A-26 yep I would agree on those two.
Fantastic versatile machines.
I think we got the winner = A-26 8) 

Wespe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 15, 2007)

The A-26 was a wonderful aircraft and beautiful too.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 15, 2007)

I thought about it, and the Mosquito was more versatile than the Ju 88...

And I don't know if the Fw 190 was more versatile than the Me 262, I just think it had more time to develop into new versions. The Me 262 was in production for less than a year. How many versions were there of the Fw 190 in mid 1942? 

Kris


----------



## Parmigiano (Feb 16, 2007)

Wespe, are you from Augsburg city or from the area (like Ellzee?)


----------



## Wespe (Feb 16, 2007)

Parmigiano said:


> Wespe, are you from Augsburg city or from the area (like Ellzee?)



Hi Parmigiano

(Ellzee?) sorry I don't get that one.

I am from Augsburg-Lettenbach, why? do you have a Ice-cream or Pizza shop there?  

Wespe


----------



## Parmigiano (Feb 16, 2007)

@ Wespe

Just I am married with somebody from that area, and one of her relatives is more or less of your age, lives half the time in Germany and half in Far East (Thailand and Malaysia) and should be back in Germany this summer. 
Ellzee is the little village where the family is from, about 30km from Augsburg.
Pretty a coincidence, just wondering if by chance you were 'him'

And hey, if you want to start with old fashioned stereotypes like pizza, mandolin etc. I must give you a fair warning :

I have a 30+ years experience of jokes in University, Military and Bar Sport, so I could go on for 3 months without repeating myself

Understood you little Kraut?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2007)

And the war has begun...


----------



## Parmigiano (Feb 16, 2007)

No, no war, I just wnated to say that I have a long training joking on this stereotypes, like when she is pissed at somebody she ask me 'if I have a friend in Sicily who can talk to the person' and when she has a strong opinion on something I pretend to find on her head the label 'Krupp Metallwerke' and so on.

With her two brothers the jokes are much less refined...


----------



## Civettone (Feb 16, 2007)

Yeah, Germans and Italians are two of the most recognizable stereotypes. 




Unlike the Belgians ... thank God 
Kris


----------



## Wespe (Feb 16, 2007)

Hi Parmigiano

there is a fellow on this forum who told me that he mmfffhhp  sorry likes mmppff  Italian planes.

Maybe you got some nice mmppff pictures for him.

Have fun
Wespe


----------



## Parmigiano (Feb 16, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Yeah, Germans and Italians are two of the most recognizable stereotypes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you sure? The French have a lot of jokes on Belgians, the kind of British have with Irish...

I suppose that there is no Country or race that is safe from stereotypes! Thanks God we can all laugh and apply some healthy self-deprecation


----------



## Parmigiano (Feb 16, 2007)

Ciao Wespe,

if you mean Cheddar I suppose he has more material and knows more about Italian planes than me.

Just search the forum with some keyword like 'Macchi' 'Series 5' and so on, you will find several discussions.

And be more explicit with your 'mmmpppfff': as Italian I am way too lazy to ever think to make the effort to try to figure out the meaning.  I could fall asleep right afterwards.

And btw 'Macchi' is 'Makke' in English phonetic, and (to continue impress you with my culture) it is 'Monna Lisa' not 'Mona Lisa': mona in Italian dialect means 'pu_sy'... while 'Monna' is contraction of 'Madonna', used as 'lady' in ancient Italian


----------



## Wespe (Feb 16, 2007)

Parmigiano said:


> Ciao Wespe,
> 
> if you mean Cheddar I suppose he has more material and knows more about Italian planes than me.
> 
> ...




Hi Parmigiano
So I could say to an Italian girl: when you makke mona contractione I feel fantastico.


----------



## dobravery (Jun 7, 2007)

Historically it's the Mossie hands down. 
The P-38 could bomb strategically, but only did a handful of times.
The Ju 88 was very versitile, but never excelled in one function to the degree that the Mossie did.

Now hold on. . .
If I'm country X and I can only have 1 type of warplane, it would be a P-38.
Though not as well as the Mossie, the P-38 did have the range and bombload to atleast conduct a strategic strike (as in Ploesti). 
The Mossie on the other hand would not have functioned well as a day-time air superiority fighter. Sure they have enough speed to bounce a single engined plane and run, but that's it.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 9, 2007)

Udet said:


> I agree the P-38 was a very capable machine, but against the Fw190s and Bf109s the model took a hell of a pounding. It was in the Pacific where the Lightning saw its more memorable episodes.
> 
> What about the Ju88? Excellent both as medium bomber and (fearsome) nightfighter; an extremely versatile model



Actually the P-38J 'took a pounding' on about a 1:1 ratio air to air at high altitude in cold ETO air - a. the Allison reliability at 30,000 was dismal and b.) the 38 accelerated too quickly in a dive pursuit going into compressibility quickly so was easy to eavade. 

These issues were fixed with the P-38L coming into inventory in May 44. The 20th, 55th, 364th and 479th scored very well in long range escort in the next months until they converted to 51's - and very well on the deck with the 9th AF after that.

The 38L (with dive brakes) changed the odds completely - I believe it was faster, could turn and climb with (and definitely outdive) the 190G-3 but not climb with a 109G-6AS. I'll have to look - I could be wrong on the initial climb against the 109Gs and never saw a performance test vs 190D.

The Mossie and P38 are a toss up - mossie the edge as a long range bomber, the 38 as a fighter vs fighter in daylight.. and mossie the edge as a night fighter.. both deserve consideration as Best All Around a/c built in WWII


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 9, 2007)

P38

I often think if the US had not 'castrated' the P38 when sold to the Brits (not very helpful) and had given it contra-rotating props from the get-go then it would have been an entirely different scenario in the early war years.

And Cockpit heating too - that worked !

Imagine that during the BoB - the armanent on the P38 would have shredded Heinkels and JUs, and Flying-Pencils.

I think it could have made a Great strategic bomber, if it had been given a fair crack of the whip.

[imagine a P38 with 2 merlins]

Mossie

Could have used Contra (aka 'handed' ?) props

Also, somehow, a rear facing MG operated by the Navigator maybe on a swivelling seat ?

Some kind of fairing at the rear of the canopy, maybe slightly cut-down rear fuselage, could have saved a lot of Mossies from being Jumped from the rear (no one likes that).

Undercarriage

Its often forgotten that the Mossie was not only made of Wood - but used other Non-Strat methods like a Cart made from stacked Rubber bushes within a pressed mild steel casing

- also used Cables rather than hydraulics mostly - made it harder to shoot down too.


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 9, 2007)

Meteor Vampire

Both of these jets would I believe have made a big impact if the war had gone a little longer - or - if the RAF had been a bit snappier getting them into service.

Thing is, British Jets were essentially more reliable and easier to manufacture - and we had lots and lots of paraffin (gasoil) to run them.

And after the war the Meteor set world speed records and the Vampie set Altitude records.

Turboprops

I often fantasize about Turboprop powered Mosquitos and Lancs

It could have been done - and should have been done, really, as a lot of allied crews lives would have been saved by the higher performance at altitude imho that is.


----------



## wingnuts (Aug 30, 2007)

I'm a bit late posting on this thread and may not be able to add much. It seems to be a contest between the Ju88, P38 and the Mosquito. 

I think the Mosquito has a very slight edge, It was manufactured in the UK, Canada and Australia and it did remain in service until the early 60s. 

It did star in several very notable raids like the attack on the Gestapo HQ and when disrupting a speech by Goering in Berlin and another even by Dr Goebbels... also over Berlin.

It did use a lot of non strategic materials and utilised the skills of craftsmen that would otherwise have been underused. 

General "Hap" Arnold was enthisiasic about the aircraft although US manufacturers were sceptical. I beleve the USAAC did use some in the photo-reconassance role. 

Even Herman Goering was envious

Quote:

"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy.

The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that?

There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war's over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked." (I'd dispute that last bit about the radio).

Finally I think the Mosquito looks better.... The P38 and JU88 look meaner but the Mozzie is one of those aircraft that look as good as they are..... were.... whatever. 

I do like the P38 and by the way... although from the UK originally I'm not a die-hard "British is Best" faanatic... 8)


----------



## magnocain (Oct 28, 2007)

(im a noob at this so dont kill me)
i think the ju88 could carry a heavier bombload than either the p38 or the mosquito, so that should for somthing.
and i would like to point out that none of these planes could operate from a carrier


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2007)

That is not true.

The Royal Navy had the Sea Mosquito.

Mk. 33 equiped with power-folding wings, oleo main gearm four-blade propellers, arrester hook, four 20mm cannon, torpedo (or various bomb/rocket loads), American ASH radar and rocket JATO boost.

TF.37: Naval torpedo fighter, basically Mk. 33 with AI/ASV Mk. XIII radar.


----------



## Catch22 (Oct 29, 2007)

Were they operational during WW2?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2007)

I am not sure on that.


----------



## ccheese (Oct 30, 2007)

I am also late getting into this thread (and I'm not going through 51 pages)
but.... has anyone mentioned the PBY ? Rescue, Observation/Spotting,
Dive bomber, Torpedo bomber, Ambulance, Transport, Anti-sub, and a bit 
of straffing.

Charles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2007)

I agree the PBY was a great aircraft and did one hell of a job in the roles that it performed but the only reason I would not vote for the PBY is because there were sea planes in the same class as the PBY that could out perform, had better range and could perform the same tasks and sometimes more than the PBY.

As I said though the BPY (for me and in my opinion) would get an honorable mention and was one hell of a plane.


----------



## ccheese (Oct 30, 2007)

I mearly mentioned the PBY..... the same could be said for the C-47/R4D.

It was one hell of an airplane.

Charles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2007)

I mearly mentioned why I would not vote for it in my opinion....


----------



## Neto (Oct 31, 2007)

in my opinion the ju 88 may be the best multiaction aircraft


----------



## DBII (Oct 31, 2007)

Since the thread is so long, I did not read everything. My only question is has anyone brought up the B-25? 

DBII


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 31, 2007)

DBII said:


> Since the thread is so long, I did not read everything. My only question is has anyone not brought up the B-25?
> 
> DBII


yep


----------



## Neto (Oct 31, 2007)

DBII said:


> Since the thread is so long, I did not read everything. My only question is has anyone not brought up the B-25?
> 
> DBII



it is a nice airplane with a very hard fuselage but the junkers focus principally his amaising speed and fantastic versatiblility alied to his low production price and very good dive bombing made it a destructible wepon


----------



## magnocain (Oct 31, 2007)

> The Royal Navy had the Sea Mosquito.
> 
> Mk. 33 equiped with power-folding wings, oleo main gearm four-blade propellers, arrester hook, four 20mm cannon, torpedo (or various bomb/rocket loads), American ASH radar and rocket JATO boost.


Ok, ya i found that the 'mossie' did go on carriers (5 minuets after i posted it), and as best as i can tell it very late war or post war. Didn't the Ju88 carry the largest load (the most bombs)?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2007)

magnocain said:


> Didn't the Ju88 carry the largest load (the most bombs)?



No the Ju 88 was a medium bomber. It was a medium bomber and could carry 5500 lb of bombs.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 1, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No the Ju 88 was a medium bomber. It was a medium bomber and could carry 5500 lb of bombs.


The typical load for the B-17 and B-24 heavy bombers.

Any know what the range of the Ju88 was with 5500 lb of bomb?


----------



## magnocain (Nov 1, 2007)

> No the Ju 88 was a medium bomber. It was a medium bomber and could carry 5500 lb of bombs.


I meant the largest bomb load out of the p38, ju88, and Mosquito. I believe that the ju88 could go (about) 1,200 miles, however i dont know if that range was with the full bombload, or any bombs at all.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

Compared to a P-38 obviously the Ju 88 has a higher bomb load. The Mossie could carry up to 6000lb of bombs but that was over a very short range.

I do not know the range of the Ju 88 with max bomb load.


----------



## magnocain (Nov 9, 2007)

which one was the cheapest, easiest to maintain, quickest to scramble, fastest dive rate,fastest climb, ect...? i know in some situations i would want a ju88, in some a p38, in some a mosiquito. what did their crews have to say?


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 12, 2007)

The Ju 88 made a better long-range bomber, but the Mosquito had unmatched maneuverability among the bombers, while being a good bit faster than the Ju88.

Add the Mossie's ability to carry a heavy battery of guns and you have a fighter-bomber/attack aircraft/anti-sub fighter/high speed transport/'energy' fighter. Not the best at fighting, but it will outfight a Ju88.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 14, 2007)

I don't see how the Ju 88 would make the better long-range bomber. First of all, it wasn't a long-range bomber. It had medium range. Second, the Mosquito had a similar range. Even later versions could fly 2,400 km with a full bomb load. And the Ju 88 could carry 1,000 lbs internally while the Mosquito could carry a cookie of 4,000 lbs in its belly!

I still stick to my original point. The Ju 88 could do lots of things and excelled at some of them. The Mosquito could do lots of things and excelled at most of them. In fact, the only place where it failed was as a day fighter. 
Kris


----------



## magnocain (Nov 14, 2007)

Um... Ya actually i agree with that.
But i still like the ju88 better. So mabey...
1. mosquito
2. ju88
3. p38?
4. ?


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Dec 13, 2007)

im not so sure about this, but is this limited to ww2?


If not ill say the Ad skyraider. That Plane did just about everything you could name.


----------



## Pflueger (Dec 13, 2007)

I believe they are focusing on WW2, but agree that the skyraider was the most versatile AC of all time. I read an account (I believe on this forum) written by skyraider pilot who was assigned to carry a nuke into USSR in the event of WW3 (in the mid-1950's I think). He gave simulated account of what the "final" mission would have been like - it was a cool read. 

I know, I know: I am sure that the Mossie could have been modified to carry a nuke


----------



## Seawitch (Jan 7, 2008)

I just love the Douglas Skyraider, I've been reading a lot about them recently.
Drawn up in ww2 but never used in it, it came in 28 different variants from fighter/bomber to carrying passengers.
I think thats a record?
Specialisation was the reason it continued to exist, last seen operating in Chad in 1979.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2008)

This thread is about WW2 however...


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 2, 2008)

max internal bomb load of ju 88 is 1400 kg, is 500 kg only with a tank fuel in forward bay.


----------



## Old Wizard (Apr 2, 2008)

For added versatility both the B-25 and the Mosquito had a field artillery piece mounted in the nose. A 75mm for the B-25 and a 6 pounder for the Mosquito. I wonder what the opposition thought when one of these came at them?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 8, 2008)

Couldn't the Ju 88 carry even larger external loads like 2x SC 2000. (the largest I believe to be fitted)

If you look at the Ju 88's original prformance (with very few or no guns and w/out the dive bomber mods) it really could have been comparable to the Mossie as a fast bomber. (particularly by '39-'40 standards)



> The aircraft's first flight was made by the prototype Ju 88 V1, which bore the civil registration D-AQEN, on 21 December 1936. When it first flew, it managed about 580 km/h (360 mph) and Hermann Göring, head of the Luftwaffe was ecstatic. It was an aircraft that could finally fulfill the promise of the Schnellbomber, a high-speed bomber. The streamlined fuselage was modeled after its contemporary, the Dornier Do 17, but with fewer defensive guns because the belief still held that it could outrun late 1930s-era fighters. The fifth prototype set a 1,000 km (620 mile) closed-circuit record in March 1939, carrying a 2,000 kg (4,100 lb) payload at a speed of 517 km/h (320 mph).[3] However, by the time Luftwaffe planners had had their own "pet" features added (including dive-bombing), the Ju 88's top speed had dropped to around 450 km/h (280 mph).



IMO they should have kept a dedicated, stripped down, fast bomber variant with out guns/gunners. With crew down to 2, like in the Mossie.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 8, 2008)

As to an earlier question, I do believe the Mossie (late models) used counter rotating props. (as did the Hornet) Easily supported by the fact that such modles used 2 different engine models. (one 'left handed' and one 'right handed') I'm not sure if the rotated outward (as seen from the top of the prop discs) as in production P-38's or inward. (like the original XP-38 prototype)


----------



## blue swede (Jun 27, 2008)

My money is on the He177 Grief!


----------



## Denniss (Jun 27, 2008)

blue swede said:


> My money is on the He177 Grief!



Your money should be better spent on a book about the Heinkel He 177 Gr*ei*f......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2008)

blue swede said:


> My money is on the He177 Grief!



Not you again???!!!

You really should invest some money on some good books and actually learn something about WW2 aviation and the He 177...


----------



## JugBR (Jun 28, 2008)

the Jug should be a nice choice !

*dogfighter
*ground attack
*escort
*interceptor

not the most fast, not the most beautifull, but realiable and armoured like the goddamm hell ! its our baby...

 

also Bf 109 should be a nice choice by the axis side, by its different versions and also his fexibility in battlefield.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2008)

The P-47 was a pretty lousy dogfighter though..


----------



## JugBR (Jun 28, 2008)

but he was very armoured, it save the lifes of many dudes in the war. but also the plane has a combination of heavy guns, wich made him bad to digest by the luftwaffe predators i gess.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2008)

For allies I would go with either the P-38 or the Mossie and for the Axis I would go with the Ju 88 which in my opinion is one of the most versatile aircraft ever built.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jun 28, 2008)

Fw-190:

Fighter, interceptor, ground attack, night fighter (limited) and pretty adaptable to these roles too.


----------



## moomoo2 (Aug 21, 2008)

The JU88 had a go at most things and wasn't bad at most of them.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 29, 2008)

The fw190 had speed, manuveribility, armore, armorment and was the germans best mass produced dogfighter acording to many. it was great against tanks and was used semi efectivly with the tame and wild bore night fighter sqoudrins. 
The he177 grief was palugued with engine problems Hence the nikename "flying coffon". But late war variants were some of the best bombers the germans had. But they were only good at bombing, somtimes the were used as semi dive bombers. but to the point most of them were plagued with problems and those that were'nt were not much good for anything exept bombing. In the mini blitz the germans lunched late in war against london the he177 took the lowest losses of any german bomber. Alot of there missions were even flown at day!8)


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 29, 2008)

...well I am going to say for axis....sounds silly but the Ju-87...close support,anti tank missions,ground attack, and dive bombing or Ju-88...

Allies Mossie, and Corsair


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 29, 2008)

The Ju 88 was a versitile aircraft: hevy fighter, night fighter, bomber, schnell bomber, dive bomber. Mean while the ju 87 was just a good ground attack aircraft and coudent do enything other than that.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 29, 2008)

thanks for mentioning the corsair, That was just as multi role capasity as the focke wulf fw 190. But was let down with lack of a hevy cannon.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 29, 2008)

Yea that is true but It did provide a lot of support during the Pacific invasions


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 29, 2008)

What made the corsair so efective in the pacific was a hevy bomb and rocket load and lack of Jap tanks. With out enimy tanks the lack of cannons was only a miniscule draw back


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 29, 2008)

The 190's cannon wouldn't be much good aganst tanks (at least not much moreso than .50's). And the underwing MK 103's weren't practical. (not used in the anti-tank role anyway)

Read the tank buster thread, one of the most effective (if not the most) was napalm, which the Corsair did use to a limited extent.

Also the HVAR was decent in the anti-tank role as well. (as far as rockets go)
And the Corsair was a pretty accurate dive bomber. (not that dive bombing was particularly good aganst tanks with conventional bombs -with cluster bombs -which weren't used By the US iirc or naplam it's a bit different-)


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 29, 2008)

The fw 190 was fitted with various anti tank armerments such as air two ground rockets and hevey anti tank cannons fitted under wing were more than capable of punching through the top armore of a sherman or even a t-34.


In theary the corsair could only carry five or six napalm bombs, I read that a napalm hit within 50 feet would kill a tank, The germans [ and japanise for that matter] rarly had more than one tank in a 50 feet radios, so lets asume that it takes one napalm bomb to kill a tank. I will be generous and say that a corsair can kill 10 tanks on any given sortie. Mean while it is thearyeticly posible, I am not saying that it ever apened, That a cannon armed plane could destroy up to 30 tanks in any given sortie. Napalm was more efective against tank masses and would not have wiped out the german tank force. I do have to admit if the germans had napalm they would have killed thousinds of russian tanks, the russians perfered massed tank attacks.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 29, 2008)

most people think wikipedia is a unrelible source, but I think it works. Acording to wikipedia the mk 103 was desigened as a anti tank and anti air gun. 
Here is a link MK 103 cannon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 




do you now if anybody developed a forword firing napalm rocket


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 29, 2008)

Napalm was droppted in tanks (in the case of the F4U the same type as its drop tanks)

The underwing MK 103's tried on the Anton (/R3 iirc) were intended as an anti-tank armament, but this configuration was unsatisfactory as I recall as the accuracy was too poor.


The antitank version of the R4M rockets (Panzerblitz 2) used with the Fw 190 were quite good though.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 30, 2008)

Ether way they are both versitile aircraft.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 30, 2008)

No doubt about that, the Fw 190, F4U, and P-47 were probably the most versitile single engined aircraft o the war. (discussted earlier in the thread)

Though the F4U was probaly a bit more (at least in actual built versions) than the other 2. Being carrier capable (though the 190 probably would have made a good carrier aircraft) and a good dive bomber and doing so in standard configuration -the landing gear had a dive brake setting. (and nearly as accurate as SBD) 

I don't think the Corsair was ever tested with a torpedo but it would apear to be capable of carrying one. (the center belly pylon could carry a 2000 lb bomb and it looks to have enough ground clearance) 


But the Ju 88, Mosquito, and P-38 were probably moreso, particularly the Ju 88 and Mossie.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 30, 2008)

The focke fulf fw190 A8/u2 variant was a torpedo variant of the fw 190. The fiat g55 was also capable of carrying a torpedo. I found a website with a picture. 


Fiat G.55 Centauro - history, photos, specification of the Fiat G.55 Centauro 



If these plane could carry one than I am positive that a corsair could, I know that the ju88 were used as torpedo planes in the arctic. Sense the bristol bougfighter carried torpedos a am positive the mossie could to. 

But the ju88 and mossie were let down by lack of day fighter capability. The p-38 is also a versitile plane. But they would have a hard time holding there own in europe if they were the "main" allied fighter, but the did respectible in any theature thay apered in. thats better than alot of aircraft in the world.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 30, 2008)

A P-47 wouldn't be able to carry a torpedo though as the belly was too low. (it couldn't even carry a 1000 lb bomb on the belly, though it could carry quite heavy loads there, as long as they were fairly flat -ie drop tanks of 200 US gal)


The corsair was the only oneof theese that was capable as a true dive bomber in standard loadout. (most if ot all production corsairs had a setting for the landing gear to deploy as dive brakes)
The 190 and Jug did some "dive bombing" attacks in fighter-bomber mode, but those were not true dive bombing attacks (shallower dives at greater speeds pulling out at higher alts), they would have needed dive brakes -though I suppose the dive recovery flaps of the later P-47D's would work for this. (and in the case of the Ju 88, it had been equipped as a dive bomber, but I think it was found to be too unstable in a dive to perform satisfactory dive-boming attacks)


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 30, 2008)

Late in the war dive bombers lost there efectivness becaues they wernt good verse tanks and rockets were more than capable against "soft" targets. The corsairs dive bombing ability still counts as browny points for this topic, I do have tgo agree the corsiar probily tops the list.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 30, 2008)

None of theese single engine fighters/fighter-bombers could perform bommbing duties like the Ju 88 or mossie, and were less suited as nightfighters too.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 30, 2008)

The corsasir wasent the best bomber out there but could carry an equil load as the mossie and some variants of the ju 88. The night fighter variant of the corsair was a capable plane, the corsair had a simular combat radios to the mustang without drop tanks. range is vital for a good night fighter. In the koriean war a night fighter corsair pilot was the only non f-86 pilot to make ace for the allies. I personly think that the corsair was the best plane of world war two because it was good at almost evrything it did, and it did a lot.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 31, 2008)

I meant that the Corsair (as well as the 190 and the P-47-had it been adapted to the NF role) was less practical to use as a sightfighter at the time. Firstly it wasn't until mid-late war that a radar package small enough to be practically mounted on the wing (especially if you look at the German radar). Also it was difficult for the pilot to effectively operate the radar in addition to piloting and fighting. (most of this had improved considerably by the Korean War)


The combat radius of the F4U-1/1A was quite similar to the P-51, but only with the unprotected (except for CO2 purging) wing tanks used. These were eliminated on later Corsair models as the extra range was not normally necessary for Navy use. (granted, had it been developed with longer range desired the wing tanks would likely heve been improved with self-sealing and possibly enlarged)


As for bombload, yes the Corsair could carry quite a lot, but like the P-38 at max bombload it couldn't go nearly as far as the Mossie or Ju 88.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 31, 2008)

So the question is whats more versitile a twin or a single engene plane. 
The junkers ju88 was a torpedo bomber, tacticul bomber, dive bomber,Night fighter, hevey fighter, unmaned flying bomb called the mistel. I am not shure if you could call the mistel a variant of the ju88. It was also used as a electronic warfare aircraft. Just to add to the list there was trainer aircraft and fighter bomber. 





The f4u was a Fighter, ground attack, dive bomber, carrier plane. interceptotre, strike aircraft and it is safe to assume that if the corsair entered survice in a time when the japs had more ships the corsair would have been used as a torpedo bomber. 

The ju88, and mossie for that matter are probily the most versitile aircraft of world war two. I think that the corsair and fw190 were probily the most versitile single engene airplanes out there.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 7, 2008)

This: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/pics-rare-us-aircrafts-14841.html led me to this picture:







Of the P-38 equipped with torpedo.


----------



## steelDUST (Sep 21, 2008)

Again, it's the Ju-88G.


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 30, 2008)

Cant beleive i have missed this thread untill now. anyhoo DH 98 would be my resounding choice i have said so elsewhere and will say so here. Ju 88 if i had to pick a second.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2008)

Pretty much the whole discussion revolved around the Mossie, Ju 88, and P-38. 

A few others were tossed in (Hurricane, Typhoon, and a couple others), but didn't realy compare with the above three, toward the end of the thread and on the last few pages several others, that do have significant merit in the comparison, though probably still not quite a match for the "main" 3.

The P-47, F4U, and Fw 190 came into the discussion and truly were quite versitile, possible rivaling the trio of twins that comprised the 3 "main competitors." And as a seperate discussion on which was the most versitile single engined a/c.

With the F4U apearing to be capable the most capable of these, and the Fw 190 probably a bit ahead of the P-47.

The corsair being capable of:

-Fighter/Interceptor
-Fighter-bomber (it should be noted that it was equipped operationally with Napalm tanks)
-Escort Fighter
-(single seat) radar-equipped night fighter
-carrier capable
-dive bombing (not fighter-bomber type "glide bombing," but ture dive bombing with -landing gear- dive brakes)
-possible torpedo bomber (with central pylon, but not sure if it was ever attually configured or tested as such)
-tank buster (8x 5" HVAR, or Napalm)

Prboably a few more I forgot or I'm unsure of. (anti-shipping?)


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 31, 2008)

Cool cheers kitty read swag of the posts and was enlightened by all, particularly stuff on the F4U always had a soft spot for this A/C and find it hard to put it above FW 190D but by sounds of capabilities personal preference aside it sounds as though the F4U was more versitile. Still a torpedo under a FW 190 thats somthing i never even considered


----------



## slaterat (Nov 16, 2008)

The hurricane can give any aircraft a run for its money when it comes to versatility.

fighter/interceptor
fighter bomber
dedicated ground attack Mk IID and MK IV 350lbs armour plate
anti tank 2 x 40 mm
anti ship 8 x 3" rockets
carrier operational
MAC operational
CAM ship operational
long range fighter
night intruder
radar equipped night fighter
tactical recon
PRU 
anti submarine Canadian versions carried 2 depth charges

Slaterat


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

mossie for me....It's easier to list what this aircraft CAN'T do than what it can, and did!


----------



## ummonk (Dec 13, 2008)

I agree that the Corsair is highly versatile. I think it would be my choice.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 14, 2008)

ummonk said:


> I agree that the Corsair is highly versatile. I think it would be my choice.



While I agree that it is a versatile aircraft, how could it be more versatile than a Mossie or a Ju 88?


----------



## Waynos (Dec 14, 2008)

It can't, the Mossie wins. Has anyone mentioned the BOAC Mosquitos?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 15, 2008)

I'm gonna stick up for the P-38; the P-38 was also used for multiple roles, including Pathfinder, Droop Snoot, night fighter, VIP transport, fighter-bomber, photo-recon, torpedo bomber (tested, never used operationally), floatplane (tested only), fire bomber, civilian aerial survey (post-War) and, finally, competitive air racer.


----------



## Sweb (Feb 8, 2009)

The Jug. In the ETO P-38 pilots froze their butts off and the turbos froze up too. It couldn't carry the payload a Jug could nor did it have the Jug's sheer weight of firepower in terms of devastation or round-count. Remember, "the whole nine yards" was the total length of ammo belts in a P-38. Not much. 

The Mosquito was a fine airplane but seriously did NOT need a crew of 2. Plus with it's water-cooled engines it was a fragile beast where small arms fire was heavy at the tree-top attack role. One engine disabled snafu'd its mission capability. Same goes for the P-38 in this regard. Finally, there was a lot of metal between the bottom of the plane and the pilot in a Jug. Not so in the P-38 and certainly not in the "woody" Mosquito. 

You have to think in terms of mission capability at all flight levels, payload out, range, souls to be lost, inherent weaknesses of each machine and their mission-relative survivability, the job that needs to be done and then think in terms of which machine is the best match-up.


----------



## Amsel (Feb 8, 2009)

Fw 190 A8 was a great all around aircraft with many versions for different roles. Fast, heavily armed and armored, easy to maintain and capable as a fighter bomber (jabo).


----------



## Sweb (Feb 9, 2009)

German fighters had no range. They struggled to get to where the bombers were and then after a couple passes had to break for home to refuel and rearm. They had little time on target. Even with ferry tanks their ammunition supply wouldn't give them effective combat duration. It can be argued that many were crack shots and to shoot down a bomber all they had to do was cruise aft of a formation and take one down after the other at their leisure. But, the idea was to do whatever they could to get those formations to break ranks so they had to engage like flies to a crap wagon. That took a lot of fuel and evasive maneuvering meant missed firing runs. So, if we're talking about a true multi-role machine Germany didn't have one that wasn't bettered by Allied inventory. 

Of the ones that come to mind it would be the Jug first and Corsair second only because the Jug had better high altitude performance. After that I'd consider Hawker's Sea Fury. These were big airplanes with good range and performances at various flight levels. They carried huge payloads, ample ammo supplies and were good (cleaned-up) air superiority adversaries. The biggest plus, and I've mentioned it in another thread, is their round engines otherwise I might have added the 51 and maybe the 38. One round through the glycol system on those water cooled types and it's over so they aren't as multi-role suited as a round engine. Besides, 51's should be used for CAP over the Jugs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 9, 2009)

Sweb said:


> German fighters had no range. They struggled to get to where the bombers were and then after a couple passes had to break for home to refuel and rearm.



That is not true. The range of the Fw 190 and Bf 109 were more than sufficient for anti bomber operations. They did not have to struggle to reach the bombers. They took off from air bases over Germany and attacked the bombers over Germany.

They lacked good range for offensive operations, such as the Battle of Britain, but they certainly did not lack in the anti bomber role.

If you really want to talk about multi role the Jug still does not come close to the Fw 190 in the single engine role. It certainly can be argued that the Jug was better than the Fw 190 in certain roles, but the Fw 190 could perform more roles and do them well.

In the multi engine category, I do not think anything comes close to the Mossie, Ju 88 and P-38.


----------



## Valo300 (Feb 9, 2009)

I have to go *P38* on this one, hands down. From level bomber to night fighter, the P38 literally did every role imaginable in WWII. It's weakest role was divebombing, but the J/L's were even credible performers at this task.
There was even a carrier based version, the "Model 822" (which the USN did not express much interest in).

Of course this is JMHO.


----------



## Sweb (Feb 9, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is not true. The range of the Fw 190 and Bf 109 were more than sufficient for anti bomber operations. They did not have to struggle to reach the bombers. They took off from air bases over Germany and attacked the bombers over Germany.
> 
> They lacked good range for offensive operations, such as the Battle of Britain, but they certainly did not lack in the anti bomber role.
> 
> ...



All of Tank's designs were superb machines but hardly could any one of them load-out what the Jug could. Air-to-air, IIRC, the Jug was historically victorious over the German fighter. I'll admit that this was more to the credit of American combat flight training and mission discipline but with 8 .50 weapons firing at a rate of 900 RPM (early Brownings) a one second burst was minimally 120 rounds. That one second burst with API (armor piercing incendiary) was like a fly swatter to a fly. One of those rounds in the main spar severed the wing. They hit and began burning violently upon impact acting like buzz saws. Regular ball ammo alone would have been devastating from the sheer weight from 8 .50's. German cannon armaments, though lauded as being highly accurate, were much slower firing and because each round was heavier than a .50-round the Germans had to be closer in to their targets where their weapons were most effective. The Browning .50-cal. was the best air-to-air weapon of the war because of it's rate of fire, range, and striking power.

While the German fighters were quite capable of reaching and engaging Allied formations it _is_ true that they could _not_ remain on-station for long. Scrambling from their fields after report of approaching formations they had to climb at full power to altitude and then fly an intercept at that same power setting. This consumed much more fuel than if they had time to climb to altitude and turn to intercept at economy settings. At the altitudes Allied formations flew even early warnings didn't give them that leisure. Remember, best rates of climb meant highest fuel consumptions. The German fighters were not as suited to multi-role mission capabilities as the big round engine American and British types. The Jug could carry 1 ton of explosives to a German air base and go home. They did this routinely. The German machines might manage 1/2 ton but never make it back from the American base. They couldn't manage 1/2 ton of ordnance and external fuel stores. There simply wasn't enough airplane there.

I like them all. As a matter of fact I've drawn my own plans for a 1/4 scale Jack (Raiden) and hope to be building it in the not-to-distant future. But, the questions here and in other threads seem to be asking about "best" this or that and it seems to me favorites are pushed regardless of assessing the nature of what multi-role really means. For that all you gotta do is lay out the historical data showing performance, survivability/battle damage records for types, number of crewmen (one is enough), carrying capacity, range and firepower.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2009)

Sweb said:


> All of Tank's designs were superb machines but hardly could any one of them load-out what the Jug could.



You sure about that. Wager to prove it?


----------



## Valo300 (Feb 10, 2009)

Wow, you guys have an interesting view on 'moderation' here on this forum. I guess you guys don't drink from the 'mods are neutral and impassive' cup eh?  (please note smiley face, this post is offered in good nature.)


----------



## Amsel (Feb 10, 2009)

Luckily so because the mods seem to have an abundance of accurate information.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2009)

Valo300 said:


> Wow, you guys have an interesting view on 'moderation' here on this forum. I guess you guys don't drink from the 'mods are neutral and impassive' cup eh?  (please note smiley face, this post is offered in good nature.)



What is wrong with how I moderated? At the moment, I was not even moderating, I was carrying on a conversation. 

Why do I carry on conversations? Because I enjoy WW2 aviation as well. I try to carry on discussion in a non biased manner that includes facts about the aircraft, and not what country it came from.

*If and when a situation needs moderating, then I moderate...*


----------



## Valo300 (Feb 10, 2009)

No worries. If i don't like it i can certainly leave can't i?  (again note smiley face- good natured post)


----------



## Venganza (Feb 10, 2009)

They seem like obvious choices, but that's because they were the most versatile - Mosquito and Ju-88.


----------



## imalko (Mar 18, 2009)

Venganza said:


> They seem like obvious choices, but that's because they were the most versatile - Mosquito and Ju-88.



That they were.


----------



## cuccos19 (May 11, 2009)

Lightning Guy said:


> The Mossie wasn't a dayfigther and if you consider the P-38 out-matched against 109s and 190s (which it wasn't) the Mossie was certainly worse off. A careful study of the history of the P-38 in Europe reveals that the P-38 gave considerably better than in took against the 190 and 109. The trouble in producing an exact kill ration is that the cause of many P-38 losses were never determined. Still, it probably shot down 2-3 109s and 190s for each P-38 lost in air-combat. Certainly not a bad record considering poor training, poor tactics, and poor British fuels. The Mossie certainly wouldn't have faired any better.
> 
> My vote goes to the P-38, but I decided to put together a list of possible "contenders."
> 
> ...



Yes, sure! Unfortunatelly I can't arguee with the training and tactics because I don't know much about it. But the fuel problem is known for me, too. What an idiotic thing that in the outlandish North African desert and Pacific islands had a good logistics management - for the fuel now - and there are just "weak" juice in England? What a pity thing is that... Ruin anyway such an excellent bird!


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2009)

P-38's shooting down more than they lost ? Yeah sure, what's next, the toothfairy ?

Fact of the matter is that the P-38 was in general considered an easy meal by German fighter pilots. (And forget about Steinhoff, a favorite of P38 fans, his words have been twisted beyond reason)


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2009)

Anyway, again the Fw190 F4U Corsair are my choices.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2009)

Soren said:


> Fact of the matter is that the P-38 was in general considered an easy meal by German fighter pilots.



Soren, I do not think that any of the top fighters (i.e. P-51, P-47, Spitfire, P-38, etc) were considered "easy meal" by the German pilots. 

If it is a fact of the matter, please back it up with sources (p.s. one pilot saying that the P-38 was easy to shoot down does not make it a fact...)


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2009)

I have done this many times by now Adler, it rally shouldn't be necessary:


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2009)

Soren said:


> I have done this many times by now Adler, it rally shouldn't be necessary:



Soren, no where in there does it say that it was easy to shoot down a P-38. It says they would prefer to fight a P-38 over other aircraft, but not that it was easy.

WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS MANY TIMES NOW SOREN, IT REALLY SHOULDN'T BE NECESSARY!

Again my point being, none of the modern aircraft were "easy" to shoot down!


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2009)

*Adolf Galland:*
_"P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true."_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2009)

Soren said:


> *Adolf Galland:*
> _"P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true."_



That is the opinion of one pilot. Opinion by one person, does not make it fact. Is that hard to understand?


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2009)

Having flown the P-38 personally himself as-well as shot numerous of them down I must admit I'm inclined to believe him. Esp. when coupled with the general opinion of Luftwaffe. Galland btw even goes as far as to say that the P-38 was a mistake to manufacture.

There is also a comparison it Dietmar Hermann's book on the 190 IIRC, where the P-38 is compared to the Fw-190 by summerizing the opinion of pilots from some of the Jagd Staffels, and in that comparison the P-38 was indeed mentioned as an easy foe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2009)

Soren said:


> Having flown the P-38 personally himself as-well as shot numerous of them down I must admit I'm inclined to believe him. Esp. when coupled with the general opinion of Luftwaffe. Galland btw even goes as far as to say that the P-38 was a mistake to manufacture.
> 
> There is also a comparison it Dietmar Hermann's book on the 190 IIRC, where the P-38 is compared to the Fw-190 by summerizing the opinion of pilots from some of the Jagd Staffels, and in that comparison the P-38 was indeed mentioned as an easy foe.



I am sure you will find many people who will say the opposite. I am sure you will find P-38 pilots that will say the same thing about the Bf 109 or the Fw 190 that Galland says about the P-38.

My point:

You can not take an opinion and present it as fact. That is a fact!


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2009)

I see what you mean Adler, it's just his opinion seems to mirror the physical aspect of things as-well. The P-38 is a large and heavy a/c with a wing thrust loading higher than that of the single seat fighters, and thus it is also at a disadvantage in the realm of pure physics.


----------



## Juha (May 12, 2009)

Hello
just a show that with enough oppinions one can pick one to support almost whatever claim

from Interview: Johannes Steinhoff

"...
WWII: Of all the Allied fighters you encountered, which was the most difficult to handle with a good pilot at the controls? 
Steinhoff: The Lightning. It was fast, low profiled and a fantastic fighter, and a real danger when it was above you. It was only vulnerable if you were behind it, a little below and closing fast, or turning into it, but on the attack it was a tremendous aircraft. One shot me down from long range in 1944. That would be the one, although the P-51 [Mustang] was deadly because of the long range, and it could cover any air base in Europe. This made things difficult, especially later when flying the jets..."

Soren knows this already, because he had quoted it earlier but not the first sentences.

Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello
> just a show that with enough oppinions one can pick one to support almost whatever claim



Exactly, that is basically the same point I am making.

It is one thing to express opinions, but you can not present them as facts. I like the saying: "Opinions are like Assholes, everyone has one!"


----------



## Waynos (May 12, 2009)

This bit of the discussion reminds me of a section from Stephen Bungay's 'The Most Dangerous Enemy' which prints the letters of a Luftwaffe pilot writing homw about how marvellous the Spitfire is as an opponent but how he pities the Hurricane pilots for being saddled with such an easy plane to shoot down, at the end of the section it is noted that he was shot down and killed by a Hurricane shortly afterwards. I suppose thats why they say opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one and they all stink. Oh, I see Adler beat me to it


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2009)

Agree whole heartedly with Adler yours views on opinions, that is why I always want there to be the support of physics to what'ever opinion I see if I am to accept it.


----------



## airboiy (May 18, 2009)

If we are talking about aircraft that actually "multitasked", I would say either the Fw 190 or the P-47.

However, in terms of the aircraft(s) that had the most potential, I'd have to say the Me-262 or the P-40 Warhawk.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2009)

airboiy said:


> However, in terms of the aircraft(s) that had the most potential, I'd have to say the Me-262 or the P-40 Warhawk.



Why?


----------



## airboiy (May 18, 2009)

Well, both a/c were tough, had versitility, and were pressed into roles they were not built for (i.e. recon, bombing, air support/escort, harrassment ops, close air support) without any major redesigns. Its a shame that the 262 was too late and the P-40 was too obselete, as both aircraft were really good.

I know that the 262 was a maintenence nightmare, but that was because the engines were made with inferior metals/materials, not because the design.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2009)

airboiy said:


> Well, both a/c were tough, had versitility, and were pressed into roles they were not built for (i.e. recon, bombing, air support/escort, harrassment ops, close air support) without any major redesigns. Its a shame that the 262 was too late and the P-40 was too obselete, as both aircraft were really good.
> 
> I know that the 262 was a maintenence nightmare, but that was because the engines were made with inferior metals/materials, not because the design.



I was just wondering why you would choose the P-40 as a candidate for a single engine aircraft, when there were more versatile and better single engine aircraft. I am not saying the P-40 is not a good aircraft however.


----------



## airboiy (May 19, 2009)

I've always thought that the P-40 ne'er got the credit it deserved from the history books. Thats also the reason why I chose the P-40. Tough, resilient, good firepower,and just a sexy design makes it numero 1 in my book.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2009)

airboiy said:


> I've always thought that the P-40 ne'er got the credit it deserved from the history books. Thats also the reason why I chose the P-40. Tough, resilient, good firepower,and just a sexy design makes it numero 1 in my book.



While I do not think it ever was number 1, I certainly agree that she was a great aircraft and never got the respect she fully deserved.


----------



## airboiy (May 21, 2009)

Another canidate for this thread is the PBY Catilina. It performed admirally in roles it was't designed for.


----------



## Cromwell (May 30, 2009)

So did the Me110 - ask any Lanc pilot from 43-45



airboiy said:


> Another canidate for this thread is the PBY Catilina. It performed admirally in roles it was't designed for.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 1, 2009)

Mosquito, Ju-88 (night fighters), Fw-200, B-24 (sea patrol planes), P-47, F-4U, Fw-190, Typhoon (ground attack roles) also excelled in stuff they were not designated for...


----------



## HerrKaleut (Jun 1, 2009)

Has to be 1)Mossy,2)JU 88 and I would also like to put up for third place the Petlyakov Pe-2/3.

Talking of bomb loads,as somebody was, it is interesting that the Mossy could carry half a ton more than a B 17 at 50 knots faster


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 1, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Mosquito, Ju-88 (night fighters), Fw-200, B-24 (sea patrol planes), P-47, F-4U, Fw-190, Typhoon (ground attack roles) also excelled in stuff they were not designated for...



What about the Me110 as a Night Fighter and Radar Enabled Too !!



HerrKaleut said:


> Has to be 1)Mossy,2)JU 88 and I would also like to put up for third place the Petlyakov Pe-2/3.
> 
> Talking of bomb loads,as somebody was, it is interesting that the Mossy could carry half a ton more than a B 17 at 50 knots faster



Good Point !

I am also reminded of the Droop Snoot Lightning (click below also)

Droop snoots and pathfinder | Flight Journal | Find Articles at BNET


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 2, 2009)

The 110 was a good NF, but Mosquito was better by a mile.
Ju-88 is in my eyes better too, since I do read Erich's posts


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 2, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> The 110 was a good NF, but Mosquito was better by a mile.
> Ju-88 is in my eyes better too, since I do read Erich's posts



OK, yes, but the Me110 was much better as a NF than a Day Fighter too - so top marks to our Teutonic cousins for re-cycling their aeroplanes.

You see, even back in 43/44 some people were trying to recycle


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 2, 2009)

HerrKaleut said:


> Talking of bomb loads,as somebody was, it is interesting that the Mossy could carry half a ton more than a B 17 at 50 knots faster



That is a little bit misleading. 

The Mossy could carry that bomb load for only short distances. The B-17 could still carry a much heavier bomb load, but it usually did not due to range issues.

The B-17 could carry a 17,500lb bomb load for short range missions, 8000lb bomb load for medium range missions and 4,500lb bomb loads for long range missions. The typical bomb load was only 4,500 to 5000lb.

Still though the Mossie is one of the best aircraft built during WW2 and in my opinion the most versatile aircraft of WW2 along with the Junkers Ju 88.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 3, 2009)

I believe the whole Mossie/B-17 claim is about the bombload both could carry *to Berlin.* Mossies definitely carried 4k cookies there.

As always, I make no claim to understand when which B-17s were carrying how much to where.


----------



## HerrKaleut (Jun 4, 2009)

I think Mhxt has seen the same sources as me. However,as always, I will stand to be corrected.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 4, 2009)

I think it's actually easier to list what the Mossie and JU-88 could NOT do.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 13, 2009)

Many pages ago I voted for the Mosquito and I'm sticking to that. I'm also making a case that the Mosquito was more versatile than the Ju 88: not only more roles, but also excelling at them. The Ju 88 excelled at what? In few (if any) of their shared roles was the Ju 88 superior to the Mosquito. Mosquito was the better fighter, night fighter, reconaissance aircraft, torpedo launcher, ground support aircraft ... and bomber. The Mosquito could carry more internally at higher speed or could do this over a longer distance. 

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Many pages ago I voted for the Mosquito and I'm sticking to that. I'm also making a case that the Mosquito was more versatile than the Ju 88: not only more roles, but also excelling at them. The Ju 88 excelled at what? In few (if any) of their shared roles was the Ju 88 superior to the Mosquito. Mosquito was the better fighter, night fighter, reconaissance aircraft, torpedo launcher, ground support aircraft ... and bomber. The Mosquito could carry more internally at higher speed or could do this over a longer distance.
> 
> Kris



The fact the Mossie is more superior is not up for argument, however I will ask you what roles could the Mossie perform that the Ju 88 could not? I will also say that an aircraft does not have to be the best at every role to be considered the most versatile aircraft or the best in certain areas. 

Overall I will agree that the Mossie is a better aircraft however. 

However...

To say the Ju 88 did not excell at is intended roles is flat out wrong. I can not think of any roles that the Ju 88 *failed* at. Please list *all* roles the Ju 88 could perform and then which roles it *failed* at. Not being better than every aircraft in that role, does not make it a failure. That would mean that all aircraft except for one (all types of aircraft considered) were failures. 

This should be very interesting, I am waiting...

IMHO the top 3, would be (in this case I said IMHO, take a note of that):

(Multi Engine)
1. Mossie/Ju 88
2. Ju 88/Mossie
3. P-38

(Single Engine)
1. Fw 190
2. P-47
3. ???? (up for debate, am still thinking about it)


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 14, 2009)

Before fellow members from USA step out, I'd say that F4-U could do many tricks that other combat aircrafts could do , but beats other single-engined planes as an useful night fighter and dive bomber*. 
IMO that makes it a #1 in our race for a best-in-different-roles category, single engined planes sub-category.

Hello, Kris, almost forgot to write it 

*Hellcat was a night fighter, while a P-51 offspring was a dive-bomber, true, but Corsair could do both.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 14, 2009)

Hey Tomo!! nice to see you here man 



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The fact the Mossie is more superior is not up for argument, however I will ask you what roles could the Mossie perform that the Ju 88 could not? I will also say that an aircraft does not have to be the best at every role to be considered the most versatile aircraft or the best in certain areas.
> 
> Overall I will agree that the Mossie is a better aircraft however.
> 
> ...


Hey Chris,
please note that I said that the Ju 88 didn't excell at its intended roles, not that it failed at them. That means that the Ju 88 could perform those roles sufficiently but it wasn't thàt great at them while the Mosquito set new standards for them.

Remember that even Goering said he was deceived by the claims of the guys from Junkers that the Ju 88 could fly around Britain without fighters fast enough to catch them. The Ju 88 didn't have the speed nor the range to do so. Had he known, he had stuck to the cheaper He 111. 
Now of course, that doesn't matter that much as no one could expect a bomber to pull that off around 1940.

But let me explain what I mean by the Ju 88 being a good aircraft but not great. As a bomber it had mediocre range, and a small internal bomb load (it could only carry small bombs internally, so all 500+ kg bombs had to be carried externally), insufficient defensive armament and with its bomb load carried externally a low maximum speed. All of this compared to the other two German bombers it was to replace: the Do 17 and He 111. In the BoB relatively more Ju 88s were lost than He 111s and Do 17s which says quite a lot IMHO. 

As a night fighter it was too slow. Until early 1944 the main version remained the Ju 88C which was hardly faster than the bomber version. The Ju 88C was also tried as a long-range day fighter but in serious trouble when confronted with single engined fighters. The Mosquito could hold its own. 

It was not succesful as a ground attack aircraft (Ju 88A-13 and P) because of insufficient manoeuvrability. 
As a recon aircraft it was ok but here too it was way too slow. They had to remove almost all armament, equip it with Jumo 213 engines to get it at 600 km/h. By that time the Me 410 with similar engines could do the same at higher speed and fully armed. 

An icnreasingly important role for bombers was as a carrier for remote guided bombs/rockets. It's telling that the Ju 88 was not suitable for this role, and they had to revert to the He 111, Do 217 and He 177.

You see, the thing with the Mosquito bomber is more than it being a superior bomber. It's because it was a new generation of bombers. After WW2 the traditional stable sturdy but slow medium bomber with a larger-than-two crew with gun turrets was given up in favour of the multifunctional and fast Mosquito/A-26 to the post-war Canberra/B-45/IL-28 bomber. The Mosquito was the first to pave this way and as such it was ahead of its time. The Germans did have an aircraft which was in its league ... the Me 210. Food for a what-if 

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Hey Tomo!! nice to see you here man
> 
> Hey Chris,
> please note that I said that the Ju 88 didn't excell at its intended roles, not that it failed at them. That means that the Ju 88 could perform those roles sufficiently but it wasn't thàt great at them while the Mosquito set new standards for them.



To say that something did not excell, is to say that it did not perform well in them. The Ju 88 performed all of her roles very well. That does not mean she performed the roles the best though.




Civettone said:


> But let me explain what I mean by the Ju 88 being a good aircraft but not great. As a bomber it had mediocre range, and a small internal bomb load (it could only carry small bombs internally, so all 500+ kg bombs had to be carried externally), insufficient defensive armament and with its bomb load carried externally a low maximum speed. All of this compared to the other two German bombers it was to replace: the Do 17 and He 111. In the BoB relatively more Ju 88s were lost than He 111s and Do 17s which says quite a lot IMHO.



You are speaking of the bomber role. The Ju 88 performed vast many more roles than a bomber. For instance as night fighter it performed excellently. The only aircraft that may have performed better in that role is the Mossie. But as I said, that in my opinion is not really up for debate here. 



Civettone said:


> As a night fighter it was too slow. Until early 1944 the main version remained the Ju 88C which was hardly faster than the bomber version.



How was the Ju 88 too slow as a night fighter? It flew faster than most bombers that it was up against. Please post bomber speeds and the speed of the Ju 88C and later Ju 88G.



Civettone said:


> It was not succesful as a ground attack aircraft (Ju 88A-13 and P) because of insufficient manoeuvrability.



Never heard of that. Please provide sources. 



Civettone said:


> An icnreasingly important role for bombers was as a carrier for remote guided bombs/rockets. It's telling that the Ju 88 was not suitable for this role, and they had to revert to the He 111, Do 217 and He 177.



How was that an increasingly important role. It was actually a very small role.

Again there is no role that the Ju 88 did not perform satisfactory. I am not saying it performed the best, but it certainly performed the roles very well.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 15, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> To say that something did not excell, is to say that it did not perform well in them. The Ju 88 performed all of her roles very well. That does not mean she performed the roles the best though.



Chris, doesn't excell not mean that the a/c was excellent, meaning not just performing well, but really outstanding? I'm not interfering with the discussion here, but just genuinely linguistically puzzled 

And this to be add to the discussion: Mr. Bekker in his Luftwaffe diaries calls the Ju88 a failure. Not by being a bad aircraft, but by not living up to expectations. It was introduced as wonderbomber, but in fact it wasn't really that.It was as Kris (BTW welcome back) pointed out, too slow, under armed, low bombload etc. According to mr. Bekker the Ju88 was a good aircraft, but not a winner.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2009)

Marcel said:


> Chris, doesn't excell not mean that the a/c was excellent, meaning not just performing well, but really outstanding? I'm not interfering with the discussion here, but just genuinely linguistically puzzled



I think I am spelling it wrong anyhow...

Anyhow, yes it does, but that does not mean it has to be the best. As I said...



Marcel said:


> And this to be add to the discussion: Mr. Bekker in his Luftwaffe diaries calls the Ju88 a failure. Not by being a bad aircraft, but by not living up to expectations. It was introduced as wonderbomber, but in fact it wasn't really that.It was as Kris (BTW welcome back) pointed out, too slow, under armed, low bombload etc. According to mr. Bekker the Ju88 was a good aircraft, but not a winner.



As a bomber yes, I will agree with you as I said above as well. I am saying that in other roles it was not though. Which is one reason why the aircraft was so versatile, it was adapted well.


----------



## Soren (Jun 15, 2009)

The bomb load of the Ju-88 was pretty impressive for a medium bomber if you ask me! Not every medium bomber will carry up to 4 tons of bombs!


----------



## Civettone (Jun 27, 2009)

Sorry for the late reply...

I don't want to nitpick but my entire post was about the Ju 88 not excelling. I'm not saying it was not a good aircraft. So in essence I agree with you. 

Soren, the He 111 and Do 217 could carry a similar bombload yet had a bigger internal bomb bay. If the Ju 88 wanted to carry 250 or 500 kg bombs it had to carry them externally. You can imagine the kind of drag up to 4 large bombs produced. So it also comes down to maximum and practical payload: for the Ju 88 it was relatively limited. 
Guided bombs were becoming increasingly important but enemy air control limited operations. Even by 1945 several missions with guided bombs were carried out against the Soviets as that was an area where the Luftwaffe could still pull that off. I could also point out the He 111 launching hundreds of V 1 bombs. Maybe not that important either but then again, what was??
I can also repeat what I said about the lacking defensive armament compared to He 111, Do 217 or even Do 17! 

Then there are the other roles. I already mentioned the Ju 88D which was the main recon version until 1944 and was always too slow and weakly armed to escape enemy fighters. What else? Torpedo bomber? Seems the He 111 kept on being used for that too. He 111 was also used as a transport aircraft. Plus, it was easier/cheaper/faster to build.

As a night fighter it's not enough to be faster than the enemy bombers. I mean, that's simply a minimum! The Ju 88C night fighter could reach around 486 kmh IIRC. It was the MAIN Ju 88 NJ version until midd 1944. I was looking at a full Luftwaffe table dating from June 1944. By that time the Ju 88C had become even slower because of the additional FuG 220 antennas. The cheaper Bf 110 was faster by a large margin.
Ju 88G finally got a more aerodynamical shape and the strong BMW engines pushed the speed up to 540 kmh. Not that impressive for 1944 if you ask me. The Ju 88G-6c with Jumo 213E engines was too rare to mention. 

Finally, as an attack aircraft it was unsuited. You asked for a source so here is one: One hundred years of world military ... - Google Books (it also says that the Ju 88 remained an effective night fighter until the end btw)

So bottom line ... is the Ju 88 an excellent bomber/recon/attacker/fighter? Clearly not. It was not the best the Germans had in either role ... but the best combination they had. And it's not that the Italians, Russians or Japanese had anything better. 

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2009)

I still don't understand how it was too slow, when it could fly faster than most of the bombers it would be attacking during night missions. The bombers would be flying at there cruise speed which was certainly less than the Ju 88s speed.


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2009)

The Ju-88G has a top speed of over 600 km/h with boost Civettonne, and 550 km/h without. The top speed of the Ju-88C was 510 km/h.

And as for bomb load, again the Ju-88 could carry more than most other medium bombers, be it external or internal.

And on top of this the handling of the Ju-88 was rated as excellent.

Top notch a/c and one of the greats in the LW. The Do-17 wasn't even close!


----------



## Juha (Jul 2, 2009)

Hello Soren
what is your source for the 4 tom bomb load for Ju 88. According to Ladeplan for Ju 88A-4 and A-14 max normal t/o weight bomb load was 2 tons, max for overload t/o weight bomb load was 3 tons. In very special cases 1x 1800kg + 1x1400kg bomb was possible. Now Cescotti in his book on German bombers writes that even 2x1800kg bombload was possible if fuel load was reduced to 1000kg, but that was the limit.
Do 217, which Germans called heavy bomber, could carry 4 tons bomb load.

Juha


----------



## Civettone (Jul 3, 2009)

Chris, an interceptor needs to be faster to be able to catch the enemy aircraft. Especially in WW2 when radar guidanc e was faulty: the ground operators were constantly being mislead and sending the interceptors all over the place. If the Ju 88C flew 50 kmh faster but it was off by 50 km it would have taken a full hour to catch that bomber. 
Faster fighters can also intercept more aircraft. Plus, it makes them more difficult for the Mosquito to intercept them.

Soren, which Ju 88G and C version are you talking about?
What was the maximum payload of the He 111? What was the biggest bomb the Ju 88 could carry internally?

Kris


----------



## Juha (Jul 3, 2009)

Civettone
the internal load of A series Ju 88s consisted 50kg bombs.

Juha


----------



## Civettone (Jul 5, 2009)

Juha said:


> Civettone
> the internal load of A series Ju 88s consisted 50kg bombs.
> 
> Juha


Correct! (I just wanted Soren to say it  haha)

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Chris, an interceptor needs to be faster to be able to catch the enemy aircraft. Especially in WW2 when radar guidanc e was faulty: the ground operators were constantly being mislead and sending the interceptors all over the place. If the Ju 88C flew 50 kmh faster but it was off by 50 km it would have taken a full hour to catch that bomber.
> Faster fighters can also intercept more aircraft. Plus, it makes them more difficult for the Mosquito to intercept them.



You are correct, but the Ju 88 was much faster than the bombers which would be flying at cruising speed, not top speed (as they had to conserve fuel). The Ju 88s typical target was not a fighter, it was a bomber...

So no, it was not slower than its intended targets.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 7, 2009)

Of course it wasn't. But why did the Germans try to get faster night fighters? To dodge the Mosquito? That too. But mainly because greater speed made a better interceptor. The Ju 88C was too slow to "excell". Here I go again  haha

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2009)

Well you can believe that if you wish. I don't buy it.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 7, 2009)

_For a fighter the Ju 88C had a more than generous size, but this enabled it to carry both powerful armament and extensive electronic equipment. Hence it was an obvious candidate for conversion to a nightfighter. Initial operations were conducted without radars, but in late 1942 some Ju 88C-6 fighters received the Lichtenstein BC radar, later replaced by Lichtenstein C-1 and in late 1943 by Lichtenstein SN-2. Althought the Messerschmitt Bf 110 remained the most numerous nightfighter, the Ju 88C took an increasing part; it was well-liked, but actually too slow for this role. In early 1943 enough BMW 801 engines were finally available, and version of the Ju 88C with these was known as the Ju 88R._

by Emmanuel Gustin at uboat.net - Technical pages

and 

_Bomber types, while large enough to house a four- to five-man crew, bulky radio equipment and ample guns and ammunition in new 'solid' nose sections, were considered to be too slow to be effective night interceptors, as they also lacked manoeuvrability and were excessively heavy._

from Jerry Scutts. German night fighter aces of World War 2


But in fact I wonder why else the Germans and in fact all nations wanted faster night fighters? To a certain extent this must have been to catch enemy night fighters or else to escape from them but this surely is not always the main reason. The P-61s future was uncertain because the generals believed it was to slow compared to the Mosquito. The P-61 replaced the P-70 which was still faster than any German bomber yet had to be replaced. 
But again, if that was all about combatting German night fighters, then I'm wrong and you're right! 

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2009)

The only reason I could see would be to intercept other night fighters or a more probable case the Mossie, because the Ju 88 was more than fast enough for the average bomber.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 7, 2009)

P-70 was fastest of cruising luftwaffe bombers but none fightning versus luftwaffe, maybe the speed was not all for a nightfighter.


----------



## Juha (Jul 7, 2009)

On Ju 88C-6
Its speed with SN-2 antennas but without flame dampers at 11,5tons weight was at Climb and Combat power 460km/h at 4,7km. Flamedampers would have drop the speed 10-15km/h. That according to Rechlin test report dated on 27.12.43.

Juha


----------



## Civettone (Jul 8, 2009)

You could be right Chris. Perhaps Erich can shed some light on this 

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Jul 8, 2009)

Juha said:


> On Ju 88C-6
> Its speed with SN-2 antennas but without flame dampers at 11,5tons weight was at Climb and Combat power 460km/h at 4,7km. Flamedampers would have drop the speed 10-15km/h. That according to Rechlin test report dated on 27.12.43.
> 
> Juha


Really? That's lower than I've ever heard. Then again it's Steig- und Kampfleistung and not Notleistung. No data on that Juha?

Kris


----------



## Juha (Jul 8, 2009)

No
but at 10,8 tons max was 470km/h
onlu other speed info is at 1,15 ata, 435km/h at 11,5tons and 445km/h qt 10,8 tons and the info that SN-2 aerials cost ca 22km/h at 2250rpm/1,15 ata near SL.

Juha


----------



## Civettone (Jul 21, 2009)

thx


Kris


----------



## JDCAVE (Feb 5, 2010)

I wish to comment on an earlier statement that the Mosquito was not used as a day fighter. Operations: Bergen, October 4, 1944, mosquitos of 100 Group were used as day fighter support. 23 Squadron contributes 5 aircraft and 515 Sqn 7 aircraft flying from the advanced base at Dallachy
The attack on Bergen 4th October 1944 - RafCommands Forums
While I agree that this source is not as yet verified, examination of the Operations Records Books for the squadrons indicated should resolve the debate.

Jim


----------



## Glider (Feb 5, 2010)

Your right no question but I can only think that this was an exceptional case. This must have been one of the first long range daylight raids by the RAF. 93 Halifaxes and 47 Lancasters took part in the raid and only 1 Lancaster was lost.


----------



## mhuxt (Feb 6, 2010)

There were other raids and squadrons as well, 169 Squadron springs to mind.


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 6, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The only reason I could see would be to intercept other night fighters or a more probable case the Mossie, because the Ju 88 was more than fast enough for the average bomber.



I still don't know why the RAF was not more enthusastic about the Village Inn system or Automatic Gun Laying Turret (AGLT) 

It seemed like a really good idea to me, and when you read reports it did seem to work in practice. This would seem to be the antidote to the Ju88, Bf110 etc

Automatic Gun-Laying Turret - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## skeeter (Feb 28, 2010)

Admiral Yamamoto took the eternal dirt nap on April 18th, 1943. The P-38s flew on the deck over the ocean for many miles. It must have been a thrill. Then they went to altitude, freeing themselves of the extra large drop tanks that they had been carrying for the lengthy mission, intercepting two Japanese Betty bombers and numerous Zeros. The rest is history. A spectacular mission. A poetic success. And a good read if you want to look for it.

The Mosquito would have been a good camera ship to have along on the mission.


----------



## mhuxt (Mar 9, 2010)

skeeter said:


> Admiral Yamamoto took the eternal dirt nap on April 18th, 1943. The P-38s flew on the deck over the ocean for many miles. It must have been a thrill. Then they went to altitude, freeing themselves of the extra large drop tanks that they had been carrying for the lengthy mission, intercepting two Japanese Betty bombers and numerous Zeros. The rest is history. A spectacular mission. A poetic success. And a good read if you want to look for it.
> 
> The Mosquito would have been a good camera ship to have along on the mission.



I norrmally stay away from coulda woulda shoulda posts, and I have no wish to allow a classic interception to turn into an unseemly mud-flinging exercise. But for the record, the Mosquito F.II would have got there quicker with more.


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 11, 2010)

mhuxt said:


> I norrmally stay away from coulda woulda shoulda posts, and I have no wish to allow a classic interception to turn into an unseemly mud-flinging exercise. But for the record, the Mosquito F.II would have got there quicker with more.



How about if it had been a mixed-mission and the Mossie pilots had to stand in the corner and count to 10 and then say, "ready or not here we come" ... and _then_ got in their planes ? ( Sorry, just being silly - again )

But it is actually a good point - people forget that the later versions of the Mossie, with the boosted Merlins and the Paddle Blades really were some of the fastest planes of WW2 at most altitudes.

Its just a shame they did not produce a 'handed' version of the Merlin - like the later versions of the P38 Allisons

I think the Mossie would have been truly superb with handed props - what a take off run ! I guess the Hornet just came too late really, which was a shame. 

If only the war had gone on for another year - Atomic Bombs are such a spoiler, honestly.


----------



## renrich (Sep 15, 2010)

The "Mossie" might have done well in the Yamamato mission IF the airplane"s glue and wood had not already deteriorated in the heat and humidity of the Pacific. The "Mossie" was not terribly successful in the CBI.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 15, 2010)

The Avro Anson has to be the one.

Comfortable transport
Good trainer
Capable bomber (that is bomb not bombs)
Fighter capable of downing a Bf109 (at least once)


Ok it wasnt fast no range no firepower and the performance envelope wasnt big enough to put a stamp on but hey it looked cute.


----------



## mhuxt (Sep 18, 2010)

renrich said:


> The "Mossie" might have done well in the Yamamato mission IF the airplane"s glue and wood had not already deteriorated in the heat and humidity of the Pacific. The "Mossie" was not terribly successful in the CBI.



No, the F.II did not have bonding issues as it was Hatfield-built. The problems were with FB.VIs from one of the shadow factories, Chester IIRC.


----------



## Juha (Sep 21, 2010)

Hello TEC
I know your message is humorous, but still had to say this on Anson
I like the plane but Faithful Annie wasn't good trainer, being much too easy to fly. That made it good transport but bad trainer. And Anson also fought pre-10 May 40 1:1 against Bf 110.

Juha


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 21, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello TEC
> I know your message is humorous, but still had to say this on Anson
> I like the plane but Faithful Annie wasn't good trainer, being much too easy to fly. That made it good transport but bad trainer. And Anson also fought pre-10 May 40 1:1 against Bf 110.
> 
> Juha





I was of course being tongue in cheek, however 11,000 were built which is many more than much more famous planes. Like the Dakota 11,000 +5000in Russia/japan and Wellington11,500 it performed a lot of the simple "gofer" duties that arnt dramatic but are vital. Also it had a use after the war some staying in use until the 60s.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 21, 2010)

My Uncle Arthur flew Ansons out of Windsor Mills, Quebec, at the outset of WW2 - training Navigators - before Ferry Command was organized - which he joined. There's more than one role for a "trainer", Juha. 

MM


----------



## Juha (Sep 21, 2010)

Hello MM
yes, I know it was also used as navigation trainer, I'm not sure how good it was in that role, being so much slower than combat types. IIRC it was also used to train WOs, in that her low speed probably did no harm. 

But as said as a small transport its very benign handling characterics were a great plus. And during the war it showed that it wasn't so easy target to enemy fighters than its specs would indicate.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 8, 2011)

This may not be the "best" but surely one of the more un-sual roles:

This is quoted from "The war of a 100 days" by James Ambrose Brown on the first Allied successful campaign: Somalia and Abyssinia, 1940-41.

This little war was fought primarily with South African troops against Italian forces.

Quote: pg 78:

The story was already legenday. On 14 August 1940, Lt Charles Kearey was ordered to fly spare parts and mechanics to Lokitaung to repair a crashed Battle. He was pilot of a Vickers Valentia, a vintage biplane troop carrier used to convey mail and stores at a comfortable top speed of 90 mph. At Lokitaung an engineer boring for water pointed out an Italian fort only ten miles away in the hills.

"Pity I haven't a bomb to drop on it" Kearey said. "I'll make you one" said Lt Joe Lentzner. Around a core of 380 sticks of dynamite Lentzner packed scrap iron, a sewing machine, a car differential, nuts and bolts, all in a 44-gallon oil drum.

Kearey told the present author: "Lentzner crimpted the detonators into the dynamite with his teeth, removed the door of the valentia and stood the drum in the aperture. We put down mattresses to protect the bombadiers on the run-up to the target and took off in the dark, heading east for lake Rudolph. After circling for about twenty minutes until it grew light I told lentzner to stand by. I was starting my run-up right down on the tree tops and opened the valentia fullout. Straight at the fort and about 60 seconds away I shouted to Lentzner to light the 60-second fuse"

In the dawn light the towers of the fort twinkled with gunfire. Lt oscar Coetzee, along for the ride, was hit in the foot. Blood ran dwon Kearey's forehead from a gash from the splintering instrument panel.

"We were below the fort walls. As we came in with the fuse burning, I pulled the valentia up and over the courtyard at about a hundred feet. it was packed with sleeping soldiers. Lentzner and helpers yelled they couldn't get the drum out so I threw her on her side and out it tumbled. The blast lifted us with a tremendous jolt. I looked back to see a column of black smoke".

Back at Lokitaung, Kearey could not conceal the 93 hits on the Valentia's wood-and-fabtric body or the wounds to his crew. A Rome Radio broadcast amplified the old valentia into a squadron of RAF bombers attacking the fort and beaten off. By the time Moorehead heard of the legendary version six months later, the story concluded that the 'entire garrison' - over fifty men - was found dead in the abandoned fort by our troops"

No decorations were awarded for this exploit. It was 'severe reprimands' all round for the 'bombing crew' of Kearey's now legendary adventrure.
Quote end.

Now, that is an un-usual role for a Valentia and shows either brilliance or something else.

Thought this would enlighten your day, all.

Ivan.

PS: The Somalia and Abysinia campaign (1940-41) was a different war altogether and showed a high degree of coordiantion of air and ground troops.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 8, 2011)

Perhaps that's where Croatian pilots ground crews got inspiration to transform An-2s (biplane transport, 1000 HP radial engine) into makeshift bombers, back in 1991. Electric water-heater steel body was used as a container for explosive scrap metal, while fusing was provided by multiple anti-tank mine's fuses.
So we listened sometimes to Radio-Belgrade news and laughing out loud when it was said that 'Serb units in Croatia were attacked with boiler bombs'. It was publicly unveiled in 1995 that was true.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 8, 2011)

That is an option - very good.

Although the An-2 did have a speed advantage of the Valentia. Well, even my bicycle has a speed advantage.

Just the idea of "thundering" towards your target at 90 mph with a bomb with a lit fuse. Sort of 60 seconds before it goes off.

if they were slow in run-in, it would really have ruined the day.

Amazing.


----------



## fibus (Apr 29, 2011)

A Mosquito as a fighter could not turn with a 190 or 109. But any mk. mossie could outrun either at any altitude.
Other than specialised german night fighters it was the best nightfighter in the world. How does one classify it a as bomber? It could outperform any other 2 engine bomber in the world. And there was a dayfighter version and was the best high altitude reconplane in the world. My conclusions are comparing apples to apples. There are specific performance areas where aircraft like the P51 or Spitfire could better the mossie but not all mks of either. So overall I rate the Mosquito the best airplane of WW2.


----------



## MaximusGR (Jun 25, 2011)

I think most here will agree that the modern aircraft that fits best to a wide variety of roles is the F-16. Looking back at WW2, the first warbird that comes to mind as somewhat similar in philosophy is the FW190 and its variants. Developed for one role for which it excelled, and then adapted to different needs in which it also was effective.

The Mosquito was a masterpiece, no doubt, but you cant vote for it if you have an environmental affection. It consumed forests to be built!!


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 25, 2011)

MaximusGR said:


> The Mosquito was a masterpiece, no doubt, but you cant vote for it if you have an environmental affection. It consumed forests to be built!!


 
Ha Ha Maximus I used to think De Havilland has a factory with trees going in one end and Mosquitos flying out the other in fact they were very special woods.
Having read the history of the Lancaster and the number of drawings needed i think all planes require the felling of huge numbers of trees


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 18, 2011)

Ok so just to check as I'm not reading through every page, we're all agreed on the Mosquito, right?


----------



## Wayne Little (Sep 20, 2011)

Mossie sounds good to me!


----------



## Kryten (Sep 20, 2011)

I tried to think of another candidate that was on a par with the mossie, but no avail, Ju88 was close but the Mossie was that much more accomplished!


----------



## GregP (Sep 30, 2011)

I am a real fan of the Mitsubishi Ki-83 heavy escort fighter. It had two Ha-211 engines rated at 2,200 HP each and was fast at 438 mph (705 kph). It has two 20 mm plus two 30 mm cannons, so it was heavily armed.

Unfortunately for Japan, they only completed four before the war ended, so it isn't a viable candidate ...

But as a "what if," it shines with possibilities.

View attachment 179558


Of the real candidiates, I have to go with the P-38 for fighter-like duties and the Mosquito for other-than-fighter-like duties. with the most versatile of all probably being the Ju-88. Looking at the title of this thread, I'd opt for the Ju 88 as the one used in more roles than any other, most if not all to good effect.

The Mossies and P-38's were great planes, but the Ju 88 was pressed into service for almost ANYTHING from glider tug, to shooting vertically oriented cannons, to radio glide bombing controller, to night fighter, to day fighter in some cases, bomber, anti-submarine, fast transport for VIP's, divie bombing, pathfinding, experimental test horse for new improvements in engines and weaponery, as bomb! (the mistel units) and the bomb controller (one Ju 88 being used to control another Ju 88 mistel), radar test mule, recon, liaison, courier, and several more missions. That's a large list and I doubt either the P-38 or the Mosquito were called upon by their users to perform so many duties.

Perhaps it was of necessity, but the Ju 88 answered the call each and every time, with surprisingly good results in almost all cases.

No disrepect to either the P-38 or Mosquito; they were great planes. Just not quite as versatile, if only by dint of not being asked to be quite as versatile by the users. If they had been in German service, maybe they WOULD have been asked to do all these missions, but they weren't in the war as actually employed.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 1, 2011)

GregP said:


> The only roles, for the Mosquito, missing from that lot, are vertical cannons (not needed with four horizontal,) glide bomb controller (not needed with the Lancaster capable of lobbing a 6-ton Tallboy into a warship,) dive bombing (bit of a fine line, since some might consider 8 rockets to be equivalent to a divebombing attack,) bomb and bomb controller (see Tallboy note, earlier.)
> However, did the Ju-88 ever manage to carry a 4,000 bomb (twice in a night) to Britain's capital city? Did it ever break prisoners free, and take out single buildings in the middle of a town? Did it ever land on aircraft carrier, during anti-shipping training? Did it ever carry a 57mm gun? Was it ever fitted with folding wings, for carrier use?
> There was, also, the ECM work, weather reconnaiscance, and the ability, at night, to take out enemy nightfighters without recourse to radar.
> Edgar


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 1, 2011)

To add to GregP's post about the JU 88:

RATO! Increases the bomb payload alot.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 1, 2011)

Perhaps you can explain how needing the assistance of rockets, to get off the ground with a reasonable bomb load, makes an aircraft more versatile? I'd call it struggling for speed/lift.
Edgar


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 1, 2011)

yah your right.. being able to go well beyond bomb payload capacity with bolt-on rocket assist is not_ versatile _

Kindest Regards


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 1, 2011)

If the rockets can get you out of a very small field then it is versatile, If you need the rockets to get out of a normal field with a respectable bomb load and fuel then they are a crutch because your normal engines aren't powerful enough.

The Ju 88 may have been versatile or forced to do a lot of jobs but a bomb truck it wasn't. Weren't the rockets used on the A2 version? 1200hp engines?


----------



## GregP (Oct 1, 2011)

Breaking prisoners out of a building is just a precision strike mission, nothing more. 

The Ju 88 was definitely able to and did fly precision strikes. It well might have landed on a carrier if Germany had one ... but they didn't so I very much doubt that one.

In normal operations the Ju 88 was asked to do many missions. In extraordinary operations, the M<osquito proved to be adaptable. Mostly it flew only 2 - 3 mission types, with forays into other missions as required. The Ju 88 flew a wide variety every day in normnal operations.

Why don't we just say that you are Mosquito fan and let it go at that? I like 'em, too.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 1, 2011)

Landing a Ju 88 on a carrier might be just a bit more difficult. A Ju-88A-4 at 24,000lbs (1300lbs over empty equipped) has a wing loading of 39.2 lbs/sq ft. A Mosquito F MK II at 15000lbs (1600lbs over empty but not empty equipped?) has wing loading of 33 lbs/sq ft. Granted there is more than wing loading to lift but still? Stopping a 24,000lb plane on the carrier may prove interesting too. 

I will note in the Ju 88s favor that while it didn't carry a 57mm gun it did carry twin 37mm guns and a very powerful 75mm gun so that distinction is either a wash or in the Ju 88s favor. I would also note that good as the Lancaster was, it might have had a bit more difficulty dropping those tallboy bombs on a moving ship. Getting another aircraft to do a job doesn't really speak to the versatility of the first aircraft either.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 1, 2011)

yeah the A4's used the RATO, all the way up to the 'P' IIRC. Heavy Bombs loads and extreme short field takeoffs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 1, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> yeah the A4's used the RATO, all the way up to the 'P' IIRC. Heavy Bombs loads and extreme short field takeoffs.




Which is it, heavy bomb load or extreme short field?

The A series planes had low power and small wings for their weight. A2 2400hp and a 565 sq ft wing for 22,840lbs. A4 had 2680hp and 586sq ft for 30,865lbs. it was worse than the A2.

The A4 has a wing loading just a few % lower than an american A-20 or B-26 and B-25. ALL of them had a better power to weight ratio.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 2, 2011)

what does the A-20 / B-25 / B-26 have to do with it? Totally different animals. As to which one... both, not at the same time obviously.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 2, 2011)

Just using them for comparison. And that brings us back to the original point. If you need rockets to take-off from a standard field with a decent bomb load your plane isn't versatile, it is under powered. The higher powered plane can take-off from the short field with a light load without using rockets.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 2, 2011)

carrying* beyond *its maximum payload capacity. it obviously has the power to take off at maximum payload on standard fields.

Kindest regards


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 2, 2011)

If you could replace the Merlins on a Mossie with turbojets it would look almost like a 1950s era high-speed twin-engined bomber. Replace the Jumos on a JU88 with turbojets and it would look like a joke. I have a feeling the only reason a JU88 may of done something the Mossie didn't was because nobody asked the Mossie to do it.


----------



## GregP (Oct 2, 2011)

The Ju 88 was a marvelously versatile aircraft, as were the Mosquito and the P-38. Liking the Mosquito doesn't change that. 

Many respected authors such as William Green, Martin Caiden, and others of similar ilk all agree that the Ju 88 was a far better aircraft than it was ever expected to be, and one of the mosy versatile in the war. Whether or not it was the best at versatility doesn't change the fact that is was a great plane that gave yeoman service to Germany when asked to do it.

You Mosquito fans like the Mosquito becasue it did the same thing for England.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 2, 2011)

GregP said:


> You Mosquito fans like the Mosquito becasue it did the same thing for England.


Britain, please, there's a good chap; upsetting the Irish, Scots, and Welsh, by ignoring them, is not recommended.
I don't recall ever decrying the Ju88, and rather resent the implication that that's what I'm doing; it should be remembered that the Mosquito also proved its (Air Ministry) detractors completely wrong, so it, too, was far better than expected. Although it has nothing to do with operational versatility, it also made use of a virtually redundant (wood-working) workforce.
Edgar


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 2, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> carrying* beyond *its maximum payload capacity. it obviously has the power to take off at maximum payload on standard fields.
> 
> Kindest regards



OK, what was it max load weight WITH the rockets as opposed to without the rockets? what were the take-off distances?


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 2, 2011)

12,50 ton 570m roll to takeoff 2400 rpm @ 1.25ATA
13,00 ton 650m roll to takeoff 2400 rpm @ 1.25ATA
13,75 ton 750m roll to takeoff 2400 rpm @ 1.25ATA (overloaded)

Take-off during day with overloaded airplane is only allowed from concrete surfaced airfield, up to 13,75 tones from a prepared airfield or hard, even surfaces grass airfield. 

Take-off during night is only allowed with 13 ton weight.

Additionally the numbers for take-off roll given by Rechlin have to be noted (see appendix in the end of this part).

Lift-off speed:

Va= 175 km/h when take-off weight is 13 000 kg

Va= 180 km/h when take-off weight is 13 750 kg

With smaller take-off weights the lift-off speed is a little smaller.

When sufficient altitude has been reached (approx. 30-50 m), the throttle is moved from the position "Start" ("Start") to position "Climb power" ("Steig leistung") and at the same time propeller pitch lever to the according RPM. 

For 30 min. time power can remain (climb and combat power)


*Take-off with start rockets (If installed.)*

During engine warm up ran, from a pilot's signal, special mechanic will open the pressure air valve of start rockets.

Special mechanic will give the all clear sign for taxiing. Before take-off the start rockets which are turned on. All signal lamps including the red lamps must then turn on in the start rocket switch box.

Landing flaps, trim tabs and propellers etc. are adjusted in the take-off without the start rockets.

After about 10 sec. of take-off roll equaling 100-150 m distance, the bombardier will depress the button in the start rocket switch box or in the right hand side instrument panel thus switching on the take-off aids. Then the lower signal lamp will turn off. Note that normal take-off roll distance will be reduced to 375m with the normal 12,50 ton weight.

If take-off has to be aborted for one reason or another it can be done by turning the switch in the start rocket box or in the right hand side instrument panel to position "Off' ("Aus"), thus immediately switching off the rockets.

Under no circumstance it is allowed to turn on the start rockets that have been once turned off. Undercarriage is retracted immediately after take-off. The airplane must not be pulled too hard because after 30 sec. the thrust will be reduced and the airplane pulled on to too high angle of attack will be prone to stall.

When the rockets have emptied 2x125 kg of extra weight and also additional air resistance. (Must be noted in turns and when opening landing flaps.)

Rockets are dropped by the bombardier at not less than 125 m from the ground.

Release lever (which is kept behind pilot's seat) is put on its place to right, low next to the pilot's
seat and the lever is pulled up.

Rockets are not allowed under no circumstance to be released when in use.

Nevertheless the pilot can at any moment without any danger release the rockets either using them up or switching them of before the release.

Only in emergency the release will be done at less than 150 m, because then the parachute will not
have time to open and the rockets will be broken.

Rockets have been properly jettisoned when the markers disappear.

If after operating the release lever one or both signal lamps are still on, the airplane is briefly pulled when holding the release lever pulled up. If the rockets do not drop the flight has to be aborted. Landing with the rockets aboard will be executed ordinarily as long as the maximum landing weight is not exceeded.

After releasing the rockets the rocket switch box switch has to be set to position "Off ("Aus").


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> If the rockets can get you out of a very small field then it is versatile, If you need the rockets to get out of a normal field with a respectable bomb load and fuel then they are a crutch because your normal engines aren't powerful enough.
> 
> The Ju 88 may have been versatile or forced to do a lot of jobs but a bomb truck it wasn't. Weren't the rockets used on the A2 version? 1200hp engines?



Which is why it was not the best bomber (Sorry Ratsel, but it is not the best bomber bar none!"). 

It was however a very successful and versatile aircraft. Up there with the Mossie as most versatile in my opinion.


----------



## GregP (Oct 3, 2011)

Sorry I said 'England!" I had not realized it was, in any way, a touchy subject ... I suppose that is a bit insensitive, but I had not even considered the ramifications.

Britain it is, going forward.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 3, 2011)

GregP said:


> Sorry I said 'England!" I had not realized it was, in any way, a touchy subject ... I suppose that is a bit insensitive, but I had not even considered the ramifications.
> Britain it is, going forward.


It doesn't have to be touchy, but there will always be the super-sensitive type, who'll bridle at "England."
On a similar line, I've known many local veterans, who're livid at "Pegasus Bridge," in Normandy, since it was the Oxford Bucks L.I. who captured it, and held it until the Paras turned up, hours later.
Edgar


----------



## GregP (Oct 3, 2011)

Over the years, I've noticed a lot of things in Europe that ruffle the feathers of Euopeans. The reason we (US citizens) perhaps seem to do that more than other sis we didn't grow up in Europe to acquire local knowldge of what is offensive and what is not. I find it hard to believe that even the legendary "ugly American" would deliberately ruffle the feathers ... it is much more likely to be done out of simple ignorance of the preferred terms.

I suppose if I grew up in close proximity to countries we had been at war with over several centuries, I might also feel differently about those peoples, even if they were neighbors.

This thread, telling me that British is preferred to English, is the first time I have ever thought of the difference between the two words and, yes, it makes me think a bit about it. To tell the truth, I wondered for years what the difference bewteen "England" and "Great Britain" was. It isn't covered in many articles of books that I have seen, they seem to assume you know that fact. You stating that British includes the places other than England makes things abundantly clear, expecially as I think back of what I've seen in books and articles. Come to think of it, you never hear of the "English Empire," it is always the "British Empire."

I used to work with one former Engliishman in Arizona who went "home" for a visit after being in the States for more than 20 years. He is now a US citizen, but will never lose his English accent completely (yes, I realize that in Great Britain, it is me who has the accent ...). He was incensed at the tunnel under the English Channel becuase he considered it to be an affront to all things British, and decried the glut of Frenchmen and others who could simply drive into England on a daily basis. He thougth it diluted English culture and was sure that England would never be the same again. In this paragraph, the use of England and English was his use, not mine. Though a US citizen, he ardently described himself as "English." 

I shall endeavor to become more tactful ... as it may make life easier for people who interact with me!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 3, 2011)

GregP said:


> I find it hard to believe that even the legendary "ugly American" would deliberately ruffle the feathers ... it is much more likely to be done out of simple ignorance of the preferred terms.



No trust me, as an American living in Europe, I can tell you that the "Ugly American" is rampant, and it is not out of ignorance. As an American I hate to say it, but it is true. Unfortunately we deserve to be called this. Especially when you are in an area where lots of American's live such as mine (obviously because there are several US bases here), but you will find many rude, loud and obnoxious Americans all over the place.

As an American it is rather embarrassing sometimes. It really sucks because the United States is no different than any other country. You have good people, bad people, educated and ignorant people. I think it mostly comes down to the fact that the areas in Europe where there are lots of Americans are military communities and with that you have lots of 18 year old young soldiers away from their families for the first time. 

Like I said, it is sad but true...

Anyhow sorry, to get off topic here.


----------



## Readie (Oct 3, 2011)

GregP said:


> Sorry I said 'England!" I had not realized it was, in any way, a touchy subject ... I suppose that is a bit insensitive, but I had not even considered the ramifications.
> 
> Britain it is, going forward.



Greg, I'm glad you said England. Its not insensitive in any way.
You weren't to know and at the end of the day its not that important as all the British wealth is in England.
The Scots can be Scots, the Welsh Welsh, the Northern Irish Irish but, the English... we fell foul of the Celtic politics when it was fashionable.
As you may have guessed I'm English, Southern English to boot and rather proud of my heritage.
Devolution? I should coca.
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Oct 3, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No trust me, as an American living in Europe, I can tell you that the "Ugly American" is rampant, and it is not out of ignorance. As an American I hate to say it, but it is true. Unfortunately we deserve to be called this. Especially when you are in an area where lots of American's live such as mine (obviously because there are several US bases here), but you will find many rude, loud and obnoxious Americans all over the place.




Chris,
Don't be too harsh on your countrymen. There are loud and obnoxious people in every single country in the world. 
Only a fool would judge America by his / her contact with a few young Americans in Europe.
When I hear people complain I always remind them that it wasn't that long ago that Europeans were bloody glad to see young Americans here....
Cheers
John


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 3, 2011)

I don't believe in the Ugly American theory I believe if anything it is a lack of exposure to other cultures and lifestyles, only35% of US citizens have passports meaning only 35% of US citizens have travelled abroad. Thats apretty low number and I think that is one of the reasons for this problem ,


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 3, 2011)

People are people. All nationalities get reputations based on the exaggerated actions of a few individuals. When I lived in Germany most people treated me politely. However it you ask some Arizonan's they will tell you the rudest tourists at the Grand Canyon are Germans. All nationalities get accused of being "ugly". Showing a little patience with the foibles and mannerisms of others would do much to reduce perceptions of "ugly".

Getting back to the topic. The Mosquito wins against any of equal ability by being prettier.


----------



## Readie (Oct 3, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> People are people. All nationalities get reputations based on the exaggerated actions of a few individuals. When I lived in Germany most people treated me politely. However it you ask some Arizonan's they will tell you the rudest tourists at the Grand Canyon are Germans. All nationalities get accused of being "ugly". Showing a little patience with the foibles and mannerisms of others would do much to reduce perceptions of "ugly".
> 
> Getting back to the topic. The Mosquito wins against any of equal ability by being prettier.



I have heard the English referred to as 'ugly'. There is a whole dictionary of terms of endearment for us....
Cheers
John


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 4, 2011)

Was selling fruit vegetables in Trogir, Croatia, mostly to foreign people, for last 4 years.
The most polite people were Czechs, Germans, Americans, British, Scandinavians - all far more polite than myself.

Sorry for continuing the OT


----------



## GregP (Oct 4, 2011)

You know, I have to agree that the Mosquito is the best-looking of the contenders. The British have a flair for producing both the prettiest and the ugliest aircraft, sometimes simultaneously.

Think of the Spitfire and Barracuda. Or the Morris Minor and the Barracuda. Or a hedgepig and the Barracuda. Or the North end of a Southbound jackass and a Barracuda. Barracuda pilot's wives probably filed for divorce just because the plane their husbands were flying was so ugly. Women DO have sense of style, and the Barracuda had a large dose of "no-style."

Heck, the Barracuda could be uglier than the PZL Zubr, which gained fame as one of the ugliest of all time. I suppose it depends on your definition of ugly. The Barracuda's opponents probably didn't shoot at it so as no to defile their bullets, and to generally keep their machine guns on friendly terms with the pilot. The Skua wasn't much better, but at least looked somewhat purposeful. The Barracuda just looked ridiculous. Putting the design on paper is one thing, and may be forgiven as a pathetic effort after drinking too many pints. Making it for real was an act of unpardonable bad taste. 

Unfortunately, it gave good service, so we cannot totally disparage the homely Barracuda. But since none are left flyable, we could declare a national holiday that we don't have to see one at an airshow. Though the engine would sound like a Merlin and bring you joy, the sight of it would bring you indigestion and perhaps mumps or even a sinking spell.


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 4, 2011)

GregP dont be so mean to the poor old Barracuda she didnt want to be the ugly girl at the dance

I have always thought of the Barracuda as a Camel loaded with cargo, it will get you there but by god it doesnt look good whilst doing it.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 4, 2011)

ROFLMAO! GregP you are so right. It is hard to bear the sight of a Barracuda.


----------



## Readie (Oct 4, 2011)

Just shut your eyes and listen to that masterpiece, the RR Merlin's distinctive wall of noise.

Cheers
John


----------



## wuzak (Oct 4, 2011)

Barracuda....great name.

Especially when linked with the word Hemi.

Fairey Firefly, that's a name that doesn't instill fear!


----------



## GregP (Oct 4, 2011)

At least they didn't name the Firefly Godmother or Tutu. Who would be afraid of a Fairey Godmother or a Fairey Tutu? 

Sorry, I'll not hijack this thread again, I hope.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 4, 2011)

Perhaps it should be remembered that companies don't just come up with a design, they are invited to tender, and the design is chosen by the mandarins at the Air Ministry, or (in this case) the Lords of the Admiralty. Only then does the company go ahead with what they're asked for. Always forgotten is that the Barracuda might have disabled Tirpitz long before 617/9 Squadrons did the job, if a 1600lb bomb hadn't been sabotaged by being filled with sand instead of explosive. Worth reading is "Barracuda Pilot," by Dunstan Hadley, if you're interested in getting a balanced view of the aircraft.
Edgar


----------



## GregP (Oct 4, 2011)

Mr. Brooks, 

You don't seem to have much of a sense of humor and you need to get one. 

I appreciate the Barracuda's contibutuions to the war effort (as I posted) but, to me, it is singularly unlovely. If you don't agree, so be it. I thought it was funny and I'd bet most people other than you thought so, too.

If you like the lines of Barracuda, that's fine. Post a retort describing your feelings of Barracuda beauty. It may draw some retorts of its own if you do. My bet is more people think it was ugly than cute. 

I have been wrong before and could be now ... but I doubt it. If so, I will absolutely refrain from Barracuda "UGLY" comments in the future. Perhaps you think it is cute. If so, don't tell your friends or they may change their opinion of your aesthetic sensibility.

If I were restoring one, I might change my mind. Thank heavens I'm involved in restoration of another ugly aircraft, the Bell YP-59A Airacomet. I want to see it fly but, being rooted in reality, I realize it is ugly but historic. So I work on it for the sake of history, not for beauty points.

Oh, and I'd take a biscuit, anytime. With honey. Thanks.

Cheers.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 5, 2011)

My objection had nothing to do with your views on the airframe; I could find nothing attractive about the Barracuda, however hard I try. Edgar


----------



## GregP (Oct 5, 2011)

My apologies. I am chastized and shall refrain from such going forward.

In fact, I edited the post and removed the word.


----------

