# #2 - Your pick



## Thorlifter (Apr 15, 2012)

The only rule is you MUST pick one of these aircraft to add to your arsenal. We will pretend the year is January of 1940 so there is still some time for development and refinement.

The Consolidated PBY Catalina or the Dornier Do 24

P.S. I bet I know which one Adler will pick!

Darn it. I messed it up. Can an admin add the two planes to a poll please?


----------



## Njaco (Apr 15, 2012)

Done.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2012)

I picked the most beautiful sea plane ever built...


----------



## mikewint (Apr 15, 2012)

Ich muss mit meinem Landsmann auf diese eine Abstimmung
Was gibt es da nicht zu mögen? Sie ist schön


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2012)

Besides off of the top of my head, not only is she beautiful, but she also outperformed the Cat. 

Not taking anything away from the Cat though, because it was a great aircraft as well.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 12, 2012)

If the wikipedia description is correct, the Do-24, while an impressive aircraft that outperforms the venerable PBY in many respects, there are some parameters for which it seems the lesser of the two, especially for particular applications.

Do-24
Wing area: 108 m2
Loaded weight: 18.4 Mg
Wing loading: 170 kg/m2
Payload: 600 kg
crew: 3+20 Pax
Range 5,800 km
_*Endurance ~ 11 hours*_ at ~186 knots
armament: 1 x 20 mm and 2 x 7.92 mm

PBY-5A
Wing area: 130 m2
Loaded weight: 16.066 Mg
Wing loading: 123.6 kg/m2
Payload: 1,814 kg
Crew: 8+??pax
Range: ~4,500 km
_*endurance ~23 hours*_ at ~103 knots
armament: 2 x 12.7 mm and 3 x 7.62 mm

The difference in range is perhaps less than the wikipedia quote as I have seen maximum ranges of about 5,000 km quoted for the PBY, significantly above its normal range of about 4,000 km. The value chosen for the PBY In the table above comes from the PBY performance report in the technical section of the forum. 

As an ASW platform, the superior aerial _hang-time_ is a distinct advantage as is the larger ordnance payload. I choose the blimp-like PBY.


----------



## davebender (Jun 12, 2012)

Do-24 was designed to a Dutch specification. Is that what you intended?

The BV-138B was the German Navy's equivalent to the PBY.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 12, 2012)

I have to go with the Dornier.


----------



## mikewint (Jun 13, 2012)

If memory serves, the PBY was known as the flying gas can and had a tendancy to go up in massive explosions if/when all that fuel ignighted or do I misremember?


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 14, 2012)

mikewint said:


> If memory serves, the _*PBY was known as the flying gas can *_and had a tendancy to go up in massive explosions if/when all that fuel ignighted or do I misremember?



Mike, 

I first heard that appellation applied to a flying boat: the Martin PBM in the context of the search for the infamous and poorly reported "_Bermuda Triangle defining_" Flight 19 which I suspect was simply confusing the PBM with the PBY. On the other hand, I suspect that the "flying gas tank" doesn't so much denote the tendency of the PBY to catch fire as it relates to the plane's endurance: an attribute provided by her fuel load, slow cruising speed and low wing loading. It seems to me she carried roughly the same amount of fuel as the Do-24 and loads typical of other large flying boats with long endurance and/or range. With self-sealing tanks and armor, I'd expect it to be no more prone to fire and explosion than any other aircraft carrying that much fuel, with the exception of the Kawanishi H6K Mavis and and H8K Emily which I don't believe were so equipped.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2012)

The PBM was noted for fuel leaks, wither from the tanks or the lines I don't know. 

The PBY, according to the manual (available in the tech section of this website) had two large "fuel spaces" which could be used sort of as is for fuel (unprotected) or a series of protected fuel cells could be installed in the space/s cutting the fuel capacity by hundreds of gallons. Manual gives the option of fitting only one space with protected fuel cells and using the other space "as is".


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 14, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> The PBM was noted for fuel leaks, wither from the tanks or the lines I don't know.
> 
> The PBY, according to the manual (available in the tech section of this website) had two large "fuel spaces" which could be used sort of as is for fuel (unprotected) or a series of protected fuel cells could be installed in the space/s cutting the fuel capacity by hundreds of gallons. Manual gives the option of fitting only one space with protected fuel cells and using the other space "as is".



Thanks SR, I've heard the same about the PBM. I wonder if the fuel in the unprotected cell was used during the PBY's outbound leg from home plate and once drained, reliance was shifted to the protected cell during operations in _Indian territory_ (using a common if perhaps offensive term). For forward deployed assets, I'd expect squadron management would opt for the decrease in total fuel supply in trade for enhanced survivability


----------



## mikewint (Jun 14, 2012)

Oldcrow, thank you for the info, you are correct I was thinking in context with the good old Flight 19 and the PBM sent out which also dissappeared without a trace. Somewhere I recall hearing/reading that they were prone to leaking fuel which could ignite disasterously


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 14, 2012)

Your welcome Mike, 

additional comment removed to preserve the innocence of the forum's younger and unsullied minds but who may not know the meaning of 'countersunk.'

Experience suggests, I like my flying boats much as prefer my ladies, long-legged with a tendency to explode at the slightest provocation.


----------



## mikewint (Jun 15, 2012)

Hmm, in my somewhat limited experiences with the fairer sex that was reversed!


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 15, 2012)

mikewint said:


> Hmm, in my somewhat limited experiences with the fairer sex that was reversed!



As Scooby Doo would say, "Uroooh?" 

Long explosions with a tendancy to have legs at the slightest provocation???


----------



## mikewint (Jun 22, 2012)

sheeesh...See, it wasn't them (females) who exploded.....


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 22, 2012)

steady


----------



## mikewint (Jun 23, 2012)

That's what she said....


----------

