Best Aircraft in Many Different Roles Part II

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?)
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Historic World War II aircraft hidden in plain sight
Replies
0
Views
673
GTX
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
T
Identify a aircraft from WV II
Replies
19
Views
767
Engineman
E
Y
WW II vintage aircraft used for special duty flights after WW II
Replies
0
Views
384
yahya
Y
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
616
CHen10
Menu
Log in
Register