Best tactical recon platform: converted fighters or dedicated recon aircraft?

[BarnOwlLover]

Some of the debate in another thread over how or why the P-51H couldn't be converted for tactical recon like earlier Mustangs could, as well as the fact that the USAAF (albeit mostly for strategic recon) were looking at dedicated platforms for recon, has lead me to ask this.

There's also photos (on Flickr from San Diego Air and Space Museum that also were used in a book about the F-82/XP-82 restoration) of a P-82B that was converted into a camera ship by fitting a pod under the center wing--something sort of envisioned as early as 1943 when North American proposed the F-82 Twin Mustang (and yes, I'm aware that the USAAF/USAF used P to designate fighters until 1948, though the Twin Mustang is commonly known as the F-82 in general).

But in short, for tactical recon, were converted fighters best, or would a dedicated platform have been better, or a mix of both (as far as aircraft and attributes)?

 

[GrauGeist]

Range, Speed and the ability to carry a full suite of PR equipment were determining factors.

The F-4/F-5/FO-1 (P-38) was one of the mainstays because it met the three criteria mentioned above.

 

[Shortround6]

Kind if depends on how much money and production capacity you have.

Converted fighters are cheap and usually plentiful.

dedicated airframe and or powerplants may give extra capabilities but are no longer cheap.

How much do you want to spend on the desired capabilities?

May also depend on the defenses.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

I'm actually on the fence between internal cameras being fitted to fighters vs external pods (like converted drop tanks or radar pods).

 

[GrauGeist]

Internal camera systems created less drag.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Kind if depends on how much money and production capacity you have.

Converted fighters are cheap and usually plentiful.

dedicated airframe and or powerplants may give extra capabilities but are no longer cheap.

How much do you want to spend on the desired capabilities?

May also depend on the defenses.

It also depends on the mission itself. Might find it hard to get SIGINT recon on a single-engined mount.

 

[PAT303]

Converted fighters are cheap and usually plentiful.

The Spit and Mozzie were more than capable to do the job.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

I also have to admit that I like the downwards oblique camera on the F-6 Merlin Mustangs. One P-82B was also fitted with such lenses (though the main camera mounts were in a pod that could be fitted under the wing), though I'm not aware if such cameras were carried.

 

[Shortround6]

You do have to make sure your "pods" are well mounted (rigid) for alignment and freedom form vibration.
depending on altitude and climate you have to provide heat to the cameras and the port holes/windows.

Not saying it can't be done, but detachable pods may not a be a quick and easy fix that turns any fighter into a tactical recon machine.

 

[drgondog]

As SR mentioned, all cameras must a) be as rigid as possible, b.) hopefully near as possible to the CG to eliminate as much relative motion as possible. A wing mount is probably least desirable due to both aerodynamic loads (Defection/vibrtation) and also the roll movement in flight.

 

[Just Schmidt]

Kind if depends on how much money and production capacity you have.

Converted fighters are cheap and usually plentiful.

dedicated airframe and or powerplants may give extra capabilities but are no longer cheap.

How much do you want to spend on the desired capabilities?

May also depend on the defenses.

One of my first model aircraft was an Fw-189, and I've always been fond of that aircraft.

Did Germany have the capacity? It did use non-critical engines, on a one to one basis it possibly did more recon pr hour flown (at least covering less ground in greater detail) than a converted fighter. It may have relative more merit during a developing battle, where waiting for the photos to be interpreted may see the targets move on? We may be able to define more than one kind of tactical reconnaisance. Thinking about it, I'm not sure what the label entails.

If memory serves, it was at least partly produced by Avia, so utilizing capacity that was not used for fighters. I have no idea what it cost, but it did use three man.

I don't know about survivability, when the shit hit the fan I'd probaly prefer a fighters performance. As for having a shot at a target, I may prefer slower speed, if there aren't too many targets shooting back.

 

[Shortround6]

The Germans used quite a few recon aircraft, both strategic and tactical. The Fw 189 replaced the Hs 126.
But the Hs 126 required the 'observer' to hang over the side.

So improvements in photography weren't hard.
Germans also used He 70s, Do 17F-1s and later Do-17Ps which used a different engine than the Do-17M bomber for more range.
Things were changing rapidly. The Do-17F was considered a strategic recon aircraft by the Luftwaffe in 1937-38 but it had an operational radius of 422 miles and cruised at 165mph at 4000 meters. It was faster at sea level but then the BMW V-12s didn't have superchargers.
A strategic recon machine flying from England after the summer of 1940 would have been a joke.
The Germans tried Bf 110s for both strategic and tactical, Bf 109s for tactical (mostly) and a host of other aircraft including the Ju-86R

Turbo diesels, pressure cabin.
At the end of the war the Germans were using jet aircraft.

For the British for tactical recon the Tomahawk was considered a considerable improvement over the Lysander

what was required or wanted changed quite bit depending on the time in the war, combatant, and the actual area of operations.
Germans could get away with several hundred miles less range than the British/Americans could in NW Europe because the Germans could base recon planes in occupied territory. A similar range aircraft flying for the Allies was useful for seeing what the Germans were doing along the coast or 100-200 miles inland but not much further. Both sides needed longer range aircraft aside from battle field recon in North Africa and Italy. And so on.
Japan vs the Allies sometimes meant hundreds of miles if not over 1000 miles round trip to reach the nearest enemy base.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Pacific even saw the F-9 (and impromteau outfitted standard B-17s) employed.

 

[Greg Boeser]

One of my first model aircraft was an Fw-189, and I've always been fond of that aircraft.

Did Germany have the capacity? It did use non-critical engines, on a one to one basis it possibly did more recon pr hour flown (at least covering less ground in greater detail) than a converted fighter. It may have relative more merit during a developing battle, where waiting for the photos to be interpreted may see the targets move on? We may be able to define more than one kind of tactical reconnaisance. Thinking about it, I'm not sure what the label entails.

If memory serves, it was at least partly produced by Avia, so utilizing capacity that was not used for fighters. I have no idea what it cost, but it did use three man.

I don't know about survivability, when the shit hit the fan I'd probaly prefer a fighters performance. As for having a shot at a target, I may prefer slower speed, if there aren't too many targets shooting back.

A Luftwaffe recon officer noted that the Fw 189 had better survivability than recon Fw 190s.
I attribute that to the greater likelihood that an Fw 190 pilot might forget he is a recon pilot and try to go all fighter jock, whereas the Fw 189 pilot is under no such illusions and seeks the better part of valor when faced with e/a in the vicinity.

 

[Shortround6]

We also had the difference between what was available and what was wanted as part of a "wish list".
Somewhat fuzzy pictures from a pod mounted on a bomb rack?
Better pictures from a camera in a pod bolted to the aircraft structure in a better location?
Even better pictures from a camera bolted to a mount bolted to the fuselage structure?
Wonderful pictures from a camera (or multiples) mounted in a special mount in an ideal location (low vibration) in the aircraft in a heated, conditioned (dry air) compartment with window cleaners and/or shutters/doors to keep the ports clean inflight.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Well, we have the F-82 that was experimented with with using podded cameras. Would that be good for tactical recon? Or a Mosquito FB or DH Hornet, both of which would likely require little modification for the role?

 

[Shortround6]

Well, we have the F-82 that was experimented with with using podded cameras. Would that be good for tactical recon? Or a Mosquito FB or DH Hornet, both of which would likely require little modification for the role?

define "tactical recon" as it varied so much depending on the year and the theater of operations or even by the locations (or targets) in just one theater.

The F-82 could have been used. The USAAF was certainly using a number of different types at the same time.
Wither the F-82 had any particular advantages over any of those types or a combination of advantages that would have made it more valuable may be different.

The pod bolted to the center section wing is better than a pod hanging off a bomb rack.
It may be just as good as the nose camera bay in a P-38 (3-5 cameras) the F-82 is faster,
Now at what altitude to you want to fly and at what range?
Bigger plane means bigger target if you are within range of ground guns.

Some US squadrons used 3 different aircraft at the same time and assigned aircraft due to the mission parameters. Some squadrons in Europe used F4/5s (Lightnings) F-6s (Mustangs) and few F-3s (A-20s).

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Basically I'm thinking along the lines of what the RAF used their Mustang Is and IIs for. As well as the fact that the British wished they had more (or a more advanced version) for short and long range tactical recon. I can see the F-82 doing that at pretty long range. Granted, for the time the converted P-51s and P-38s did well.

Also, I'd prefer the aircraft to be armed (or at least being capable of being used as an armed fighter when not doing recon). The F-82 could probably do such recon out to long ranges (similar to what the Mosquito or Hornet could do).

And of course, a P-51H could've been the best fighter recon platform--it it could carry cameras internally. I don't know if it can, and the USAAF or North American never tried it out.

The F-82 would make a bigger target than a P-51, but not much bigger than a P-38, and smaller than say the slower Fw-189.

 

[Shortround6]

The F-82 would make a bigger target than a P-51, but not much bigger than a P-38, and smaller than say the slower Fw-189.

The Fw-189 had a wing 2 sq/ft bigger than the F-82. it was 4 inch shorter. We can argue for years about which had more fuselage area
The Fw-189 survived by flying very low and under 200mph without hitting things (mostly) it was better at flying NOE than most fighters.
It had a lower wing loading than Zero.
There are limits to how many fighters you can avoid on one mission though.
The FW-189 was not very useful for penetrating hundreds of miles behind the lines so the question is back to what do you mean by tactical recon.
The Mustang Is were flying from Britain to the German border or beyond which was way outside any ground battle area in 1942/43 or some of 1944.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

I've been told that both Allison and Merlin Mustangs were used for deep penetration recon raids over German occupied territory on a tactical level. That to me implies that they weren't looking for high value strategic targets, but high value tactical assets or intel on German movements well behind the front lines. And it has to be remembered that Mustangs as early as 1942 penetrated as far as occupied Norway.

Now here's a "what if" scenario. Let's take a hypothetical fighter that uses a radiator duct layout similar to the P-51H Mustang/F-82 Twin Mustang. Now someone wants to mount oblique and a vertical camera in it. How would that work given the length/size of the radiator duct exit? I've seen some rough cutaways of the P-51H and a couple of good ones for the F-82. And from what I've seen, the P-51H's rear fuselage is probably too cramped for even a F24 camera to be mounted vertically.

Again, though, this fighter uses a similar radiator system to the P-51H, but isn't a carbon copy.