Twitch
Staff Sergeant
Yeah big, 4-engine flying boats are another category entirely. The Mariner had a penchant for leaking gas a old PBY guy that flew both told me.
Consolidated PBY vs. Heinkel He-115
- Thread starter V-1710
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The point here there were better WW2 flying boats, but they either weren't reliable or not deployed effectively or with the right on board equipment (MAD). That's where the PBY takes it!
That I will agree with FBJ.
Kiwikid
Airman 1st Class
Back to the original comparison there isn't one. The Catalina could alight on rough seas. The He115 was a floatplane and really was limited to sheltered water flying, though no doubt there were many hairy landings on rough seas by brave He115 crews.
Widen the debate to compare like with like and the Do-18 is superior to the PBY
Widen the debate to compare like with like and the Do-18 is superior to the PBY
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
well remember you weren't ever supposed to sand any sort of seaplane in rough seas, many were lost that way, yes it obviously happened at times but it was never autherised, not even in larger ones like the Sunderland or E8K (please tell me if that's the right designation i can never remember 
)..........
)..........
Kiwikid
Airman 1st Class
I think from memory it was the HK8.
As a general principle a flying boat can handle rougher water than a floatplane. The Do-18 excelled at this because it did not rely upon wing sponsoon floats.
Catching a float on a wave can be quite fatal too as happened to (I think it was) Phillipe Cousteau the son of Jaques Cousteau using a Catalina.
As a general principle a flying boat can handle rougher water than a floatplane. The Do-18 excelled at this because it did not rely upon wing sponsoon floats.
Catching a float on a wave can be quite fatal too as happened to (I think it was) Phillipe Cousteau the son of Jaques Cousteau using a Catalina.
As I said in other posting above you can not compare the PBY to the He-115 because they are 2 totally different type of aicraft.
The best aircraft compare the PBY to (seaplanes in her class) are the Do-18, Do-24, and Do-26. The Do-18, Do-24 and Do-26 outperform the PBY and are actually better seaplanes than the PBY but for reasons that FBJ stated such as onboard equipment and effective deployment the PBY takes the catagory of best seaplane of WW2.
I personally like the Do-24 the best though because of her looks.
The best aircraft compare the PBY to (seaplanes in her class) are the Do-18, Do-24, and Do-26. The Do-18, Do-24 and Do-26 outperform the PBY and are actually better seaplanes than the PBY but for reasons that FBJ stated such as onboard equipment and effective deployment the PBY takes the catagory of best seaplane of WW2.
I personally like the Do-24 the best though because of her looks.
The comparison is useful from a technical viewpoint, but operationally the issue of one vs. the other remains academic.
The PBY was designed as a long ranged patrol plane, then had torpedo / level bomber duties added. The He 115 was designed as a fast floatplane, and there was a record attempt made at one point before the war, and then militarized as a torpedo bomber, scout plane. Chronologically parallel, technically very diverse.
The PBY's long ranged was critical in the Pacific and the Atlantic. The He 115's speed very useful in the Biskaya, Norway, and the Baltic. Against slow, unarmed merchant ships without fighter cover, as in the Russian convoys, the He 115 had a real chance. The PBY as a Black Cat did well in the South Pacific. Both, nevertheless, were very vulnerable to enemy fighter interception.
Most beautiful? Depends entirely on individual criteria. For merchant captain in the Norwegian Sea, an He 115 was an ugly sight. For a Marine pilot in the water off Bougainville, a PBY DUMBO was beauty without comparison.
An interesting comparison of PBY and Do-24 was in the Dutch Naval Air Force in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) early in the Pacific War; it operated both types, and alongside USN units operating PBY-4's and -5's. Some of those Dutch Do-24's had a 20mm dorsal turret, providing considerably more protection than the .50 cal waste hatches (PBY-4) or blisters (PBY-5), but not many Do's happened to be caught by Japanese fighters. They sank a Japanese DD though, while neither US or Dutch PBY's happened to score any signficant sinkings in that period (Dec '41-fall of DEI in late Feb '42). However from the Dutch perspective in early '42, the PBY-5's they received were new planes while the Do's were pretty worn out after a few months of war.
I agree He-115 is not a comparable plane to the PBY, but here's an interesting picture, an He-115B of Kusten-flieger Gruppe 406 shortly before its destruction by F4F-4's from USS Ranger off the coast of Norway Oct 4, 1943, one of the relatively few Luftwaffe a/c shot down by the USN in WWII.
Joe
I agree He-115 is not a comparable plane to the PBY, but here's an interesting picture, an He-115B of Kusten-flieger Gruppe 406 shortly before its destruction by F4F-4's from USS Ranger off the coast of Norway Oct 4, 1943, one of the relatively few Luftwaffe a/c shot down by the USN in WWII.
Joe
I still dont believe a true comparison can be made between the 115 and the PBY.
Take the PBY and the Do 24 and then you can make a comparison. The Do 24 wins in my opinion as well.
You have to love the PBY however.
Take the PBY and the Do 24 and then you can make a comparison. The Do 24 wins in my opinion as well.
You have to love the PBY however.
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
In this case I'll go with the Cat, absolutely love that bird....PBY-5A..*droool* Doesn't the float plane have a disadvantage when it comes to floats v. smooth body as with Catalina? More drag and all that? Have to admit that the Dornier Do-24 is my favorite German sea plane though, the Viking was a tad bit on the large side...
B-17engineer
Colonel
Its hard to compare a Flying boat to Floatplane.......hmmmmmmmmmm
I am new to this site and I am reading from the first topics toward current topics. One reason for the PBY being the best is time on station. In the Atlantic due to the slow speed of the cruise the PBY could stay over a convoy for a longer time then most of the planes listed. It would take longer to get there but then it could stay longer. Also for scouting it could keep looking longe
Last edited:
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
Seaplanes are intrinsically superior to float planes, so, of course the PBY is better than the He115, but the issue is whether either was good enough. They both were.
(stupid tablet; replacing "seaplanes" with "warplanes": fixed; everything below was added in edit)
Neglecting the "everything the Germans did was better," (and the somewhat less silly "seaplanes are intrinsically superior....") memes, these were different aircraft optimized for different roles. The floatplane would be more restricted in its ability to operate in rough seas, would probably have greater drag, most of it due to the floats, and would have a lower payload fraction than a seaplane designed for the same role. On the other hand, sticking floats onto a generic airframe is possible (prototype floatplane conversions were made of, among other aircraft, the Wildcat, the Spitfire, and the DC-3. They even tried a Blackburn Roc floatplane, which strikes me more as an expensive method of executing pilots and air gunners than as a useful aircraft) so one can use the same basic airframe as a floatplane and something else.
The PBY was adequate for its role, but it, and all other seaplanes and floatplanes ran into the simple problem that unless landing on water was a role, as it was for SAR aircraft, or there were no runways to be found landplanes were better at just about everything: faster, better payload fraction, able to operate with fewer weather restrictions, lower maintenance, .....
(stupid tablet; replacing "seaplanes" with "warplanes": fixed; everything below was added in edit)
Neglecting the "everything the Germans did was better," (and the somewhat less silly "seaplanes are intrinsically superior....") memes, these were different aircraft optimized for different roles. The floatplane would be more restricted in its ability to operate in rough seas, would probably have greater drag, most of it due to the floats, and would have a lower payload fraction than a seaplane designed for the same role. On the other hand, sticking floats onto a generic airframe is possible (prototype floatplane conversions were made of, among other aircraft, the Wildcat, the Spitfire, and the DC-3. They even tried a Blackburn Roc floatplane, which strikes me more as an expensive method of executing pilots and air gunners than as a useful aircraft) so one can use the same basic airframe as a floatplane and something else.
The PBY was adequate for its role, but it, and all other seaplanes and floatplanes ran into the simple problem that unless landing on water was a role, as it was for SAR aircraft, or there were no runways to be found landplanes were better at just about everything: faster, better payload fraction, able to operate with fewer weather restrictions, lower maintenance, .....
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Welcome to the Forum.
The PBY was big airplane, 1400sq ft of wing with small engines. This meant it had a slow top speed but it had good endurance at low speed due to low power needed while wing provided the lift (large fuel tanks didn't hurt either).
You never get something for nothing so each plane mentioned in the thread has pluses and minuses. Which was more important could depend on situation but it is very hard (impossible?) for a 23,000lb airplane (He115) to equal the range/payload of a 30,000lb airplane (PBY-3&4) let alone a 35-36,000lb airplane (PBY-5A)
soulezoo
Senior Airman
While speed can be a good thing, for an aircraft whose primary role is search, and search and rescue, being as slow as possible can be a better thing. It can be very difficult to spot something as small as a life raft while zooming by at 200 mph. Being slow means a better opportunity to see detail in what is otherwise a vast expanse. However, being too slow when a fast egress is necessary can of course be a bad thing.
For the purpose of the OP, I am inclined to say PBY.
For the purpose of the OP, I am inclined to say PBY.
GregP
Major
The PBY was a 35,000-pound plane with edit (Thanks, Milosh!): 2,500 mile range. The Do-18 was a 22,000-pound plane with 2,100 mile range.
The advantage is the Catalina here, but perhaps only slightly.
They built 3,300 Catalinas, including Canadian units. They built 170 DO-18s. There is no comparison there, the Catalina is the winner, rather overwhelmingly. 3,300 even largely inferior planes are going to contribute more than 170 superior planes. One-on-one, they might have been close. Collectively, they aren't. Perhaps you meant one-on-one?
Add this; they are still flying Catalinas. No WWII German flying boats are still flying with the excpetion of maybe one Do-24 that was rebuilt as a possible turboprop new-production unit some time in the last 20 years. It did not make production Here is a link to a video of it.
View: https://www.facebook.com/JukinVideo/videos/957551014333169/
About halfway through, note the altogether unique landing maneuver. Now THAT's something you surely don't see every day! This was and IS a very nice flying boat. That spin-out was an anomaly caused no doubt by a pilot who put it down while it still had flying speed. That is, he didn't hold off until it stalled into the water. Notice when he touched down that he touched way forward, more or less about at the 1/3-chord line. When that happens, interesting things follow. Rather, he landed when it still had enough speed to lift a bit when the nose came up.
I'd chalk that up to simple pilot error, and I'd bet it never happened again!
First flying boat toe loop I ever saw, and it wasn't even in an ice rink!
The advantage is the Catalina here, but perhaps only slightly.
They built 3,300 Catalinas, including Canadian units. They built 170 DO-18s. There is no comparison there, the Catalina is the winner, rather overwhelmingly. 3,300 even largely inferior planes are going to contribute more than 170 superior planes. One-on-one, they might have been close. Collectively, they aren't. Perhaps you meant one-on-one?
Add this; they are still flying Catalinas. No WWII German flying boats are still flying with the excpetion of maybe one Do-24 that was rebuilt as a possible turboprop new-production unit some time in the last 20 years. It did not make production Here is a link to a video of it.
View: https://www.facebook.com/JukinVideo/videos/957551014333169/
About halfway through, note the altogether unique landing maneuver. Now THAT's something you surely don't see every day! This was and IS a very nice flying boat. That spin-out was an anomaly caused no doubt by a pilot who put it down while it still had flying speed. That is, he didn't hold off until it stalled into the water. Notice when he touched down that he touched way forward, more or less about at the 1/3-chord line. When that happens, interesting things follow. Rather, he landed when it still had enough speed to lift a bit when the nose came up.
I'd chalk that up to simple pilot error, and I'd bet it never happened again!
First flying boat toe loop I ever saw, and it wasn't even in an ice rink!
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Here's another one where the pilot tried to drive it on. More interesting things happen.
View: https://youtu.be/EzPSjBPAlMQ
Moral of the story is slow down and drop in out of a stall, and touch down behind the CG / CL, not in front of it! Also, it helps to touch down wings level. It's OK to raise a wing on takleoff, but I'd avoid that when landing, unless you like sudden adventure.
View: https://youtu.be/EzPSjBPAlMQ
Moral of the story is slow down and drop in out of a stall, and touch down behind the CG / CL, not in front of it! Also, it helps to touch down wings level. It's OK to raise a wing on takleoff, but I'd avoid that when landing, unless you like sudden adventure.
Last edited:
The PBY can fly around the earth without refueling?
GregP
Major
Thanks Milosh! I added an edit. The PBY was long range, but probably slightly less than around-the-world legs ...
I was only off by 22,500 miles! What's the beef? Ha!
I was only off by 22,500 miles! What's the beef? Ha!
