Maritime patrol aircraft: you are in charge

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by tomo pauk, Mar 16, 2012.

  1. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,990
    Likes Received:
    435
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Such planes were rarely being built from the scratch, but were mostly a modification of a suitable mullti-engined plane instead.
    How ould've looked a plane for such missions, if you were in charge? You can start from scratch, preferably. From 2-4 engines, maybe even a high/low mix (eg. one 2-engined design, another 4-engined), using the components available for the country. You can make a design for late 1930's, and a follow-up design for 1942/43-1944/45.
     
  2. Readie

    Readie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,287
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Plymouth, England
    I would consider a seaplane for obvious reasons.

    1) Catalina ( with 4 engines?)
    2) Sunderland

    or,

    The FW Condor. Just as it is.

    John
     
  3. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,990
    Likes Received:
    435
    Trophy Points:
    83
    :)
     
  4. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    For the early plane a seaplane does make a lot of sense. Large, heavy aircraft with low powered engines (and what else existed in the late 30s) need a lot of runway and these were in very short supply in most countries in the 1930s. The use of a seaplane, while restricting speed, frees the maritime patrol plane from airfield restrictions in the terms of runway requirements.
    The next question is one of payload and range. 500 lbs of bombs or 2000lbs of bombs or 4000lbs carried over what distance. That will dictate the use of two engines or four.
     
  5. Readie

    Readie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,287
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Plymouth, England

    hump:oops:
     
  6. johnbr

    johnbr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,501
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    London Ontario Canada
    I like a Flying wing 160ft wing span power 4 DB-H-16 in air refueling remote turret top and bottom.
     
  7. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,990
    Likes Received:
    435
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The great combat range is essential to close the Atlantic gap (for RAF RCAF, later for USAAF), to make a dog-leg maneuver in oder to avoid Coastal Command Beaufighters like (for LW), or to cover vast Pacific areas (for all belligerents there). So a 4-engined plane makes a lot of sense.
    The 2-engined plane could be acquired in greater numbers, while able to conduct low-level strikes vs. shipping. I'd go for high-low mix, ie. one 2-engined plus another 4-engined design.
     
  8. jim

    jim Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    255
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1)H8K Emily , the absolute Maritime patrol aircraft (seaplane)
    Huge range, very heavy defensive armament , 4 powrful engines, excellent performance, excellent handling on air, and on sea, 1000kgr of bombs,spacius fuselage to double as an cargo plane
    Actually it is in a class of its own in every category
    2)Do 24
    3 engines ,good armament, excellent handling, decent range
    And beautiful. The Do 24ATT of 2004 ( totaly rebuilt,new wing, american turboprop engines) in my opinion, is the most beautiful aircraft ever built.
     
  9. fastmongrel

    fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,336
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motor Mechanic
    Location:
    Lancashire
    #9 fastmongrel, Mar 16, 2012
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2012
    Sunderlands with Hercules or R1830s for the very long range. Wellingtons for long range and Hudsons for everything in sight of land. Though if BC wont let the Wellingtons go then Whitleys.

    For later in the war get Lockheed to build a maritime version of the Connie not because it would be good but just because I want the best looking 4 engine liner ever built in RAF service :lol:
     
  10. woljags

    woljags Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    glazier/vintage car restoration
    Location:
    maidenhead uk
    i would develop a long range sunderland,using long range tanks as a make do until it was ready for service,coastal command didn't have a aircraft that could cover the convoys all the way until the liberator was used,a long range sunderland could also double up for air sea rescue dutys on patrols picking up more than i crew before returning to base as was the case with the walrus which was tiny inside,the sunderland could have had a doctor on board to treat any wounded as well as its anti-sub/recon/anti-shipping dutys,any thoughts on this chaps
     
  11. woljags

    woljags Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    glazier/vintage car restoration
    Location:
    maidenhead uk
    #11 woljags, Mar 16, 2012
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2012
    do you think it would have been possible to piggyback a short range fighter onto the sunderland as they did the empire to cover any bomber attacks on shipping,working in tandem 2 sunderlands with these fighters attached could have quickly responded to any enemy attacks ,with floats fitted on the fighters they could have been recovered by ships for reuse,just a thought
     
  12. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,990
    Likes Received:
    435
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Good call about a medic on board.
     
  13. pbfoot

    pbfoot Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,636
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    niagara falls
    I realize I'm going to insult by Brit friends but the Sunderland was not long range it could not, would not and never would cover the mid Atlantic gap.
     
  14. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    1) twin, first Catalina, later Boeing PBB-1 Sea Ranger
    2) 4-engine flying boat, H8K Emily
    3) 4-engine patrol bomber Consolidated PB4Y-2 Privateer

    Juha
     
  15. pbfoot

    pbfoot Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,636
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    niagara falls
    I concur
     
  16. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,990
    Likes Received:
    435
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Good choices, the 4-engined planes. Would Catalina and Sea Ranger be able to skip-bomb a warship and live to talk about that (of course, with multiple plane attack)? How good would be the defence vs. Beaufighter or Ju-88 for the 2-engined types?
     
  17. oldcrowcv63

    oldcrowcv63 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,923
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Tired and Retired
    Location:
    Northeast North Carolina
    #17 oldcrowcv63, Mar 16, 2012
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2012
    For early build, trying to think out of the box: :confused:

    An updated He filled dirigible with 2 or 3 parasitic fighters, perhaps akin to the CW-21B, very light, very fast for defense against long range maritime patrol A/C. The Macon ZRS-5 could carry 5 x 2,800 lbs Sparrowhawks. Presumably three CW-21B 4,000 lb. Demons, or two F4F-3 7,000 lb. 'llght' F4F-3 Wildcats. F4F-3 stall speed is about 75 knots for trapeze style arrestment (probably have to be done at low altitude). The fighter arrestment gear would likely have to be some kind of retractible arrangement to preserve performance. Macon useful load was about 72 tons, but don't know how that was apportioned but seems like it would accommodate a reasonable store of depth and ordinary bombs. Maximum ceiling would have to be around 20,000 ft.

    For shorter ranges something in a flying boat PBY-like or a 4 engine variant. Or a B-17-like design for extended range.

    After that, I don't see one can beat a Lockheed Ventura and PB4Y-2 Privateer combination. Just personal preference.
     
  18. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    PBY had range but was vulnerable, PB4Y-2 historically, at least when flew pairs as they did in 45 in areas where Japanese fighters might be encountered, could usually defend themselves against even newest Japanese fighters like Shidens/Georges and were fairly effective shipkillers. Sea Ranger had similar defensive armament as Privateer and could carry very heavy bomb load but probably too big to be effective skip-bomber but it had excellent range, so not so much a strike attack but VLR patrol a/c with very good load carring ability. Of course Privateer was also an anti-ship missile launch platform.

    Juha
     
  19. woljags

    woljags Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    glazier/vintage car restoration
    Location:
    maidenhead uk
    i know the sunderlands range wasn't up to it but i just felt some kind of long range redesign with a multi-task use would have been a very useful tool,kind of like a flying destroyer
     
  20. pbfoot

    pbfoot Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,636
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    niagara falls
    Why all the redesign when perfectly capable aircraft were available and I hestitate to mention this but the Halifax and Lancaster were available ......but better minds then mind said they were better used area bombing
     
Loading...

Share This Page