Maritime patrol aircraft: you are in charge

[tomo pauk]

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.

 

[Readie]

I would consider a seaplane for obvious reasons.

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

or,

The FW Condor. Just as it is.

John

 

[tomo pauk]

You can start from scratch, preferably.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

 

[Readie]

hump

 

[johnbr]

I like a Flying wing 160ft wing span power 4 DB-H-16 in air refueling remote turret top and bottom.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

 

[jim]

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.

 

[fastmongrel]

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

 

[woljags]

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

 

[woljags]

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

 

[tomo pauk]

Good call about a medic on board.

 

[pbfoot]

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.

 

[Juha]

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

 

[pbfoot]

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

I concur

 

[tomo pauk]

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?

 

[oldcrowcv63]

For early build, trying to think out of the box:

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.

 

[Juha]

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

 

[woljags]

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

 

[pbfoot]

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

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