What was the best Flying boat in WWII?

[Cromwell]

Yes, it was me (at the top of this page) that said that it helped to save Britain during the Atlantic war. What is disjointed about that?

I am not quite sure how this has grown up, but perhaps the two parties involved can arrive at some kind of understanding on what they both meant.

I would be interested to hear both sides on this one.

 

[Waynos]

Well from my side Cromwell I just think the Sunderland in its anti u-boat and patrol missions during the Atlantic war helped to prevent the collapse of Britain, through strangultaion, as per the German plan. I believe it was an essential part of the overall effort as, just as with the Battle of Britain, if Germany had succeeded in taking the UK out of the war that would have been it, game over and the Germans would have held Europe for as long as they wished for no UK means no US participation in Europe and no 2nd front to distract them from Russia. I'm not saying this is all down to the Sunderland of course, that would be silly.

I was not having a dig at the prev poster, I just don't understand what was disjointed about what I wrote. It seemed rather a dismissive thing to say.

 

[Cromwell]

Well from my side Cromwell I just think the Sunderland in its anti u-boat and patrol missions during the Atlantic war helped to prevent the collapse of Britain, through strangultaion, as per the German plan. I believe it was an essential part of the overall effort as, just as with the Battle of Britain, if Germany had succeeded in taking the UK out of the war that would have been it, game over and the Germans would have held Europe for as long as they wished for no UK means no US participation in Europe and no 2nd front to distract them from Russia. I'm not saying this is all down to the Sunderland of course, that would be silly.

I was not having a dig at the prev poster, I just don't understand what was disjointed about what I wrote. It seemed rather a dismissive thing to say.

This seems to make perfect sense to me. In many ways the Sunderland, like the Stringbag or the Walrus, performed surprisingly well.

As a child I remember a friend of mine had a Sunderland Airfix model, and you could slide the bombs out on racks beneath the wings up to the first engines. I think this is how the early marks of Sunderland dropped Depth Charges

 

[renrich]

"but why thew PBY" threw me off but I now realise that it was a typo and apologise. Indeed the Sunderland played a role, especially early in the war in antisub warfare. I question, however, if it's role was as major as that of the ASW ships. Later in the war the electronics armed land based patrol planes made it extremely difficult for U boats in the Bay of Biscay. The PBY also did good work in ASW in the area of the central Atlantic. The PBY served with the British well before Pearl Harbor. It also served as a night intruder in the PTO.

 

[Cromwell]

"but why thew PBY" threw me off but I now realise that it was a typo and apologise. Indeed the Sunderland played a role, especially early in the war in antisub warfare. I question, however, if it's role was as major as that of the ASW ships. Later in the war the electronics armed land based patrol planes made it extremely difficult for U boats in the Bay of Biscay. The PBY also did good work in ASW in the area of the central Atlantic. The PBY served with the British well before Pearl Harbor. It also served as a night intruder in the PTO.

I think the PBY was a tremendous plane - excellent duration and able to fulfill pretty much anything it was asked to do. It was powered by the Twin Wasp and later this was used on the the Mark V Sunderland also.

IMHO the PBY and the Sunderland were on both sides of the same coin. They were both great sea-planes that performed beyond expectations.

The Sunderland was much improved in later versions like the MkIII and V with a re-designed hull so it could unstick more readily. Even the early versions could put up quite a fight even against planes like the Ju88 - and all versions carried some very effective anti-sub ordinance.

[ The ultimate version, the MkIV became an entirely new plane - the Short Seaford - but too late for WWII sadly ]

They carried up to 16 machine guns ultimately including 0.5 as well as 303s

You might like to read this from Short Sunderland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


" The rifle calibre .303 guns lacked hitting power but the Sunderland retained its reputation for being able to take care of itself. This reputation was enhanced by an air battle between eight Ju 88C long range heavy fighters and a single RAAF Sunderland Mark III of No. 461 Squadron RAAF on 2 June 1943.

This battle was one of several stories of the type's operations related by author Ivan Southall, who flew in Sunderlands during the war. There were 11 crewmen on board the Sunderland; nine Australians and two British.] The crew was on an anti-submarine patrol and also searching for remains of BOAC Flight 777, an airliner that had left Lisbon the day before and subsequently had been shot down over the Bay of Biscay.

In the late afternoon, one of the crew spotted the eight Ju 88s. Bombs and depth charges were dumped while the pilot, Flt. Lt. Colin Walker, "redlined" the engines. Two Ju 88s made passes at the flying boat, one from each side, scoring hits and managing to disable one engine while the Sunderland went through wild "corkscrew" evasive manoeuvres.

On the third pass, the dorsal turret gunner managed to shoot one down. Another Ju 88 disabled the tail turret but the next that made a pass was hit by the dorsal and nose turrets and was shot down as well.

Still another attacked, destroying the Sunderland's radio gear, wounding most of the crew in varying degrees and mortally wounding one of the side gunners (Flight Sergeant "Ted" Miles). A Ju 88 tried to attack from the rear but the tail turret gunner had managed to regain some control over the turret and shot it down.

The surviving Ju 88s continued to attack but the nose gunner damaged one of these, setting its engines on fire. Two more of the attackers were also hit and the final pair disengaged and departed. Luftwaffe records indicate that the latter were the only two that made it back to base."

 

[Waynos]

I see the typo renrich, I don't know how I missed it before. No problem, I can be a bit ham fisted sometimes.

 

[renrich]

As a hunt and peck, two fingered typist, I can relate. I don't question the Sunderland being a good airplane. What tips the scale in favor of the Cat for me is that it was used almost everywhere for so many tasks. I went through a civilian version of the Sunderland at a air museum in Florida once and I envisioned a much larger airplane than it was. Quite a lot of space inside though.

 

[pbfoot]

Can anyone tell me the difference between the Canadian built Catalina known as the Canso as opposed to the US built version I've been told the Canadian one had longer range but can't confirm this

 

[vikingBerserker]

The Canso was just the PBY-5 in Canadian service. I believe the Canadian production aircraft were the same as the US built.

 

[Lucky13]

Thought that this discussion was familiar....started one some time ago. http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-flying-boat-amphibian-wwii-14255.html

The PBY Catalina always gets my vote, hands down! 8)

 

[cherry blossom]

It is quite surprising that the discussion has not mentioned how any of the flying boats performed on water. The performance of the H8K in the air was very impressive. However, the prototype performed very poorly on water and I do not think that any model actually performed well. The performance of the Sunderland on water was also not ideal. By contrast the Do 24 was noted for its ability to operate from rough water, which is why the survivors were used for rescue after WW2 until spares ran out. I guess that the Cat also performed well on water.

 

[Cromwell]

It is quite surprising that the discussion has not mentioned how any of the flying boats performed on water. The performance of the H8K in the air was very impressive. However, the prototype performed very poorly on water and I do not think that any model actually performed well. The performance of the Sunderland on water was also not ideal. By contrast the Do 24 was noted for its ability to operate from rough water, which is why the survivors were used for rescue after WW2 until spares ran out. I guess that the Cat also performed well on water.

Later Marks of Sunderland i.e. 3, 4 5 were Much Improved


They had a Smooth transitioning hull - rather than a Stepped hull


BTW the Mark 4 was so different it was renamed The Seaford


Note See my earlier postings too

 

[Amsel]

The Catalina for me.

 

[renrich]

Am I wrong in assuming that the Sunderland was not an amphibian? That would possibly impact it's operations because if the water was too rough at it's bases, it would not be able to take off or land.

 

[FlexiBull]

Remembering that Airfix kit again , the Sunderland had undercarriage legs that could be attached so that it could be brought ashore, but unlike the PBY these had to be fitted whilst in the water and where not integral to the airframe

 

[comiso90]

As a hunt and peck, two fingered typist, I can relate. I don't question the Sunderland being a good airplane. What tips the scale in favor of the Cat for me is that it was used almost everywhere for so many tasks. I went through a civilian version of the Sunderland at a air museum in Florida once and I envisioned a much larger airplane than it was. Quite a lot of space inside though.

was that the fantasy of flight museum?
Fantasy of Flight, World's Greatest Aircraft Collection

I want to go there just for the B-26 and the Sunderland.

.

 

[renrich]

Yes, it was. The Sunderland was inside and the B26 was out on the tarmac. I was suprised at how big the B26 seemed although I could not go inside. They had a nice collection, including a beautiful P51C, I think, and a nice F4U. All in all, however, I don't believe that museum has qite as nice a collection as the Cavanaugh Museum in Addison, Texas. Addison Air Port is where I learned to fly. It was a little busy for a beginner pilot and I had a few harrowing moments with all the traffic, both in the air and down below. I had night mares about stalling out with all the concrete and cars below me. That was around 1970 and I shudder to think about taking lessons out of there now.

 

[Yerger]

Emily 1st
Sunderland 2nd

 

[Gibbage]

The Cat, hands down, the most important flying boat/amphibian of the war. Used in every theatre, in every possible way, and a part of some of the biggest and most crutial battle's of the war. Flown by not only the US, but also England and Russia. Russia made an unknown number of Catalina's under license.

Who found the Bizmark? Catalina.
Who found the Japanese fleet at Midway? Catalina.
Black Cats?
Rescued thousands of downed pilots or lost seamen in the Pacific.
Delivered vital supplies to small islands all over the pacific.
Inserted Russian troops after landing into an enemy port at night.
Landed in the middle of an enemy fleet, to pick up downed airmen.

It may not of been the fastest, had the most payload, was the best armed, but by god, it was there, in numbers, and were you needed it when you needed it. Jack of all trades, but a master of none, and the most beautiful sight to lost survivors, no matter how ugly they thought it was. That was the Catalina.

Sure there were "better" but none of them even hold a candle to how important the Catalina was.

 

[TenGunTerror]

The H8K is my vote, it had good combat records, good speed, good armament, and was notoriously hard to shoot down. My vote is strictly on performancce, as obviously the Short Sunderland and Catalina played a bigger role in the war effort.