What was the most versatile plane of ww2?

[KiwiBiggles]

Mosquito could wear both roundels and stars, but the P-38 could only wear stars. So the Mosquito was more versatile.

 

[Shortround6]

Three planes for honorable mention.

Bristol Blenheim.
Douglas A-20
Lockheed Ventura PV-1

 

[vikingBerserker]

If we remove the Ju-88 and Mosquito, what would be the next ones?

I've been reading up on the B-24 and was amazed at the variety of missions it could do:
Heavy Bomber
Skip Bomber
Fuel Tanker
Cargo
Patrol Bomber
Photographic reconnaissance
Air to Air Gunship
Test Bed
Troop Transport
VIP Transport
Trainer
Radio Controlled Flying Bomb
Radar Guided Missile Carrier

 

[pbehn]

If we remove the Ju-88 and Mosquito, what would be the next ones?

I've been reading up on the B-24 and was amazed at the variety of missions it could do:
Heavy Bomber
Skip Bomber
Fuel Tanker
Cargo
Patrol Bomber
Photographic reconnaissance
Air to Air Gunship
Test Bed
Troop Transport
VIP Transport
Trainer
Radio Controlled Flying Bomb
Radar Guided Missile Carrier

Almost any plane can be said to perform a role, the B-24 changed the Battle of the Atlantic, it could do things others coudnt.

 

[buffnut453]

Mosquito could wear both roundels and stars, but the P-38 could only wear stars. So the Mosquito was more versatile.

Not true, I'm afraid:

Granted, only a couple of P-38s wore roundels...but they did exist!

 

[fubar57]

DARWIN, NT. 1943-02-27. LOCKHEED P-38E LIGHTNING AIRCRAFT A55-3 WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE RAAF FROM THE USAAF ON 1943-02-27 AND FITTED WITH PHOTO- RECONNAISSANCE CAMERAS FOR RAAF PR OPERATIONS BEFORE BEING LOST IN A WHEELS- UP LANDING 1943-12-10​

 

[GregP]

They pressed a LOT of airplanes on both sides into roles they were never intended for, not just the Mosquito and Ju 88. Without extensive research into unusual aircraft assignments, it is very tough to say with any authority.

 

[KiwiBiggles]

Not true, I'm afraid:

View attachment 506619

Granted, only a couple of P-38s wore roundels...but they did exist!

Not operationally.

 

[BiffF15]

Not true, I'm afraid:

View attachment 506619

Granted, only a couple of P-38s wore roundels...but they did exist!

Now I see where the Red Bull guys got the design for the turbo area.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Bizrock]

we should stick to the dictionary definition of "versatile"
VERSATILE:

1. capable of or adapted for turning easily from one to another of various tasks, fields of endeavor, etc.: a versatile writer.
2. having or capable of many uses: a versatile tool.
3. Botany. attached at or near the middle so as to swing freely, as an anther.

That's the thing that everyone is missing.
Everybody is focusing on the number 2, but forgetting of the number 1.
Mosquito could specialize in a lot of tasks, there is Mosquito anti-tank with a 50mm, a mosquito bomber without weapons and with a payload of 4k lbs and had a ceiling of 11,000m, a Mosquito heavy fighter with 20mm cannons.
But could he "1. capable of or adapted for turning easily from one to another of various tasks"?
A anti-tank mosquito could not turn to a fighter when needed it, and not even the bomber one. The fighter mosquito could not intercept because he had just a ceiling of 8,839 m and a very bad rate of climb (8.8m/s), and could not carry that much of bombs, at least it didn't. Same for JU-88, as it had a variant for each task.
The thing is, Mosquito could specialize in many roles, but not a versatile plane in that role.
In other hand P-38 (I not still sure if this is a good example, because I'm the one asking the question) could carry a mix of 4k lbs of bombs/rockets/drop tanks and still had guns to be a fighter, and still could intercept if the need for it because it still had a ceiling of 13,000m and a good rate of climb (24m/s)
I'm still a newbie in this forum, so don't judge.

 

[Shortround6]

Well, if you want a plane that can perform a variety of roles/missions without much modification then the Lockheed PV-1 heads a lot closer to the top of the list.

In addition to the expected roles of maritime recconasance, ASW and light/medium bomber it performed as a "pathfinder" for B-24 formations (It used it's radar to help navigate in bad weather conditions). It could be used as a transport, with or without stripping the guns. It equipped the first Marine Corp night fighter unit (and got one kill). It was equipped to carry a torpedo (although it may never have dropped one in anger?) and rockets under the wing.
It also did a few other odd jobs and lasted (in South African service) into the 60s.

 

[Glider]

That's the thing that everyone is missing.
Everybody is focusing on the number 2, but forgetting of the number 1.
Mosquito could specialize in a lot of tasks, there is Mosquito anti-tank with a 50mm, a mosquito bomber without weapons and with a payload of 4k lbs and had a ceiling of 11,000m, a Mosquito heavy fighter with 20mm cannons.
But could he "1. capable of or adapted for turning easily from one to another of various tasks"?
A anti-tank mosquito could not turn to a fighter when needed it, and not even the bomber one. The fighter mosquito could not intercept because he had just a ceiling of 8,839 m and a very bad rate of climb (8.8m/s), and could not carry that much of bombs, at least it didn't. Same for JU-88, as it had a variant for each task.
The thing is, Mosquito could specialize in many roles, but not a versatile plane in that role.
In other hand P-38 (I not still sure if this is a good example, because I'm the one asking the question) could carry a mix of 4k lbs of bombs/rockets/drop tanks and still had guns to be a fighter, and still could intercept if the need for it because it still had a ceiling of 13,000m and a good rate of climb (24m/s)
I'm still a newbie in this forum, so don't judge.

A fair point, however the limitation was normally the limitations of the trained aircrew. Probably the best example of this were the Typhoon squadrons of the 2nd TAF. Typhoons could carry bombs or Rockets but each squadron concentrated on one or the other. They didn't swap around, because the level of training needed to maintain standards was too much for the pilots.

 

[parsifal]

I think "versatility" does allow situations where a basic airframe can be taken off the production line, modified in some way, but still retain the same basic structure and production characteristics. Even if a particular role requires changes to the basic airframe, that is easier, generally, to do that to go off and redesign a whole new aircraft for purpose.

The problem I see as most relevant is the capability (or perhaps efficiency) of the airframe adaptation to the alternative role. If the aircraft in its new role is inefficient, I think that more or less neutralizes the versatility of the airframe to that role.

We used A4s as air defence a/c even though they were rated as bombers. They were modified to carry additional AAMs. We gave up the ability to carry Bullpup ASMs (though it was still possible to retrofit). I believe our A-4s were fitted with modified nav radars and communications. These all added to the versatility of the type, but what our A-4s were configured to do was quite different to what others, like Singapore were doing with their copies (at wardroom level there were some interesting discussions about how our air defence A-4s might have fared against Sea Harriers in the falklands as compared to the Argentine copies that were fully optimized to carry bombs). I don't think that whether changes were needed to optimize a role from a single airframe type is relevant to whether the A-4 was versatile or not.

 

[michael rauls]

I think "versatility" does allow situations where a basic airframe can be taken off the production line, modified in some way, but still retain the same basic structure and production characteristics. Even if a particular role requires changes to the basic airframe, that is easier, generally, to do that to go off and redesign a whole new aircraft for purpose.

The problem I see as most relevant is the capability (or perhaps efficiency) of the airframe adaptation to the alternative role. If the aircraft in its new role is inefficient, I think that more or less neutralizes the versatility of the airframe to that role.

We used A4s as air defence a/c even though they were rated as bombers. They were modified to carry additional AAMs. We gave up the ability to carry Bullpup ASMs (though it was still possible to retrofit). I believe our A-4s were fitted with modified nav radars and communications. These all added to the versatility of the type, but what our A-4s were configured to do was quite different to what others, like Singapore were doing with their copies (at wardroom level there were some interesting discussions about how our air defence A-4s might have fared against Sea Harriers in the falklands as compared to the Argentine copies that were fully optimized to carry bombs). I don't think that whether changes were needed to optimize a role from a single airframe type is relevant to whether the A-4 was versatile or not.

That certainly makes sense but again I think different people will weigh the degree of modification needed of a type to fulfil a new role differently in regards to whether it counts for or against its versatility which in my mind at least is what makes this so hard to nail down betweeen two close aircraft.

 

[Barrett]

Seems that the ultimate test of Versatility is carrier and land-based capability. THAT really limits the options, in fact down to one (1.00)
F6F.
Ship/shore-based day fighter
Ship/shore-based night fighter
Ship/shore-based fighter-bomber
Ship/shore-based photo recon

(AFAIK there were no photo Corsairs until after the war.)

 

[Fighterguy]

Even though it's been previously mentioned, I'll go with B-25 Mitchell.
Bomber
Surface Attack (strafing and torpedo, ground and maritime)
Utility Transport
Test
Anti-Submarine
Reconnaissance (photographic, mapping, and weather)
And it could take off from and land on aircraft carrier.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Land on a carrier? I have not heard of that before.

 

[Shortround6]

A lot of planes landed on carriers in experiments/trials. The number that actually landed on carriers and then took off with full fuel (or nearly full) and a weapons load was a lot fewer. There is also the use in a special mission and the use in day in/day out service.
B-25s are going to block the flight deck meaning no air operations can performed (cap or recon patrols) unless the B-25s a launched to clear the deck. Basically means if you have one carrier carrying B-25s (assuming you can actually recover them on a consistent basis without an astronomically high accident rate) you need at least one more (and maybe two?) carriers with it to do all the day to day flying that needs doing around a task force.

A lot of the far out missions are just that and really push the boundaries of versatile.

They Flew Hurricanes at night trying to intercept German bombers, does that make them night fighters in the generally accepted understanding of the term?

 

[GrauGeist]

The USN trialed a modified B-25H (PBJ-1H) for launch and recovery aboard the Shangri-La (Cv-8).

That's about it - otherwise, the PBJ was just a B-25 outfitted for various land-based missions by the Navy and Marines.

 

[mike cunningham]

The plane that could do almost everything and deal with almost any situation

B-25 or the C-47