WW2 Aircraft more successful in secondary role

[wuzak]

My vote goes to the Mosquito, designed as a light bomber, it was good enough as a night fighter and recon aircraft for the USA to want it.
It also downed V1s and was a great heavy fighter/maritime stike aircraft.

But was it more successful in those roles than its original intended (bombing) role?

It was very successful as a bomber.

 

[pbehn]

But was it more successful in those roles than its original intended (bombing) role?

It was very successful as a bomber.

Curiously that may rule it out, as a precision bomber and pathfinder it didnt have an equal either.

 

[Milosh]

My vote goes to the Mosquito, designed as a light bomber, it was good enough as a night fighter and recon aircraft for the USA to want it.
It also downed V1s and was a great heavy fighter/maritime stike aircraft.

It might have been initially designed as a light bomber first but.....

Three prototypes were built, each with a different configuration. The first to fly was W4050 on 25 November 1940, followed by the fighter W4052 on 15 May 1941 and the photo-reconnaissance prototype W4051 on 10 June 1941.

 

[GregP]

Hi Thorlifter,

I believe you are correct in that the He-111 was designed as a bomber and modified to be released as a mail plane. However, I lived in the Phoenix, Arizona area for 23 years and knew people who flew the CAF's Casa. One guy who piloted it regularly said it flew like an underpowered DC-3 and, if one engine failed, the other would overheat in about the time it took you do run a short landing pattern. So, it's suitability as a military bomber has been suspect by me since hearing that.

 

[fastmongrel]

Supermarine Walrus. Designed to be catapulted off a Battleship to spot for its big guns and shadow targets but did most of its work as an Air Sea Rescue plane.

 

[CORSNING]

The Merlin powered Mustangs. In all of WW2 there is nothing else even close IN MY OPINION
of one particular aircraft in changing the events of WW2 in Europe. There were others that were
dramatic but none that change the history or direction to the degree of the Merlin powered P-51.
The English wanted more P-40s. North American gave them the NA-73, then the P-51. By the
time the P-51A came out it was a strong contender for army coop. Then came the Merlin powered
Mustangs. Direction changed and history was made. Many, many other aircraft shifted directions,
Ju88, Mosquito and several other great aircraft, but none with the impact of the Merlin Mustang.

And that is how I see that, Jeff

 

[Shortround6]

Just wondered which of the aircraft, which went into production, that were more successful at a secondary role than they were at their originally designed for role.

An example would be the Typhoon.
It did have some success as a fighter but failed to replace the Spitfire as the main fighter for the RAF, its original goal.

It did have a successful secondary career as a ground support aircraft.

Not sure that ground attack is really a secondary role. Perhaps secondary to air superiority but many of the other roles mentioned in this thread are into the third or fourth rank.
Doing ground attack in the face of flak and possible interception at low altitude or lifeboat dropping and target towing?
Ever pilot/crewman saved was important and better training also saved lives but the aircraft that did those roles sometimes had no possible combat role, "secondary" or otherwise without horrendous losses for little effect.

 

[CORSNING]

I am must agree with Shortround on this one.

 

[pbehn]

I always was led to believe that the He 111 was developed as a bomber but called a mail plane to evade Versailles restrictions however I thought in this thread the Sunderland could fit as it was a modified passenger design, Wiki says

"However, in 1934, the British Postmaster General declared that all first-class Royal Mail sent overseas was to travel by air, establishing a subsidy for the development of intercontinental air transport in a fashion similar to the U.S. domestic programme a decade earlier. In response, Imperial Airways announced a competition to design and produce 28 flying boats, each weighing 18 long tons (18 t) and having a range of 700 mi (1,100 km) with a capacity for 24 passengers."

I didnt realise that mail delivery was used to develop aviation all around the world.

 

[pbehn]

The Merlin powered Mustangs. In all of WW2 there is nothing else even close IN MY OPINION
of one particular aircraft in changing the events of WW2 in Europe. There were others that were
dramatic but none that change the history or direction to the degree of the Merlin powered P-51.
The English wanted more P-40s. North American gave them the NA-73, then the P-51. By the
time the P-51A came out it was a strong contender for army coop. Then came the Merlin powered
Mustangs. Direction changed and history was made. Many, many other aircraft shifted directions,
Ju88, Mosquito and several other great aircraft, but none with the impact of the Merlin Mustang.

And that is how I see that, Jeff

I respectfully disagree, the joint air offensive which the P51 took part in only defined where the western and Soviet allies met, there were two European conflicts which were solely fought in the air The Battle of Britain and Malta. There were many German LW aces who racked up massive scores in N Africa and the Russian front but had no effect on the course of the war at all

 

[wuzak]

Not sure that ground attack is really a secondary role. Perhaps secondary to air superiority but many of the other roles mentioned in this thread are into the third or fourth rank.
Doing ground attack in the face of flak and possible interception at low altitude or lifeboat dropping and target towing?
Ever pilot/crewman saved was important and better training also saved lives but the aircraft that did those roles sometimes had no possible combat role, "secondary" or otherwise without horrendous losses for little effect.

I don't mean secondary in its importance to the war effort, but secondary as it was not the aircraft's intended role.

So while ground support/attack was a very important role, it was not the one for which the Typhoon, for example, was designed.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

People naming a lot of aircraft that where good in multiple roles, not necessary better in their "secondary" role.

To me the one thst stands out the most.

Bf 110

It was a fantastic night fighter, but did not pan out in it's intended role.

The Ju 88 was best as a night fighter, but was good or better than average in most of it's roles. It can be argued it was the most versatile aircraft of the war (along with the Mossie). That is why I would not include it. Same for the Mossie. It, like the Ju 88 was very good in it's intended role.

 

[wuzak]

Later on I'd give the F-86 a glance, designed as a day fighter it became an all weather interceptor (let's not talk about the rocket armament though), recon bird and fighter bomber.

Unfortunately the F-86 missed WW2 and thus cannot be considered for this thread.

Also, since it excelled in its primary role as fighter it would be hard to claim that it was more successful in any of its secondary roles.

 

[wuzak]

People naming a lot of aircraft that where good in multiple roles, not necessary better in their "secondary" role.

To me the one thst stands out the most.

Bf 110

It was a fantastic night fighter, but did not pan out in it's intended role.

The Ju 88 was best as a night fighter, but was good or better than average in most of it's roles. It can be argued it was the most versatile aircraft of the war (along with the Mossie). That is why I would not include it. Same for the Mossie. It, like the Ju 88 was very good in it's intended role.

The Bf 110 does seem to be one that stands out.

Not sure that it was particularly bad at its original role (long range heavy fighter/destroyer?). But it proved a very capable and long-lived night fighter, defying attempts to replace it. It was also very successful at this new role.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Unfortunately the F-86 missed WW2 and thus cannot be considered for this thread.

Also, since it excelled in its primary role as fighter it would be hard to claim that it was more successful in any of its secondary roles.

Point taken on number one.

Upon re-reading the thread topic, I can see I was a bit in error, I was reading the topic wrong.

 

[Shortround6]

I don't mean secondary in its importance to the war effort, but secondary as it was not the aircraft's intended role.

So while ground support/attack was a very important role, it was not the one for which the Typhoon, for example, was designed.

Hi Thorlifter,

I believe you are correct in that the He-111 was designed as a bomber and modified to be released as a mail plane. However, I lived in the Phoenix, Arizona area for 23 years and knew people who flew the CAF's Casa. One guy who piloted it regularly said it flew like an underpowered DC-3 and, if one engine failed, the other would overheat in about the time it took you do run a short landing pattern. So, it's suitability as a military bomber has been suspect by me since hearing that.

I have no idea if there was a problem with that particular aircraft or it's engines/installation.
Interesting report from 1956: aircraft type | 1956 | 1101 | Flight Archive

According to Wiki the plane the CAF owned had been Franco's personal transport. How thorough a conversion from Jumo engines to Merlins was done I don't know but could speculate about different cooling requirements for the different engines even at nearly the same power outputs?

Flying these planes with no bombs on board and with less than max fuel should have made them a bit more sprightly

 

[Shortround6]

It wasn't just a matter of bolting a Mk III Universal Carrier onto the Whirlwind. A Westland designed tubular structure was fitted inside each wing and then the standard 'government supplied' bomb selection and fusing switches and circuitry was fitted. This was not a job for the squadrons but was carried out at a Maintenance Unit. No. 263 Squadron was converted first, in August 1942, at 25 M.U. (Colerne) and it took between 20 and 30 man hours per aircraft, principally because the outer wings had to be removed to install the reinforcing structure. No. 137 Squadron was converted the following month.

The Whirlwind was not a great fighter bomber. The bombs severely impacted performance reducing speed (one of the Whirlwind's strengths) to just 318 mph at 15,000 feet and ceiling to 27,500 feet. With just the port bomb carried the aircraft had some serious handling problems. The advice was always to drop the bombs together and if that was impossible, to drop the port bomb first.

I can't see the Whirlwind as a successful aircraft in either of the proposed roles, it just wasn't that good at anything. Just going fast at low level, by the standard of 1940, and lifting four 20mm cannons, is not good enough.

It is also important to note that the Whirlwind was being converted to carry bombs only a matter of months before the same decision was taken, in January 1943, for the much more capable Typhoon.

Cheers

Steve

The poor Whirly was never allowed to become the fighting aircraft it could have become, and no, I am not talking about putting Merlins in it

Most aircraft suffered a severe loss or performance when bombs where hung outside. Some more than others but the Whirlwind was certainly not helped by the crude conversion given to it. Understandable given the numbers involved, why do anymore work than absolutely necessary. But then don't criticize the conversion for not being as good as other planes.
Hurricanes lost a fair amount of speed when carrying bombs and the Hurri-bombers weren't saddled with a 1940 engine.

They also got a fairly well streamlined bomb rack compared to the Whirlwind;

Single seat fighters had very little business trying to carry bombs at over 20,000ft in any case so complaints about service ceiling with bombs should be taken with more than a grain of salt.
Most single seat fighters don't carry drop tanks and bombs at the same time and the fuel burned trying to get to over 20,000ft is not going to be made up by better cruising conditions at those altitudes.
Hurricane IIB lost about 33mph at around 20,000ft carrying a pair of 500lb bombs and ceiling dropped from 40,000ft to 33,000ft.
And it had a two speed supercharger and the Hooker designed supercharger intake.

It would also be interesting to see how long it took for Typhoons to carry 1000lbs in service instead of the 500lb bombs (granted many missions flown by Whirlwinds used 250lb bombs but that is true of the Hurricane also).

For plane that was built, for the most part, to use up already manufactured parts much like the Botha and the Lysander the Whirlwind certainly accomplished much more (inflicted more damage on the enemy) than some other planes built in far greater numbers.

 

[GrauGeist]

This might be stretching the "secondary role" a little bit, but the Me323 started out as the Me321, an un-powered transport glider.

With the addition of 6 radial engines, it was now an independent transport, no longer tying up additional resources like three Bf110s or the hybrid He111Z needed to tow it to it's destination.

So in essence, it's secondary role as a powered transport was far more successful than it's primary role as a glider transport.

 

[stona]

There was no aerodynamic fairing developed for the bomb carrier on the Whirlwind because so few conversions were made. Obviously it would have to fit the profile of the wing, one size doesn't fit all.
Boscombe Down note that at high speed (supposedly one of the Whirlwind's strengths) with both bombs attached the aircraft's natural tendency to fly with the left wing low became highly noticeable and pronounced aileron flutter was detected. Handling was acceptable with just the starboard bomb but with the port bomb only lateral control was deemed poor and the aircraft flew left wing low at all speeds. The Whirlwind's servo tab ailerons meant that there was no way of compensating by trimming the condition out.
It was most unusual for the Whirlwind to carry 500lb bombs, but it could and did.
It really was not a good fighter bomber in 1942/3.

The Typhoon was cleared to carry 500 lb bombs by 1943, but stocks were not available (above Bomber Command's requirements) until February 1943. Until then Typhoons carried mostly 250 lb bombs. By April 2 x 500 pounders was a standard load, except for No.197 Squadron which inherited a substantial stock of 250 lb bombs at Manston and preferred the lighter bomb for its 'Rhubarbs'.
I don't have an exact date to hand for when the Typhoon was cleared for the 1,000lb bombs, but units were training with them in early 1944 in preparation for the invasion.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Greyman]

It really was not a good fighter bomber in 1942/3.

Reading the A&AEE report in question - that conclusion seems a bit harsh.

For what its worth the A&AEE tested 1000 lb bombs on the Typhoon up to 390 mph ASI Apr43 and 450 mph ASI Jun44. But, as you said, timeline for their use on operations is another matter.