- Thread starter
-
- #21
wuzak
Captain
But was it more successful in those roles than its original intended (bombing) role?
It was very successful as a bomber.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
Curiously that may rule it out, as a precision bomber and pathfinder it didnt have an equal either.But was it more successful in those roles than its original intended (bombing) role?
It was very successful as a bomber.
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.
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.
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 allThe 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
It really was not a good fighter bomber in 1942/3.