Best Aircraft in Many Different Roles Part II

[P-Popsie]

Cant beleive i have missed this thread untill now. anyhoo DH 98 would be my resounding choice i have said so elsewhere and will say so here. Ju 88 if i had to pick a second.

[kool kitty89]

Pretty much the whole discussion revolved around the Mossie, Ju 88, and P-38.

A few others were tossed in (Hurricane, Typhoon, and a couple others), but didn't realy compare with the above three, toward the end of the thread and on the last few pages several others, that do have significant merit in the comparison, though probably still not quite a match for the "main" 3.

The P-47, F4U, and Fw 190 came into the discussion and truly were quite versitile, possible rivaling the trio of twins that comprised the 3 "main competitors." And as a seperate discussion on which was the most versitile single engined a/c.

With the F4U apearing to be capable the most capable of these, and the Fw 190 probably a bit ahead of the P-47.

The corsair being capable of:

-Fighter/Interceptor
-Fighter-bomber (it should be noted that it was equipped operationally with Napalm tanks)
-Escort Fighter
-(single seat) radar-equipped night fighter
-carrier capable
-dive bombing (not fighter-bomber type "glide bombing," but ture dive bombing with -landing gear- dive brakes)
-possible torpedo bomber (with central pylon, but not sure if it was ever attually configured or tested as such)
-tank buster (8x 5" HVAR, or Napalm)

Prboably a few more I forgot or I'm unsure of. (anti-shipping?)

[P-Popsie]

Cool cheers kitty read swag of the posts and was enlightened by all, particularly stuff on the F4U always had a soft spot for this A/C and find it hard to put it above FW 190D but by sounds of capabilities personal preference aside it sounds as though the F4U was more versitile. Still a torpedo under a FW 190 thats somthing i never even considered

[slaterat]

The hurricane can give any aircraft a run for its money when it comes to versatility.

fighter/interceptor
fighter bomber
dedicated ground attack Mk IID and MK IV 350lbs armour plate
anti tank 2 x 40 mm
anti ship 8 x 3" rockets
carrier operational
MAC operational
CAM ship operational
long range fighter
night intruder
radar equipped night fighter
tactical recon
PRU
anti submarine Canadian versions carried 2 depth charges

Slaterat

[Burmese Bandit]

mossie for me....It's easier to list what this aircraft CAN'T do than what it can, and did!

[ummonk]

I agree that the Corsair is highly versatile. I think it would be my choice.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by ummonk

I agree that the Corsair is highly versatile. I think it would be my choice.

While I agree that it is a versatile aircraft, how could it be more versatile than a Mossie or a Ju 88?

[Waynos]

It can't, the Mossie wins. Has anyone mentioned the BOAC Mosquitos?

[SoD Stitch]

I'm gonna stick up for the P-38; the P-38 was also used for multiple roles, including Pathfinder, Droop Snoot, night fighter, VIP transport, fighter-bomber, photo-recon, torpedo bomber (tested, never used operationally), floatplane (tested only), fire bomber, civilian aerial survey (post-War) and, finally, competitive air racer.

[Sweb]

The Jug. In the ETO P-38 pilots froze their butts off and the turbos froze up too. It couldn't carry the payload a Jug could nor did it have the Jug's sheer weight of firepower in terms of devastation or round-count. Remember, "the whole nine yards" was the total length of ammo belts in a P-38. Not much.

The Mosquito was a fine airplane but seriously did NOT need a crew of 2. Plus with it's water-cooled engines it was a fragile beast where small arms fire was heavy at the tree-top attack role. One engine disabled snafu'd its mission capability. Same goes for the P-38 in this regard. Finally, there was a lot of metal between the bottom of the plane and the pilot in a Jug. Not so in the P-38 and certainly not in the "woody" Mosquito.

You have to think in terms of mission capability at all flight levels, payload out, range, souls to be lost, inherent weaknesses of each machine and their mission-relative survivability, the job that needs to be done and then think in terms of which machine is the best match-up.

[Amsel]

Fw 190 A8 was a great all around aircraft with many versions for different roles. Fast, heavily armed and armored, easy to maintain and capable as a fighter bomber (jabo).

[Sweb]

German fighters had no range. They struggled to get to where the bombers were and then after a couple passes had to break for home to refuel and rearm. They had little time on target. Even with ferry tanks their ammunition supply wouldn't give them effective combat duration. It can be argued that many were crack shots and to shoot down a bomber all they had to do was cruise aft of a formation and take one down after the other at their leisure. But, the idea was to do whatever they could to get those formations to break ranks so they had to engage like flies to a crap wagon. That took a lot of fuel and evasive maneuvering meant missed firing runs. So, if we're talking about a true multi-role machine Germany didn't have one that wasn't bettered by Allied inventory.

Of the ones that come to mind it would be the Jug first and Corsair second only because the Jug had better high altitude performance. After that I'd consider Hawker's Sea Fury. These were big airplanes with good range and performances at various flight levels. They carried huge payloads, ample ammo supplies and were good (cleaned-up) air superiority adversaries. The biggest plus, and I've mentioned it in another thread, is their round engines otherwise I might have added the 51 and maybe the 38. One round through the glycol system on those water cooled types and it's over so they aren't as multi-role suited as a round engine. Besides, 51's should be used for CAP over the Jugs.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Sweb

German fighters had no range. They struggled to get to where the bombers were and then after a couple passes had to break for home to refuel and rearm.

That is not true. The range of the Fw 190 and Bf 109 were more than sufficient for anti bomber operations. They did not have to struggle to reach the bombers. They took off from air bases over Germany and attacked the bombers over Germany.

They lacked good range for offensive operations, such as the Battle of Britain, but they certainly did not lack in the anti bomber role.

If you really want to talk about multi role the Jug still does not come close to the Fw 190 in the single engine role. It certainly can be argued that the Jug was better than the Fw 190 in certain roles, but the Fw 190 could perform more roles and do them well.

In the multi engine category, I do not think anything comes close to the Mossie, Ju 88 and P-38.

[Valo300]

I have to go P38 on this one, hands down. From level bomber to night fighter, the P38 literally did every role imaginable in WWII. It's weakest role was divebombing, but the J/L's were even credible performers at this task.
There was even a carrier based version, the "Model 822" (which the USN did not express much interest in).

Of course this is JMHO.

[Sweb]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

That is not true. The range of the Fw 190 and Bf 109 were more than sufficient for anti bomber operations. They did not have to struggle to reach the bombers. They took off from air bases over Germany and attacked the bombers over Germany.

They lacked good range for offensive operations, such as the Battle of Britain, but they certainly did not lack in the anti bomber role.

If you really want to talk about multi role the Jug still does not come close to the Fw 190 in the single engine role. It certainly can be argued that the Jug was better than the Fw 190 in certain roles, but the Fw 190 could perform more roles and do them well.

In the multi engine category, I do not think anything comes close to the Mossie, Ju 88 and P-38.

All of Tank's designs were superb machines but hardly could any one of them load-out what the Jug could. Air-to-air, IIRC, the Jug was historically victorious over the German fighter. I'll admit that this was more to the credit of American combat flight training and mission discipline but with 8 .50 weapons firing at a rate of 900 RPM (early Brownings) a one second burst was minimally 120 rounds. That one second burst with API (armor piercing incendiary) was like a fly swatter to a fly. One of those rounds in the main spar severed the wing. They hit and began burning violently upon impact acting like buzz saws. Regular ball ammo alone would have been devastating from the sheer weight from 8 .50's. German cannon armaments, though lauded as being highly accurate, were much slower firing and because each round was heavier than a .50-round the Germans had to be closer in to their targets where their weapons were most effective. The Browning .50-cal. was the best air-to-air weapon of the war because of it's rate of fire, range, and striking power.

While the German fighters were quite capable of reaching and engaging Allied formations it is true that they could not remain on-station for long. Scrambling from their fields after report of approaching formations they had to climb at full power to altitude and then fly an intercept at that same power setting. This consumed much more fuel than if they had time to climb to altitude and turn to intercept at economy settings. At the altitudes Allied formations flew even early warnings didn't give them that leisure. Remember, best rates of climb meant highest fuel consumptions. The German fighters were not as suited to multi-role mission capabilities as the big round engine American and British types. The Jug could carry 1 ton of explosives to a German air base and go home. They did this routinely. The German machines might manage 1/2 ton but never make it back from the American base. They couldn't manage 1/2 ton of ordnance and external fuel stores. There simply wasn't enough airplane there.

I like them all. As a matter of fact I've drawn my own plans for a 1/4 scale Jack (Raiden) and hope to be building it in the not-to-distant future. But, the questions here and in other threads seem to be asking about "best" this or that and it seems to me favorites are pushed regardless of assessing the nature of what multi-role really means. For that all you gotta do is lay out the historical data showing performance, survivability/battle damage records for types, number of crewmen (one is enough), carrying capacity, range and firepower.