Best Aircraft in Many Different Roles Part II

[tomo pauk]

Mosquito, Ju-88 (night fighters), Fw-200, B-24 (sea patrol planes), P-47, F-4U, Fw-190, Typhoon (ground attack roles) also excelled in stuff they were not designated for...

[HerrKaleut]

Has to be 1)Mossy,2)JU 88 and I would also like to put up for third place the Petlyakov Pe-2/3.

Talking of bomb loads,as somebody was, it is interesting that the Mossy could carry half a ton more than a B 17 at 50 knots faster

[Cromwell]

Originally Posted by tomo pauk

Mosquito, Ju-88 (night fighters), Fw-200, B-24 (sea patrol planes), P-47, F-4U, Fw-190, Typhoon (ground attack roles) also excelled in stuff they were not designated for...

What about the Me110 as a Night Fighter and Radar Enabled Too !!

Originally Posted by HerrKaleut

Has to be 1)Mossy,2)JU 88 and I would also like to put up for third place the Petlyakov Pe-2/3.

Talking of bomb loads,as somebody was, it is interesting that the Mossy could carry half a ton more than a B 17 at 50 knots faster

Good Point !

I am also reminded of the Droop Snoot Lightning (click below also)

Droop snoots and pathfinder | Flight Journal | Find Articles at BNET

[tomo pauk]

The 110 was a good NF, but Mosquito was better by a mile.
Ju-88 is in my eyes better too, since I do read Erich's posts

[Cromwell]

Originally Posted by tomo pauk

The 110 was a good NF, but Mosquito was better by a mile.
Ju-88 is in my eyes better too, since I do read Erich's posts

OK, yes, but the Me110 was much better as a NF than a Day Fighter too - so top marks to our Teutonic cousins for re-cycling their aeroplanes.

You see, even back in 43/44 some people were trying to recycle

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by HerrKaleut

Talking of bomb loads,as somebody was, it is interesting that the Mossy could carry half a ton more than a B 17 at 50 knots faster

That is a little bit misleading.

The Mossy could carry that bomb load for only short distances. The B-17 could still carry a much heavier bomb load, but it usually did not due to range issues.

The B-17 could carry a 17,500lb bomb load for short range missions, 8000lb bomb load for medium range missions and 4,500lb bomb loads for long range missions. The typical bomb load was only 4,500 to 5000lb.

Still though the Mossie is one of the best aircraft built during WW2 and in my opinion the most versatile aircraft of WW2 along with the Junkers Ju 88.

[mhuxt]

I believe the whole Mossie/B-17 claim is about the bombload both could carry *to Berlin.* Mossies definitely carried 4k cookies there.

As always, I make no claim to understand when which B-17s were carrying how much to where.

[HerrKaleut]

I think Mhxt has seen the same sources as me. However,as always, I will stand to be corrected.

[vikingBerserker]

I think it's actually easier to list what the Mossie and JU-88 could NOT do.

[Civettone]

Many pages ago I voted for the Mosquito and I'm sticking to that. I'm also making a case that the Mosquito was more versatile than the Ju 88: not only more roles, but also excelling at them. The Ju 88 excelled at what? In few (if any) of their shared roles was the Ju 88 superior to the Mosquito. Mosquito was the better fighter, night fighter, reconaissance aircraft, torpedo launcher, ground support aircraft ... and bomber. The Mosquito could carry more internally at higher speed or could do this over a longer distance.

Kris

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Many pages ago I voted for the Mosquito and I'm sticking to that. I'm also making a case that the Mosquito was more versatile than the Ju 88: not only more roles, but also excelling at them. The Ju 88 excelled at what? In few (if any) of their shared roles was the Ju 88 superior to the Mosquito. Mosquito was the better fighter, night fighter, reconaissance aircraft, torpedo launcher, ground support aircraft ... and bomber. The Mosquito could carry more internally at higher speed or could do this over a longer distance.

Kris

The fact the Mossie is more superior is not up for argument, however I will ask you what roles could the Mossie perform that the Ju 88 could not? I will also say that an aircraft does not have to be the best at every role to be considered the most versatile aircraft or the best in certain areas.

Overall I will agree that the Mossie is a better aircraft however.

However...

To say the Ju 88 did not excell at is intended roles is flat out wrong. I can not think of any roles that the Ju 88 failed at. Please list all roles the Ju 88 could perform and then which roles it failed at. Not being better than every aircraft in that role, does not make it a failure. That would mean that all aircraft except for one (all types of aircraft considered) were failures.

This should be very interesting, I am waiting...

IMHO the top 3, would be (in this case I said IMHO, take a note of that):

(Multi Engine)
1. Mossie/Ju 88
2. Ju 88/Mossie
3. P-38

(Single Engine)
1. Fw 190
2. P-47
3. ???? (up for debate, am still thinking about it)

[tomo pauk]

Before fellow members from USA step out, I'd say that F4-U could do many tricks that other combat aircrafts could do , but beats other single-engined planes as an useful night fighter and dive bomber*.
IMO that makes it a #1 in our race for a best-in-different-roles category, single engined planes sub-category.

Hello, Kris, almost forgot to write it

*Hellcat was a night fighter, while a P-51 offspring was a dive-bomber, true, but Corsair could do both.

[Civettone]

Hey Tomo!! nice to see you here man

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

The fact the Mossie is more superior is not up for argument, however I will ask you what roles could the Mossie perform that the Ju 88 could not? I will also say that an aircraft does not have to be the best at every role to be considered the most versatile aircraft or the best in certain areas.

Overall I will agree that the Mossie is a better aircraft however.

However...

To say the Ju 88 did not excell at is intended roles is flat out wrong. I can not think of any roles that the Ju 88 failed at.

Hey Chris,
please note that I said that the Ju 88 didn't excell at its intended roles, not that it failed at them. That means that the Ju 88 could perform those roles sufficiently but it wasn't thàt great at them while the Mosquito set new standards for them.

Remember that even Goering said he was deceived by the claims of the guys from Junkers that the Ju 88 could fly around Britain without fighters fast enough to catch them. The Ju 88 didn't have the speed nor the range to do so. Had he known, he had stuck to the cheaper He 111.
Now of course, that doesn't matter that much as no one could expect a bomber to pull that off around 1940.

But let me explain what I mean by the Ju 88 being a good aircraft but not great. As a bomber it had mediocre range, and a small internal bomb load (it could only carry small bombs internally, so all 500+ kg bombs had to be carried externally), insufficient defensive armament and with its bomb load carried externally a low maximum speed. All of this compared to the other two German bombers it was to replace: the Do 17 and He 111. In the BoB relatively more Ju 88s were lost than He 111s and Do 17s which says quite a lot IMHO.

As a night fighter it was too slow. Until early 1944 the main version remained the Ju 88C which was hardly faster than the bomber version. The Ju 88C was also tried as a long-range day fighter but in serious trouble when confronted with single engined fighters. The Mosquito could hold its own.

It was not succesful as a ground attack aircraft (Ju 88A-13 and P) because of insufficient manoeuvrability.
As a recon aircraft it was ok but here too it was way too slow. They had to remove almost all armament, equip it with Jumo 213 engines to get it at 600 km/h. By that time the Me 410 with similar engines could do the same at higher speed and fully armed.

An icnreasingly important role for bombers was as a carrier for remote guided bombs/rockets. It's telling that the Ju 88 was not suitable for this role, and they had to revert to the He 111, Do 217 and He 177.

You see, the thing with the Mosquito bomber is more than it being a superior bomber. It's because it was a new generation of bombers. After WW2 the traditional stable sturdy but slow medium bomber with a larger-than-two crew with gun turrets was given up in favour of the multifunctional and fast Mosquito/A-26 to the post-war Canberra/B-45/IL-28 bomber. The Mosquito was the first to pave this way and as such it was ahead of its time. The Germans did have an aircraft which was in its league ... the Me 210. Food for a what-if

Kris

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Hey Tomo!! nice to see you here man

Hey Chris,
please note that I said that the Ju 88 didn't excell at its intended roles, not that it failed at them. That means that the Ju 88 could perform those roles sufficiently but it wasn't thàt great at them while the Mosquito set new standards for them.

To say that something did not excell, is to say that it did not perform well in them. The Ju 88 performed all of her roles very well. That does not mean she performed the roles the best though.

Originally Posted by Civettone

But let me explain what I mean by the Ju 88 being a good aircraft but not great. As a bomber it had mediocre range, and a small internal bomb load (it could only carry small bombs internally, so all 500+ kg bombs had to be carried externally), insufficient defensive armament and with its bomb load carried externally a low maximum speed. All of this compared to the other two German bombers it was to replace: the Do 17 and He 111. In the BoB relatively more Ju 88s were lost than He 111s and Do 17s which says quite a lot IMHO.

You are speaking of the bomber role. The Ju 88 performed vast many more roles than a bomber. For instance as night fighter it performed excellently. The only aircraft that may have performed better in that role is the Mossie. But as I said, that in my opinion is not really up for debate here.

Originally Posted by Civettone

As a night fighter it was too slow. Until early 1944 the main version remained the Ju 88C which was hardly faster than the bomber version.

How was the Ju 88 too slow as a night fighter? It flew faster than most bombers that it was up against. Please post bomber speeds and the speed of the Ju 88C and later Ju 88G.

Originally Posted by Civettone

It was not succesful as a ground attack aircraft (Ju 88A-13 and P) because of insufficient manoeuvrability.

Never heard of that. Please provide sources.

Originally Posted by Civettone

An icnreasingly important role for bombers was as a carrier for remote guided bombs/rockets. It's telling that the Ju 88 was not suitable for this role, and they had to revert to the He 111, Do 217 and He 177.

How was that an increasingly important role. It was actually a very small role.

Again there is no role that the Ju 88 did not perform satisfactory. I am not saying it performed the best, but it certainly performed the roles very well.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

To say that something did not excell, is to say that it did not perform well in them. The Ju 88 performed all of her roles very well. That does not mean she performed the roles the best though.

Chris, doesn't excell not mean that the a/c was excellent, meaning not just performing well, but really outstanding? I'm not interfering with the discussion here, but just genuinely linguistically puzzled

And this to be add to the discussion: Mr. Bekker in his Luftwaffe diaries calls the Ju88 a failure. Not by being a bad aircraft, but by not living up to expectations. It was introduced as wonderbomber, but in fact it wasn't really that.It was as Kris (BTW welcome back) pointed out, too slow, under armed, low bombload etc. According to mr. Bekker the Ju88 was a good aircraft, but not a winner.