What was the Best All-Around Floatplane of WW2?
Rob Arndt
Rob
deem...@aol.com
> I would assume that it would have to come from the PTO, right?
>
> Rob
The Kingfisher was the most used....the Ar-196 was decent as
were a couple Japanese ones. I'd guess best would depend upon your
view of what was important...range, sturdiness, and visibility for the
crew would be mine.
Rob Arndt
Add lethality and ships sunk directly or with help from sub or
warship.
I personally love the little Ar-196 carried by German warships, I
think she aiding in the sinking of just one submarine AFAIK...
I presume that the real floatplane fighting was between the Japanese
and US in the PTO- both built many floatplanes.
Also, any comment on British floatplanes? Did they operate in the PTO?
Rob
deem...@aol.com
Is "fighting" the correct word? They were mainly used for recon
and rescue...they didn't last too long when fighters showed up
although I believe Kingfishers accounted for a couple Zeros. I don't
think either the USN or IJN used them much for ship-to-ship spotting
other than the IJN using them to drop flares during night
actions....that was more a Brit practice.
>
> Also, any comment on British floatplanes? Did they operate in the PTO?
>
> Rob
The Brits had the Walrus on their larger ships....which was a
seaplane. By the end of the war they were also using lots of
Kingfishers. They also had float-equipped Swordfish....not sure what
else without looking it up.
The Japanese had the floatplane Zero (Rufe?) but that was a
dedicated fighter.,They also had the biplane Pete and the little one
they could carry on subs. A couple of the more modern ones were pretty
good....especially from a range standpoint, but I can't remember their
names.
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Believe it or not, the Germans had a plan for the original Me BF-109W
to ride atop a French flying boat for reconnaisance of New York
harbor. The project was cancelled by Allied destruction of the Potez-
C.A.M.S. 161 (VE + WW) during a straffing raid at Lake Constance on
September 18, 1944.
http://histaviation.com/cams161_01_492x223.jpg
http://histaviation.com/Potez-CAMS_161_at_Berre_397x152.jpg
Data:
Max speed, 335 km/h at 1,500 m ; cruise, 300 km/h at 4 000 m; normal
range with 2,150-kg payload against 60 km/h headwind, 6,000 km , with
1,300-kg payload, 8,200 km. Empty and loaded weights were 17,220 kg
and 3,000 kg respectively, and overall dimensions were: span 46.00 m ,
length 32.11 m, height 8.87 m, wing area 261 m2.
The Potez-CAMS 161 was of all-metal construction and was powered by
six 920 hp Hispano-Suiza 12Y-36/37 12-cylinder Vee liquid-cooled
engines.
The Me Bf 109W was supposed to return from New York and alight in the
Atlantic beside a U-boat so the pilot could return with the aerial
photographs.
This is probably the latter Me Bf 109W-1 with the single float:
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g51/Jan-Paul/Bf109%20models/109W1bv2.jpg
IIRC, as early as 1940 the Germans wanted a Me Bf 109 Wasserflugzeug
to be built with co-operation from Fieseler. This Me Bf 109W-0 would
have been either an E or F airframe mated to two Ar-196 floats. They
were to operate from Norway, but the project was cancelled along with
a potential order of 6 W-1s.
Later, the piggy-back scheme was to use the twin-float Me Bf 109W.
Very fascinating obscure info b/c again the question arises of WHY the
LW was so intent on photographing NY as a target in late 1944-1945?
They intended to drop a single Wunderwaffe on NYC that was in
development. This falls in with the Ju-390 recon and 1945 Amerika
Bomber program as well as development of a German mini-nuke, two
radiological weapons, and the SS Firedamp weapon as well as LW FAEs
(vacuum bombs).
Rob
vaughn
"Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dc8412f6-bb14-4fc4...@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> This falls in with the Ju-390 recon and 1945 Amerika
>Bomber program as well as development of a German mini-nuke, two
>radiological weapons, and the SS Firedamp weapon as well as LW FAEs
>(vacuum bombs).
More of Rob's persistant halucinations. For SURE, there was no German nuke, the
rest is simply science fiction.
Vaughn
Bill Shatzer
> I would assume that it would have to come from the PTO, right?
Best at what?
Both the CANT Z511 and the Kawanishi N1K1 "Rex" were impressive aircraft
but they were designed for completely different roles.
Historically, SFAIK only the Vought OS2U and the He 115 are credited
with actually sinking an enemy ship during WW2 - the OS2U is credited
with 3 submarines (2 Uboats and a Japanese I-boat) while the He 115 is
credited with sinking about a dozen merchantmen on the Murmansk run.
Rob Arndt
The Ar-196 helped bring in a British sub:
In 1940 two Ar 196s helped in the capture the HMS Seal submarine.The
submarine had been damaged by a mine off the coast of Norway. Two Ar
196s based in Aalborg, Denmark attacked the submarine and prevented it
from submerging. The Kriegsmarine then captured the submarine.
Ar-196 pics:
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/aircraft/floatplane/arado-ar-196/arado-ar-196-01.jpg
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/aircraft/floatplane/arado-ar-196/arado-ar-196-02.jpg
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/aircraft/floatplane/arado-ar-196/arado-ar-196-03.jpg
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/aircraft/floatplane/arado-ar-196/arado-ar-196-r-01.jpg
A few Ar-196s were also in the PTO:
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/stories/yasunaga1.html
http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-502.htm
Rob
David E. Powell
Have to add the PBY Catalina, one torpedoed a Japanese freighter
during the Battle of Guadalcanal.
Bill Shatzer
I would add the Catalina, 'cept the PBY was a flying boat, not a floatplane.
The distinction between the two is fairly well recognized - though the
Blackburn B-20 sort of blurred the lines.
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Blackburn B.20:
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/blackburn_b20.htm
Rob
David E. Powell
My bad. I got you.
I
Then I'd say He-115 gets the prize from me.
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aichi Seiran for the I-400 submarine carriers could have been the most
damaging had they attacked the Panama Canal as intended (but the subs
were recalled to defend the Japanese home islands).
Aichi Seiran:
http://pds14.egloos.com/pds/200902/05/41/a0109941_498af44ad1d0d.jpg
Mitsubishi A6M2-N RUFE:
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/christophe.arribat/stofzeken.jpg
Geta floatplane type that attacked Oregon:
http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/photos/planes/geta4.jpg
http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/html/mshwma42.htm
Nakajima 95 DAVE:
http://spontoon.rootoon.com/SPwArt/FloPL101.gif
http://spontoon.rootoon.com/SPwArt/FloPL102.gif
Mitsubishi F1M2 PETE:
http://www.udisco.com/hobbies/pics/551949.jpg
Rob
Keith Willshaw
"Bill Shatzer" <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote in message
news:i18ask$gts$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
The float equipped Swordfish flown off HMS Warspite sank U-64 during the
second battle of Narvik.
Keith
Rob Arndt
Swordfish floatplanes:
http://www.rafweb.org/Markings/824Sqn_7.gif
http://www.rafweb.org/Markings/824Sqn_6.gif
Rob
vaughn
>Aichi Seiran for the I-400 submarine carriers could have been the most
>damaging had they attacked the Panama Canal as intended (but the subs
>were recalled to defend the Japanese home islands).
We can debate that forever, but seriously doubt it. Damaging both sets of locks
enough to put the canal out of service for an extended time would have taken
more bomb than a little floatplane could deliver, placed more accurately than
was likely.
That said, the attack would have succeeded in making the allies divert resources
to defense the locks; all at considerable expense.
Vaughn
Jim Wilkins
> David E. Powell wrote:
>
> I would add the Catalina, 'cept the PBY was a flying boat, not a floatplane.
In other words, what was the best cobbled-up seaplane, not counting
the real ones.
jsw
Peter Twydell
<042dda1a-3ab9-4e0b...@x1g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, Rob
Arndt <teut...@aol.com> writes
The only ones that spring to mind immediately (apart from the Stringbag)
are the Spitfire V and IX, the Fairey Seafox and the Blackburn Roc.
The Seafox was flown from HMS Ajax at the Battle of the River Plate in
December 1939, spotting for the guns of Ajax and Achilles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Seafox
The Spitfire was intended for use in the PTO, but never saw service.
As for the Roc, I'm surprised it ever reached flying speed.
>Rob
--
Peter
Ying tong iddle-i po!
David E. Powell
> Mitsubishi A6M2-N RUFE:
> http://pagesperso-orange.fr/christophe.arribat/stofzeken.jpg
For the Japanese the Rufe was a decent fighter, they used them in the
Guadalcanal campaign and quite a bit through the Pacific. So they
obviously stuck with it. As with prewar philosophy the float plane was
seen as an answer where there were not runways.
In practice float-izing a fighter restricted performance. Japan must
have been willing to make the trade to have close fighters though.
guy
The Immortal (TM ARB) Shagbat certainly did, photographic various
attols.
It also, while still airborne, took the surrender of a town in
Madagascar!
*It was also the first aircraft ever seen by the inhabitants of
Pitcairn ('mutiny on the Bounty') island.
Guy
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Until this topic, I wasn't really aware of the He-115's capabilities
and popularity among a host of nations. Germany sold some to Norway
pre-invasion and then tried to take them back during the invasion and
occupation. Meanwhile, the Norweigians took some of the German He-115s
for use against them and then the British captured some and USED then
operationally for covert ops. Germany also sold them to other nations
like Finland and Hungary who used them. And all the while the He-115
mined the hell out of the Baltic and attacked the convoys in their
operational areas sinking lots of merchant shipping. Many consider the
He-115 as the best floatplane of the ETO.
I personally love the Ar-196 for recon and helping to capture HMS
Seal. Some even operated in the PTO at Penang with Japanese markings
as escorts flown by Kriegsmarine officers according to personal
Japanese testimony. Was Goering cut-off from Kriegsmarine Penang
operations???
Nothing is surprising with the Germans. Himmler wanted an escort
carrier, but this is now believed to be a half-carrier armed
flugdeckkreuzer with weapons up front and a half-deck to the rear for
helos and He-162M aircraft, the SS using M for Marine instead of the
LW standard RLM designation with model (which would probably be a
modified He-162C or D). The kreuzer would also land amphibious SS, so
it appears that Himmler wanted to go to the PTO with the Lemuria!
But it was never built or converted...
However, one SS naval project was under construction at the end of the
war- the huge 300 ton underwater barge for taking German secret
weapons to Japan. It would have been towed by a Type XXI or had the
war lasted longer a Type XXVI with armed SS onboard for transfer of
sensitive technologies.
If you read the other previous posts of mine I also reported on the
various Me Bf 109W with floats scheme. Now THAT would have been more
interesting than the Me Bf 109T :)
Rob
Rob
Rob Arndt
David E. Powell
> Here's a Red floatplane:http://ww2db.com/images/ship_molotov3.jpg
>
> Rob
The link seems to be broken....
Peter Twydell
<eb188d29-04d9-417b...@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
David E. Powell <David_Po...@msn.com> writes
Not for me, but what it shows I would call a flying boat, not a
floatplane.
Rob Arndt
> In message
> <eb188d29-04d9-417b-949c-2fda17907...@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> David E. Powell <David_Powell3...@msn.com> writes
>
> >On Jul 11, 7:15 am, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Here's a Red floatplane:http://ww2db.com/images/ship_molotov3.jpg
>
> >> Rob
>
> >The link seems to be broken....
>
> Not for me, but what it shows I would call a flying boat, not a
> floatplane.
> --
> Peter
>
> Ying tong iddle-i po!
Oops... sorry, wrong Beriev!!!
Here is the Be-2 (KOR 1, not KOR-2 as in the other pic):
http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/russia/be-2.jpg
Rob
guy
>
> - Show quoted text -
The RN had 100 Kingfishers in total, and had given up on battleship
based aeroplanes by '43/44
Guy
deem...@aol.com
And what floatplane did they have more of? (Okay, "lots" was the
wrong word)
frank
How about the Seahawk?
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, Gordon got that one wrong on the other thread where he thought
it was a XOSE.
Curtiss SC-1 Seahawk Pics:
http://www.uss-la-ca135.org/Curtiss-SC-1.html
Rob
deem...@aol.com
While it had very good performance, I couldn't give "best all
round" to the Seahawk because it only had a pilot. That makes
observation less effective which I see as one of a floatplane's most
important roles.
Peter Stickney
The SC-1 actually could carry 5 people - there was a bay below and behind
the cockpit.that could hold 4 sitting sur sitting survivors or a stretcher.
With the development of gunnery radar on ships, especially the UHF and
microwave radars used on US Navy ships, floatplanes became superfluous
for gunnery spotting.
The airplanes were very vulnerable when on deck - the blast of the ship's own
main guns (Whether Battleship or Cruiser) would severely damage or destroy
any aircraft staged on the catapults. Since staging and striking them into the hangars
(If the ship had a hangar - US Cruisers did, Battleships didn't.)
As for the single crew - Less an issue for the USN - Unlike the Brits, our doctrine
and training led us to allow single-seat aircraft out of sight of the carriers and
able to find their way home. The SC-1, unlike the OS2U or other similar
floatplanes carried an autopilot and an AN/APS-4 radar, (The antenna in
a pod under the wing, the same setup used on the SB2C, TPM, AD-1 and AM-1),
giving a search range well beyond that of the Mk 1 eyeball.
Oh, and carrying the radar didn't sanitize any pylons for carrying weapons -
The SC-1 carried its depth charges or bombs in a bat in the center float.
It was the distillation of decades of experience with floatplanes, modified
by recognition of the changing role of aircraft carried on BBs and Cruisers.
However, at the same time, helicopters became practical, and proved to be
more useful and versatile.
--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system