Fixed-Wing Aviation Greats

[KJ_Lesnick]

I deleted the old thread because it was dragging nowhere, and I think frankly that I could have structured everything better: I'm thinking there's gotta be some way of structuring this by era as there were categories that existed in the past that don't exist now (dive bomber, torpedo-bomber, night-fighter), and even before that categories that were not fully set-up (such as general purpose aircraft in WWI): Most of my knowledge on aircraft seems to start around the years leading up to WWII to present era.

I: WWI and Before

This era I know very little about: Some of the first planes seemed to be artillery-spotters, though there were some fighter-planes which were either purpose-built or some kind of scout (which, in the context seemed to include fast, agile planes that seemed to be aerial dispatch-runners and the progenitor of modern reconnaissance planes, and some artillery direction capability); general-purpose designs also seemed to exist which formed a hodge-podge of planes that comprised fighters, fighter-bombers, and some of the first dive-bombing planes; some "night-fighter" aircraft that seemed built for shooting up at Zeppelins (far as I know), as well as bomber-category planes that may have fallen under general-purpose, as well as night-bombers (which seem more like the heavy bombers that evoke images of WWII and beyond), and dive-bombers.

There were of course sea-planes of various types, some fit into the above categories, as well as maritime-patrol planes.  I don't know if any transport aircraft existed in this period interestingly.  

Lastly, though certainly not the least would be the record-setters and trailblazers which included besides the first planes to ever take to the sky, planes that served to further the progress of aviation.

I could use some help as for how to organize this into something: I'm not sure for example if organizing the categories by service, by whether they were land-based, sea-based, etc...

II: Early/Mid Interwar Period (1919-1935)

I'm not sure if this should be further sub-divided or not, but aircraft-categorization seemed to progressively come into it's own and the dedicated fighter started to become common as a general rule; the bombers went from general-purpose/day-bombers and night-bombers, light, medium, and heavy designs that probably subdivide better into dive-bomber and level-bomber.

The first carriers came into being during this period, and naval aviation seemed to split off in this period from land-based aviation in this period.  Since, at least the US Navy, if not all of them operated under the mentality that they'd likely be facing other Navy's in battle, the fact that their performance sometimes legged behind their land-based counterparts didn't seem to necessarily totally diminish their deficiency all the time.

Dedicated transport planes seemed to come into being which definitely affected the world for both military and commercial purposes.  Racers, and record-setters continued to prove invaluable to the furtherance of aviation and kept aviation in the public mindset.

III: Late Interwar to World-War II Era (1935-1945)

This seems to be the first era where I actually know more than just a cursory bit of information.  I could be wrong but it seems best to divide certain aircraft into the basic categories

A. Land-Based

B. Carrier-Based/Ship-Based/Amphibious

C. Record-setters & Trailblazers (the first jet proof of concepts seem worthy of mention)

IV: Early Cold-War to Korea (1945-1953)

A. Land-Based

B. Carrier-Based

C. Sea-Based/Amphibious

D. Record-Setters & Trailblazers

V: Post Korea (1953 to Present-Day)

A. Land-Based

B. Carrier-Based (even if it was used in a land-based capacity)

C. Record-Setters/Trailblazers


In each category, I'm curious if there should be a category for noteworthy design that may not have been considered greats but deserve some kind of mention.

[KJ_Lesnick]

I'd like to hear what the more experienced members have such as wuzak, rickshaw, tomo-pauk, JCF, sandiego89, elmayerle (if he's still here) have to say, though I'm interested in hearing everybody's responses.

[sandiego89]

If you really want to make your great lists as a mental exercise, I suggest sticking to categories that most folks understand.  I think you are trying too hard when you mention spotters, dive bombers etc.  This helps avoid putting very different aircraft on the same list. Under your proposal above you could have the B-52 and the F-16 on the same list- and folks heads might explode and drinks might get spilled if they had to deal with that.

I also suggest posting only one category at a time.  If folks wanted to comment it would be much easier to think about "great post war fighters" instead of very long lists of multiple types.     

And don't delete threads- just let them die a peaceful death.  If folks take the time to respond to your thoughts you should respect that, and not delete and re-ask the same question in a slightly different way. 

I do not think you need to differenciate between dive, level and torpedo bombing.  Just thrown them into a general attack or bombing category.

I do not think you need to separate land and carrier based aircraft.  Each aircraft should be evaluated for how it did its job- not up against every other aircraft of the era.   

Might I suggest:
WWI and itnerwar.  Keep it simple.
- fighter/scout
- attack/bomber

WWII
- fighter
- attack, single engine
- attack, medium
- Bomber, multi engine
- Sea plane/Amphib
- Recon
- Transport

Post WWII- I would stetch it to @1960
- fighter
- attack
- bomber
- Helicopter
- Transport/Sea Plane
- Recon

Modern- post 1960
- fighter
- attack
- bomber
- Helicopter
- Transport

As for your great record breaker/trail blazers that should be a totally different thread, but remember a trial blazer does not make it "great".  The P-59 was the first US jet, but by no means was it great....

Hope that helps-  Dave

[rickshaw]

Kendra, I'm not sure why you're specifically after my opinion.  It isn't that important really what I think.  Personally, I dislike "greatest" lists.  There are simply too many divergent and different types of aircraft, ranging across a wide range of time periods/theatres/etc.

WWI and itnerwar.  Keep it simple.
- fighter/scout
- attack/bomber

Fighter - Fokker D.VII, Sopwith Camel
Attack/bomber - Zeppelin

WWII
- fighter
- attack, single engine
- attack, medium
- Bomber, multi engine
- Sea plane/Amphib
- Recon
- Transport

Fighter - Ta152, Fw190a, Raiden, Ki100, Mustang, Corsair, Spitfire, Hurricane, La5, Yak9
Attack, Single-Engined - Fw190a, P-47, Apache, Spitfire, Il2
Attack, Medium - unknown
Bomber, Multi-Enginged - Lancaster, Wellington, Mosquito, He177, Ju88, Do17, B-17, B-24
Seaplane/Amphib - unknown
Recon - Spitfire, Mosquito, Ju86R
Transport - DC3 (only plane to serve with all combatants!)

Post WWII- I would stetch it to @1960
- fighter
- attack
- bomber
- Helicopter
- Transport/Sea Plane
- Recon

Fighter - F-86, MiG15, Meteor
Attack - Canberra, Voutour
Bomber - Any of the V-bombers, B-47, Canberra
Helicopter - Dragonfly, Whirlwind
Transport/Sea Plane - Douglas aircraft, Super-Constellation

Modern- post 1960
- fighter
- attack
- bomber
- Helicopter
- Transport

Fighter - F-4 Phantom, Sea Vixen, Mirage III, MiG21, Su17/20/22
Attack - Harrier, A-10
Bomber - B-52, Il-16, M-4, B-1
Helicopter - Lynx, Cheyenne, Apache
Transport - C-5, C-17, C-130, A400

[KJ_Lesnick]

sandiego89

If you really want to make your great lists as a mental exercise, I suggest sticking to categories that most folks understand.

True, but the attack category only applied in certain militaries (US/USSR), however the term dive-bomber seemed to be used by all of them.  Level bombers basically included non-dive bombing aircraft.

I also suggest posting only one category at a time.

I think that's actually a good idea.

And don't delete threads- just let them die a peaceful death.  If folks take the time to respond to your thoughts you should respect that, and not delete and re-ask the same question in a slightly different way.

Getting old eh?

I do not think you need to separate land and carrier based aircraft.  Each aircraft should be evaluated for how it did its job- not up against every other aircraft of the era.

The reason I did that was because I figured naval aircraft often didn't perform as well as their land-based counterparts.  However, they were up against enemies with the same handicap.

As for your great record breaker/trail blazers that should be a totally different thread, but remember a trial blazer does not make it "great".  The P-59 was the first US jet, but by no means was it great....

True enough


rickshaw

Kendra, I'm not sure why you're specifically after my opinion.

You generally know your stuff.

There are simply too many divergent and different types of aircraft, ranging across a wide range of time periods/theatres/etc.

Yeah, I kind of noticed that creating the list

[PR19_Kit]

Seaplane/Amphib - unknown

Catalina/PBY?

[Rheged]

Seaplane/Amphib - unknown

Catalina/PBY?

Walrus!! Mainly because it staggered on doing a vital job  (ASR)without a fuss for many years.

[rickshaw]

Seaplane/Amphib - unknown

Catalina/PBY?

Possibly but it never really struck me as a "great plane" - more a utilitarian one.

Walrus!! Mainly because it staggered on doing a vital job  (ASR)without a fuss for many years.

Again, more a ulitarian one than a great one IMHO.

[sandiego89]

I tend to be a little less generous on "great", there are a lot of usefull and very good, but few greats- and I don't count "could have beens" or "iconic"- that does not make things great in my book.  The timeframes get a little squishy if you talk about about first flight and really into squadron service.  My thoughts:

WWI/Interwar- I do not have enough knowledge/interest to comment. 

WWII
- fighter: Zero, Spitfire, P-51, Corsair, Fw-190
- attack single engine: P-47 (yes a "fighter" but oft used in attack)
- attack, medium: Mosquito
- Bomber, multi engine: Lancaster, B-29
- Sea plane/Amphib
- Recon
- Transport- DC3/C-47

Post WWII-
- fighter- F-86, Mig-15, Hunter
- attack- A-1 Skyraider, A-4 Skyhawk
- bomber- Canberra, B-52
- Helicopter
- Transport/Sea Plane: C-130, Beaver
- Recon

Modern- post 1960
- fighter- F-4 Phantom, F-16, F-15
- attack- A-10
- bomber
- Helicopter- UH-1 Huey, Chinook
- Transport- C-17
- Recon- SR-71 

[tahsin]

A net result of certain exchanges seems to be that from now the Mustang will be accepted as "designed as a dive bomber" and it's already seen in a WW II history magazine...

So, it's just fair to be mentioned as the best divebomber.

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

WWI

Fighter - Fokker D.VII, Sopwith Camel

Sounds good, I did some rudimentary research on both and it seems both were highly nimble and could move at a good clip for the time period.  The Sopwith camel proved actually possible to operate off a ship with some modifications.

Attack/bomber - Zeppelin

Zeppelin-Staaken R.VI definitely belongs on the list as it had a good payload, and was well-defended (it was also one of the first planes with an internal cockpit), I'm curious as to your opinions on the following designs such as the

• Handley-Page O] series (-100/-400)
  
• De Havilland DH.4 & DH.9 (either)
  
• Any of the Caproni designs developed in WW1 times
  
• Breguet 14 (Bomber and Recon): It could outrun fighters early on, it was agile for it's size, it was rugged and easy to handle
  
• Sikorsky Ilya Murometz: It was actually a pre-war design, and one of the first dedicated heavy-bomber designs; it served up to around August 1914 to 1916
  

WWII

Fighter - Ta152, Fw190a, Raiden, Ki100, Mustang, Corsair, Spitfire, Hurricane, La5, Yak9

I understand the Hurricane, Spitfire, Fw-190, F4U, P-51 just fine.  I've done some research on the J2M, Ki-100, La-5, and Yak-9 as well.  

The La-5 had an excellent rate of turn that bested the Fw-190 and Me-109, climb-performance somewhere between the Me-109 and Fw-190, as well as roll-rate, and a top speed over 400 mph; the Yak-9U was quite fast, and seemed to be quite maneuverable as well.  Until recently, I just thought the Ta-152 was a variant of the Fw-190, but it had a multitude of differences so I guess it could be argued to be different, and it's performance was excellent.  

I'm curious as to your opinion of the Yak-3 which flew first, and entered service later -- some compared it favorably with the Spitfire.

As for the Japanese fighters: I would assume your rationality for the following would be that the J2M had a high top-speed and service-ceiling, a good rate of climb, and good armament; the Ki-100 because of similar armament, high service ceiling, and agility.  I'm curious as to your views on the following designs

• Ki-84 Frank: High service ceiling, fast rate of climb, high-top-speed, better range than the J2M
  
• N1K-J George: Fast, rapid rate of climb, and an excellent rate of turn due to maneuver flaps; widely regarded as one of the best fighters.
  
• A6M Zero: Served from the first days of the war, had an excellent rate of climb and turn at low-speeds, good critical altitude (24,000 feet), and armament, and a long-range.
  

.
As well as these...

• Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe: First successful jet aircraft, was fast for it's day, had a good rate of climb and a respectable rate of turn at speed
  
• Hawker Tempest: One of the fastest planes at low-altitude, maneuverable, one of the best roll-rates, and good firepower
  
• De Havilland Hornet/Sea-Hornet: Fast, outrageously overpowered, served off carriers in day and night-fighter variants
  
• Hawker Sea-Fury: Based on the Tempest with a Bristol Centaurus engine, a high top-speed and a superb rate of climb.
  

.

Attack, Single-Engined - Fw190a, P-47, Apache, Spitfire, Il2

This is not meant to be an argument, so much as opinions of mine.  This is actually why I wanted to divvy up the dive-bomber and level-bomber category : Basically, with the exception of gunships/strafers, attack planes either include dive-bombers, or level-bombers.  

I personally think highly of the A-36 myself, as it was fast and nimble, and it was accurate in it's role; the Il-2 was frakking awesome as it was able to repel unbelievable amounts of damage thanks to the armor being actually integral to the airframe. 

While the Fw-190, and P-47 were definitely effective in the air-to-ground role, they seemed to be designed as either fighters for offensive/defensive use (By offensive, I mean not just an interceptor), or as a fighter-bomber.  I haven't really heard much of the Spitfire used as a fighter-bomber, but I wouldn't be surprised if they could do the job okay, as they definitely could dive alright (As an interesting note, the Spitfire's wing was aerodynamically good to Mach 1.3 in theory: In practice it wasn't doable because of the fact that the early marks could not take the aeroelastic forces at all; the Mark VII and up could, provided they weren't riding in the slipstream of a propeller ; the tail either couldn't handle the trimming loads at all, or could not take it with the slipstream of the propeller as the wing, and the fuselage could not.)

I suppose it's a matter of perspective, but I suppose a good-fighter that can bomb well is sort of "bonus points" for it, rather than it being thought of as a good bomber.  Admittedly, I'd definitely be open to debate if the plane was developed as a fighter but ended up being inadequate for this purpose and, instead ended up being a fantastic dive-bomber.  The Fw-190 was an excellent fighter, and the P-47 seemed to perform quite good as well (Top Speed: P-47 superior above 20,000'-25,000', Tempest superior below 20,000'-25,000'; Turn-Circle: Superior at higher altitudes, equal to, or slightly inferior but comparable at low altitudes; Dive-Performance: P-47 superior dive-acceleration; Tempest superior dive-speed; Climb-Performance: P-47 superior zoom-climb from the -D model on; Tempest superior sustained climb-rate; Range: Depending on variant the P-47 was inferior or grossly superior; Roll-Rate: Tempest is superior).

I'm interested as to your view on the following designs

• Junkers Ju-87 Stuka: Considered one of the best dive-bombers due to it's auto-recovery system, and was used extensively in the war early on
  
• Douglas SBD Dauntless: One of the best carrier-based dive-bombers on the allied side, with good range, maneuverability, and payload.
  
• Aichi D3A Val: Served in nearly every battle the IJN was involved in and had sufficient maneuverability survive against fighter-planes.  Ironically, it was considered obsolescent despite all of this.
  
• D4Y Judy: One of the fastest dive-bombers to serve operationally in WWII, admittedly like most Japanese planes it lacked self-sealing tanks. 
  
• TBF Avenger: It had a good top-speed by the standard of a naval torpedo-bomber, had both dorsal and ventral coverage with it's guns, and proved to be versatile in many other roles such as an airborne-command aircraft; an anti-submarine warfare aircraft, as well as a carrier-onboard delivery
  
• BT2D/AD/A-1: It flew in March of 1945, while it didn't serve in the war it would become one of the best attack planes ever.
  

.

Bomber, Multi-Enginged - Lancaster, Wellington, Mosquito, He177, Ju88, Do17, B-17, B-24

The Mosquito was one of the best bombers of all of WWII, so you will have no disagreement from me on that; the Lancaster was one of the best heavy-bombers, and the Ju-88 seemed to be a good design with a great degree of versatility as well (bomber, dive-bomber, night-fighter, maritime patrol?).

As for the rest...

• Vickers Wellington: Long legged, able to absorb unbelievable amounts of abuse, served the full length of the war, and was versatile in roles; on the downside, it was relatively slow and lacked defensive firepower up top
  
• Dornier Do-17: Fast by the standards of pre-war/early-war bombers on the up-side, it's range was relatively short on the downside, and I'm not sure how agile it was.  It did have versatility I guess, and served as a night-fighter, but it might have been the least capable version
  
• Heinkel He-177: It had the potential to be an incredible design, but it's primary flaw was unrealistic specifications (mid-level dive-bombing at first; later dictated to a 60-degree dive-angle ), which lead to a bad engine installation (the engines themselves were not unreliable).
  
• [Boeing B-17: I suppose considering it first flew in 1935, and was steadily updated into the B-17E, which was the first variant to have a tail-gun; then progressively updated more throughout the war is quite amazing: It was highly defended, sturdy and rugged, and could cruise quickly (240-255 mph), at high altitude (critical altitude was 25,000 feet, and missions ranged from 22,000-27,000 feet) and from the -A to -E models could exceed 300 mph at max speed without WEP; the -F could do 325 with WEP, though cruise was normally under 300.  The fact that the earlier bomb-load was only 4,000-4,800 pounds seems more a matter of the strength of the landing gear, and untapped potential.  On the other hand, it was shorter ranged than the Lancaster, carried a greatly lighter and smaller load than the Lancaster, thanks to it's bomb-bay design and size.  It's control loads were heavier.  It admittedly saw use in a variety of roles from search and rescue, maritime patrol, and AEW.
  
• Consolidated B-24: It was in some ways more capable than the B-17, had a tail-gun from the outset, and AFAIK a full 8,000 pound load right off the bat; it also had more range, and may very well have been more agile at the right speeds; on the other hand, it was described as flimsier, and harder to fly (controls were heavier under some circumstances, and twitchy under others, the aerodynamic sweet-spot seemed narrower), though I'm not sure how true that was as more were built and less were lost (this might have had to do with missions flown).  It proved an effective maritime patrol aircraft in the US Navy.
  

.
As to your views on the following...

• Douglas A-26 Invader: It had a top speed in excess of 350 miles an hour, and cruising speeds that were considered similar to that of fighters rather than bombers.  It's range with payload were in excess of the B-25 and B-26, and its remotely-controlled periscopically-sighted turrets covered both the upper and lower hemisphere and could be controlled by one person (the lower turret could also be controlled by the pilot for strafing).  It's agility was remarkable, and with bombs off, it could actually turn inside an Me-109 at certain altitudes .  It had versions with both bombardier and strafer noses, and could carry overloads in excess of the B-17's normal 8,000 pounds
  
• Boeing B-29 Superfortress: It had a range of 3,000 to 5,000 miles and could carry up to 20,000 pounds of bombs, with a critical altitude of 31,500 to 33,000 and cruising altitudes as high as 35,000 feet depending on weight and range.  Cruise speeds ranged in the ball-bark of 300 mph, and maximum speed of 360 to 390 mph depending on weight.  It had a state-of-the-art fire-control system allowing all the guns (except the tail-gun) to be controlled by one person, or to be controlled by the gun-commander, the bombardier at the minimum: The gun-computer included lead-computational capability.  With modifications it could carry a nuclear-bomb, which it ultimately did deploy twice, and the ability to carry tallboys, and even a grand-slam.  When one considers the B-50 was given the designation for political reasons, the B-50 was effectively a B-29 variant
  

.

Recon - Spitfire, Mosquito, Ju86R

The first two were fantastic in terms of speed and range, the latter seemed be more useful for it's altitude.  I'd say they were all effective designs.

Transport - DC3 (only plane to serve with all combatants!)

I didn't know that until now: Last I checked, some are still flying to this day .  Still there were other excellent transports, such as the DC-4/C-54 which were judged as one of the best transports of the war.

[rickshaw]

rickshaw

WWI

Fighter - Fokker D.VII, Sopwith Camel

Sounds good, I did some rudimentary research on both and it seems both were highly nimble and could move at a good clip for the time period.  The Sopwith camel proved actually possible to operate off a ship with some modifications.

Anything, with "modifications" could operate off of a ship, Kendra/Robyn.

Attack/bomber - Zeppelin

Zeppelin-Staaken R.VI definitely belongs on the list as it had a good payload, and was well-defended (it was also one of the first planes with an internal cockpit), I'm curious as to your opinions on the following designs such as the

• Handley-Page O] series (-100/-400)
  
• De Havilland DH.4 & DH.9 (either)
  
• Any of the Caproni designs developed in WW1 times
  
• Breguet 14 (Bomber and Recon): It could outrun fighters early on, it was agile for it's size, it was rugged and easy to handle
  
• Sikorsky Ilya Murometz: It was actually a pre-war design, and one of the first dedicated heavy-bomber designs; it served up to around August 1914 to 1916
  

All were adequate for the time period, none were exceptional though.  The Zeppelins I was referring to were the lighter-than-air ships...

WWII

Fighter - Ta152, Fw190a, Raiden, Ki100, Mustang, Corsair, Spitfire, Hurricane, La5, Yak9

I understand the Hurricane, Spitfire, Fw-190, F4U, P-51 just fine.  I've done some research on the J2M, Ki-100, La-5, and Yak-9 as well.  

The La-5 had an excellent rate of turn that bested the Fw-190 and Me-109, climb-performance somewhere between the Me-109 and Fw-190, as well as roll-rate, and a top speed over 400 mph; the Yak-9U was quite fast, and seemed to be quite maneuverable as well.  Until recently, I just thought the Ta-152 was a variant of the Fw-190, but it had a multitude of differences so I guess it could be argued to be different, and it's performance was excellent.  

I'm curious as to your opinion of the Yak-3 which flew first, and entered service later -- some compared it favorably with the Spitfire.

The Yak 3 was an adequate frontal fighter, it lacked range and firepower.   A Mk.II Spitfire perhaps but not a Mk.IX or later, no.

As for the Japanese fighters: I would assume your rationality for the following would be that the J2M had a high top-speed and service-ceiling, a good rate of climb, and good armament; the Ki-100 because of similar armament, high service ceiling, and agility.  I'm curious as to your views on the following designs

• Ki-84 Frank: High service ceiling, fast rate of climb, high-top-speed, better range than the J2M
  
• N1K-J George: Fast, rapid rate of climb, and an excellent rate of turn due to maneuver flaps; widely regarded as one of the best fighters.
  
• A6M Zero: Served from the first days of the war, had an excellent rate of climb and turn at low-speeds, good critical altitude (24,000 feet), and armament, and a long-range.
  

.

All were adequate but none were really developed as well as they should have been.  The A6M suffered from no armour and no self-sealing fuel tanks.  All were underpowered.  Their engines were adequate but the fuel used too lower an octane.  After the war, when using US supplied fuel, Japanese aircraft tended to achieve about 10-15% more power and speed.   The Frank and George suffered also from poor quality workmanship, which prevented them from achieving the power they should have.   The A6M was like the Me109, "inadequate" by the end of the war, their day had been had.

As well as these...

• Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe: First successful jet aircraft, was fast for it's day, had a good rate of climb and a respectable rate of turn at speed
  
• Hawker Tempest: One of the fastest planes at low-altitude, maneuverable, one of the best roll-rates, and good firepower
  
• De Havilland Hornet/Sea-Hornet: Fast, outrageously overpowered, served off carriers in day and night-fighter variants
  
• Hawker Sea-Fury: Based on the Tempest with a Bristol Centaurus engine, a high top-speed and a superb rate of climb.
  

.

All were too late for WWII.  The Tempest and the 262 were the only ones to see limited service.  The 262 was a speed hump to the Allies, nothing more.  It was a good attempt at a first generation jet fighter but it was not maneuverable enough to be really considered to be a dog fighter.  The Tempest was excellent and the Hornet/Sea Hornet even better.   The Hornet could be looped, twice with the engines turned off, something rather rare in a modern fighter.  A favourite demonstration trick was to approach at high speed, switch the engines off and loop overhead, twice and then start the engines again.   It impressed most who saw it.  The late Eric Brown used to do it.

Attack, Single-Engined - Fw190a, P-47, Apache, Spitfire, Il2

This is not meant to be an argument, so much as opinions of mine.  This is actually why I wanted to divvy up the dive-bomber and level-bomber category : Basically, with the exception of gunships/strafers, attack planes either include dive-bombers, or level-bombers.  

I personally think highly of the A-36 myself, as it was fast and nimble, and it was accurate in it's role; the Il-2 was frakking awesome as it was able to repel unbelievable amounts of damage thanks to the armor being actually integral to the airframe. 

While the Fw-190, and P-47 were definitely effective in the air-to-ground role, they seemed to be designed as either fighters for offensive/defensive use (By offensive, I mean not just an interceptor), or as a fighter-bomber.  I haven't really heard much of the Spitfire used as a fighter-bomber, but I wouldn't be surprised if they could do the job okay, as they definitely could dive alright (As an interesting note, the Spitfire's wing was aerodynamically good to Mach 1.3 in theory: In practice it wasn't doable because of the fact that the early marks could not take the aeroelastic forces at all; the Mark VII and up could, provided they weren't riding in the slipstream of a propeller ; the tail either couldn't handle the trimming loads at all, or could not take it with the slipstream of the propeller as the wing, and the fuselage could not.)

I suppose it's a matter of perspective, but I suppose a good-fighter that can bomb well is sort of "bonus points" for it, rather than it being thought of as a good bomber.  Admittedly, I'd definitely be open to debate if the plane was developed as a fighter but ended up being inadequate for this purpose and, instead ended up being a fantastic dive-bomber.  The Fw-190 was an excellent fighter, and the P-47 seemed to perform quite good as well (Top Speed: P-47 superior above 20,000'-25,000', Tempest superior below 20,000'-25,000'; Turn-Circle: Superior at higher altitudes, equal to, or slightly inferior but comparable at low altitudes; Dive-Performance: P-47 superior dive-acceleration; Tempest superior dive-speed; Climb-Performance: P-47 superior zoom-climb from the -D model on; Tempest superior sustained climb-rate; Range: Depending on variant the P-47 was inferior or grossly superior; Roll-Rate: Tempest is superior).

I'm interested as to your view on the following designs

• Junkers Ju-87 Stuka: Considered one of the best dive-bombers due to it's auto-recovery system, and was used extensively in the war early on
  
• Douglas SBD Dauntless: One of the best carrier-based dive-bombers on the allied side, with good range, maneuverability, and payload.
  
• Aichi D3A Val: Served in nearly every battle the IJN was involved in and had sufficient maneuverability survive against fighter-planes.  Ironically, it was considered obsolescent despite all of this.
  
• D4Y Judy: One of the fastest dive-bombers to serve operationally in WWII, admittedly like most Japanese planes it lacked self-sealing tanks. 
  
• TBF Avenger: It had a good top-speed by the standard of a naval torpedo-bomber, had both dorsal and ventral coverage with it's guns, and proved to be versatile in many other roles such as an airborne-command aircraft; an anti-submarine warfare aircraft, as well as a carrier-onboard delivery
  
• BT2D/AD/A-1: It flew in March of 1945, while it didn't serve in the war it would become one of the best attack planes ever.
  

.

All were adequate, not exceptional at their job.  I'd also throw in the Vengeance, for good measure a most under-rated dive bomber by all accounts.  Dive bombing had gone out of fashion for most airforces by 1942, the aircraft specifically designed for the task were invaribly clumsy and easy prey to fighters when they had inadequate fighter protection.   Only the US Navy stuck with the role.  Which attack aircraft sunk more tonnage of shipping than any other?  The Fairey Swordfish.  Another which gets forgotten about all too often.  Fought from the start to the finish.  Was used as a Dive Bomber, a torpedo plane, a patrol plane and an ASW plane.

Bomber, Multi-Enginged - Lancaster, Wellington, Mosquito, He177, Ju88, Do17, B-17, B-24

The Mosquito was one of the best bombers of all of WWII, so you will have no disagreement from me on that; the Lancaster was one of the best heavy-bombers, and the Ju-88 seemed to be a good design with a great degree of versatility as well (bomber, dive-bomber, night-fighter, maritime patrol?).

As for the rest...

• Vickers Wellington: Long legged, able to absorb unbelievable amounts of abuse, served the full length of the war, and was versatile in roles; on the downside, it was relatively slow and lacked defensive firepower up top
  
• Dornier Do-17: Fast by the standards of pre-war/early-war bombers on the up-side, it's range was relatively short on the downside, and I'm not sure how agile it was.  It did have versatility I guess, and served as a night-fighter, but it might have been the least capable version
  
• Heinkel He-177: It had the potential to be an incredible design, but it's primary flaw was unrealistic specifications (mid-level dive-bombing at first; later dictated to a 60-degree dive-angle ), which lead to a bad engine installation (the engines themselves were not unreliable).
  
• [Boeing B-17: I suppose considering it first flew in 1935, and was steadily updated into the B-17E, which was the first variant to have a tail-gun; then progressively updated more throughout the war is quite amazing: It was highly defended, sturdy and rugged, and could cruise quickly (240-255 mph), at high altitude (critical altitude was 25,000 feet, and missions ranged from 22,000-27,000 feet) and from the -A to -E models could exceed 300 mph at max speed without WEP; the -F could do 325 with WEP, though cruise was normally under 300.  The fact that the earlier bomb-load was only 4,000-4,800 pounds seems more a matter of the strength of the landing gear, and untapped potential.  On the other hand, it was shorter ranged than the Lancaster, carried a greatly lighter and smaller load than the Lancaster, thanks to it's bomb-bay design and size.  It's control loads were heavier.  It admittedly saw use in a variety of roles from search and rescue, maritime patrol, and AEW.
  
• Consolidated B-24: It was in some ways more capable than the B-17, had a tail-gun from the outset, and AFAIK a full 8,000 pound load right off the bat; it also had more range, and may very well have been more agile at the right speeds; on the other hand, it was described as flimsier, and harder to fly (controls were heavier under some circumstances, and twitchy under others, the aerodynamic sweet-spot seemed narrower), though I'm not sure how true that was as more were built and less were lost (this might have had to do with missions flown).  It proved an effective maritime patrol aircraft in the US Navy.
  

.
As to your views on the following...

• Douglas A-26 Invader: It had a top speed in excess of 350 miles an hour, and cruising speeds that were considered similar to that of fighters rather than bombers.  It's range with payload were in excess of the B-25 and B-26, and its remotely-controlled periscopically-sighted turrets covered both the upper and lower hemisphere and could be controlled by one person (the lower turret could also be controlled by the pilot for strafing).  It's agility was remarkable, and with bombs off, it could actually turn inside an Me-109 at certain altitudes .  It had versions with both bombardier and strafer noses, and could carry overloads in excess of the B-17's normal 8,000 pounds
  
• Boeing B-29 Superfortress: It had a range of 3,000 to 5,000 miles and could carry up to 20,000 pounds of bombs, with a critical altitude of 31,500 to 33,000 and cruising altitudes as high as 35,000 feet depending on weight and range.  Cruise speeds ranged in the ball-bark of 300 mph, and maximum speed of 360 to 390 mph depending on weight.  It had a state-of-the-art fire-control system allowing all the guns (except the tail-gun) to be controlled by one person, or to be controlled by the gun-commander, the bombardier at the minimum: The gun-computer included lead-computational capability.  With modifications it could carry a nuclear-bomb, which it ultimately did deploy twice, and the ability to carry tallboys, and even a grand-slam.  When one considers the B-50 was given the designation for political reasons, the B-50 was effectively a B-29 variant
  

.

A-26 was an attack aircraft, not a bomber.
B-29 was IMHO over-rated.  It was put into service too early and they were still working the bugs out in action over Japan.   If it had been used against the Luftwaffe, they would have had a far more interesting time IMO.   The British experience with the Washington wasn't good but they were war-weary aircraft AIUI.  My father from his Woomera days was rather dismissive of it.

Recon - Spitfire, Mosquito, Ju86R

The first two were fantastic in terms of speed and range, the latter seemed be more useful for it's altitude.  I'd say they were all effective designs.

Transport - DC3 (only plane to serve with all combatants!)

I didn't know that until now: Last I checked, some are still flying to this day .  Still there were other excellent transports, such as the DC-4/C-54 which were judged as one of the best transports of the war.

The only aircraft that can replace a DC3 is another DC3.  The RAAF was flying DC3s which were older than the pilots which flew them.  They had seen action in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.   ARDU used one which carried the most advanced laser depth sounder system in the world at the time in the early 1980s.  Far in advance of anything seen in the US or UK.   They eventually replaced it with a second-hand F27 Fellowship.   The DC3 was a remarkable and useful design.  Only the C-130 comes close to it in the realm of versatility IMHO.

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

WW1 Period

Anything, with "modifications" could operate off of a ship, Kendra/Robyn.

Yes, but some do it way better and require less modifications

All were adequate for the time period, none were exceptional though.

Even for their era?

The Zeppelins I was referring to were the lighter-than-air ships...

Oh, okay

WWII Period

The Yak 3 was an adequate frontal fighter, it lacked range and firepower.   A Mk.II Spitfire perhaps but not a Mk.IX or later, no.

Oh, okay

All were adequate but none were really developed as well as they should have been.

Good thing for us!

The A6M suffered from no armour and no self-sealing fuel tanks.

That seemed to be a problem endemic to Japanese planes...

All were underpowered.

I remember the A6M having a superb climb-rate...

Their engines were adequate but the fuel used too lower an octane.

Now, that I didn't know...

The Frank and George suffered also from poor quality workmanship, which prevented them from achieving the power they should have.

I never knew that, when you say workmanship do you mean the engines were flimsy?

The A6M was like the Me109, "inadequate" by the end of the war, their day had been had.

Well yeah, at the end of the war they'd been outpaced.

All were too late for WWII.  The Tempest and the 262 were the only ones to see limited service.

True enough, I threw them in because they were built in the era.

The 262 was a speed hump to the Allies, nothing more.  It was a good attempt at a first generation jet fighter but it was not maneuverable enough to be really considered to be a dog fighter.

It's maneuverability seemed dependent on speed: At low-speed, it's higher wing-loading and thrust was low, however at higher IAS and high subsonic speed, the ram compression effects and extra lift gave it a sustained g-rate that fighters might not have really had much chance of hanging in a turn with it.  It's wide turning circle was compensated by it's sheer speed which a pilot (J.C. Meyer) described as being akin to an apple: His P-51 could punch through an apple slower than the Me-262 could go around it in combat.  The P-51 could get the drop on it under the right set of conditions (dive to a speed that would give you an overtake and some extra speed for a short lived turn, get onto it's tail, turn with it, pull lead, spray it before your speed fell away too much and break off).  In practice, I'm not sure how effective this was, as it seemed the best solution was to bag them on the ground.

The Tempest was excellent and the Hornet/Sea Hornet even better.   The Hornet could be looped, twice with the engines turned off, something rather rare in a modern fighter.

I thought they came in fast, looped once with both engines, killed one engine, continued the next loop on that one, then killed both engines, and did another loop...

All were adequate, not exceptional at their job.

Even the naval aircraft mentioned in their standards?

I'd also throw in the Vengeance, for good measure a most under-rated dive bomber by all accounts.

That's a good point

Dive bombing had gone out of fashion for most airforces by 1942, the aircraft specifically designed for the task were invaribly clumsy and easy prey to fighters when they had inadequate fighter protection.

Most bombers were clumsy and easy prey to fighters when they were operating unescorted in daylight.  The RAF operated at night for this reason, and the USAAF took unsustainable losses even with combat-box formations as they started to go deeper into Germany.  The Schweinfurt Missions cost 60 aircraft a pop which I think was a 20% loss rate.

Which attack aircraft sunk more tonnage of shipping than any other?  The Fairey Swordfish.  Another which gets forgotten about all too often.  Fought from the start to the finish.  Was used as a Dive Bomber, a torpedo plane, a patrol plane and an ASW plane.

Good point, what contributed to its success?

Bomber, Multi-Enginged - Lancaster, Wellington, Mosquito, He177, Ju88, Do17, B-17, B-24

The Mosquito was one of the best bombers of all of WWII, so you will have no disagreement from me on that; the Lancaster was one of the best heavy-bombers, and the Ju-88 seemed to be a good design with a great degree of versatility as well (bomber, dive-bomber, night-fighter, maritime patrol?).

A-26 was an attack aircraft, not a bomber.

Technically true, but it could do much the same as the B-26 could do...

B-29 was IMHO over-rated.  It was put into service too early and they were still working the bugs out in action over Japan.

True, but the F4U had lots of trouble early on.  It's speed

If it had been used against the Luftwaffe, they would have had a far more interesting time IMO.

I assume you mean more losses?

The only aircraft that can replace a DC3 is another DC3.

Or a C-130

The RAAF was flying DC3s which were older than the pilots which flew them.

Same with the B-52...

ARDU used one which carried the most advanced laser depth sounder system in the world at the time in the early 1980s.

ARDU?  And a laser depth sounder -- do you mean some kind of sub-tracker?

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

WW1 Period

Anything, with "modifications" could operate off of a ship, Kendra/Robyn.

Yes, but some do it way better and require less modifications

All were adequate for the time period, none were exceptional though.

Even for their era?

The Zeppelins I was referring to were the lighter-than-air ships...

Okay, I understand: I suppose they could carry a

WWII Period

The Yak 3 was an adequate frontal fighter, it lacked range and firepower.   A Mk.II Spitfire perhaps but not a Mk.IX or later, no.

So, this was a matter of the time in which it first flew and entered service?

All were adequate but none were really developed as well as they should have been.

I assume this varied from plane to plane?

The A6M suffered from no armour and no self-sealing fuel tanks.

I thought that problem was largely endemic to the Japanese?

The A6M was like the Me109, "inadequate" by the end of the war, their day had been had.

Well yeah, at the end of the war they'd been outpaced -- but at the beginning they weren't and the played a major role at that point.

All were underpowered.

That doesn't sound right as the A6M had an excellent rate of climb, as did the Frank and George

Their engines were adequate but the fuel used too lower an octane.

Now, that I didn't know...

The Frank and George suffered also from poor quality workmanship, which prevented them from achieving the power they should have.

By workmanship do you mean the airframe, or the engines?

All were too late for WWII.  The Tempest and the 262 were the only ones to see limited service.

True enough, I threw them in because they were built in the era.

The 262 was a speed hump to the Allies, nothing more.  It was a good attempt at a first generation jet fighter but it was not maneuverable enough to be really considered to be a dog fighter.

Well, the Me-262's corner velocity was probably higher up than most fighter planes of the day, but from what it would seem, the problem wasn't so much the ability to momentarily generate a tight turn at combat speeds used, but the fact that you would lose your advantages

• The engines produced poor thrust at low-speeds, but substantial amounts when flying at high TAS
  
• The wing-loading was around 60 lbs/ft^2 which was on the high-side
  

The aircraft when flown correctly was generally flown at substantially higher TAS, and somewhat higher IAS to allow for superior power and more air over the wings.  Turning arc was wider, but it was hard to keep up with it and hang with it in a turn.  While the P-51 and Spitfire could get the drop on it under the right set of conditions (both could dive at very high speeds).

• The Me-262 had a superior dive sped to the P-51, which combined with a diving turn could allow escape
  
• The Spitfire could actually dive faster, most likely, but the Me-262 could probably gain speed quicker as to it's heavier weight
  

The zoom-climb performance might have favored a jet.

The Tempest was excellent

They were fast, agile, and effective fighter bombers

the Hornet/Sea Hornet even better.   The Hornet could be looped, twice with the engines turned off, something rather rare in a modern fighter.

I thought they came in fast, looped once with both engines, killed one engine, continued the next loop on that one, then killed both engines, and did another loop on inertia, then started them up.

All were adequate, not exceptional at their job.

Would you say that even to naval aircraft standards?  They were often slower than their land-based counterparts

I'd also throw in the Vengeance, for good measure a most under-rated dive bomber by all accounts.

Good point, I forgot to bring those up.  Admittedly, the earlier Vengeance was said to ride at an excessive AoA; the later one had a higher incidence and flew better but was less able as a dive-platform?

Dive bombing had gone out of fashion for most airforces by 1942, the aircraft specifically designed for the task were invaribly clumsy and easy prey to fighters when they had inadequate fighter protection.

Truthfully, most bombers were easy prey to fighters without fighter escort...

]Which attack aircraft sunk more tonnage of shipping than any other?  The Fairey Swordfish.

That's a good point, though I didn't know it served to the end of the war and was used as a dive-bomber, let alone all the others.  I'm curious what contributed to success?

A-26 was an attack aircraft, not a bomber.

Technically it was both...

B-29 was IMHO over-rated.  It was put into service too early and they were still working the bugs out in action over Japan.

True, but the F4U had lots of bugs early on and it eventually worked out good.

If it had been used against the Luftwaffe, they would have had a far more interesting time IMO.

I assume you mean more losses?

The only aircraft that can replace a DC3 is another DC3.

Or a C-130

The RAAF was flying DC3s which were older than the pilots which flew them.

Same with the B-52...

[rickshaw]

rickshaw

WW1 Period

Anything, with "modifications" could operate off of a ship, Kendra/Robyn.

Yes, but some do it way better and require less modifications

All were adequate for the time period, none were exceptional though.

Even for their era?

Even for their era.

The Zeppelins I was referring to were the lighter-than-air ships...

Okay, I understand: I suppose they could carry a

"...a"?

WWII Period

The Yak 3 was an adequate frontal fighter, it lacked range and firepower.   A Mk.II Spitfire perhaps but not a Mk.IX or later, no.

So, this was a matter of the time in which it first flew and entered service?

That is true of all military equipment.  A Mk.II Spitfire would be of little use in 1945...

All were adequate but none were really developed as well as they should have been.

I assume this varied from plane to plane?

Yes.

The A6M suffered from no armour and no self-sealing fuel tanks.

I thought that problem was largely endemic to the Japanese?

The A6M and the Hayabusa particularly, as the war progressed, later aircraft incorporated armour and self-sealing tanks.

The A6M was like the Me109, "inadequate" by the end of the war, their day had been had.

Well yeah, at the end of the war they'd been outpaced -- but at the beginning they weren't and the played a major role at that point.

Their success was more because of their surprise rather than anything else.  Once the correct tactics were adopted, they were less and less successful.

All were underpowered.

That doesn't sound right as the A6M had an excellent rate of climb, as did the Frank and George

Their engines were adequate but the fuel used too lower an octane.

Now, that I didn't know...

Japanese fuel was invariably at about 80-90 Octane while US and Allied fuels were 100+

The Frank and George suffered also from poor quality workmanship, which prevented them from achieving the power they should have.

By workmanship do you mean the airframe, or the engines?

Both.  As the war progressed, increasing absenteeism from the factories and lower skilled labourers made it harder to get the required finish.

All were too late for WWII.  The Tempest and the 262 were the only ones to see limited service.

True enough, I threw them in because they were built in the era.

The 262 was a speed hump to the Allies, nothing more.  It was a good attempt at a first generation jet fighter but it was not maneuverable enough to be really considered to be a dog fighter.

Well, the Me-262's corner velocity was probably higher up than most fighter planes of the day, but from what it would seem, the problem wasn't so much the ability to momentarily generate a tight turn at combat speeds used, but the fact that you would lose your advantages

• The engines produced poor thrust at low-speeds, but substantial amounts when flying at high TAS
  
• The wing-loading was around 60 lbs/ft^2 which was on the high-side
  

The aircraft when flown correctly was generally flown at substantially higher TAS, and somewhat higher IAS to allow for superior power and more air over the wings.  Turning arc was wider, but it was hard to keep up with it and hang with it in a turn.  While the P-51 and Spitfire could get the drop on it under the right set of conditions (both could dive at very high speeds).

• The Me-262 had a superior dive sped to the P-51, which combined with a diving turn could allow escape
  
• The Spitfire could actually dive faster, most likely, but the Me-262 could probably gain speed quicker as to it's heavier weight
  

The zoom-climb performance might have favored a jet.

You have to also take into account numbers, training and the design of the aircraft with wide-set engines.  They were few in numbers, the training of the pilots were inadequate for the most part and the design was inherent in the way the engines were separated.  The result was that for the most part, most pilots didn't use the aircraft the way they should have.

The Tempest was excellent

They were fast, agile, and effective fighter bombers

the Hornet/Sea Hornet even better.   The Hornet could be looped, twice with the engines turned off, something rather rare in a modern fighter.

I thought they came in fast, looped once with both engines, killed one engine, continued the next loop on that one, then killed both engines, and did another loop on inertia, then started them up.

No doubt.  Either way, a P-38 couldn't do it.

All were adequate, not exceptional at their job.

Would you say that even to naval aircraft standards?  They were often slower than their land-based counterparts

[/quote]

They suffered generally from greater weight, lower powered engines than their land counterparts.

I'd also throw in the Vengeance, for good measure a most under-rated dive bomber by all accounts.

Good point, I forgot to bring those up.  Admittedly, the earlier Vengeance was said to ride at an excessive AoA; the later one had a higher incidence and flew better but was less able as a dive-platform?

Other way 'round I think you'll find.

Dive bombing had gone out of fashion for most airforces by 1942, the aircraft specifically designed for the task were invaribly clumsy and easy prey to fighters when they had inadequate fighter protection.

Truthfully, most bombers were easy prey to fighters without fighter escort...

]Which attack aircraft sunk more tonnage of shipping than any other?  The Fairey Swordfish.

That's a good point, though I didn't know it served to the end of the war and was used as a dive-bomber, let alone all the others.  I'm curious what contributed to success?

Longevity and utility.   It's role changed when the war changed but it kept on flying.  It was used a a dive bomber in North Africa and in NW Europe - most successfully apparently.

A-26 was an attack aircraft, not a bomber.

Technically it was both...

B-29 was IMHO over-rated.  It was put into service too early and they were still working the bugs out in action over Japan.

True, but the F4U had lots of bugs early on and it eventually worked out good.

Not as many as the B-29 I suspect.  All that was needed was a more flexibly approach to how it was used (and softer landing gear).

If it had been used against the Luftwaffe, they would have had a far more interesting time IMO.

I assume you mean more losses?

Perhaps.  One of the thing that saved the B-29 from serious losses was the altitude it operated at.  The Japanese had never sought high-altitude combat until the B-29 arrived in their skies.  Their fighters weren't able to reach the B-29s initially nor stay nor track the B-29 at those altitudes.  The Luftwaffe OTOH...