PDA

View Full Version : Most Versatile Aircraft of World War II is... The Mosquito



Secudus2004
07-27-2005, 05:03 PM
Something I would like to know once and for all, what was the most versatile Aircraft of the War€¦

So, without more ado, place your votes Gentleman€¦ 1 vote for 1 Aircraft, and please do not give €˜alternative€ examples etc. If you do your vote will be void.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

All you need do is name a plane€¦

This ballot will be open for 24Hrs Starting from 00.00Hrs GMT€¦

Gentleman begin

Secudus2004
07-27-2005, 05:03 PM
Something I would like to know once and for all, what was the most versatile Aircraft of the War€¦

So, without more ado, place your votes Gentleman€¦ 1 vote for 1 Aircraft, and please do not give €˜alternative€ examples etc. If you do your vote will be void.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

All you need do is name a plane€¦

This ballot will be open for 24Hrs Starting from 00.00Hrs GMT€¦

Gentleman begin

NorrisMcWhirter
07-27-2005, 05:08 PM
Me262: Heavy bomber interceptor, fighter, fighter bomber, bomber & recon.

In and out before you know it, devastating firepower and practically impossible to shoot down.

Slightly unproven but...

Ta,
Norris

fordfan25
07-27-2005, 05:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Secudus2004:
Something I would like to know once and for all, what was the most versatile Aircraft of the War€¦

So, without more ado, place your votes Gentleman€¦ 1 vote for 1 Aircraft, and please do not give €˜alternative€ examples etc. If you do your vote will be void.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

All you need do is name a plane€¦

This ballot will be open for 24Hrs Starting from 00.00Hrs GMT€¦

Gentleman begin </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

f4u.fast,tough,reliable,longrange,good air2air,great ground pounding,carries ani ship rockets,carrier&landbased. it just does so many things realy well IRL.

MEGILE
07-27-2005, 05:17 PM
Val - Carrierborne, carries bombs, turns on a dime, and has a rear gunner http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Waldo.Pepper
07-27-2005, 05:43 PM
Mossie.

Fighter/Bomber/Intruder/Night Fighter/Anti-Shipping/Pathfinder/Photo Recon. must be more.

WarWolfe_1
07-27-2005, 05:49 PM
RazorBack.


Ain't she so sexy!

faustnik
07-27-2005, 05:57 PM
P-38 for fighter/bomber/recon ability. Good performance, long range and a very heavy payload capacity make it the most versatile. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

falling-bird
07-27-2005, 06:07 PM
Ju88. High level, Dive, Torpedo Bomber. Recce. Night fighter/intruder. Oh, and Flying Bomb


Still got fingers crossed......

arcadeace
07-27-2005, 06:13 PM
F4U-1C

ImpStarDuece
07-27-2005, 06:17 PM
Mosquito;

Unarmed Fast day/night bomber
Radar Equipped Pathfinder
Heavy Day Fighter
Intruder
Fighter Bomber
Anti-Shipping bomber
Photo-recon
Electronic Warfare
Night Fighter
Torpeedo Bomber
VIP transport
First twin engined aricraft to land on a carrier
Last Mosquito was produced in November 1950.

Crimea_River
07-27-2005, 06:21 PM
Falling Bird's right. Ju 88 hands down.

p1ngu666
07-27-2005, 06:30 PM
mossie, ju88 and corsair too

Fox_3
07-27-2005, 06:33 PM
Mosquito.

blairgowrie
07-27-2005, 06:38 PM
Another vote for the Mosquito.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-27-2005, 06:56 PM
P-47

PlimPlam
07-27-2005, 07:00 PM
corsair

Tully__
07-27-2005, 10:28 PM
Mosquito, Corsair and Jug spring to mind. What about Tu2 and Pe2/3, how versatile were they?

Luftwaffe_109
07-27-2005, 10:34 PM
Junkers Ju 88

jarink
07-27-2005, 10:52 PM
I'll have to add my vote to the Ju-88 pool.

PBNA-Boosher
07-27-2005, 11:31 PM
Mossie 3x!

Oilburner_TAW
07-27-2005, 11:50 PM
F4U

Does everything other's do plus it can operate from a carrier.

Dilbert-A-
07-28-2005, 12:27 AM
FW-190 in all its variants.

WOLFMondo
07-28-2005, 12:56 AM
mosquito. ju88 a close second.

*edit*

and the p38.

PlimPlam
07-28-2005, 01:18 AM
Corsair.

ClnlSandersLite
07-28-2005, 01:20 AM
I would say the mossie with the lightning bieng a close second.

Actually, the lightning was capable of everything the mossie was IF you had the right varient. However, I'll give the mossie credit for not needing as much on the varients. On the other hand, the lightning was a more capable fighter...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oilburner_TAW:
F4U

Does everything other's do plus it can operate from a carrier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never seen a corsair outfitted for level bombing or recon. The lightning and mossie did both.

PlimPlam
07-28-2005, 01:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ClnlSandersLite:
I would say the mossie with the lightning bieng a close second.

Actually, the lightning was capable of everything the mossie was IF you had the right varient. However, I'll give the mossie credit for not needing as much on the varients. On the other hand, the lightning was a more capable fighter...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oilburner_TAW:
F4U

Does everything other's do plus it can operate from a carrier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never seen a corsair outfitted for level bombing or recon. The lightning and mossie did both. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have only one thing to say about this. Do a google picture search on mossie. The 2nd page comes up with a few pictures of corsairs.

Which were the most versatile planes during wwii. And that is my story and I am sticking with it.

So help me... erm nm.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Lucius_Esox
07-28-2005, 01:50 AM
Mossie

buglord
07-28-2005, 02:14 AM
ju88 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://server3.uploadit.org/files/mrbuglord-myheader1.jpg

WTE_Ibis
07-28-2005, 02:17 AM
Mosquito;

HotelBushranger
07-28-2005, 02:28 AM
Mosquito

Aaron_GT
07-28-2005, 02:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">F4U

Does everything other's do plus it can operate from a carrier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never used to ferry composers or members of the clergy in and out of neutral countries during WW2 AFAIK.

Aaron_GT
07-28-2005, 02:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually, the lightning was capable of everything the mossie was IF you had the right varient. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was it possible to carry passengers in the P38? (This is a genuine question). I am sure there would be room to add extra space at the back.
[Edit: the level bombing pathfinder P38 would presumably have the space for a passenger]

I'd doubt that the P38 could have been easily converted to carry highballs, but then these weren't exactly a success anyway.

Low_Flyer_MkII
07-28-2005, 02:45 AM
De Havilland Mosquito.

Cajun76
07-28-2005, 02:48 AM
Unmodified production airframe, versatility without special mod or Mk.

#1: The P-47N

Honorable mentions in unmodified form, in semi particular order.
P-38L -\
F4U-1D -- Close tie between them, sea legs vs. high alt ability
Mosquito FB.VI (also Mk.33 navalized version if it saw action)
Fw-190A series

That's about it for multi-purpose, do nearly anything aircraft built as they are without sacrificing from another area of their performance, imho.

PlimPlam
07-28-2005, 02:55 AM
corsair

ClnlSandersLite
07-28-2005, 03:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually, the lightning was capable of everything the mossie was IF you had the right varient. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was it possible to carry passengers in the P38? (This is a genuine question). I am sure there would be room to add extra space at the back.
[Edit: the level bombing pathfinder P38 would presumably have the space for a passenger]

I'd doubt that the P38 could have been easily converted to carry highballs, but then these weren't exactly a success anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the bomber version and I believe the night fighter version where 2 man aircraft. There where also those **** hollow passenger drop tanks. They where reviled and cursed by everyone who knew about them. Especially the ones that didn't even have windows.

PlimPlam: The only thing that turned up in the first 5 pages where a couple of model kits. Perhaps a direct link?

RNZAFJay
07-28-2005, 03:03 AM
Mossie

Utchoud
07-28-2005, 03:14 AM
Ju 88. Mosquito close second.

Freefalldart
07-28-2005, 03:15 AM
FW190A

Petey78
07-28-2005, 03:16 AM
Mossie, hands down!

ImpStarDuece
07-28-2005, 03:40 AM
Ok, a bit of vote counting. I am just going off a basic airframe type. Now if only that bloke Chad was still hanging around....

Mosquito: 15
Ju-88: 6
P-47: 3
F4U: 4 (although PlimPlam has voted for it 4 times, vote early vote often mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Me-262: 1
Fw190: 2
P-38: 1
D3A Val: 1

PlimPlam
07-28-2005, 03:51 AM
You know there is this plane called a corsair. I hear its better than sliced bread.

All hail the king.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Just having fun.

IHI.OuTcAsT
07-28-2005, 04:16 AM
In my opinion no Allied plane is even close to being the most versatile. Their armament is way worse than the German planes, and not even one makes a great anti-bomber, which is one of the basic functions.

It is either the ME262 or the FW-190 A8/A9 (in case of prop planes).

The ME262 with its speed and the 4 MK108s is just the best fighter. It is also the best anti-bomber and by adding the end-war R4M rockets it now becomes a super anti-bomber. Now only by its speed it is one of the best bombers/ground attackers as no fighter can stop it, and also the AA have a difficult time. Not to add the very good range. IMO, ME262 is the only plane that you can call the phrase "hands down". Disadvantages? Probably low armor, but it is countered by its speed.

But to make it just for the Proppeler Planes, The most versatile imo is the FW-190 A8/A9 variant. Pretty Long Range, Excellent Armament, Radial Engine along with great armor, it could battle any fighter (even a turner), excellent anti-bomber, great bomber/ground attacker, best diver fighter in WW2 (esp. because of the armament).

WOLFMondo
07-28-2005, 05:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IHI.OuTcAsT:
In my opinion no Allied plane is even close to being the most versatile. Their armament is way worse than the German planes, and not even one makes a great anti-bomber, which is one of the basic functions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mosquito nightfighters could easily be anti bomber planes. The allies didn't need them though since they where not being bombedhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Clearly little knowledge of allied planes. The Mosquito Fb could pack 4 20mm Hispano's, which where arguably the best 20mm's of WW2. Then there where 3 .303's in the nose, not to mention it could also carry a variety of ordanance.

The Mosquito was not only probably the best Nightfighter of the war (granted there where 1 or 2 other aircraft which were either too late or to few produced which could outperform the Mossie but we can safely ignore those because of those to reasonshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) but it could do any task it was ever given.

The Mossie could be used in almost every conceivable role, the 262 or FW190 could not. neither could level bomb, be a suitable transport, be a suitable radio relay, radar equipped night fighter, naval fighter/bomber, maritime patrol and anti shipping aircraft.

The Mossie could also carry more ordanance than the FW190 and 262 combined and for a longer range...even if you combine the range of the 190 and 262. It was also tried and tested, with very reliable and powerful, fuel efficient engines, it was made from materials that where easy to get hold of and it also used factory workers like piano makers and carpenters, utilising workers from industries that normally would not have been part of wartime production.

I would be hard pressed to belive a 190 or 262 could ever do the raids the Mossie did with its precision.

And one last thing...neither the 190 or 262 could carry a torpedo or a 6 pounder cannonhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I very much dount the 190 or especially the 262 would be much of a threat to a destroyer or submarine whereas the mossie was shippings worst nightmare. Neither carried radar. The mossie did.

OTher allied planes that are versitile include the P47 and P38, Beaufighter, Tempest, Typhoon, Corsair, Hellcat, A20, B25 etc all could carry out a variety of tasks and could carry a vast array of weapons. Each of them had there weaknesses in one way or another but each of them could be considered extremely versitile.

asgeirr73
07-28-2005, 05:14 AM
Here is one more for the De Havilland Mosquito

Inadaze
07-28-2005, 05:21 AM
Mossie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

HoldSteady641
07-28-2005, 05:34 AM
Mosquito for me..

Makes u wonder why it isn't in IL-2 yet doesn't it?

A well, want is better than have I guess..
(I stopped freaking out over it some time ago)

Must say, the messerschmidt BF 109 and spitfire are an option too, in another way. They were there at the start of the war (well, a bit later for the spit then, but practically at the beginning). Not that they could be used in so many ways (the spit even less than the 109, ever saw a spit bombing?), but the basic models lived throughout the war, undergoing numerous changes, the airframe staying the same. But that's another kind of contest I guess..

Kurfurst__
07-28-2005, 05:53 AM
Well I`d give three votes if that would be possible, for the Ju 88, Mossie and the FW 190, they were the most versatile airframes of the war. Mentining so many of the allied fighter bombers is really reaching imho..

But since I can only give one vote, it goes to the Ju 88. It performed a myriad of tasks and it did all very well. The Mosquito was more of a light bomber that was utilized for many task, but apart from fighter bomber, nightfigters and recon, it wasn`t exceptionally well suited for most of the others.

And these comments about figthers as passanger planes... oh, please let`s be serious.

Ankanor
07-28-2005, 06:00 AM
WEll, the mosquitto is a very versatile aircraft, but I have to choose P-61 BlackWidow

THE nightfighter, a gifted V1 interceptor, with a capable armamament of 4 Hispanos and 4 M2 Brownings, with a very good radar, quite maneuverable, ability to carry bombs and napalm containers, fast.

The Balck widow performed as a nightfighter, interceptor and night attack aircraft. It wasn't used as a pathfinder or scouting(AFAIK), but it would be a god one with slight modifications(cameras and stuff)

The Ju88 comes second IMHO - level and dive bomber, scout, anti ship plane and nightfighter.

There are pictures of the FW190 with a torpedo, mind you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

and BTW, the Finns used the Brewster as a light transport. do a google search http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

WOLFMondo
07-28-2005, 06:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HoldSteady641:
(the spit even less than the 109, ever saw a spit bombing?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, extensivly in there 1000's. 2nd taf vb's and ix's from 1942 till the end of the war.

you name it, you can be a spitfire dropped a bomb on it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
And these comments about figthers as passanger planes... oh, please let`s be serious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it all counts when talking about being versitile.

The190Flyer
07-28-2005, 06:33 AM
I vote for the 109, it started off in 1935, entered combat in the Spanish Civil war in '36, flew throughout WWII and saw postwar service, allbeit the airframes were changed and modified. But that thing was a workhorse. Did some Jabo roles too!

ImpStarDuece
07-28-2005, 06:48 AM
Voting update;

Mosquito: 18
Ju-88: 7
P-47: 3
F4U: 4 (although PlimPlam has voted for it 4 times, vote early vote often mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Me-262: 2
Fw190: 2
P-38: 1
D3A Val: 1
Me-109: 1
P-61: 1

BTW I don't think that the P-61 ever intercepted V1s. Mosquitos yes with Merlin 25s at +25lbs (another feather in its cap), but not P-61s. I don't think that the P-61 ever had the speed necessary to catch a V1 down low. Neither the P-61A nor the P-61B were quick enought to catch a 390-410 mph flying bomb. Both topped out around 370 mph at altitude and about 330 mph at sea level (from memory). The P-61C with the turbosupercharged and WEP enabled Pratt and Whittney R-2800s didn't see service untill July 1945 and didn't actually see combat and I still think it would of been very hard pressed to catch a V1.

OberUberWurst
07-28-2005, 07:40 AM
@WOLFMondo

FW190 could carry a torpedo

I vote FW190

p1ngu666
07-28-2005, 07:48 AM
mossies furried people and suplies in and out of sweden, alot of important people flew on a bed in the back of a mossie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

mossie nightfighters did a very good trade on the german nightfighters..

final p61 night fighters where better, but took them AGES to get there.

any task that required speed, agility, timing and acuracy the mossie was one of the best planes.

oh, gotta add night ground attack, vulching and film camera work http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Zyzbot
07-28-2005, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Voting update;

Mosquito: 18
Ju-88: 7
P-47: 3
F4U: 4 (although PlimPlam has voted for it 4 times, vote early vote often mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Me-262: 2
Fw190: 2
P-38: 1
D3A Val: 1
Me-109: 1
P-61: 1

BTW I don't think that the P-61 ever intercepted V1s. Mosquitos yes with Merlin 25s at +25lbs (another feather in its cap), but not P-61s. I don't think that the P-61 ever had the speed necessary to catch a V1 down low. Neither the P-61A nor the P-61B were quick enought to catch a 390-410 mph flying bomb. Both topped out around 370 mph at altitude and about 330 mph at sea level (from memory). The P-61C with the turbosupercharged and WEP enabled Pratt and Whittney R-2800s didn't see service untill July 1945 and didn't actually see combat and I still think it would of been very hard pressed to catch a V1. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The first Black Widow V-1 kill took place on July 16, 1944, credited to pilot Herman Ernst and radar operator Edward Kopsel of the 422nd Night Fighter Squadron. P-61 was given credit for shooting down 18 V-1's.

ImpStarDuece
07-28-2005, 08:12 AM
Interesting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thank you Zyzbot, its always nice to have preconcieved notions overturned. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

If I recall correctly there were two P-61 groups in the UK during 1944 the 422nd and the 445th (or maybe it was the 425th I can't remember)

Wonder how they did it though? I just did some googling and it seems that the P-61B (which European units were equipped with as the majority of As went to the Pacific) topped out at about 320-330 mph. They might of been vectored onto the target at altitude and then entered a dive to catch the target, but it would of taken some steel ones to do it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif .

Give me a +25 Mustang or a Typhoon or Tempest rather than one of those big birds. Much more sensible.

Zyzbot
07-28-2005, 08:20 AM
Probably did it the same way Mosquitos did it. I recall from the book Night Fighter that they would patrol at higher altitude and then roll in and dive on the V-1's as they passed through the patrol area. At night the V-1 engine flame could be seen for miles.

I've also read that some of the V-1's flew slower than designed. I recently read of an interception of a V-1 by a Meteor and the pilot report stated that the V-1 was flying at 340 mph at 3,000 feet.

murewa
07-28-2005, 08:35 AM
chalk up another vote for the mossie, what a bird, dang!

Beaufort-RAF
07-28-2005, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The first Black Widow V-1 kill took place on July 16, 1944, credited to pilot Herman Ernst and radar operator Edward Kopsel </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They sound more like a Luftwaffe crew. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Anyway deff the Mosquitoe.

An honourable mention for the Wellington as well:-

Day bomber
Night bomber
Torpedo bomber
Recon
Magnetic mine destroyer
Mine layer
Searchlight equipped anti-uboat
Transport

han freak solo
07-28-2005, 09:16 AM
Mosquito. But since it's not in the game, the P-38 will suffice for flyin' purposes.

(background music / Mosquito Song - Queens of the Stone Age)

Xiolablu3
07-28-2005, 09:27 AM
I vote Mossie

BUT feel a special mention must go to the JU88, it could do everything well and was there almost all the way thru the war.

Asking many veterans what the best all rounder was of the war, many say JU88 even on the allied side.

OD_79
07-28-2005, 09:29 AM
The Mosquito:
Long range bomber
Night fighter
Strike aircraft
Anti-shipping
Minelayer
High altitude interceptor
Photo-recon
Pathfinder
Transport
Trainer

I think that kind of puts a lot of aircraft to shame. It could carry the bobload of a B-17, except when it on the shortest of missions. It could evade fighters, and it took part in some of the most precise attacks of the war in high speed low level attacks. It is one of the truly great aircraft ever made.

OD.

dadada1
07-28-2005, 09:36 AM
Ju 88.

darkhorizon11
07-28-2005, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OD_79:
The Mosquito:
Long range bomber
Night fighter
Strike aircraft
Anti-shipping
Minelayer
High altitude interceptor
Photo-recon
Pathfinder
Transport
Trainer

I think that kind of puts a lot of aircraft to shame. It could carry the bobload of a B-17, except when it on the shortest of missions. It could evade fighters, and it took part in some of the most precise attacks of the war in high speed low level attacks. It is one of the truly great aircraft ever made.

OD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh the Mosquito. The Luftwaffe will truly feel my wrath if we ever get that plane flyable.

HoldSteady641
07-28-2005, 10:33 AM
Please yes, promise it will one day. Else my life has no meaning whatsoever.. *stumbles towards bridge edge*

FliegerAas
07-28-2005, 10:42 AM
Ju 88

second:mossie

FoolTrottel
07-28-2005, 10:50 AM
http://images.google.nl/images?q=tbn:cvAK_0NaERMJ:http://www.264sqnraf.org.uk/images/mosquito-002.jpg

telsono
07-28-2005, 11:10 AM
This is a hard one:

Mosquito is my first choice (did everything great);

Ju-88 comes second (a wide variety of duty, performance not up to the Mosquito) and

P-38 cames in third

(the Corsair comes close to the P-39 IMO but didn't have the ability to level bomb like the P-38 did with a bombsight)

telsono
07-28-2005, 11:11 AM
scratch P-39 reference, was meant to to P-38. Fat fingers! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Daiichidoku
07-28-2005, 12:27 PM
MOSSIE! hands down

Ju 88s good too..but D0-17 series were used in as many roles...maybe more

wayno7777
07-28-2005, 12:53 PM
Lightning....

wayno7777
07-28-2005, 12:54 PM
B-25's were good, too...

faustnik
07-28-2005, 01:00 PM
Ha! More P-38 votes, the tide is turning. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

P-38 roles:
-Interceptor
-Escort
-Ground Attack
-Bomber
-Recon
-Pathfinder
-Night Fighter

Daiichidoku
07-28-2005, 01:10 PM
mossie

day fighter
night fighter
anti shipping strike fighter
day/night fighter/bomber
armed recce
recce
day bomber
night bomber
experimental weapons platform
cargo/passenger transport

all roles considered in "long range" class
all variants complete with specialized eq for task

plus post war

training
meteorlogical
racing
round the world speed attempt at least once!
target tug
survey/mapping

have i missed anything?


WHAT other type from WWII can possibly have a resume of wartime use of at least 10 distinct roles possible?

and with such performance, and soooo sexy

everyplane ever made or will ever be made should be a mosquito, if we could only make one kind

skabbe
07-28-2005, 01:17 PM
buffalo mk1

Huckebein_UK
07-28-2005, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
mossie

day fighter
night fighter
anti shipping strike fighter
day/night fighter/bomber
armed recce
recce
day bomber
night bomber
experimental weapons platform
cargo/passenger transport

all roles considered in "long range" class
all variants complete with specialized eq for task

plus post war

training
meteorlogical
racing
round the world speed attempt at least once!
target tug
survey/mapping

have i missed anything? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Escorted RAF heavies at night over Europe.
Pathfinder.
Intruder (shadowing German night-fighter bases and causing havoc with transport lines after dark).
Would have been a carrier-based anti-shipping bomber had the High-ball armed versions made it to the Pacific before the Japanese surrendered.

Have we missed any? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oh, my vote goes to the de Havilland dH.98 Mosquito btw. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Joilet_Xray
07-28-2005, 03:29 PM
P-47, all models http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Banger2004
07-28-2005, 03:40 PM
Mosquito for me.

ImpStarDuece
07-28-2005, 03:52 PM
Voting update;

Mosquito: 28
Ju-88: 9
P-47: 5
F4U: 4
Me-262: 2
Fw190: 3
P-38: 5
D3A Val: 1
Me-109: 1
P-61: 1
Buffalo: 1

Paul_K
07-28-2005, 03:59 PM
Mosquito, without a doubt. The first multi-role combat aircraft.

Billy_BigBoy
07-28-2005, 04:01 PM
DC-3 or C-47 in that manner

Aaron_GT
07-28-2005, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Would have been a carrier-based anti-shipping bomber had the High-ball armed versions made it to the Pacific before the Japanese surrendered </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or the TR33 versions with torpedos.

(I vote Mosquito, btw)

Aaron_GT
07-28-2005, 04:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">have i missed anything? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very high altitude interceptor.

Secudus2004
07-28-2005, 05:03 PM
Time Out! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Well, the votes are in and counted, and the one clear winner is€¦ The De Havilland Mosquito. could there be any other.

Many thanks to all those who participated and a special thanks to ImpStarDuece for his voting updates€¦

Thank you Gentlemen

Best Regards

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gifSecudus/ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gifMrBlueSky

HellToupee
07-28-2005, 07:47 PM
mossie

Cajun76
07-28-2005, 07:58 PM
I think the title/concept is a bit wrong. The Mossie and Ju88 were certainly adaptable, but only one variant or Mk. should be used as a standard for versatility imo.

Apapt:
To make suitable to or fit for a specific use or situation

Ju 88 adapted to nightfighter would be an example.

Versatile:
1. Capable of doing many things competently.
2. Having varied uses or serving many functions

One particular aircraft that each day of the week can fullfill a differant task.


Perhaps there should be another vote? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ClnlSandersLite
07-28-2005, 11:38 PM
I think the result is correct, however there where many who just joted for their fav aircraft. 190? Please...

Fehler
07-29-2005, 12:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
Perhaps there should be another vote? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, this aint no presidential race... You got to punch the right chad! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AerialTarget
07-29-2005, 02:43 AM
The Mosquito was the most versatile aircraft of the war? That's very strange; I don't seem to remember it doing very much bomber escort and combat air patrols.

For your information, the P-38 Lighnting was a fighter, interceptor, escort, bomber, attack aircraft, ambulance, personel transport, night fighter, and reconnaissance plane. It was massively sucessful in most of these roles (noteable exception being the personel transport - people who flew that way tended to dislike it, to say the least), including fighter, where it proved to be the aircraft in which America's leading aces obtained their kills. You could replace the designation with nearly any and it would still be accurate. P-38, A-38, B-38, C-38, F-38, whatever!

Can you say all this about the Mosquito? I think not.

Atomic_Marten
07-29-2005, 02:46 AM
P-38.

MrBlueSky1960
07-29-2005, 03:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
The Mosquito was the most versatile aircraft of the war? That's very strange; I don't seem to remember it doing very much bomber escort and combat air patrols.

For your information, the P-38 Lighnting was a fighter, interceptor, escort, bomber, attack aircraft, ambulance, personel transport, night fighter, and reconnaissance plane. It was massively sucessful in most of these roles (noteable exception being the personel transport - people who flew that way tended to dislike it, to say the least), including fighter, where it proved to be the aircraft in which America's leading aces obtained their kills. You could replace the designation with nearly any and it would still be accurate. P-38, A-38, B-38, C-38, F-38, whatever!

Can you say all this about the Mosquito? I think not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AerialTarget...What nationality are you?

Kernow
07-29-2005, 04:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrBlueSky1960:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
The Mosquito was the most versatile aircraft of the war? That's very strange; I don't seem to remember it doing very much bomber escort and combat air patrols.

For your information, the P-38 Lighnting was a fighter, interceptor, escort, bomber, attack aircraft, ambulance, personel transport, night fighter, and reconnaissance plane. It was massively sucessful in most of these roles (noteable exception being the personel transport - people who flew that way tended to dislike it, to say the least), including fighter, where it proved to be the aircraft in which America's leading aces obtained their kills. You could replace the designation with nearly any and it would still be accurate. P-38, A-38, B-38, C-38, F-38, whatever!

Can you say all this about the Mosquito? I think not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AerialTarget...What nationality are you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Like you needed to ask.

AT, no ac could do everything; you won't get anywhere if you discount ac because they didn't perform some specific task. Anyway Mosquito did both CAP and bomber escort (or more like counter-nightfighter support) once it got dark.

AFAIK, the P-38 didn't destroy ANY Gestapo HQs, break anyone out of prison, interrupt a speech by Goering or drop 4000 lb bombs on Berlin. P-38s weren't really pathfinders either although Droop Snoot was a similar idea. Mosquitos didn't make their crews hypothermic at 25 000 ft in a European winter either.

Aaron_GT
07-29-2005, 04:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mosquitos didn't make their crews hypothermic at 25 000 ft in a European winter either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the first batch of B.XVIs did as the planes were delivered but there was a hold up on the delivery of the heaters. In the event the planes were not used until the heaters arrived and were fitted which held up operational use of the B.XVI for almost 3 months.

Aaron_GT
07-29-2005, 04:41 AM
The Mosquito did a few CAPs. Given that CAP over the UK could be handled by Spitfires, it wasn't really required for the Mosquito to do this. It was proposed for a long range CAP for convoys to be developed, but in the end it was not done.

The USA also used Mosquitos, as PR, pathfinders (typically equipped with H2S, Oboe, etc), meterological, and personal transport. Hap Arnold was quite keen on the USA starting production (and North American production made sense, since all the woods came from North or Central America) but de Havilland was too stretched creating production lines in Canada and Australia.

WOLFMondo
07-29-2005, 04:57 AM
I know I cannot vote twice but I think where forgetting the early wars most versitle plane...the Bristol Beaufighter. That really did do everything apart from carrier based operations.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
The Mosquito was the most versatile aircraft of the war? That's very strange; I don't seem to remember it doing very much bomber escort and combat air patrols.

For your information, the P-38 Lighnting was a fighter, interceptor, escort, bomber, attack aircraft, ambulance, personel transport, night fighter, and reconnaissance plane. It was massively sucessful in most of these roles (noteable exception being the personel transport - people who flew that way tended to dislike it, to say the least), including fighter, where it proved to be the aircraft in which America's leading aces obtained their kills. You could replace the designation with nearly any and it would still be accurate. P-38, A-38, B-38, C-38, F-38, whatever!

Can you say all this about the Mosquito? I think not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I think you can. And morehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

CAP and bomber escort where not the be all and end all aerial warfare in WWII either.

Daiichidoku
07-29-2005, 07:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
The Mosquito was the most versatile aircraft of the war? That's very strange; I don't seem to remember it doing very much bomber escort and combat air patrols.

For your information, the P-38 Lighnting was a fighter, interceptor, escort, bomber, attack aircraft, ambulance, personel transport, night fighter, and reconnaissance plane. It was massively sucessful in most of these roles (noteable exception being the personel transport - people who flew that way tended to dislike it, to say the least), including fighter, where it proved to be the aircraft in which America's leading aces obtained their kills. You could replace the designation with nearly any and it would still be accurate. P-38, A-38, B-38, C-38, F-38, whatever!

Can you say all this about the Mosquito? I think not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


not to get too nit-pickity, but "day fighter" and "night fighter" about covers all fighter roles, plz omit "interceptor" and "escort" as a role unto themselves ANY type can "intercept" and "escort", to one degree or another! hehe

same for "ambulance" and "personel transport"...one and the same, really

(i should add, though, that the 38 WAS fitted with 2 (!) torpedoes, and could have done maritime strike as well...dunno if the weapons were actually tested in flight tho)

and as MONDO says, yes, one can say all this about the mossie, plus more still

if they made the mossie of metal, there would be a LOT of them still around today, ala mustang....and a lot less p 38s!

post war, many 38s were used for roles operators preferred a mossie for, due to its greater utility (ie payload), but only because most mossies by then had been badly treated post war, and rotted away

JG5_UnKle
07-29-2005, 07:43 AM
Mossie gets my vote

Top class!

skabbe
07-29-2005, 07:49 AM
hihi the buffalo was added http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif


I say mossie aswell, it could cary just as much as the B17. Unless you overloaded the B17, but that doesnt count.

p1ngu666
07-29-2005, 07:51 AM
i think the mossie was better than the p38 in alot of the roles uve listed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

FI-Aflak
07-29-2005, 11:00 AM
P-47. Great fighter, insane range, great ground-pounder, good bomber destroyer . . .

lets look at all the purposes of aircraft in WWII:
Fighter - jug does it
Bomber - jug does it as well as any single engine plane
close air support - jug wins here
bomber destroyer - nothing like 8 machine guns . .
recon - the really fast N and M models
V1 hunter - same N model.



The only thing it didn't do well was carry cargo.

NS38th_Aristaus
07-29-2005, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kernow:

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Like you needed to ask.

AT, no ac could do everything; you won't get anywhere if you discount ac because they didn't perform some specific task. Anyway Mosquito did both CAP and bomber escort (or more like counter-nightfighter support) once it got dark.

AFAIK, the P-38 didn't destroy ANY Gestapo HQs, break anyone out of prison, interrupt a speech by Goering or drop 4000 lb bombs on Berlin. P-38s weren't really pathfinders either although Droop Snoot was a similar idea. Mosquitos didn't make their crews hypothermic at 25 000 ft in a European winter either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-38 was first and for most a dog fighter, rather it was in the escort, interceptor, or just plain looking for trouble role.
Second it was a dive-bomber, a very effective night fighter, photorecon, and a bombing formation leader.
The Droop Snoots were 38's thet were modified with a norden bomb sight and were first used with the 20th, and 55th fighter groups. The idea was that a tight formation of 38's with a Droop Snoot in the lead would conduct bombing raids. This was so successful that their num increasd. As a result of being unarmed the Germans began targeting them so the USAAF used decoys which were armed 38's with a white band around the nose with polished metel in front of the band which made them look like Droop Snoots fm a distance.

Another role was that of Pathfinders. They were given Dielectric nose cones with AN/APS-15 radar used both for bombing and Navigation.
Pathfinders were also used as weather recon and at least one Pathfinder squadron was dedicated to each numbered air force and was equipped with 38's for advance info on en route and target weather.
There were days in northern and southern europe when the only allied aircraft in the sky were weather scouts.
The above info was obtained fm the Flight Journal Special Issue P-38 LIGHTNING. summer 2003

p1ngu666
07-29-2005, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Aflak:
P-47. Great fighter, insane range, great ground-pounder, good bomber destroyer . . .

lets look at all the purposes of aircraft in WWII:
Fighter - jug does it
Bomber - jug does it as well as any single engine plane
close air support - jug wins here
bomber destroyer - nothing like 8 machine guns . .
recon - the really fast N and M models
V1 hunter - same N model.



The only thing it didn't do well was carry cargo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

medicure rate of climb, and no cannons impeed, and i dont think the p47 did photo recon, cos u need space for the cameras...

p38 was a long range interceptor btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MrBlueSky1960
07-29-2005, 12:26 PM
Something so beautiful... So fast... So versatile... And made of wood... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ask anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of WWII Aircraft to name a Mosquito mission and they will say Amiens Prison Raid, or the attack of the Gestapo Buildings at the Aarhus University, or the Berlin Raid...
Ask the same about any of the other A/C mentioned and you will get a vacant look... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Still, heres some nice pic's of the Wooden Wonder... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/MossieDispatch.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/MossieBigGun.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/MossieBigBomb.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/Mossie01.jpg

Cajun76
07-29-2005, 12:33 PM
No one wants to take up the challenge, eh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Zyzbot
07-29-2005, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:



medicure rate of climb, and no cannons impeed, and i dont think the p47 did photo recon, cos u need space for the cameras...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently at least a few P-47N were used as photo recon.

P-47N photo recon info:

http://www.yellowairplane.com/34th/34th_PG22.html



My vote for most versatile is a tie between the Mosquito and the Ju-88.

Low_Flyer_MkII
07-29-2005, 04:54 PM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/mosquito-1.jpg

Tonights trivia question - How many variants of the Mossie were there?

Clue: More than the Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cajun76
07-29-2005, 05:20 PM
Ok. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The Mosquito Mk. FB.VI was a versatile aircraft.

Fighter-Bomber and Intruder (Day and Night). Armament consists of four 20mm Hispano cannon under cockpit with 300 rounds per gun and four .303 in. Brownings mounted in nose with 2000 rounds per gun. Also carried two 250 lb. (113 kg.) bombs in rear bay and two more on wings (eventually increased to 500 lb.). Alternatively, 50 or 100 gal. drop tanks, mines, depth charges or eight 60 lb. rockets could be fitted to wing stations. Some aircraft were fitted with AI radar. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

^That's certainly a versatile aircraft. Able to bomb, mine or rocket. Can be used as a heavy figher and nightfighter among others.

Now look at the Mosquito B.IV:
Unarmed bomber version. Internal bomb bay carrying four 500 lb. (227 kg.) bombs. Some aircraft later fitted with bulged bomb bays for 4,000 lb. (1814 kg.) bomb.

This aircraft is not versatile. It's adapted to a specific role, bombing.

Imo, we should be comparing one single example of an aircraft to another, not these specialized, one job crates. The Mosssie FB.VI is easily one of the most versatile aircraft. The droopsnout P-38 is not. It has one job. It's a good adaptation, but it's not versatile. Unnastan? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Aaron_GT
07-29-2005, 05:37 PM
I think the point of the poll was to look at a type of plane, not a specific model of a plane, Cajun. You are being even more pedantic than I can be!

Secudus2004
07-29-2005, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
Ok. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The Mosquito Mk. FB.VI was a versatile aircraft.

Fighter-Bomber and Intruder (Day and Night). Armament consists of four 20mm Hispano cannon under cockpit with 300 rounds per gun and four .303 in. Brownings mounted in nose with 2000 rounds per gun. Also carried two 250 lb. (113 kg.) bombs in rear bay and two more on wings (eventually increased to 500 lb.). Alternatively, 50 or 100 gal. drop tanks, mines, depth charges or eight 60 lb. rockets could be fitted to wing stations. Some aircraft were fitted with AI radar. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

^That's certainly a versatile aircraft. Able to bomb, mine or rocket. Can be used as a heavy figher and nightfighter among others.

Now look at the Mosquito B.IV:
Unarmed bomber version. Internal bomb bay carrying four 500 lb. (227 kg.) bombs. Some aircraft later fitted with bulged bomb bays for 4,000 lb. (1814 kg.) bomb.

This aircraft is not versatile. It's adapted to a specific role, bombing.

Imo, we should be comparing one single example of an aircraft to another, not these specialized, one job crates. The Mosssie FB.VI is easily one of the most versatile aircraft. The droopsnout P-38 is not. It has one job. It's a good adaptation, but it's not versatile. Unnastan? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, I see and understand your thoughts there...

But put another way, by using the basic model and adding certain specialised fittings (Though not actually changing the A/C's basic shape) You get many different uses for the one basic airframe... In fact a flexable, yet specialise, Versatile aircraft, capable of being used in a mutitude of senario's... The Mosquito http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LowFlyer, Hi buddy

No I don't know how many varients there were, cause I left my book at work http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Oh, Greenie say's do you like our photo?

P.S. Greenie sends Hugs... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
07-29-2005, 05:51 PM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/mossie111.jpg

As usual, Secudus has a valid point.

Hi mate, haven't got the answer to hand myself at the moment! I know it's a large number, but was relying on someone of your calibre to enlighten us. Guess I'll have to dust off a weighty tome from my bookshelf when I'm not quite so... er...under the influence. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

And yes, I like your photo!

Secudus2004
07-29-2005, 06:06 PM
"when I'm not quite so... er...under the influence." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

And yes, I like your photo!

What! Does that mean you€re a Spiritualist? €¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gifOr,http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif you€re a Medium€¦. Wow! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Now I am impressed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
07-29-2005, 06:13 PM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/rowley_1024.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

PBNA-Boosher
07-29-2005, 07:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:

The P-38 was .... a dive-bomber </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Anyone who calls the 38 a dive bomber needs to do a bit of reading.

LStarosta
07-29-2005, 08:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:

The P-38 was .... a dive-bomber </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Anyone who calls the 38 a dive bomber needs to do a bit of reading. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:

The P40 was the best fighter of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyone who calls the 40 the best fighter of the war needs to do a bit of reading.

Cajun76
07-29-2005, 08:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I think the point of the poll was to look at a type of plane, not a specific model of a plane, Cajun. You are being even more pedantic than I can be! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm just going by the language of the title of the thread. If he said "adaptable", then certainly that applies to the many variants of the Mossie, and the thread would in fact basically cater to that excellent a/c and Mossie fans. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

But when a person say "versatile" that means the same exact aircraft can one day escort long range, the next attack a supply column, the next some high alt intercept, and the day after anti-shipping work, etc. That's a multirole, force mulitpling a/c.

Car advertisments do the same thing.
Car X is best in class because:

It has a bigger trunk than A (A is smallest in class)
It has a more powerful engine than B (B has the weakest engine in class)
It is safer than C (C is worst in class, followed closely by X)


If I have limited resources and need to perform a variety of tasks in force, I would not want to be shackled in my mission choices because only some of the a/c can fly high, others can't carry bombs, some can't take ground fire very well, some are useless A2A, etc.

Given a choice between 10 specialized planes, adapted to various purposes from one airframe, and 10 a/c models of the same type that can perform the same variety of tasks well, I'll take the 10 multirole a/c, any day as a wing commander.

Anywho, I don't really expect to change your minds, I'll enjoy the pics nonetheless. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cajun76
07-29-2005, 08:32 PM
Oh, and btw, I believe it's 27 variants, adapted from 3 basic types: fighter, bomber, recon.

RNZAFJay
07-29-2005, 09:35 PM
My vote for the Mossie still stands

2nd goes to the JU-88

For you American posters, in my opinion the P-38 was the most versitle American aircraft of World War 2, and could do many things the Mossies could do, but not all. Looked **** sexy though, I love 38's. And I can actually fly it in FB (where's our Mosssie!).

AerialTarget
07-29-2005, 10:07 PM
The Mosquito was not an effective day fighter.

Atomic_Marten
07-29-2005, 10:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/rowley_1024.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know this guy from somewhere..
http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/smileys/wink.gif

Cajun76
07-29-2005, 10:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
The Mosquito was not an effective day fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even I have to say http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

p1ngu666
07-29-2005, 11:13 PM
maybe he hasnt read anything at *all* about the mossie?

NS38th_Aristaus
07-30-2005, 12:49 AM
More great info on the P-38 and we can add crew and cargo transport to the list of 38 duties.

QUOTE- Standard Lightnings were even used as crew and cargo transports in the South Pacific. They were fitted with pods attached to the underwing pylons, replacing drop tanks or bombs, that could carry a single passenger in a lying-down position or cargo.
This was very uncomfortable way to fly. Some of the pods weren't even fitted with a window to let the victim see out or bring in light. One fellow who hitched a lift on a P-38 in one of these pods later said that whoever designed the **** thing should have been forced to ride in it. end of Quote

This info and much more here.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avp38.html

Kernow
07-30-2005, 02:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
The Mosquito was not an effective day fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nor was the Ju-88, but it still beats the P-38 for versatility http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The question wasn't 'which was the most versatile day-fighter?' Had it been then the P-38 would probably win.

Whilst the radar equipped Droop Snoots could 'bomb through overcast' and act as lead bombers, they couldn't really pathfind as in mark a target more accurately than the main force could. Main force crews could use radar to find the right city; with Oboe Mosquitos could get within a couple hundred yards of the aiming point.

NS38th_Aristaus
07-30-2005, 03:19 AM
[/QUOTE]
Whilst the radar equipped Droop Snoots could 'bomb through overcast' and act as lead bombers, they couldn't really pathfind as in mark a target more accurately than the main force could. Main force crews could use radar to find the right city; with Oboe Mosquitos could get within a couple hundred yards of the aiming point.[/QUOTE]

Droop Snoots were not equiped with radar but a Norden bomb site. They did not lead formations of bombers but rather a tight formation of P-38's which would drop their bomb loads off of the lead Droop Snoots. The reason for this is that the P-38 was about 100MPH faster then the B-17 and 24 and used there speed as defence.

Pathfinders were equipped with AN/APS-15 radar and were used for nav and dropping bombs from on top of overcast. They were used to mark targets, as well as give weather reports for inroute and target weather.
Four J-model droop snoots were produced for electronic intelligence missions and they promarily monitored german radar freq. They were flown under operational control of the RAF'S num 100 (Countermeasures) group.

OD_79
07-30-2005, 03:32 AM
What some people seem to be missing the point on is that the Mosquito used the same basic airframe throughout, and saying adaptable instead of versatile??? Same thing!!! The P-38 was good, no one is questioning that, the point is what was the most versatile, and it is not the P-38. A JU-88 was more versatile than a P-38, and the Mosquito was even more so, so therefore the Mosquito is the most versatile aircraft. It's a very simple concept! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
A Spitfire could almost as much as a P-38, short of carrying passengers (according to a previous post the P-38 has a pod) or torpedoes, which I'm not sure the P-38 ever did, it did it. Escort, Dive bombing, anti tank, anti shipping, Photo Recon, Interceptor, Night figher (ok not the best one but it did it). Oh and saying the P-47 was the best ground attack aircraft...you seem to have forgotten about the Typhoon...Falaise says it all. Again the P-47 was **** good. It seems nationality has impeded the debate too much. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

OD.

NS38th_Aristaus
07-30-2005, 03:47 AM
So because the basic P-38 had to be modified to accomplish these diff jobs it is not versitile but adaptible. That also knocks out the ju-88 as a versitile A/C since the basic plane was modified to be able to fullfil its role as a nightfighter. So no point brining up the JU-88 anymore.
This adaptable/versitile argument does not hold water they used the same aircraft with modifications to the nose section thats it.

Aaron_GT
07-30-2005, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">used the same aircraft with modifications to the nose section thats it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Much the same with the Mosquito - different nose sections, different fittings in the bomb bay, different engines. That pretty much covers all the Mosquito variants. If you look at the early history with the first PR, B, and F versions being mixed in chops and changes in the same initial order batch it shows how changes were made. The most significant differences are between F/NF/FB and B/PR versions due to the requirement for the crew entry to be changed for the F versions as the cannon obscure what was the typical B/PR mode of entry. In some of the developments of prototypes for various versions, though, they would sometimes saw the nose off a crashed plane, put in the new fittings, and then glue (literally) it on the front of a more recent airframe to experiment with.

The USAAF made fairly large use of the Mosquito pathfinders. I wouldn't be surprised if they used many more Mosquito pathfinders than P38 pathfinders.

Cajun76
07-30-2005, 05:06 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I'm not lobbying for the P-38. But the definition is what I'm talking about. And it sounded to me like a person has one aircraft they can jump in, and take the war to the enemy. That's it, that's all you get is one. You can put diffent stores on it, but it's gotta be ready to go in the morning. To me, that's the definition of veratility in this context, because one minute you have a fighter, and same exact one is also a bomber, or a long range escort, from that one plane, sitting on the flightline.

Apapt:
To make suitable to or fit for a specific use or situation

Ju 88 adapted to nightfighter would be an example. High alt interceptor version (NF.XV) of Mossie for Ju-86P incursions is another.

Versatile:
1. Capable of doing many things competently.
2. Having varied uses or serving many functions.

Mossie FB.VI and Mk.33 Sea Mosquito fit this, as does the P-47N and P-38. If I revoted, it would still be the P-47N edging out over the FB.VI for it's ability to defend itself better instead of running away, although it certainly has that option at 465+mph.

Cajun76
07-30-2005, 05:13 AM
Here (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/BARC/mosquito.html) is a good site for managing Mosquito Mks.

ClnlSandersLite
07-30-2005, 05:17 AM
I think you're overreading the question. It was just made to bring up conversation, I'm sure. I have doubt's that he consulted his lawyer on exact wording.

MrBlueSky1960
07-30-2005, 05:25 AM
Cajun... I can agree with you on the word "Versatile" But the majority of people, wether they understand the use of the word rightly or wrongly have got the gist of what I was asking...

Look at this: Versatile
(used of persons) having many skills
having great diversity or variety; "his various achievements are impressive"; "his vast and versatile erudition"
changeable or inconstant; "versatile moods"
competent in many areas and able to turn with ease from one thing to another; "a versatile writer"
able to move freely in all directions; "an owl's versatile toe can move backward and forward"; "an insect's versatile antennae can move up and down or laterally"; "a versatile anther of a flower moves freely in the wind"

Even the definition can be brought into question if so inclined...

Are you are looking to become known as a bad loser? I certainly hope not, as you appear to be an intelligent individual. Loser and intelligent don't make a nice combination,which ever way you look at it!

Cajun76
07-30-2005, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrBlueSky1960:
Cajun... an intelligent individual. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I really can fool some of the people, some of the time.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Actually, I had already accepted the consensus, as the Mossie clearly wins in the broad definition, but various comments prompted me to add more change to my 0.02. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I do find it a bit amusing though that the definition you gave were all singular examples: "his" "writer" "toe" "antennae(pair of)" "anther"
but at least you seem to know where I'm coming from, rather than dismissing it. Thank you.

One thing that bears touching on, someone mentioned the Typhoon and the Falaise pocket. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

If you've read anything about it, a bunch of Cr.42's dropping hand grenades could have wiped out large numbers of Germans, packed in like they were. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif The RAF had the ball on that one, they were in the right place at the right time, with a good ground-pounder. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif I'm not going to debate the merits of the Typhoon vs. the Jug, I just find it a bit simplistic for anyone (seen it more than a few times on these boards) to point out Falaise as vindication of the Typhoons abilities, when it ought to be able to stand without using that unique situation for a crutch, which I believe it does. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

p1ngu666
07-30-2005, 08:06 AM
there was TONS of AA fire in that area.

also a few of the typhoons downed, the pilots returned later...
one guy spent something like 4 days trapped under one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

also there seriously imtimidating aircraft.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Atomic_Marten
07-30-2005, 09:21 AM
Once Mosquito gets in FB I just wonder how many people would actually take it as their favourite..

I predict that the Mossie will end up just like Beaufighter or Bf-110.

Fact is while, yeah, we can bomb good with Mossie, it won't be so fun when we discover half of LW army on our 6 *and* closing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I think that the Mossie will be far less effective in our sim than it was in RL.

p1ngu666
07-30-2005, 09:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Once Mosquito gets in FB I just wonder how many people would actually take it as their favourite..

I predict that the Mossie will end up just like Beaufighter or Bf-110.

Fact is while, yeah, we can bomb good with Mossie, it wouldn't be so fun when we discover half of LW army on our 6 *and* closing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I think that the Mossie would be far less effective in our sim than it was in RL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//mossiegraph.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

stathem
07-30-2005, 10:04 AM
****, I've been away and missed this poll, but, still, I reckon you could tell which way I'd have voted.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Once Mosquito gets in FB I just wonder how many people would actually take it as their favourite..

I predict that the Mossie will end up just like Beaufighter or Bf-110.

Fact is while, yeah, we can bomb good with Mossie, it wouldn't be so fun when we discover half of LW army on our 6 *and* closing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I think that the Mossie would be far less effective in our sim than it was in RL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aint' that the truth... especially since we'll get a '43 version and not some wildly overboosted 150 octane supping paddle bladed '45 monster. And most of it's sorties will be in Doraland.

Daiichidoku
07-30-2005, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
I think that the Mossie would be far less effective in our sim than it was in RL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


thats believable...it works the other way round, too....the FB spitfire is much mor eeffective than RL, no range or endurance worries in a DF server!

Asgeir_Strips
07-31-2005, 08:03 AM
Either the P47D25 and upwards, or the F4U4