Ok, while building my latest project, it got me to thinking about all of the different aircraft I have built…
Some people are purelly WWII, or purely jet… But I was wondering about different aircraft over the years, and what they were designed for, and their actual role was…
For example: The F-111 was built and designed as a long range Bomber to drop the big one. So what would have been the aircraft that had this role back in WWII, Korea, or Vietnam… Or the P-51 Mustang was an interceptor and fighter. What would be its modern day version, and why?.. What role does the F-16 play, and what can it be compared to back in WWII or Korea, Vietnam…
Basically I would like to compare WWII, Korea, and Vietnam aircraft and compare their design and role with their modern Jet version cousins… So if you have a few that you could ad, then I would love to hear it! And ad pics for those who might not know what aircraft you are talking about…
One of the more obvious WWII to post war comparisons would be that of the DeHavilland Mosquito to the English Electric Canberra. Both extremely versatile and dependable aircraft and capable of far more than their initial design specs ever envisioned for them. As it is, I can’t see anything in the post Canberra time frame than exhibits such mission flexibility. Probably why the Canberra stuck around so long.
You might also make a comparison between the DC-3 Dakota and the C-130 Hercules. By far, the most recognizable and common transports of their respective eras, both very long lived designs and very adaptable to a wide variety of operating conditions and climates.
I think we might also be able to draw a comparison between the Hawker Typhoon and the Sepecat Jaguar as ground strikers, they both played supplementary roles to harder hitting aircraft and were usually used to hit smaller ground targets that the heavier aircraft might not have the speed or smaller size to evade ground fire so effectively.
Another comparison could be made between the Illyushin Il-2 Sturmovik and the SU-25 Frogfoot as combat troop support and mudmovers.
The Petlyakov 2 might have the Sukhoi SU-24 Fencer as its heir apparent. Both were designed as high speed bombers, but also found the flexibility for maritime strike and reccon roles.
Unfortunately, straight fighters are not so easy to compare as mud movers and transports. The philosophies of fighter and interceptor design have changed a great deal over the decades since WWII and its safe to say that a pure fighter is a very rare these days and the pure interceptor is nearly extinct.
The biggest obstacle in comparing WWII fighters to more modern ones was the emergence of the MRCA or Multi Role Combat Aircraft concept that was spawned in the late 60s and early 70s and quickly became the rule for designing modern combat types. As far more is expected in the way of mission flexibility from today’s “fighter” designated aircraft than was from the fighters of WWII, I don’t see that we have many lines of clear comparison between them.
The role for which the P-51 was designed no longer exists-long range escort. Now the bombers(B-52,B-1,B-2) are expected to get themselves into/out of their own trouble.
The Spitfire was a short range interceptor, and the Bf-109 was a close support fighter, meant to clear the skies ahead of the ground forces.
All the fighters now do more than just that, as you pointed out. I find it hard to make a direct comparison. I will be watching this one to see what everybody comes up with.
A lot of the most successful designs were designed for one thing, and evolved into doing multiple tasks. But some aircraft were designed from the start to do multiple tasks and were thus hampered from doing any well. The F-111 was originally going to be a multi-task craft, with a version for the Navy. I believe it was referred to as “mcNamara’s folly.” It seems like if they try and design it to do many things, it winds up not doing anything very well, but if its a good design to start with, it can be adapted. Was the P-47 designed with close air support in mind? I don’t think so.
The P-39 Airacobra is an excellent example of that. It was built to fill a requirement for a high altitude fighter in the USAAF inventory, but its high altitude performance left a lot to be desired and it ended up not being liked at all by its intended user.
However, its low altitude performance was great and the Soviets loved the thing. It was the perfect thing to accompany Sturmoviks into battle with as a supplement and target softener.
I would say the P-51’s most direct descendent would be the F-15; they were both the “best” fighters in the world at the time, and both had an excellent combat record (although the F-15’s record will probably never be matched: 100+ kills in combat for no losses).
how about the A-10 to the Stuka? Large wings for low altitude slow flying; armed with heavy canons and bombs; designed for the same purpose: Ground Assault and Tank Killers.
Well, The A-5A Vigilante was designed as a nuclear weapons platform to replace the A3D Skywarrior but, the Linear bomb bay concept didn’t perform as well as expected and the project was cancelled but, some of the Navy brass liked the lines of the sleek Vigilante & decided to make changes & it found it’s place in the Recce business after having a few additions made to the airframe and became the RA-5C Vigilante. The A3D went on to serve many eyeas in service as a Tanker, Electronics Warfare and, I believe Raytheon still uses one to this day…
Actually, I see more of a line between the A-10 and the B-25 Mitchell, particularly the solid nose gunned up ones. That combination of ballistic firepower and iron hauling ability didn’t really happen in the Stuka so much. The Stuka is one of those aircraft that I don’t think really has a modern counterpart.
The way I see it, you could drawa line from the gunned up Mitchells to the A-10 using an aircraft like the A-26 Invader as an in between step.
There has been a tremendous change in aircraft design philosophy from WW-I to WW-II to the first jets to modern planes. The early bombers were huge contraptions that could barely stagger into the air with their own weight, let alone much weaponry. The WW-II B-17, B-24, B-29 and B-36 emerged as succesively larger planes able to carry more bombs over longer distances. The B-47 and B-52 were a continuation of that course of thought. The F-4 Phantom “fighter” could carry more bombs than a B-17, but still be a pretty darn good air to air machine. The F-105 was designed as a high altitude bomber carrying one nuke, but found its fame as a low altitude, iron bomb hauler in Viet Nam. Modern jet fighters carry about 2 or 4 guided bombs and one of them can bomb more accurately and do more damge than a whole squadron of F-4s or F-105s. Comparisons can be made from seveal different directions.