# Most ignored combat aircraft of ww2



## michael rauls (Jul 13, 2018)

I would like everyones opinion on the most ignored combat aircraft of ww2. This goes beyond aircraft that don't get there due to aircraft that get pretty much ignored completely inspite of a major contribution to the effort at least in what I would call the popular press. My nomination would be the SBD Dauntless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 13, 2018)

I've got a soft spot for the oft ignored Ba.65.







A more important aircraft I never think about is the Hudson and Ventura.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 13, 2018)

Youve realy got a point about rhe hudson. Cant remeber the last time I read anything about it outside of a few of the books i own.


----------



## Greyman (Jul 13, 2018)

I also love that Breguet 693.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 13, 2018)

I'm kind of embarrassed to admit it but I didn't even know that plane existed. Guess I've got some reading to do. Was it a fairly major player?


----------



## Greyman (Jul 13, 2018)

Like most French combat aircraft it had a brief window of very intense action.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 13, 2018)

There's quite a few, really.

Here's a few of them:
The Romanian IAR 80 and IAR 81
The Dewoitoine D.520 (aside from France, it served with Bulgaria, Germany and Italy)
The CAC Boomerang
The Heinkel He112 (aside from Germany, it served with Hungary, Japan and Romania)
The Reggiane Re.2001

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 13, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> There's quite a few, really.
> 
> Here's a few of them:
> The Romanian IAR 80 and IAR 81
> ...


 The He 112 served with Japan? Now theres a story im dying to know.


----------



## Tony Hill (Jul 14, 2018)

The obscure Supermarine Spitfire doesn't get nearly the amount of attention it deserves    (ducking for cover)

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)




----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 14, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> The He 112 served with Japan? Now theres a story im dying to know.


Yes, it was used in operations against the Russians for a short time.

The Japanese purchased several Heinkel types before WWII got underway and they even had a Heinkel Factory Engineer in Japan as an advisor.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 14, 2018)

I should have also included the Fokker G.I in my list, as the few that were able to get up during the invasion of Holland, gave the Germans hell.

The few that remained were captured by the Germans after the fall of the Netherlands and used as trainers, but it's short combat career was quite impressive.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Yes, it was used in operations against the Russians for a short time.
> 
> The Japanese purchased several Heinkel types before WWII got underway and they even had a Heinkel Factory Engineer in Japan as an advisor.


 That is truly amazing. Not only have i never read about that I have actually read in at least one" history" book that there was no exchange of arms at all between Germany and Japan until a few minor things twards the end of the war. Just goes to show you can't believe everything you read.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 14, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> That is truly amazing. Not only have i never read about that I have actually read in at least one" history" book that there was no exchange of arms at all between Germany and Japan until a few minor things twards the end of the war. Just goes to show you can't believe everything you read.


Actually, the Japanese had purchased quite a few German types before the war or during the very early years.
Beside the He112, they purchased the He100, the Ju87 and the Fw190.
They also purchased plans for the Ju88, Me262 and Me163.

And here's a fun bit of info: The Imperial Japanese Army even purchased a Tiger Tank, however while it sat at the dock awaiting transit to Japan, it was commandeered by the SS Abt. 101 for use against the Allies in June 1944.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 14, 2018)

Japanese Fw190A-5 during evaluations in Japan:




The Kyushu Q1W (based on the Ju88) - also the world's first purpose-built ASW aircraft.




Japanese Ju87A-1 (on public display)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Actually, the Japanese had purchased quite a few German types before the war or during the very early years.
> Beside the He112, they purchased the He100, the Ju87 and the Fw190.
> They also purchased plans for the Ju88, Me262 and Me163.
> 
> And here's a fun bit of info: The Imperial Japanese Army even purchased a Tiger Tank, also while at sat at the dock awaiting transit to Japan, it was commandeered by the SS Abt. 101 for use against the Allies in June 1944.


 I just fell out of my chair. Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Actually, the Japanese had purchased quite a few German types before the war or during the very early years.
> Beside the He112, they purchased the He100, the Ju87 and the Fw190.
> They also purchased plans for the Ju88, Me262 and Me163.
> 
> And here's a fun bit of info: The Imperial Japanese Army even purchased a Tiger Tank, however while it sat at the dock awaiting transit to Japan, it was commandeered by the SS Abt. 101 for use against the Allies in June 1944.


 I hope my last reply didn't sound like i don't believe it. I verry much believe it. Hence the shock.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 14, 2018)

Sorry about the screwed up second post, I fixed it with pix.

Anyway, in regards to the Tiger, yes. It was purchased by the IJA under the guidance of Lt. Gen. Hiroshi Oshima. He not only inspected the tanks at the Kummersdorf facility, but also at the Eastern Front with Schwere Abt. 502.

Here he is seen (with his adjutant) trialling a Tiger at Henchel's Kummersdorf testing grounds.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

This may be a bit of double dipping so to speak since its a subtype of my original pick


GrauGeist said:


> Sorry about the screwed up second post, I fixed it with pix.
> 
> Anyway, in regards to the Tiger, yes. It was purchased by the IJA under the guidance of Lt. Gen. Hiroshi Oshima. He not only inspected the tanks at the Kummersdorf facility, but also at the Eastern Front with Schwere Abt. 502.
> 
> ...


 I think I'm gonna need a more stable chair.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

This may be a bit of double dipping so to speak since its a subtype of my original pick but there was a land based subtype of the SBD called the A24 banshee( not to be confused with the later jet fighter of the same name) that served with the army and the free french from Morocco to the liberation of France right through 1945. Yet how many people have even heard of this type.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Japanese Fw190A-5 during evaluations in Japan:
> View attachment 501729
> 
> The Kyushu Q1W (based on the Ju88) - also the world's first purpose-built ASW aircraft.
> ...


 And maybe some thicker carpet( otherwise this is gonna start getting rough on the bottom of my jaw)


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Japanese Fw190A-5 during evaluations in Japan:
> View attachment 501729
> 
> The Kyushu Q1W (based on the Ju88) - also the world's first purpose-built ASW aircraft.
> ...


 And maybe some thicker carpet( otherwise this is gonna start to get rough on the bottom of my jaw)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

I don't know why that posted more than once. Sorry about that.


----------



## Tony Hill (Jul 14, 2018)

Seriously, the Arado 234 should be much more famous than it is...if you go outside of the "interested" or "knowledgable" WW2 community, it is certainly not appreciated or even known about. The world's first dedicated jet bomber/recon.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> And maybe some thicker carpet( otherwise this is gonna start to get rough on the bottom of my jaw)


 Is it true that rha baka bomb was a slightly re designed. V-1. Ive read this but always wondered if it were really true.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

Tony Hill said:


> Seriously, the Arado 234 should be much more famous than it is...if you go outside of the "interested" or "knowledgable" WW2 community, it is certainly not appreciated or even known about. The world's first dedicated jet bomber/recon.


 Thats a great pick. Ya I've kinda always wondered why such a groundbreaking design gets just about zero press.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Japanese Fw190A-5 during evaluations in Japan:
> View attachment 501729
> 
> The Kyushu Q1W (based on the Ju88) - also the world's first purpose-built ASW aircraft.
> ...


 Is it true that the baka bomb was a slightly re designed v-1. I've read this but always wondered if it were true


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 14, 2018)

If you want to get right down to it, the Heinkel He280 (the world's first combat jet) was not only a missed opportunity, but a little-known aircraft that could have ushered in a new face to the airwar over Europe.

The He280 was a purpose-built fighter, where the Me262 was an interceptor/heavy fighter.

*IF* the He280 had the engines it needed (material for a whole different thread) AND had been accepted into service, it could have been flying top cover for the Me262 long before the Luftwaffe lost it's dominance over European skies.

The He280 made it's first powered flight on 22 September 1940, almost a full year before the Me262 prototype made it's first test flight with a Jumo 210 V-12 in it's nose - it's first jet powered flight was on 18 July 1942 - nearly two years after the He280 proved it's worth.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> If you want to get right down to it, the Heinkel He280 (the world's first combat jet) was not only a missed opportunity, but a little-known aircraft that could have ushered in a new face to the airwar over Europe.
> 
> The He280 was a purpose-built fighter, where the Me262 was an interceptor/heavy fighter.
> 
> ...


 Seems like there were alot of missed opportunities on all sides. So many of them look so obvious now on hindsight but maybe for some reason they didn't at the time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 14, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Is it true that the baka bomb was a slightly re designed v-1. I've read this but always wondered if it were true


I've never seen a connection, to be honest.
The MXY7 used a solid-fuel rocket, instead of a Pulse-jet engine, the wing configuration and general layout is not close to the Fiesler Fi103(r) at all.

The J8M1 on the otherhand...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> I've never seen a connection, to be honest.
> The MXY7 used a solid-fuel rocket, instead of a Pulse-jet engine, the wing configuration and general layout is not close to the Fiesler Fi103(r) at all.
> 
> The J8M1 on the otherhand...
> View attachment 501735


 That can't ne a coincidence. Thats gotta be a 163. Did that ever see any kind of service with Japan?


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> I've never seen a connection, to be honest.
> The MXY7 used a solid-fuel rocket, instead of a Pulse-jet engine, the wing configuration and general layout is not close to the Fiesler Fi103(r) at all.
> 
> The J8M1 on the otherhand...
> View attachment 501735


 That's obviously a 163. Did that ever see any kind of service with Japan?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 14, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> That can't ne a coincidence. Thats gotta be a 163. Did that ever see any kind of service with Japan?


Not a coincidence at all...Japan purchased a complete Me163 and plans with licensing, but the actual Me163 and engine were lost enroute to Japan.
Which also points to a little known fact: Japanese subs were operating in European waters. The IJN Subs RO-501 (sunk in the Atlantic) and I-29 (sunk near the Philippines) were carrying the parts/plans.

The Japanese built the Mitsubishi J8M1/KI-200 in both glider (for training) and powered versions but none were used in combat since the war ended before they could get full production going.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

Sorry i keep getting double posts not sure why.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Not a coincidence at all...Japan purchased a complete Me163 and plans with licensing, but the actual Me163 and engine were lost enroute to Japan.
> Which also points to a little known fact: Japanese subs were operating in European waters. The IJN Subs RO-501 (sunk in the Atlantic) and I-29 (sunk near the Philippines) were carrying the parts/plans.
> 
> The Japanese built the Mitsubishi J8M1/KI-200 in both glider (for training) and powered versions but none were used in combat since the war ended before they could get full production going.


 Truly jawdropping so to speak. I think I've learned more hear in a couple hours than in a typical year of reading. Thank you ! Got to get up early tomorrow. Have already stayed up a couple hours later than i probably should have but just couldn't put the phone away for obvious reasons. Thanks again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 14, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Truly jawdropping so to speak. I think I've learned more hear in a couple hours than in a typical year of reading. Thank you ! Got to get up early tomorrow. Have already stayed up a couple hours later than i probably should have but just couldn't put the phone away for obvious reasons. Thanks again.


You're very welcome!

This is why the WW2Aircraft forum is one of the best on the 'net - always something to discover!

And thanks for starting the thread, it's been fun - have a great evening!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 14, 2018)

Short Sunderland, often overlooked, a bit similar to the already mentioned Hudson.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## parsifal (Jul 14, 2018)

And similarly the PBY


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 14, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> I would like everyones opinion on the most ignored combat aircraft of ww2. This goes beyond aircraft that don't get there due to aircraft that get pretty much ignored completely inspite of a major contribution to the effort at least in what I would call the popular press. My nomination would be the SBD Dauntless.



One question I have is how does one differentiate between "most ignored" and "most underrated?"

The second question is how did you decide on the SBD, which is pretty much universally credited with destroying the IJN's carriers at Midway? 

For US aircraft, I would vote for the Catalina, especially the "Black Cat"squadrons. For the Germans, probably the Hs123. For the Commonwealth, most likely the Albacore. The Soviet air forces, in general, have been ignored in the Western popular press.

As an aside, my definition of popular press is likely different from yours, in that my definition would include just about all non-academic publications.


----------



## eagledad (Jul 14, 2018)

I nominate the Martin Baltimore and Maryland as the most ignored WW2 Aircraft

Eagledad

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> One question I have is how does one differentiate between "most ignored" and "most underrated?"
> 
> The second question is how did you decide on the SBD, which is pretty much universally credited with destroying the IJN's carriers at Midway?
> 
> ...


 Yes i know its a subtle distinction but my thinking was an underrated aircraft would be one that gets attention but not as positive as it should be given its impact. An ignored aircraft would be one that had at least a fairly substantial impact but gets almost no attention at all. I picked the SBD because I think the average guy on the street that may have a passing interest in ww2 aviation is barley awear of its existence and even in what I would call the more educated community it doesn't seem to get talked about to much inspite of its monumental accomplishments. ( just my impression). To be honest I suppose as for the other reason I picked it I must confess some personal bias as my Grandfather worked at Douglas and had a bit to do with its design and manufacture.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> One question I have is how does one differentiate between "most ignored" and "most underrated?"
> 
> The second question is how did you decide on the SBD, which is pretty much universally credited with destroying the IJN's carriers at Midway?
> 
> ...


 Good point about the Soviet aircraft by the way.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 14, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> ...The Soviet air forces, in general, have been ignored in the Western popular press...


Not sure how this can be concluded, if anything, the "western press" dwells too much on the IL-2, MIG-3 and YaK-9 while leaving out crucial contributors like the LaGG-3, which developed into the La-5 and ultimately, the La-7.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Not sure how this can be concluded, if anything, the "western press" dwells too much on the IL-2, MIG-3 and YaK-9 while leaving out crucial contributors like the LaGG-3, which developed into the La-5 and ultimately, the La-7.


 I must confess maybe I'm not reading the right history books. I have several like " Dual for the sky" that don't mention Soviet aircraft or the eastern front at all. It's easy to get the impression of the ignoring of Soviet aircraft and maybe other types as well from books like these.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

With my Dual for the sky reference I can just see everyone face palming. Ya, even I know thats not one of the better books. It was just to give an example of how one could get the impression of the ignoring of Soviet types.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 14, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> I must confess maybe I'm not reading the right history books. I have several like " Dual for the sky" that don't mention Soviet aircraft or the eastern front at all. It's easy to get the impression of the ignoring of Soviet aircraft and maybe other types as well from books like these.


It all depends on the scope of the book the author is writing. Soviet aircraft aren't going to be mentioned in books that cover events in Western Europe or the MTO. Interestingly enough, many books about the Battle of Britain don't give much depth to the Italian air units involved, either.
However, read books about the Battle of Kursk, Battle of Berlin, Invasion of Poland, the Winter War and so on, and yes, there will be Soviet aircraft.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> It all depends on the scope of the book the author is writing. Soviet aircraft aren't going to be mentioned in books that cover events in Western Europe or the MTO. Interestingly enough, many books about the Battle of Britain don't give much depth to the Italian air units involved, either.
> However, read books about the Battle of Kursk, Battle of Berlin, Invasion of Poland, the Winter War and so on, and yes, there will be Soviet aircraft.


 There were Italian units involved in the Battle of Britain? Excuse me while I grab that more stable chair.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> With my Dual for the sky reference I can just see everyone face palming. Ya, even I know thats not one of the better books. It was just to give an example of how one could get the impression of the ignoring of Soviet types.


One also has to take into account the author, If he is giving you his opinion of _aircraft he flew or had some sort of experience with _and he had no experience with russian aircraft then he is not going to able to make much in the way of meaningful comments.

Eric Brown making a comment on the 109 vs the LA-5 won't be worth much as he never flew the LA-5 and had either very limited or no time in the 109.

I rather like Eric Brown's books but I take them for what they are, reminiscences of what it was like to fly those planes in a non-combat environment (except the Martlet/Wildcat and few others) and not the last word on the abilities of some of those planes in combat. He may (or may not)point out some things that had more to do with operational losses (crashes) that combat results.

Some people try to read too much into some of what he wrote.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 14, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> There were Italian units involved in the Battle of Britain? Excuse me while I grab that more stable chair.


Yes, they participated during the last months of 1940.

The unit formed by the Regia Aeronautica for the battle, was the Corpo Aero Italiano.

Their types that participated were:
Fiat CR.42
Fiat G.50
Fiat BR.20
CANT Z.1007
Caproni Ca.133

And they operated from bases in Belgium.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Yes, they participated during the last months of 1940.
> 
> The unit formed by the Regia Aeronautica for the battle, was the Corpo Aero Italiano.
> 
> ...


 Wow, theres something that has generally glossed over to say the least.


----------



## glennasher (Jul 14, 2018)

eagledad said:


> I nominate the Martin Baltimore and Maryland as the most ignored WW2 Aircraft
> 
> Eagledad



I was thinking about those two myself. I know they were used in North Africa, but beyond that, I know little about their use elsewhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> One also has to take into account the author, If he is giving you his opinion of _aircraft he flew or had some sort of experience with _and he had no experience with russian aircraft then he is not going to able to make much in the way of meaningful comments.
> 
> Eric Brown making a comment on the 109 vs the LA-5 won't be worth much as he never flew the LA-5 and had either very limited or no time in the 109.
> 
> ...


 Good point about not trying to read to much into that kind of book. I was trying to give an example why some, including myself, have gotten the impression that Soviet aircraft have bean ignored. At least to a large degree. And yes it does make a verry good read. Was my first history book. My grandfather gave it to me and was patient enough to read it to me aloud, at my request, over and over and over again when I was to young to read any word with more than 3 or 4 letters.


----------



## eagledad (Jul 14, 2018)

Glennasher

I believe the Baltimore was used in Africa and Italy for a period of time as well. Combat Aircraft of World War Two indicates it was in service until VE day, used exclusively in the Med, and finished the war attacking the Axis in Yugoslavia. 

Great Minds think alike! 

Eagledad


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 14, 2018)

Vickers Wellington. The only bomber in service in September 1939 and in August 1945 but it barely gets a mention in popular histories.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 14, 2018)

Just letting my mild OCD out for a moment: it’s _*Duel* for the Sky_, not _*Dual * for the Sky.

_


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 14, 2018)

Another type that gets very little discussion, is the Short Stirling heavy bomber


fastmongrel said:


> Vickers Wellington. The only bomber in service in September 1939 and in August 1945 but it barely gets a mention in popular histories.


The Short Stirling barely gets a mention, either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 14, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> There were Italian units involved in the Battle of Britain? Excuse me while I grab that more stable chair.



A good read here: Håkans Flygsida - The Falco and Regia Aeronautica in the Battle of Britain

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 14, 2018)

Greyman said:


> A good read here: Håkans Flygsida - The Falco and Regia Aeronautica in the Battle of Britain


 Thanks for the book suggestion. I seem to be compiling quite a list of reading material I need to get these last few days.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jul 14, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> This may be a bit of double dipping so to speak since its a subtype of my original pick but there was a land based subtype of the SBD called the A24 banshee( not to be confused with the later jet fighter of the same name) that served with the army and the free french from Morocco to the liberation of France right through 1945. Yet how many people have even heard of this type.


USAAF units operated them in the Pacific theater as well. 8th Bomb Squadron (light) flew them in New Guinea, a squadron flew them in the Aleutians against Kiska. 
A-25 Shrikes were also used (USAAF version of SB2C).
There are other ignored aircraft, but to mention them would shine a light on them and then someone might take a fancy, and they wouldn't be the most ignored any more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jul 14, 2018)

Vickers Warwick...weren't 800+ produced?


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 15, 2018)

Capt. Vick said:


> Vickers Warwick...weren't 800+ produced?



Yes 845 of them. They were ordered to the same specification as the Avro Manchester and Handley Page HP56 (which became the 4 engine Halifax) it was planned to use the Napier Sabre or RR Vulture but the well known problems of both engines scuppered its development as well as the RAF needed every Wellington it could get its hands on. 

When it finally got into production P&W R-2800-S14A4-GDouble Wasps were fitted but the engines were early versions and not reliable, the Warwick was not good with one engine out. Later production had Bristol Centaurus engines but even with more reliable/powerful engines it was too little too late. Most Waricks went from the factory to storage as better aircraft became available.

Single engine handling problems were never solved and it was never popular with the crews.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## rednev (Jul 15, 2018)

a enthusiast discussion on ignored aircraft and the bristol beaufort still struggles to get a mention .
how much more ignored can an aircraft be .


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 15, 2018)

Could be worse........It could have achieved notoriety by making a number of top ten flops lists or ten worst failures or.............. 

Maybe they should have painted shark mouths on them

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 15, 2018)

By definition the best pick for this list will be ignored, not be posted, and we'll never know what it is.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 16, 2018)

Greyman said:


> By definition the best pick for this list will be ignored, not be posted, and we'll never know what it is.


 Verry good point. I had not considered that angle. Ok, how about the 2nd most ignored combat aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gomwolf (Jul 20, 2018)

Fiat G.55 Centauro.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Oct 18, 2018)

How about a Heinkel He-119? That's one unusual German plane with an all-glassed nose with the single drive shaft through the cockpit to the propeller


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 18, 2018)

Skyediamonds said:


> How about a Heinkel He-119? That's one unusual German plane with an all-glassed nose with the single drive shaft through the cockpit to the propeller



Was the He 119 a 'combat aircraft'?

My pick will be the Ki 27.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 18, 2018)

Skyediamonds said:


> How about a Heinkel He-119? That's one unusual German plane with an all-glassed nose with the single drive shaft through the cockpit to the propeller



It was not a combat aircraft. It was an experimental test aircraft.


----------



## Skyediamonds (Oct 18, 2018)

I stand corrected. You're right, it was not a combat aircraft in the truest sense of the word, but an experimental aircraft with two coupled engines driving a single propeller with the drive shaft through the canopy. Pretty unique and interesting aircraft though. It was built during the Second World War though.

To me, that's gotta be the most oddest plane during that time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 18, 2018)

Skyediamonds said:


> I stand corrected. You're right, it was not a combat aircraft in the truest sense of the word, but an experimental aircraft with two coupled engines driving a single propeller with the drive shaft through the canopy. Pretty unique and interesting aircraft though. It was built during the Second World War though.
> 
> To me, that's gotta be the most oddest plane during that time.



The Blohm & Voss Bv 141 says “Hold my beer”...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 18, 2018)

Plenty of interesting and unique aircraft built during the war by all sides like the Henschel Hs132 jet dive-bomber, the Miles M.39B, the McDonnell XP-67, Ambrosini SS.4 and so on.

But they weren't combat aircraft...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Oct 18, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> One also has to take into account the author, If he is giving you his opinion of _aircraft he flew or had some sort of experience with _and he had no experience with russian aircraft then he is not going to able to make much in the way of meaningful comments.
> 
> Eric Brown making a comment on the 109 vs the LA-5 won't be worth much as he never flew the LA-5 and had either very limited or no time in the 109.
> 
> ...


Whilst I can see where you are coming from, I think it's a little harsh. He had as much time in the 109 as any allied pilot and I think he did fly Russian fighters.
True these were not combat flights but he was a trained test pilot used to finding the edge of the envelope so it shouldn't be totally dismissed

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Oct 18, 2018)

Ive always believed that the B-24, particularly those deployed to the Pacific and CBI were never given adequate recognition. They were responsible for tearing the heart out of the Japanese capacity to withstand the Allied advance far moreso than any fighter, including the vaunted f6F. .

Another underrated aircraft in my opinion is the lowly C-47. It was easily the single most important type of the war

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 18, 2018)

I agree on the C-47. Since it is not a fighter it gets overlooked. Should have called it the P-51 Dakota.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 18, 2018)

Both good picks for planes that get ignored realative to there contribution but extremely so in the case of the C47.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 18, 2018)

Something went wrong with my last post, corrected now. Keyboard is playing up


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 18, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> That is truly amazing. Not only have i never read about that I have actually read in at least one" history" book that there was no exchange of arms at all between Germany and Japan until a few minor things twards the end of the war. Just goes to show you can't believe everything you read.



There were actually a few hundred Kawasaki Ki 61 fighters that were equipped with German MG151/20 cannon in their wings.
They are the only Ki 61 that have gun barrels protruding from their wings.



Shortround6 said:


> One also has to take into account the author, If he is giving you his opinion of _aircraft he flew or had some sort of experience with _and he had no experience with russian aircraft then he is not going to able to make much in the way of meaningful comments.
> 
> Eric Brown making a comment on the 109 vs the LA-5 won't be worth much as he never flew the LA-5 and had either very limited or no time in the 109.
> 
> ...



At times I have wondered if everything he wrote was even reliable. His description of the A6M was that it had a mediocre roll rate and modern pilots generally say otherwise and videos also show the roll rates to be quite good.

- Ivan.


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 18, 2018)

I nominate this aircraft. (By Alan Wilson from Stilton, Peterborough, Cambs, UK Su2 38 yellow)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 18, 2018)

Glider said:


> Whilst I can see where you are coming from, I think it's a little harsh. He had as much time in the 109 as any allied pilot and I think he did fly Russian fighters.
> True these were not combat flights but he was a trained test pilot used to finding the edge of the envelope so it shouldn't be totally dismissed



Glider,

A test pilot focuses on how a plane performs and why. An experienced combat focused pilot in the same type should not have too much problem besting one (a test pilot) in combat maneuvers. It’s two different types of flying in the same aircraft.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 18, 2018)

Eric Brown also flew a variety of "missions" a lot of which had very little to do with max turning rates or max roll rates or other extreme, exploring the edges of the envelope flying. 

He did a lot of work figuring out which planes could be landed on carrier decks (or not landed on them). for a number of weeks at the end of the war he was ferrying a variety of German Aircraft back to England (or at least to British controlled zones in Germany) which often meant flying a plane that had been repaired/serviced by German mechanics using whatever parts they could scrounge up at the field they were at. Getting a strange plane into the air and back down with very little briefing and not breaking it (and himself) in the process took precedence over wringing the last G or two out it's turning circle. Some of the se planes he flew only once or twice (test hop if he was lucky and then the ferry flight to turn the plane over to the people examining it) .

He may have also flown some planes 2-4 years apart and with dozens (if not hundreds ) planes inbetween it is quite possible that his perceptions/standards had changed.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 18, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> A test pilot focuses on how a plane performs and why. An experienced combat focused pilot in the same type should not have too much problem besting one (a test pilot) in combat maneuvers. It’s two different types of flying in the same aircraft.



Hello BiffF15,
I recall reading about Eric Brown flying a Spitfire in a duel against a FW 190.
Either he met an enemy pilot who was equally inexperienced or he might have actually known what he was doing.
The two maneuvered against each other for a while to no advantage and finally broke off at the same time.
Someone who is willing to do this probably knows his business at least a little.

- Ivan.


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 18, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello BiffF15,
> I recall reading about Eric Brown flying a Spitfire in a duel against a FW 190.
> Either he met an enemy pilot who was equally inexperienced or he might have actually known what he was doing.
> The two maneuvered against each other for a while to no advantage and finally broke off at the same time.
> ...




Ivan,

I agree completely. However, the longer he spent away from an operational unit the further behind he would become in combat tactics. I really enjoyed his books, however I read them with a grain of salt due to his extended time away from combat flying. Thats my opine only.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 18, 2018)

I'll take your Bristol Beaufort, Short Stirling, Vickers Warwick and Wellington and raise you an Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle... Or perhaps a Bristol Bombay for good measure!

Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle - Wikipedia

Bristol Bombay - Wikipedia


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 18, 2018)

As an aside, here's a Fiat CR-42 shot down over England in 1940 and preserved at the RAF Museum.





0507 RAFM CR-42

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 18, 2018)

> At times I have wondered if everything he wrote was even reliable. His description of the A6M was that it had a mediocre roll rate and modern pilots generally say otherwise and videos also show the roll rates to be quite good.



'Moderate' is not mediocre. The problem with Brown is sweeping statements like this. People get the wrong idea and just start bashing him without actually reading his stuff. Accuracy can only be attained by quoting directly.

From Wings on my sleeve: "In the air the light weight Zero was remarkably nimble, with a high rate of climb of the order of 4,500 ft per min and superb manoeuvrability. The handling characteristics were somewhat marred by the imperfect harmony of control, which gave only a moderate rate of roll and with a rather sensitive rudder to deal with considerable directional control changes with power and speed. Also acceleration in the dive was rather slow and was to prove a bit of an Achilles heel against the heavy American fighters such as the Hellcat, Corsair and Thunderbolt."

"In assessing the Zero as a fighter, it must be remembered that it ruled the air in the Far East from 1939 to mid 1943. It had the impressive combat kill ratio of 12:1 and it was not until the Grumman Hellcat appeared on the scene that it found itself bettered in the Pacific War theatre [P-38 pilots might disagree]. Whereas the Zero always sought to fight in the horizontal plane where its remarkable turning circle gave it the advantage, the Hellcat countered this by initiating combat in the vertical plane by diving on the Zero and picking up so much speed in the dive that it could follow the Jap[anese] fighter round a third of its tightest turns..."

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Oct 19, 2018)

DerAdler: beer is on the house! Still, for an odd aircraft, the Heinkel really ranks right up there.
Pars: Supreme Allied commander Eisenhower had listed the "lowly" C-47 as one of the most prized aircraft along with the (I think) Sherman tank & a few others.


----------



## Glider (Oct 19, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> Glider,
> 
> A test pilot focuses on how a plane performs and why. An experienced combat focused pilot in the same type should not have too much problem besting one (a test pilot) in combat maneuvers. It’s two different types of flying in the same aircraft.
> 
> ...


True but he was also a combat pilot. There were precious few aircrew of any nation in WW2 that were both experienced combat pilots and trained test pilots.


----------



## Dimlee (Oct 19, 2018)

jetcal1 said:


> I nominate this aircraft. (By Alan Wilson from Stilton, Peterborough, Cambs, UK Su2 38 yellow)
> View attachment 513650



Good find. I agree wholeheartedly as I belong to that school of thought: "Su-2 had to be allocated most of production capacity given to Il-2". 
Trivia: Production was suspended in Jan 1942, but Su-2 was still used in combat for close support until (at least) July 1943 and for recon until Jan or Feb 1944. Taking into account comparatively small number produced (910 according to Sukhoy company) and high rate of attrition in VVS in the first years of war, such longevity itself was quite an achievement.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Oct 19, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> It’s two different types of flying in the same aircraft.



Eric Brown thought so too.

_April brought me a temporary but violent change of scene. I was whisked off down to Kenley near London and attached to 411 and 416 Squadrons of the Royal Canadian Air Force to teach them how to land their Spitfires on a deck. I had my own Seafire with me._

_The Canadians showed lukewarm interest in the idea. To begin with they were heavily engaged in fighter sweeps over France, and to make matters more unsatisfactory neither they or I had the remotest notion why we were doing what we were doing._

_In the end they blackmailed me into a kind of exchange. For every deck-landing session I had to do a fighter sweep with them._

_This kind of flying was a revelation to me, an incomparably satisfying business, in which a pilot lived on his wits and reflexes all the time._

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 19, 2018)

Glider said:


> True but he was also a combat pilot. There were precious few aircrew of any nation in WW2 that were both experienced combat pilots and trained test pilots.



Glider,

Today test pilots who fly fighters also come from combat oriented fighter background. Their time away from combat flying / training puts them at, in my opine, a serious disadvantage. They get little to no combat training, and atrophy on tactics as well as currency. To stay good you need to stay proficient. While Brown did fly occasional combat sorties I would doubt his proficiency was at the level of someone doing it day in and day out. I would have been embarrassed if I couldn’t beat a test pilot in identical jets. Six weeks off makes a difference. How about a year off, or more.

All my opine based on what I’ve seen.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 19, 2018)

Glider said:


> True but he was also a combat pilot. There were precious few aircrew of any nation in WW2 that were both experienced combat pilots and trained test pilots.


Believe it or not, Adolf Galland was also a test pilot for a time at Tutow.


----------



## GregP (Oct 19, 2018)

There are two SBD Dauntless aircraft still flying. The Planes of Fame has one of them. 






All the rest are A-24s painted up like a Dauntless, some even with tail hook gear fitted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 19, 2018)

The list of airworthy Douglas SBDs are as follows:
SBD-4 (BuNo. 10518) N4864J @ Yank's Air Museum, Chino, Ca.
SBD-4 (BuNo. 10694) N34N @ Midway Dauntless, Bellvue, Wa.
SBD-5 (BuNo. 28536) N670AM @ Planes of Fame, Chino, Ca.
SBD-5 (BuNo. 54532) NL82GA @ Commemorative Air Force, Peachtree City, Ga.

The list of airworthy Douglas A-24s are as follows:
A-24A (SerNo. 42-60817) NX5254L @ Erickson Aircraft Collection, Madras, Or. - painted as an SBD-3 
A-24B (SerNo. 42-54682) N93RW @ Lone Star Flight Museum, Houston, Tx. - painted as an SBD-5

There are no airworthy A-24 types flying in original USAAC/USAAF markings.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Oct 20, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Believe it or not, Adolf Galland was also a test pilot for a time at Tutow.


There is a world of difference between being a test pilot and being a trained test pilot. The UK had the first test pilot school in 1943 graduating in 1944 and the US copied this idea in 1944 graduating in 1945. No one else had an active scheme until post war.
Biff is correct anyone in any sphere needs to stay current but if you really want to know what an aircraft can do, you need a test pilot. The ETPS was set up because so many highly skilled pilots who were test pilots, were being killed in accidents.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 20, 2018)

The Germans tended to employ test pilots who had considerable experience and held a host of certifications, like Erich Warsitz and Hans-Werner Leche.

It's one thing to be capable of pushing an aircraft to it's limits to find the aircraft's strengths and weaknesses, but an entirely different case pushing an aircraft to it's limits in a kill or be killed situation.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Oct 20, 2018)

Graum, BIFF, DerAdler, and fellow gentlemen:

With regards to the debate between test pilots both, with and without combat experience, may I recommend (late) Col. John Boyd? There is a fantastic book entitled: "John Boyd, the Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War." I forgot the author's name, but it was on one of the best seller's list. John was known as "40-second Boyd." He flew F-100's out of Nellis AFB in Nevada and defied anyone, young, old, experienced or new, to try to shoot him down within 40 seconds. There was only one pilot and even then, he managed only to squeeze out a tie. Other than that, no one had been able to shoot him down. John would purposely allow the challenger to get "on his six o'clock" and try to initiate a "kill." Within 40- seconds or less, John was able to out-maneuver the challenger and be on his "six" while announcing over the radio "Guns, Guns,." He deplored test pilots over at Edwards saying they were nothing but "secretaries taking notes on their knee pads of the flight characteristics of a particular plane." He even challenged some of those test pilots. None took him up on his offer.

John was able to demonstrate some of the design flaws in the F-100 that was overlooked by both test pilots and people at North American Aviation, the manufacturer who produced the F-100s. Everyone was familiar with the deadly "Sabre Dance," during landing, but it took John Boyd to figure out how to counter the unique handling qualities (use more rudder instead of ailerons).

Finally, John also pointed out another design flaw that was overlooked by both NAA & test pilots on the hydraulic systems to the F-100. Everyone scoffed at him and challenged John. John then had them set up a test rig with the F-100 suspended off the ground and proved it. Yes, it was a mess all over the floor and NAA had to go back to the drawing boards.

He constantly defied authority and was passed over for promotions because of his confrontational attitude. John ended up working in the Pentagon for many years coming up with a new concept of 'warfare." The (late) Dick Chenney, then vice president in the Bush Adminstration was one of his students. It was also General Norman Schwarzkopf who was one of John's disciples and followed John's principles "On the Art of War" that led to the successful campaign against Iraq. John was also instrumental in the design of the lightweight fighter that ended up as the (then) General Dynamics F-16.

John absolutely hated the (late) McNamara's "Brain Kids" and their concept for all-in-one fighter that resulted in forcing the Navy to swallow the F-111 "Aardvark." He said they "....should rip the wings off, put in a couple of back seats, paint it yellow and have it taxi up and down the runway."

In summary: John was never a combat pilot in the true sense of doing a tour in Viet Nam or anywhere else. Nor was he a test pilot, operating in the official capacity, yet managed to outwit and outfly almost anyone; whether they be experienced combat pilots (who later on became his disciples), test pilots or people at NAA (and other aircraft manufacturers), and those within the Pentagon (they actually feared him). 

As a post script, the people within the Pentagon listened to him (reluctantly) that led up to the F-16 and FA-17 (then converted to the FA-18). Like Ed Heinneman of Douglas Aircraft in designing the lightest and most simplest fighter jet possible that resulted in the A-4 "Scooter," John was an advocate of the lightest and simplest fighter jet possible using the most modern up-to-date designs.

It was just by accident that I came upon this book while browsing around a used book store. I highly recommend it to everyone. You won't be able to put it down.

Response, gentlemen?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Oct 20, 2018)

Skyediamonds said:


> Response, gentlemen?



Don't encourage Navalwarrior.


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 20, 2018)

Skyediamonds said:


> Graum, BIFF, DerAdler, and fellow gentlemen:
> 
> With regards to the debate between test pilots both, with and without combat experience, may I recommend (late) Col. John Boyd? There is a fantastic book entitled: "John Boyd, the Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War." I forgot the author's name, but it was on one of the best seller's list. John was known as "40-second Boyd." He flew F-100's out of Nellis AFB in Nevada and defied anyone, young, old, experienced or new, to try to shoot him down within 40 seconds. There was only one pilot and even then, he managed only to squeeze out a tie. Other than that, no one had been able to shoot him down. John would purposely allow the challenger to get "on his six o'clock" and try to initiate a "kill." Within 40- seconds or less, John was able to out-maneuver the challenger and be on his "six" while announcing over the radio "Guns, Guns,." He deplored test pilots over at Edwards saying they were nothing but "secretaries taking notes on their knee pads of the flight characteristics of a particular plane." He even challenged some of those test pilots. None took him up on his offer.
> 
> ...



I’ve read the book and enjoyed it very much. He did a lot of great work, and was larger than life to many, and equally hated by many others.

His 40 second routine also overstressed the shit out the jets from what I’ve been told. Not good to do as it will probably be someone else flying it when there is a catastrophic failure. It is one thing to do an unauthorized maneuver in war and quite another to do it in training, and routinely at that. His opinion of his flying skills was not universally shared.

The USMC adopted his philosophy as did segments of the USAF, and have enjoyed much success with it.

I will agree that test pilots are not anywhere near as proficient or versed in the latest maneuvers or tactics.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 20, 2018)

Eeeek, Jets again!



Skyediamonds said:


> With regards to the debate between test pilots both, with and without combat experience, may I recommend (late) Col. John Boyd? There is a fantastic book entitled: "John Boyd, the Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War." I forgot the author's name, but it was on one of the best seller's list. John was known as "40-second Boyd." He flew F-100's out of Nellis AFB in Nevada and defied anyone, young, old, experienced or new, to try to shoot him down within 40 seconds. There was only one pilot and even then, he managed only to squeeze out a tie. Other than that, no one had been able to shoot him down. John would purposely allow the challenger to get "on his six o'clock" and try to initiate a "kill." Within 40- seconds or less, John was able to out-maneuver the challenger and be on his "six" while announcing over the radio "Guns, Guns,." He deplored test pilots over at Edwards saying they were nothing but "secretaries taking notes on their knee pads of the flight characteristics of a particular plane." He even challenged some of those test pilots. None took him up on his offer.



I overheard a fellow at the Udvar Hazy NASM who suggested to his prospective son-in-law that he should read this book.
I requested a copy from my local public library and it does make pretty good reading as do some of Col. Boyd's actual writings.
As a comment here, I believe a little more detail about Col. Boyd might be useful here.
John Boyd was THE F-100 Driver. He probably knew more about the flight characteristics about that particular aeroplane than anyone else INCLUDING the test pilots.
His tactic when fighting with the F-100 was to pull up into a very high AoA and "Flat Plate" the aeroplane. The drag and deceleration was tremendous and the pursuing aircraft would overshoot quickly. Then he would go back to normal flight attitude and shoot the fellow that was now in front of him.
Unless you are very familiar with the peculiar instability of the F-100 at high AoA, this is a very dangerous thing to do.
More on this in a bit....



Skyediamonds said:


> John was able to demonstrate some of the design flaws in the F-100 that was overlooked by both test pilots and people at North American Aviation, the manufacturer who produced the F-100s. Everyone was familiar with the deadly "Sabre Dance," during landing, but it took John Boyd to figure out how to counter the unique handling qualities (use more rudder instead of ailerons).



Using Rudder instead of Ailerons for lateral control at low speed is actually the correct approach as I understand it.
Using Ailerons may stall the wing that you are attempting to raise.
As mentioned earlier, the F-100 had serious directional stability issues at high AoA. Part of this was corrected from the prototypes by increasing the size of the Fin/Rudder, but not before another rather famous NAA test pilot, George Welch got killed while flying it. The situation was never entirely corrected and the "Sabre Dance" is a great illustration of that high AoA directional control issue coupled with being behind the power curve.



Skyediamonds said:


> He constantly defied authority and was passed over for promotions because of his confrontational attitude. John ended up working in the Pentagon for many years coming up with a new concept of 'warfare." The (late) Dick Chenney, then vice president in the Bush Adminstration was one of his students. It was also General Norman Schwarzkopf who was one of John's disciples and followed John's principles "On the Art of War" that led to the successful campaign against Iraq. John was also instrumental in the design of the lightweight fighter that ended up as the (then) General Dynamics F-16.
> .....
> In summary: John was never a combat pilot in the true sense of doing a tour in Viet Nam or anywhere else. Nor was he a test pilot, operating in the official capacity, yet managed to outwit and outfly almost anyone; whether they be experienced combat pilots (who later on became his disciples), test pilots or people at NAA (and other aircraft manufacturers), and those within the Pentagon (they actually feared him).
> 
> Response, gentlemen?



The book about Col. Boyd was not very complimentary on Schwarzkopf at all. I believe you are misinterpreting the conclusion.
Yes, the Gulf War was fought using the principles and strategies of Col. Boyd, but the original strategy of Schwarzkopf was "Hey diddle diddle, right up the middle" (strength against strength) which is the complete opposite approach.
The now standard "Energy - Maneuverability Theory" was apparently the creation of Col. Boyd and his group that called themselves "The Fighter Mafia". The interesting thing here was that he was certain that this theory did not completely capture the differences between aircraft and was working on a follow-on theory toward the end of his life.
The concept of "OODA Loop" (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) and the idea that whoever can execute this cycle faster will have the advantage can also be credited to this fellow.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## herman1rg (Oct 20, 2018)

nuuumannn said:


> I'll take your Bristol Beaufort, Short Stirling, Vickers Warwick and Wellington and raise you an Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle... Or perhaps a Bristol Bombay for good measure!
> 
> Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle - Wikipedia
> 
> Bristol Bombay - Wikipedia


I'll see your assorted British aircraft and raise you the Vickers Wellesley which saw active service in The East African Campaign (against the Italians)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Oct 20, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> Glider,
> 
> Today test pilots who fly fighters also come from combat oriented fighter background. Their time away from combat flying / training puts them at, in my opine, a serious disadvantage. They get little to no combat training, and atrophy on tactics as well as currency. To stay good you need to stay proficient. While Brown did fly occasional combat sorties I would doubt his proficiency was at the level of someone doing it day in and day out. I would have been embarrassed if I couldn’t beat a test pilot in identical jets. Six weeks off makes a difference. How about a year off, or more.
> 
> ...



Reminds me another great and well known in USSR/post USSR test pilot Mark Gallay. 124 aircraft, participator of early space program. Over a dozen of books.
He was shortly in combat in 1941 and claimed Do-215 in one of night interceptions. 
Reading his books (well written, by the way) I was quite often surprised by his evaluations of combat machines. His opinion about P-47 was summarised as "Good airplane but not a fighter".

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Oct 20, 2018)

Ivan and Biff:
Excellent!! Truly exciting to know our fellow members have not only read the book but are intimately familiar with some of the passages written about Boyd and his Energy-Maneuverability Theory. I was going to quote all that stuff, but I thought it might be a bit overwhelming for starters and supposedly a response to the test pilot versus combat pilot. Wow!! Is this site great or what?

The USMAC were the only branch to honor Boyd's funeral. 

Insofar as the Pentagon, Boyd was a civilian working almost 20/7 at the expense of his wife and family. Because he was a civilian, he could (and often did) hang up on generals and anyone else whom he felt wasn't worth his time. As a civilian he was not beholden to military protocols and often regarded them as "nuisance." Boyd was especially known for his "Briefings" which stretched out 6-8- hours and sometimes more than one day. When told to compress his Briefs down to 2 hours or less, he would yell on the phone: "Well, how about NO brief?" and hang up. I especially enjoyed the passages where Boyd would seek out any unfortunate general or colonel walking down the hallways within the Pentagon, corner them and constantly poke into their chest and, while yelling at them about how stupid their ideas were, spittle leftover foods into their faces, while at the same time his cigar would drop ashes all over their shoes. I would've paid admission just to see that.

I must have read and reread that book at least three or four times. Enjoyed every minute of it. 

Responding to Boyd being intimate with the F-100, I totally agree with Ivan that his ideas and approach to rough handling the Sabre was not for the faint of heart and possibly dangerous to the uninitiated. However, I also feel that a pilot should absolutely know his limits and the limits of his plane if he's to survive in a combat scenario that lasts only seconds, with split seconds being the difference between survival and death. Boyd was a great advocate of utilizing that Hun to its limits.

With the advent of drones now being a major factor into the battle scene, I wonder what Boyd's thoughts would be.


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 20, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Eeeek, Jets again!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ivan,

I’m very familiar with the OODA loop.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 20, 2018)

Skyediamonds said:


> .
> 
> With the advent of drones now being a major factor into the battle scene, I wonder what Boyd's thoughts would be.



Skyediamonds,

I think he would approve depending on how they are used. If in the right place at the right time they can be very useful.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 20, 2018)

> the Vickers Wellesley



Ah, the Wellesley; I had a Matchbox model of that aeroplane. How about the Vickers Vildebeest (he says, digging deeper to find ever more obscure British aeroplanes used briefly during the war...)!

Vickers Vildebeest - Wikipedia

The Royal New Zealand Air Force at the outbreak of WW2 in 1939 had no modern combat aircraft. It was populated by Hawker Hinds and Vildebeests and Vincents, with Blackburn Baffins also, although an order of Vickers Wellingtons was undergoing completion in the UK. These were never delivered to New Zealand and remained to equip 75 Squadron, which became the first Commonwealth squadron with the addition of two letters (NZ).

Imperial Airways Short 'C' Class flying boats were used for long range maritime patrol after German surface raiders sank shipping in the South Pacific.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Oct 20, 2018)

Nuuu:
I agree, Vickers Vildebeest gets my vote too. I've seen a photo of an R/C sized model published in a British modeling publication of that biplane. The modeler did an outstanding job on super detailing the model to very high standards. 

I'd like to know where/how he managed to obtain such detailed documentation to be able to build such a model. 

Skye


----------



## taly01 (Oct 21, 2018)

The japanese army light support bomber Ki-51 (2,300 made) is virtually unmentioned in western books on WW2, a kind of unique liason & light attack plane developed from war experience in China, but very conventional design. 







Its probably negelcted due to it looking like the better known navy's D3A Val dive bomber.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 21, 2018)

taly01 said:


> The japanese army light support bomber Ki-51 (2,300 made) is virtually unmentioned in western books on WW2, a kind of unique liason & light attack plane developed from war experience in China, but very conventional design.
> 
> View attachment 513890
> 
> ...


That's a very good pick. I've never read a word about it in any book and with over 2000 made it's not like it was some experimental type that never really got going.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Oct 24, 2018)

A very large list of planes I've hardly heard of!


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 24, 2018)

Just about every maritime aircraft except the Catalina and Sunderland, for the Allies.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Oct 24, 2018)

Interesting. This list keep growing! I have to agree with "M." I've never heard of that Japanese aircraft either, and with over 2,000 made, I have to wonder how they were passed over in most books on WW2 aircraft or even those that specialized in Japanese aircraft.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 24, 2018)

The Sonia (KI-51) gets it's share of press, but not being a fighter, tends to get overlooked unless a person is specifically looking at the CBI theater, where the bulk of it's operations happened.

What's nearly absent from the books, however, is the KI-102 - a latewar twin engined heavy fighter.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rednev (Oct 24, 2018)

fiat Br.20 in action over 
France, Britain, Malta ,north Africa ,Spain ,Russia and used by Japan in China

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Oct 25, 2018)

eagledad said:


> I nominate the Martin Baltimore and Maryland as the most ignored WW2 Aircraft
> 
> Eagledad



I agree. Martin built 1575 Baltimores, and the vast majority of them saw combat service. Like some other planes (such as the Hawker Typhoon), this plane is easy to forget about because none currently survive.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 25, 2018)

they fall into a grey zone. Built in America but not flown by Americans the US had little interest in them. Flown by the Commonwealth but not built by them there was little reason to publicize them.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 25, 2018)

Anything by Fokker barely gets a mention, even though they were used by the Dutch, British and Finland.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 25, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The Sonia (KI-51) gets it's share of press, but not being a fighter, tends to get overlooked unless a person is specifically looking at the CBI theater, where the bulk of it's operations happened.
> 
> What's nearly absent from the books, however, is the KI-102 - a latewar twin engined heavy fighter.


That's another great pick. I've never read a word about it.( Heading for Wikipedia now)


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 25, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> That's another great pick. I've never read a word about it.( Heading for Wikipedia now)


Some Fokker types to look up, would be the T.VIII, G.I, D.XXI and the C.X


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 25, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Some Fokker types to look up, would be the T.VIII, G.I, D.XXI and the C.X


Cool thanks. I love learning about new stuff of which I was previously un-aware. I was just reading about that ki-102 and it sounds like it would have been a formidable weapon with that guided air to surface misile they had plans to couple it with. Fortunately they chose to hold it in reserve for what they thought would be the comming invasion of the home islands

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Oct 26, 2018)

Amazing. I'm hearing & learning of aircraft I never knew existed. What's the amazing part, is there are so many!


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 26, 2018)

Here's something fun to look up, the Interstate TDR.
The TDR was a television-controlled twin-engined drone of the USN. It could actually be piloted by a human and when it was ready to be deployed, the cockpit was faired over and a war-load of a torpedo or up to 2,000 pounds of bombs would loaded aboard.
A control operator situated in a TBF would guide the TDR to it's target.

There was also the Culver TD4C, PQ-8 and PQ-14, which were radio-controlled target drones that could be flown by humans, too.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Oct 27, 2018)

I have a love of the Brewster F2A Buffalo and the Finnish B-239 versions, definitely a unique aircraft.

The Ju-86 is something that doesn't get much recognition, it was a workhorse but was surpassed by the He-111. My favorite is the Ju-86P and R versions. They had pressurized cabins and used Jumo 205 2 stroke diesels. They were photo recon versions with ceilings over 50000'. I have a book on just those variants.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Oct 27, 2018)

> The Ju-86 is something that doesn't get much recognition



Great pick the Ju86 are ignored, i think I only found it looking for high altitude turbo planes, but very good at what it was meant to do as well as been technically cool, unfortunately it looks like an mangy turkey vulture

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Oct 27, 2018)

Speaking about recon department... FW 189 comes to mind. 
Search "focke wulf 189" on Amazon brings just 6 books. Not fair, IMHO.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Oct 27, 2018)

I would vote for the PBM, the Catalina seems to get the fame for sea planes in the US. 1300 PBMs were built. Though it did get fame as part of the Flight 19 story.

I wouldn't call the SBD ignored, any photo or art work of the Battle of Midway has the SBD in it. But your right, since it was phased out before the end of the War, it gets less of the liimelight.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 27, 2018)

pinehilljoe said:


> I would vote for the PBM, the Catalina seems to get the fame for sea planes in the US. 1300 PBMs were built. Though it did get fame as part of the Flight 19 story.
> 
> I wouldn't call the SBD ignored, any photo or art work of the Battle of Midway has the SBD in it. But your right, since it was phased out before the end of the War, it gets less of the liimelight.


The PBM is a very good pick. 
When I started the thread I was thinking in terms of most ignored realative to its contribution( hence my pick of the SBD).
but that would have made for an awfully long title and been more limiting in scope.
The SBD wasn't retired before the end of the war. It was still being used by the Marines in the Pacific and in its land based version, the A -24 Banshee in Europe by the Free French air force until the end of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 27, 2018)

Another little known fact about the SBD, it saw action against Axis shipping and targets during the Allied landings in North Africa and then from there, was operating against German shipping near Norway.
These were SBDs from the USS Ranger (CV-4).


----------



## Greg Boeser (Oct 27, 2018)

And in it's Army livery (A-24), it was active from the Aleutians to Australia.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 27, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Another little known fact about the SBD, it saw action against Axis shipping and targets during the Allied landings in North Africa and then from there, was operating against German shipping near Norway.
> These were SBDs from the USS Ranger (CV-4).


I was un aware of the SBD use around Norway. You don't happen to know the timeframe of that do you?


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 27, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> I was un aware of the SBD use around Norway. You don't happen to know the timeframe of that do you?


During Operation Leader in October 1943.

The Ranger spent most of her service in the Atlantic and MTO, so her compliment of F4Fs, SBDs and TBFs saw extensive operations against German, Italian and Vichy French targets.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Oct 27, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> The PBM is a very good pick.
> When I started the thread I was thinking in terms of most ignored realative to its contribution( hence my pick of the SBD).
> but that would have made for an awfully long title and been more limiting in scope.
> The SBD wasn't retired before the end of the war. It was still being used by the Marines in the Pacific and in its land based version, the A -24 Banshee in Europe by the Free French air force until the end of the war.



Yes, agreed about use of the SBD, I was referring to first line in the air wings of the big fleet carriers. By the end of the War, the SB2C had replaced the SBD on the Fleet Carriers.


----------



## SPYINTHESKY (Oct 30, 2018)

Conslaw said:


> I agree. Martin built 1575 Baltimores, and the vast majority of them saw combat service. Like some other planes (such as the Hawker Typhoon), this plane is easy to forget about because none currently survive.




There is a Hawker Typhoon in the RAF Museum London and a beautiful beast it is too. I certainly don't think the Typhoon is ignored by the way, indeed was, and still is a very popular Airfix kit I remember from my childhood. Strangely enough I was reading up about it prior to coming on this forum this morning as its a profile I really need to add to its other Hawker sisters from Tornado to Sea Fury its the only one remaining to be done in my portfolio.

_(Re reading not sure that you were necessarily including the Tiffy in 'not existing' category.)_

Edit: Ironically I was led here indirectly by my getting an update on the Typhoon Restoration project (Hawker Typhoon RB396 » Restoration) and went back to its news section later. Funny enough I learned, within some big news they relate there, that though I stated that I didn't think it to be an ignored aircraft the creators of the project do believe that it is, especially now that the 'Typhoon' name is nearly always identified with the modern fighter that took its name.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SPYINTHESKY (Oct 30, 2018)

About Eric Brown, I did actually participate in a long interview with him some years back (alongside an experienced pilot on the type) regarding the Whirlwind fighter as we were trying to create a documentary about it specifically to raise its profile and led by someone who's father was the first Squadron Leader of the type. I guess that aircraft qualifies here too by the way.

Anyway it was very interesting to compare his view of the type with that of an active pilot on the aircraft. The pilot loved it as did nearly all his compatriots it seems however Eric Brown was totally dismissive of it which perhaps gives perspective on the attitudes between combat pilots and test pilots. He was certainly very opinionated and very good at putting his point across with impact shall we say. It made you both impressed by his self belief and very (even in his then late 80s) clear sharp mind and memory on such matters, that to be as successful as he was in his profession was I suspect a necessity. It would also on the other side of the coin probably create in himself strong views that might not necessarily be entirely fair (and certainly not nuanced) in all cases because perhaps the bigger/wider picture wasn't as important as the immediate and clear assessment. In the case of the Whirlwind he didn't fly it (I understand) till rather late in its cycle and as an aircraft that was never updated in its 4 year lifespan was probably for example too dismissive because by that time it was competing with aircraft that had gone through endless development, but then that was not his problem he would claim. Don't know if that is insightful or not in regards to the man but no one would survive in his capacity without strong opinions that gave answers in the immediate circumstances, especially within a wartime scenario, when instant answers were required for good or bad at times and he was the go to man for that.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jager52 (Nov 1, 2018)

I am submitting the Hawker Hurricane, over shadowed by the Spitfire. And the P39 for the Eastern front.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 1, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Eric Brown also flew a variety of "missions" a lot of which had very little to do with max turning rates or max roll rates or other extreme, exploring the edges of the envelope flying.
> 
> He did a lot of work figuring out which planes could be landed on carrier decks (or not landed on them). for a number of weeks at the end of the war he was ferrying a variety of German Aircraft back to England (or at least to British controlled zones in Germany) which often meant flying a plane that had been repaired/serviced by German mechanics using whatever parts they could scrounge up at the field they were at. Getting a strange plane into the air and back down with very little briefing and not breaking it (and himself) in the process took precedence over wringing the last G or two out it's turning circle. Some of the se planes he flew only once or twice (test hop if he was lucky and then the ferry flight to turn the plane over to the people examining it) .
> 
> He may have also flown some planes 2-4 years apart and with dozens (if not hundreds ) planes inbetween it is quite possible that his perceptions/standards had changed.



Yeah but that is from an experienced and very tough wartime pilot and combat veteran no less, with considerably more flight time in those aircraft than anyone posting in this group...


----------



## Schweik (Nov 1, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> Reminds me another great and well known in USSR/post USSR test pilot Mark Gallay. 124 aircraft, participator of early space program. Over a dozen of books.
> He was shortly in combat in 1941 and claimed Do-215 in one of night interceptions.
> Reading his books (well written, by the way) I was quite often surprised by his evaluations of combat machines. His opinion about P-47 was summarised as "Good airplane but not a fighter".



Could you summarize some of his other evaluations? P-39? P-40? Spit? Yak series? Lavochkin series?


----------



## Schweik (Nov 1, 2018)

I agree with some already mentioned, so some of these are repeats. A few of my favorites (under the criteria that they are not very well known at least to non-enthusiasts, but were good designs and had at least some useful military service)

*Fighters*
IAR-80 what a beautiful plane and apparently, pretty effective against P-38s and maybe B-24s. The story of it's design history coming out of the PZL P-.24 is fairly amazing to me. Romania had legit design chops. Also as far as I know the only successful fighter of Slavic design that wasn't Russian.
Yak-7 a trainer that worked so well it was made into a fighter, and one of the really important fighters at that for a while for the VVS
Early Mustangs, Mk I and II - playing a fairly substantial role as one of the few fighters flying out of England in the early days that could perform (relatively) deep daytime intrusion missions and live to tell about it.
Dewoitine D.520- I was susprised to learn how much these were still being used by the Italians for air defense of Italy.
Re-2001 and 2005 all the Regianne fighters really, and the other 5 series (G. 55 and MC 205) don't get enough credit IMO.

*Bombers*
People already covered the SBD and A-24 but let me just add praise to that.
The A-36 was a (to me) surprisingly important and significant dive bomber. I really had no idea until I bought a book on Allison-Engined Mustangs.
Ju 88 - seems to have been quite dangerous in a maritime role that I think gets overshadowed by not being all that great over England
SM. 79 - three engined terror of the Royal Navy in the Med, and it started as an airliner
A-26 it played a bigger role in the war than people seem to realize.
*
Recon*
It's not exactly unknown but it could deserve a bit more renown - the sleek and fast Ki-46

*Utility / Maritime patrol*
Lysander - playing a combat role in North Africa among other interesting things
Hudson / Harpoon / Ventura already mentioned but they show up a lot in the histories playing a vital role in guiding other combat aircraft to their targets, or from base to base. So many planes were lost to navigation problems. After reading Christopher Shores Mediterranean air war series I understood the purpose of this plane.

*Seaplanes and float planes*
Bv 138 - innovate three engined seaplane design and quite effective, dangerously well armed
Bv 222 - huge a beast of the remote oceans, winner of many maritime fights with it's batteries of heavy guns
Ar 196 - useful and ubiquitous, and surprisingly well armed.
He 115 -menace to the North Sea convoys
Short Sunderland - biggest and best armed Allied float plane
A6M2-N - the most dangerous float plane fighter by far, maneuverable and well armed.
SC Seahawk - the American answer to the A6M2-N - late to the game but it was a nice fighter. 300 mph with floats is pretty good.


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 1, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Yeah but that is from an experienced and very tough wartime pilot and combat veteran no less, with considerably more flight time in those aircraft than anyone posting in this group...



Schweik,

Yes he was a very experienced test pilot, whom had two kills of Condors. He crashed quite a few times, and has no combat against fighters that I can find. Your point seems to be that he is unquestionable by us mere mortals. He isn’t. If you make a claim,statement or opinion known you must be ready to defend it. Obviously he is no longer with us but his opinions are so they get questioned, scrutinized, and closely examined. He, like all the rest of us, is fallible, and time usually accentuates that.

I will repeat what I said earlier, and that is if in two identical F15s, I couldn’t beat a test pilot I would have been embarrassed. I realize we train very hard today, much more than they did in WW2, but a combat proficient pilot has a definitive edge over his non-proficient test pilot counterpart.

Personally I have just shy of 2700 hours in the Eagle, with over a 100 combat missions in it. I have another 80 combat sorties in other aircraft as well. .I can make statements on here regarding that, which leaves my 50+ year old brain open for mistakes and my comments open to scrutiny and cross examination. I learned years ago not to take it personal, nor think I’m the end all be all of a given subject.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 1, 2018)

SPYINTHESKY said:


> About Eric Brown, I did actually participate in a long interview with him some years back (alongside an experienced pilot on the type) regarding the Whirlwind fighter as we were trying to create a documentary about it specifically to raise its profile and led by someone who's father was the first Squadron Leader of the type. I guess that aircraft qualifies here too by the way.
> 
> Anyway it was very interesting to compare his view of the type with that of an active pilot on the aircraft. The pilot loved it as did nearly all his compatriots it seems however Eric Brown was totally dismissive of it which perhaps gives perspective on the attitudes between combat pilots and test pilots. He was certainly very opinionated and very good at putting his point across with impact shall we say. It made you both impressed by his self belief and very (even in his then late 80s) clear sharp mind and memory on such matters, that to be as successful as he was in his profession was I suspect a necessity. It would also on the other side of the coin probably create in himself strong views that might not necessarily be entirely fair (and certainly not nuanced) in all cases because perhaps the bigger/wider picture wasn't as important as the immediate and clear assessment. In the case of the Whirlwind he didn't fly it (I understand) till rather late in its cycle and as an aircraft that was never updated in its 4 year lifespan was probably for example too dismissive because by that time it was competing with aircraft that had gone through endless development, but then that was not his problem he would claim. Don't know if that is insightful or not in regards to the man but no one would survive in his capacity without strong opinions that gave answers in the immediate circumstances, especially within a wartime scenario, when instant answers were required for good or bad at times and he was the go to man for that.



I believe that reasons why Eric Brown did not like the Westland Whirlwind are actually hidden in your account.
By the time Brown flew the Whirlwind, it was no longer a competitive aircraft from a performance standpoint.
It was not competitive because it had not been updated during its 4 year lifespan.

It COULD NOT be updated because could not be stretched to take a different power plant.
It was designed around the Rolls Royce Peregrine engine which had no further development and the airframe could not take an upgrade to a Merlin engine or anything else that was available because of balance reasons. Thus it was a dead end for development and doomed to remain at the performance level it had at the beginning of its life.

I believe I saw a video in which he gave this explanation.

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 1, 2018)

Certainly not questioning your experience with F-15s Biff nor was my comment in particular directed at you.

I also did not say that Eric Brown couldn't be questioned. I do think he knew more about flying WW2 fighters than anyone else here, and the man had some brass balls to survive 24 hours in the cold sea when everyone else he was with died. That doesn't necessarily make him more knowledgeable but it does impress me, maybe I'm a rube.

I don't think that means everything he ssid is gospel, but I also wouldn't dismiss it put of hand. The man did fly a fighter in combat, people shot at him who were trying to kill him even if it was from a condor, and he didn't just fly Martlets i"for reals" apparently either. Maybe he was a little out of practice in spite of flying fighter sweeps with the Canadians and so on but I think he was well qualified to provide an insightful assessment. I don't think it's fair to dismiss him as "just" a test pilot.

That said of course even experienced fighter pilots contradicted each other routinely in such analysis so it's quite clear they were fallable. I would never argue otherwise.

Trying to make a nuanced statement here, in a nutshell , no I'm not saying you can't question the man I am saying I respect what he said. I read a post which sounded overly dismissive and b.c was replying specifically to that.

For the record an F-15 pilot is very impressive to me as well. No disrespect intended.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 1, 2018)

Gentlemen,
I have a slightly different interpretation of the subject of this thread: How about an aircraft that was not recognized for its accomplishments and quality at the time of its service but may have received recognition since the war?

Consider the Kawasaki Ki-100 Army Type 5 Fighter.
It was one of the best Japanese fighters toward the end of war in actual performance if not in design performance.
It had excellent handling, fairly decent speed, and good firepower and protection, yet was not even recognized by the Allies as a distinct type and never received a Code Name.

Even the Japanese didn't seem to have any name for it other than "Type 5 Fighter".

Thoughts?

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 1, 2018)

Wasnt the Ki 100 usually grounded due to maintenance problems?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 1, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Wasnt the Ki 100 usually grounded due to maintenance problems?



Actually the Ki-100 was one of the most reliable of the late war Japanese fighters that generally lived up to the performance capabilities of its design. It used the Ha-112 engine which was generally reliable as compared to the Ha-140 inline it replaced in the Ki-61-II airframe and often gave more actual power in service than the nominally more powerful Ha-45 engines.

Speed was a bit lower than the Ki-61-II but engine power was comparable and it weighed less.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 2, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Certainly not questioning your experience with F-15s Biff nor was my comment in particular directed at you.
> 
> I also did not say that Eric Brown couldn't be questioned. I do think he knew more about flying WW2 fighters than anyone else here, and the man had some brass balls to survive 24 hours in the cold sea when everyone else he was with died. That doesn't necessarily make him more knowledgeable but it does impress me, maybe I'm a rube.
> 
> ...



Schweik,

Upon rereading my post I think I might have come across a bit harsh. That was totally not my intention and apologize if you read it that way.

Winkle will probably end up being one of if not the most experienced pilots ever. I have no doubt his skill set and knowledge were very broad. I would have thoroughly enjoyed talking with him as he flew a bunch of planes I would love to fly as well.

My only reason for posting my background was to show I was open to being questioned, called out or challenged as would Winkle if he were still around.

Don’t be impressed by having flown the Eagle, I’m just a sarcasm as humor 50+ year old Dad and airline pilot who likes old planes (childhood trait). My predominant roles in here is as a student of history and a pilots perspective liaison if you will. Wes, Fliger, Greg, FBJ all fly as well and do the same as well.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Dimlee (Nov 2, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Could you summarize some of his other evaluations? P-39? P-40? Spit? Yak series? Lavochkin series?


Valid question. But I don't have his books in my e-library today. What I remember though that Mark Gallai wrote positively in general about aircraft which were easier to handle for "average" pilot. He valued them more than "state of art" but dangerous creations. He was very fond of I-15, of many if not all of Tupolev aircraft (according to him, Pe-8 and SB shared something in common in handling despite huge difference in size and weight), praised high La-5, was not too happy about MiG-3. He flew German and Allied aircraft but didn't describe them in many details. Me 163 was tested with engine shut down in many flights and it seemed he enjoyed that "glider".


----------



## Rei-Sen (Nov 2, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> That is truly amazing. Not only have i never read about that I have actually read in at least one" history" book that there was no exchange of arms at all between Germany and Japan until a few minor things twards the end of the war. Just goes to show you can't believe everything you read.


That's definitely untrue. The "Tony" used a license-built (albeit somewhat modified) DB601 for its powerplant.


----------



## fredleander (Nov 4, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> I would like everyones opinion on the most ignored combat aircraft of ww2. This goes beyond aircraft that don't get there due to aircraft that get pretty much ignored completely inspite of a major contribution to the effort at least in what I would call the popular press. My nomination would be the SBD Dauntless.


Totally disagree on this one. Sure, if you only talk about the ETO - it was never there - but the Dauntless was one of the most important airplanes in the PTO. I mean to have read that the Dauntless, a dive-bomber - shot down more enemy fighters than those lost by enemy fighters.

The most ignored planes in my book are the Breda Ba.65 and the P-36. The Breda performed as well as the SBD and the Ju-87 and the P-36 was the best US dogfighter when US entered the war.

Fred


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 4, 2018)

The BA 65 was on it's way out when the war started and was only kept in service by the failure of two of it's intended replacements. It did see service in a number of wars/air forces but never did anything critical/noteworthy, not saying it was bad, just never made the headlines by sinking an aircraft carrier or other major target.

The P-36 In US service fought for one day. After Dec 7th 1941 it never saw combat in US service again so it tends to be forgotten in US history and books. It's service in other AIr Forces was much greater but aside from France in 1940 it was in secondary areas/fronts and also failed to be mentioned in the headlines/newsreels of the day.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 4, 2018)

fredleander said:


> Totally disagree on this one. Sure, if you only talk about the ETO - it was never there - but the Dauntless was one of the most important airplanes in the PTO. I mean to have read that the Dauntless, a dive-bomber - shot down more enemy fighters than those lost by enemy fighters.
> 
> The most ignored planes in my book are the Breda Ba.65 and the P-36. The Breda performed as well as the SBD and the Ju-87 and the P-36 was the best US dogfighter when US entered the war.
> 
> Fred


The SBD most certainly did see action in the ETO. It also saw action in the MTO as well.


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 4, 2018)

fredleander said:


> Totally disagree on this one. Sure, if you only talk about the ETO - it was never there - but the Dauntless was one of the most important airplanes in the PTO. I mean to have read that the Dauntless, a dive-bomber - shot down more enemy fighters than those lost by enemy fighters.
> 
> The most ignored planes in my book are the Breda Ba.65 and the P-36. The Breda performed as well as the SBD and the Ju-87 and the P-36 was the best US dogfighter when US entered the war.
> 
> Fred


When I started the thread I was thinking in terms of most ignored in relationship to its contribution. I probably should have included that in the title but that would have been awfully long and unwieldy.
There are definitely more ignored aircraft but I don't think there's another one that did so much to change the course of events yet still gets comparatively little attention.
Such is my impression and reason for my pick anyway.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 4, 2018)

fredleander said:


> ...
> The most ignored planes in my book are the Breda Ba.65 and the P-36. The Breda performed as well as the SBD and the Ju-87 and the P-36 was the best US dogfighter when US entered the war.
> 
> Fred



Ba.65 was ill able to replicate capabilities of either SBD or Ju-87. Bomb load of 200 kg (total 'useful' load, including crew, fuel, guns, ammo, bombs was 1100 kg), inability to dive bomb well - no wonder the Italians themselves were buying Ju-87s, bombing-up obsolete fighters, and trying their best to employ Ro.57 and SM.79.
Manual for the Ba.65 can be found here.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 4, 2018)

It does appear that the SBD would qualify as being ignored to a certain extent as it seems that few people are aware of it's MTO and ETO conteibutions. Granted, it's successes were nowhere near as stellar as it's PTO record.

And while the Ranger (CV-4) was operating in Norwegian waters, it was taunting the Tirpitz to come out (which it didn't) so the SBD missed a chance at another major enemy warship to add to it's long list.


----------



## GregP (Nov 4, 2018)

The Ki-102 might be overlooked because there were only 238 built, of several variants. That means not many were about, ever.

I'd nominate the Bell P-59 series. They only made 66 Bell P-59 Airacomets of 4 varieties (three XP-59As, 13 YP-59As, 20 P-59As, and 30 P-59Bs). So, they were SCARCE. But they did introduce our WWII fighter pilots to jets, and most of the pilots transitioned into P-80s soon after the war. It DID make a contribution, but not to WWII combat. It has a large hand in getting pilots ready for Korea by helping the jet transition.


----------



## special ed (Nov 4, 2018)

May I throw in a surprising, to me, encounter off Tunisia between the British navy and the French navy in port. " a pair of Ark Royal's spotter aircraft were being attacked by five French Curtiss Hawks. Three Skuas tried to intervene but one was shot down. Four French Morane 406s also arrived. Lt. Bill Bruen, Skua sqdn commander now outnumbered 9 to 2, attacked with Sub-Lieutenant Guy Brokensha." In short, a Curtiss 75 was hit and broke off and shortly after, a Morane was hit and broke away. Three more Hawks showed up and after 3 guns on each Skua jammed,and after fighting with only one working gun on each plane, they left for the carrier. On the way, they discovered a French flying boat attacking a British destroyer and Brokensha knocked out one of it's engines before the two Skua landed aboard after sunset. Who knew? I built an Airfix Skua over fifty years ago and felt it was a poor battle aircraft. The book is " Vichy Air Force at war" by Jon Sutherland and Diane Canwell.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The P-36 In US service fought for one day. After Dec 7th 1941 it never saw combat in US service again so it tends to be forgotten in US history and books. It's service in other AIr Forces was much greater but aside from France in 1940 it was in secondary areas/fronts and also failed to be mentioned in the headlines/newsreels of the day.


Bought from German war booty stocks, 44 in five variants, it was the third best fighter in Finnish service, behind the Bf-109 and the B-239. Ahead of the G-50, MS 406, and D-XXI.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Nov 10, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The SBD most certainly did see action in the ETO. It also saw action in the MTO as


I never knew it was in the ETO. The Ranger is a bit of a mystery ship.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Nov 10, 2018)

SPYINTHESKY said:


> About Eric Brown, I did actually participate in a long interview with him some years back (alongside an experienced pilot on the type) regarding the Whirlwind fighter as we were trying to create a documentary about it specifically to raise its profile and led by someone who's father was the first Squadron Leader of the type. I guess that aircraft qualifies here too by the way.
> 
> Anyway it was very interesting to compare his view of the type with that of an active pilot on the aircraft. The pilot loved it as did nearly all his compatriots it seems however Eric Brown was totally dismissive of it which perhaps gives perspective on the attitudes between combat pilots and test pilots. He was certainly very opinionated and very good at putting his point across with impact shall we say. It made you both impressed by his self belief and very (even in his then late 80s) clear sharp mind and memory on such matters, that to be as successful as he was in his profession was I suspect a necessity. It would also on the other side of the coin probably create in himself strong views that might not necessarily be entirely fair (and certainly not nuanced) in all cases because perhaps the bigger/wider picture wasn't as important as the immediate and clear assessment. In the case of the Whirlwind he didn't fly it (I understand) till rather late in its cycle and as an aircraft that was never updated in its 4 year lifespan was probably for example too dismissive because by that time it was competing with aircraft that had gone through endless development, but then that was not his problem he would claim. Don't know if that is insightful or not in regards to the man but no one would survive in his capacity without strong opinions that gave answers in the immediate circumstances, especially within a wartime scenario, when instant answers were required for good or bad at times and he was the go to man for that.


Pilots tend to love the aircraft that got them through combat. On the other hand what is their frame of reference? Did they have that broad base of knowledge that Brown did? If you've eaten nothing but spam all your life you'll think that how food tastes.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 10, 2018)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I never knew it was in the ETO. The Ranger is a bit of a mystery ship.


The Ranger is probably best known for the photos of it's decks packed with P-40s destined for North African service.
But after she offloaded the P-40s, she spent a large part of '42 in support of Operation Torch, then spent a considerable portion of '43 assisting the Royal Navy in Norwegian waters.

I'm sure the Germans and Italians didn't know what to think of the F4Fs and SBDs they encountered.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 11, 2018)

Well I'm sure the Germans were well familiar with F4Fs, since they had been buzzing about in British livery as Martlets since 1940.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 11, 2018)

The Hawk 75 (P-36) had quite an extensive combat CV during WW2, more than most realise. In French hands they battled the Luftwaffe in the spring of 1940, in Finnish hands they battled the Russians and in Vichy French hands they fought against the British and US. In South African hands as the Mohawk - ex French contract aircraft supplied to the UK and modified, as the French had the throttles operate the wrong way, pull back for power, not Balls-to-the-Wall (!) - they fought against the Italians and Germans and in the Pacific Dutch Hawk 75s and in the CBI theatre RAF Mohawks scrapped with the Japanese.





1507 Flying Legends Hawk 75

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 11, 2018)

The problem analysis of Brown faces is that too many people, including people on this forum base their opinions on what they've read on the internet without having read any of his books.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 11, 2018)

One whole class of aircraft ignored is the spotter aircraft, L-2, L-5 , Storks , etc.

They surely got fired at plenty, they usually couldn't fire back directly, But they could call down arty on your head though.
No armor, unless they stole the stove top lids off field kitchens ( to sit on ) like some early WW1 observation pilots were reputed to have done.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Babaganoosh (Nov 11, 2018)

I’ll add the Focke-Wulf Fw 58. It served several roles (trainer, transport, etc) and over 1000 were built. The only survivor on display is in Brazil.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Nov 12, 2018)

As an aside to Tom's post 163, I met a WW1 vet in Denver outside the VA hospital early one Sunday morning in 1960. He was in a wheelchair and asked us, as fellow service men (we were in uniform), to help him down the front steps. We then walked with him to a diner where he was going for coffee. When asked about his injury, his catch phrase was "Somebody stole my stove lid." It is true that , according to him, that the Fokker D-7 had enough power that when they dove on you from the front, they could hang on the prop long enough for you to fly through their bullets. Because of this, the Americans were customers of a thriving business of buying stolen French stove lids. Since there weren't enough for all, the pilots slept with them under their pillows. After a night of drinking some one stole his from under his pillow and although being marked he never found it. In combat, a D-7 got him and a bullet went into his spine, his only wound. He told us flying back and landing without his legs was more difficult than combat. He was in a VA center ever since. I don't think we even asked what he flew, at least I don't remember.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

