# Best Overachiever Aircraft?



## Oreo (Jul 20, 2008)

Read carefully so you'll understand what I mean. Some aircraft in WWII achieved incredible results against incredible odds, and sometimes with incredibly troublesome aircraft, in small numbers, or with ancient technology. Here are a list of improbable heroes to vote for: We are looking for the plane that gave the greatest account for itself, in spite of the long odds.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 20, 2008)

Went with the Gladiator. Some amazing stories from Norway to Bismark to Malta, that bi-plane achieved some incredible stuff.


----------



## Haztoys (Jul 20, 2008)

ME-109... and P-40..


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 20, 2008)

Buffalo!

.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 20, 2008)

I should have put the Buffalo. Sorry! You are so right!


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 21, 2008)

Good idea for a poll,,, tough choice between Buffalo, Gladiator, Swordfish and the Polikarpov I-16,

,


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2008)

Haztoys said:


> ME-109... and P-40..



 

You consider the Bf 109 an overachiever?

It was a damn good aircraft. Not the best but a damn good aircraft....


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 21, 2008)

THe original post said:


> achieved incredible results against incredible odds, and sometimes with incredibly troublesome aircraft, in small numbers, or with ancient technology



The latter 3 comments are points, but as the "sometimes" seams imply, the main point is at incredible odds. (the 3 points giving examples on what those odds may be)


----------



## JugBR (Jul 21, 2008)

gadiator: a name to history


----------



## JugBR (Jul 21, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You consider the Bf 109 an overachiever?
> 
> It was a damn good aircraft. Not the best but a damn good aircraft....



if you consider the nf 109 was started service in spanish civil war and was manufactured until the total destruction of germans industry, the climb ratio, manuverability, firepower, general performance and it was also manufactured or assembled under license and used after war by israel, czheks and spanish... is was the very damm good project !

people says the only problem of bf 109 was the "chaos of diferent versions".


----------



## Njaco (Jul 21, 2008)

Adler, I was going to say 109 as well (it wasn't listed) only because it went so far and above what it was designed for. It was a good aircraft and achieved alot - aLOT! Amazing aircraft especially for what it was used for.


----------



## ccheese (Jul 21, 2008)

Oreo said:


> I should have put the Buffalo. Sorry! You are so right!



I added it for you....

Charles


----------



## Haztoys (Jul 21, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You consider the Bf 109 an overachiever?
> 
> It was a damn good aircraft. Not the best but a damn good aircraft....



Sorry I read the post wrong.. I was thinking overachiever was in achieve alot more then it should of..Not saying it was a bad aircraft at all..Just being keep in service longer then most ..And achieven alot..Sorry read the post wrong..


----------



## Thorlifter (Jul 21, 2008)

I went with the swordfish. That plane had no business doing what it did against the types of vessels it went up against and having the success that it had. But God bless the crews that flew them.


----------



## rochie (Jul 21, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> I went with the swordfish. That plane had no business doing what it did against the types of vessels it went up against and having the success that it had. But God bless the crews that flew them.



i agree thorlifter, i believe it even outlived it's successor (the albecore)


----------



## drgondog (Jul 21, 2008)

rochie said:


> i agree thorlifter, i believe it even outlived it's successor (the albecore)



Tough question. The Buffalo in the hands of the Finns was an Overachiever by any standard, The Sworfish accomplished the most for it's standard of design and performance as a Torpedo bomber.

I am leaning to the Swordfish for its superior contribution to ultimate victory.

Last - the 109 definitely does not belong in class of 'overachiever' as it is truly one of the greatest fighters of all times. You don't build crap 39000 times.


----------



## renrich (Jul 21, 2008)

Oreo, nice idea for a poll. I would go with the Stringbag almost without question with the TBD as a faint possibility.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2008)

I voted for the Swordfish, but could of gone for the buffalo or Gladiator. The Hawk 75 was an excellent aircraft and did do well during the battle of France. Although not very fast it was one of the most under-rated aircraft of WW2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Adler, I was going to say 109 as well (it wasn't listed) only because it went so far and above what it was designed for. It was a good aircraft and achieved alot - aLOT! Amazing aircraft especially for what it was used for.



I am not saying the 109 at all. To me it was not an overachiever at all.


----------



## Haztoys (Jul 21, 2008)

I wish the word "overachiever" was not used at the start of this ...The word meaning is not the same to all people.. It means to me a plane that did more then one would knew it would when new ...And lasted longer then the maker would of dreamed ...Thats how I see the 109.. Great plane...And it overachiever in every way ...Great plane...I use the word in a "good" light ..Not bad..


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 21, 2008)

"overachiever" in this context is an Underdog that prevailed despite long odds.

The 109 was never an underdog
The swordfish and Buffalo were true underdogs that rose to the occasion


----------



## Bernhart (Jul 21, 2008)

going with the swordfish, was used as late as 1944 as a attack aircraft against e-boats and u-boats, gladiator is a close second


----------



## Marcel (Jul 21, 2008)

Oreo said:


> Read carefully so you'll understand what I mean. Some aircraft in WWII achieved incredible results against incredible odds, and sometimes with incredibly troublesome aircraft, in small numbers, or with ancient technology. Here are a list of improbable heroes to vote for: We are looking for the plane that gave the greatest account for itself, in spite of the long odds.



Fokker D.XXI (why isn't it there?). Being out-gunned and out-performed by the Germans, still did quite a good job on May 10th. Furthermore, it was quite successful with the Finns.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 22, 2008)

Thanx Cosimo, now I understand. And on that point I agree, the Bf 109 was never an underdog.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 22, 2008)

More and more keep coming to mind-- I didn't want to flood everyone out with exhaustive choices. Two more I thought of are the Martin 166, which fought well in the NEI, and the PZL P.11 which put up quite a fight against the invading Luftwaffe. The PZL really should have been on the list, the 166, maybe not so relavent to the discussion. The D.21 might should have been on the list, I suppose, but I didn't think of it-- remember it also fought for Finland.


----------



## Juha (Jul 26, 2008)

Hello
in the end I voted for Swordfish, it fullfilled 3 categories from Oreo's list, it achieved incredible results against incredible odds, in small numbers, and with ancient technology. After all Brewster F2A was a modern all-metal cantilever monoplane with tractable undercarriage.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jul 26, 2008)

Brewster Buffalo. The things the Finnish achieved with that bird, amazing.


----------



## Doughboy (May 30, 2009)

Thorlifter said:


> I went with the swordfish. That plane had no business doing what it did against the types of vessels it went up against and having the success that it had. But God bless the crews that flew them.


Swordfish...The post that I'm replying to says it all.


----------



## Cromwell (May 30, 2009)

Well, with the 109 I am still puzzled as to why no-one seemed to say 'hey guys lets widen the track of the undercart because right now it is killing pilots'

On one side : this is why I always wonder why they did not do more to solve the Seafire question

So many of them just folded up on landing or skidded off the edge !





drgondog said:


> Tough question. The Buffalo in the hands of the Finns was an Overachiever by any standard, The Sworfish accomplished the most for it's standard of design and performance as a Torpedo bomber.
> 
> I am leaning to the Swordfish for its superior contribution to ultimate victory.
> 
> Last - the 109 definitely does not belong in class of 'overachiever' as it is truly one of the greatest fighters of all times. You don't build crap 39000 times.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (May 30, 2009)

Swordfixh for me...although I have a soft spot for the 123. But the swordfish is probably the only aircraft on that poll to make the claim of being one of the 5 aircraft that won WWII.


----------



## Cromwell (May 30, 2009)

BTW don't forget that test pilots said that the Swordfish was a well-balanced aeroplane - with great low speed handling. So, perhaps looks are a little bit deceiving ?

- same for the Gloster Gladiator - in fact there is one still in flying condition near to me at Old Warden in Beds

I have spoken to the display pilot there and he says it flys like a dream - spins on a coin and is well harmonized which is more than can be said for some other WW2 planes.





Burmese Bandit said:


> Swordfixh for me...although I have a soft spot for the 123. But the swordfish is probably the only aircraft on that poll to make the claim of being one of the 5 aircraft that won WWII.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 30, 2009)

I went with the Buffalo. The Finns did an amazing job with it during the Winter War.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 30, 2009)

I had to go with the Buffalo as well. The Netherlands East Indies squads had a kill raition of almost 2-1 Kill with them. For a "lousy" plane, the Finns and Dutch sure knew how to use them.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 31, 2009)

I'm having a tough time deciding between the Buffalo or the Swordfish. 

The Swordfish helped locate the Bismark, and then helped to torpedo her. That's a big achievement for it. The German Battleship was the terror of the high seas before it was downed. 

On the other hand, the Buffalo performed remarkably well, considering how the US didn't give it much appreciation. 

Maybe I'll go with the Swordfish, and amazing little plane.

Gloster Gladiator deserves a mention as well, for defending Malta against 109's.


----------



## imalko (May 31, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> ....The German Battleship was the terror of the high seas before it was downed.



Just a small correction there... Yes, Bismarck was a great threat but wasn't "terror of the high seas before it was downed" because it was destroyed on his first cruise. Apart from Hood I don't think Bismarck sunk any other vessel.

As for overachiever aircraft, its a hard choice, but I would go with Buffalo because of its surprisingly good record with the Finns against the Soviets.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 31, 2009)

It's kind of ironic that the Hood was destroyed with 1,400 of it crewmen dead, and then shortly after the Bismarck was destroyed with 1,900 of it's crew lost. 

It was one of the better Naval battles in WWII at any rate, where battleships faced each other at slightly more even odds. 
Bismarck was hurt by airpower, and without the Swordfish it might have escaped. But in the end it needed the British battleships and destroyers to finish it off, and it was such a powerful ship that even they had trouble at it.


----------



## Cromwell (May 31, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I'm having a tough time deciding between the Buffalo or the Swordfish.
> 
> The Swordfish helped locate the Bismark, and then helped to torpedo her. That's a big achievement for it. The German Battleship was the terror of the high seas before it was downed.
> 
> ...



2 Things 

First - I actually have spoken with a pilot at Old Warden re. The Gladiator which they fly there - he says it really is a great aerobatic aeroplane and is a hard act to follow in anything else - so perhaps there is more than one way to skin a cat in combat ? 

Shuttleworth

Bit like the CR42, which actually was quite a tough cookie for the Spits and Hurris

Second - the reason, alllegdedly, that the Bismark took so long to finish off was actually that the Brits were so desperate to do the deed they got TOO CLOSE

Naval shells work best when then land going straight down (more or less) - not pinging off the sides, which is where battleship armour is the strongest too.

BTW this is what I heard on a programme on TV but like all these things it could do with some verification I think.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 7, 2009)

Swordfish gets my vote, Buffalo and Hawk-75 are the contenders.

Think you're right about the vertical vs. horizontal defence against cannon shells, Cromwell.


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2009)

The Brewster Buffalo is my choice. It truly had the odds stacked against it yet it achieved making aces of pilots.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> The Brewster Buffalo is my choice. It truly had the odds stacked against it yet it achieved making aces of pilots.



I agree, going with the Brewster Buffalo/ B-239.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 8, 2009)

Yep, I would also agree with both Amsel and Soren. Given what the reputation of the Buffalo was in service the modified versions were used by great success by the Finns who did a remarkable job with it.

The Swordfish also deserves a mention but despite my patriotic preferences for it and the great success it had in combat it didn't have the unfavourable reputation that the Buffalo has in US service and the great success that was had by the Finns. The Swordfish would be my second choice in this poll though.


----------



## Yerger (Jun 12, 2009)

I voted Buffalo, mostly for its record in Finland


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 7, 2009)

I went for the Buffalo - the Finns in particular acheived great things with it against an enemy with massive numerical superiority.

Just an aside about the Bismarck - another reason it took the RN so long to sink her was because their gunnery was appalling. Even at point blank range some British BBs were struggling to hit the German ship. Another piece of Bismarck trivia; the first Stringbag strike launched against her was a farce that almost degenerated into tragedy, as the Stringbags mistook the 10,000 ton light cruiser HMS Sheffield for the German battleship and attacked her. The cruiser was saved by a combination of skillful handling and faulty torpedos. Fortunately, Sheffields gunners did not open fire on the Stringbags...


----------



## trackend (Jul 8, 2009)

The Stringbag by a mile. It did everything from mine laying to rocket attacks to dive bombing to smoke laying. Sunk a big chunk of the Italian navy and was very close to getting the most shipping tonnage sunk for a single aircraft make. .All that not forgetting the Bismark and Dunkirk (keeping the E-boats at bay) in a plane that on a good day could clock 140 knts. Bloody amazing


----------



## badbear (Jul 8, 2009)

Stringbag for certain .BB


----------



## Negative Creep (Jul 8, 2009)

What about the Hurricane? Technically it was inferior to the 109 in the battles of France and Britain yet still achieved a good combat record. The airframe was obsolete by 1941 yet it still proved very useful as a tank buster and against the Japanese as late as 1944


----------



## trackend (Jul 8, 2009)

I see where you are coming from NC but it still had an up to date power plant in the Merlin so the performance differential between the Spite, Hurry and 109 was never so pronouced as that of the Stringbag and its advesaries indeed the nine pot Bristol Pegasus 690hp engine was designed in 1930
Even up graded it only clocked a tad over 750hp

Open cockpit only two machine guns and one of those a throw back from the first world war. 
No fancy optical sights for torpedo launching just a row of fairy lights on a pair of bars. 
Long rang fuel tank was just a big can sitting above were the gunner was supposed to be so on long distant flights which because of the Stringbags slow speed took for ever (and mostly consisted of mine laying in the same spot every night so was hated by the crews) it only had 1 machine gun to give any sort of protection.

Yet dispite all these disadvantages the Swordfish was a real punching above its weight plane.
On its first trip out armed with the new anti submarine rockets (just a solid cast iron war head designed to punch through a subs pressure hull) a Stringbag made its first sub kill which by the end of the war totalled 15 kills and several probables.

Merchant shipping losses suffered in the Med from Swordfish both sea and land based by the axsis forces ran at nearly 40 thousand tons a month at the height of the north African campaign and even in the desert war the bag was a surprisingly effective dive bomber agreed it was more of a steep decent than much of a dive, as anything over 200 knts and the wings had a nasty habit of folding.
But it was steep enough that the pilot would be almost standing on the rudder bar. 
Its slow speed also made it a fantastic weapons platform able to fly very low and very slow which made htting the target much easier but it also made you very vunerable and it needed a steady nerve to go against a target like the Bismark at only 100knts. The old adage about the fire control only being calibrated to faster planes is a bit tongue in cheek and all the smaller calibre AA guns had open sights.

So overall I stay loyal to the out of date plane that lead the way in how to attack a harbour it may not have been behind the planning of the Pearl habour attack but two days after Taranto members of Japanese ambassadors staff in Italy visited Taranto and took notes.

_(Sources The Swordfish Story By Ray Surtivant, Swordfish by David Wragg and War in a Stringbag by Charles Lamb)_


----------



## lingo (Jul 8, 2009)

According to the Pilots Notes for the Swordfish the limiting speed was 206 kts IAS clean or 135 Kts flaps fully down. Although they don't say so I should imagine that the elevator or the elevator cables were more likely to fail than the wings. They were built like bridges!


----------



## Waynos (Jul 8, 2009)

Yes I'd say the Swordfish too. The Finns did remarkably well with the Buffalo and that is fine testimony to the men who flew it , but that shameful little beast ( (c) waynos whenever I mention the F2A  )was at least 'supposed' to be able to tangle with current fighters. A replacement was being designed in 1939 for the Swordfish' own replacement as they were BOTH obsolete already, but the stringbag fought on until 1945.

The F2A's record with the Finns does fly in the face of its popular image, but the original TSR II is still the winner for me.


----------

