Most ignored combat aircraft of ww2

[fastmongrel]

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.

 

[rednev]

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]

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

 

[Greyman]

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

 

[michael rauls]

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.

 

[gomwolf]

Fiat G.55 Centauro.

 

[Skyediamonds]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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"...

 

[GrauGeist]

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...

 

[Glider]

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.

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

 

[parsifal]

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

 

[michael rauls]

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

 

[parsifal]

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

 

[Ivan1GFP]

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.

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.

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]

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

 

[BiffF15]

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