kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
And the top table is from Kurfurst's site:
Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance
Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance
Most overated fighter
- Thread starter Oreo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
The one I posted is from a Brit. report on a G-2/trop (Black Six) which you can find on my site. A month later they revised the economic cruise figures to something like 1000 miles, similiar to the later doc, but there is no reasoning given, and its difficult to understand wheter the first ones were measured in error, or the testbed(?) G-2's condition, which wasnt very shiny to start with, detoriated in the meanwhile.
And, as there is no German range tables (yet) for the G or K to compare the Brit intel figures to, so they is all we have to do.
In any case, the F-4's range with droptank at eco-cruise was noted as 1600 km by the German, or ca 1000 miles. G-series was foreseen to be somewhat better the F-4.
And for completeness, here's the 109E (w and w/o droptank). Droptank-capable E-7s were introduced end of August, 1940.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
According to my sources, P38 had 438 kills in ETO and 1431 kills in the Med. Don't know if those figures include ground AC destroyed.
drgondog
Major
Air and ground for ETO for 8th would be 421 - USAF 85 reference for air and USAAF 8th AF VCB for ground awards for the ones I cited. The difference (if all air scores) between my figures and your source could be the 9th AF P-38 scores. They had more 38's longer than 8th AF and an extra "178' would make sense.
I suspect 1431 air for MTO as they didn't credit ground scores officially.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Considering the P38's reputation and it's actual results and the number produced, 9538, and their original cost and their cost to maintain and the amount of gasoline they used and the length of time for a pilot to become proficient, maybe the P38 was the most overated fighter of WW2.
- Thread starter
- #146
Oreo
Senior Airman
Could be. I know a lot of people at the time thought so, esp. in the ETO. It was the plane that got me interested in aircraft, though!
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
With those range figures on the 109E, there would have to be a reserve of something like 135L (enough for ~20 min of combat), otherwise it would mean fuel efficiency would be significantly better when carrying a drop tank. (which doesn't make sense)
Eurofighter
Airman
- 26
- Dec 11, 2008
Mustang seems to defeat himself God, as the fellows talk about this hunk-of-junk nowadays. Lot of aircraft were better than that, it was only a fighter what could reach Berlin, and was affordable for Uncle Sam at the same time. I would not trust my ass for a single engined escort fighter deep inside the enemy territory, which is vulnerable for gunfire, too. And it was tricky, slugish and tiring to fly for long hours. Pathetic...
drgondog
Major
From personal experience in flying the 51, it was simply a dream to fly - very responsive at all speeds and very manueverable. Having said this, it required trimming when changing throttle settings or increasing/decreasing speeds significantly.
As to 'not rusting your ass for a single engine escort deep in enemy territory' what did you have in mind? The only other fighter that could reach Berlin (or reach London from Berlin) was the P-38. You want to compare between the two as far as results are concerned?
Kind of funny how you talk about the P-51. Don't take me wrong, to me it is a bit over rated as well, however...
1. You call it a "hunk-of-junk". How the hell was it junk. It was one of the best of fighters built in WW2. Please explain how it is a "hunk-of-junk". Use facts and sources please.
2. You would not trust yoru ass in a single engined escort fighter deep over enemy territory. Why not? It performed just fine as a single engined aircraft over enemy territory. Please explain how it was unreliable for such duty. Use facts and sources that show that it was unreliable and unsuited for such duties.
3. You say it is vulnerable to gun fire. What aircraft is not! Come on, you have to use better reasons...
4. You say it was tricky, sluggish and tiring to fly. Explain this using facts and sources. I do not think you can.
Like I said, I too think it is an over rated aircraft, but it was certainly not the way you describe it. The only reason I find it over rated is because I think a lot of aircraft are overlooked because of the P-51D.
As I stated though it was a fine aircraft. It was not unreliable or sluggish or anything like that. So if you are going to make a post like that, you might wanna back it up. I don't think you can.
German Ace
Airman
The P-51 is way over rated. Doesn't even deserve the reputation.
Don't get me wrong, its a good plane, but not as good as everyone thinks it is.
Don't get me wrong, its a good plane, but not as good as everyone thinks it is.
proton45
Senior Airman
I would agree that the A6M had a feared mystique that the allied command had to destroy. The legend of the 'zero" was a priority of the allied airforce...and they had to bust the myth to arm their pilots with confidence. But was the zero really any less effective then other Axis aeroplanes? Most of Japanese top aces flew the zero, and they didn't all die (KIA) the moment the zero's secrets where unlocked...If Japan had the same industrial power as the USA had behind it, how would the allies have fared against huge numbers of A6M's (quantity has its own quality)? Technology is constantly evolving and an aeroplane that was tactically relevant for one fight, might be overpowered in another...Are all WW2 fighters "crap" just because an F16 with sidewinders would blow it away?
As much time and effort that went into destroying the legend of the A6M...was also put into building the Spitfire up. But as we all know the Hurricane did far more damage to the Luftwaffe then the "Spit" did...How would the UK have done against Germany in the "BoB" if they had, had all the Hurricanes that could have been built if they didn't put the resources into making the Spitfire?
I would equally agree that it was essential for the morale of the 8th for the US Airforce to believe in the power of the Mustang...All three of these aeroplanes had a powerful legend behind them.
Few things in life can live up to the legend.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
If you're speaking in terms of shear performance when compared with some of its contemporaries, you have a point valid for debate, but in the greater picture it brought the fight to its opponents with just enough performance and numbers that enabled it to clearly gain aerial superiority, and with regards to the ETO, broke the back of the Luftwaffe and there is where its reputation is instilled.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
And why is that? The P51 was great or good in so many aspects, it has to be considered among the best planes of all time.
proton45
Senior Airman
I'm going to be "un-technical" about an answer...but I think that a lot of people hold this opinion because the legend of the P-51 was one of the last great myths born about an aeroplane. That and a lot of people have an emotional issue with America "winning the war" (wink)... the P51 was a kick-ass aeroplane, but their really wasn't a "best" single aeroplane.
drgondog
Major
Simply - it was the right fighter at the most crucial time in US Airpower history and it took control of the German airspace over Germany against the best that Germany had to offer.
Was it the best interceptor - no, was it the best fighter bomber - no; was it the best air superiority weapon over the enemy's airspace - Yes. Could daylight strategic bombing have survived without it - probably not but the P-38J-25 and L may have been adequate until the much longer range P-47s were available.. but that 'alternate' reality didn't occur.
What 'couldda' happened - did happen
Debate what you wish, look at the results
Was it the best interceptor - no, was it the best fighter bomber - no; was it the best air superiority weapon over the enemy's airspace - Yes. Could daylight strategic bombing have survived without it - probably not but the P-38J-25 and L may have been adequate until the much longer range P-47s were available.. but that 'alternate' reality didn't occur.
What 'couldda' happened - did happen
Debate what you wish, look at the results
German Ace
Airman
In the P-51's great numbers, there didn't lay very many killls per plane.
Compared to a Germany's planes.
I am not going to get into an argument now, I know how aeroplane forums are.
Compared to a Germany's planes.
I am not going to get into an argument now, I know how aeroplane forums are.
While I agree that it is over rated (only because other aircraft are looked over because of it), please explain what reputation it had. Also explain how it does not deserve it.
Facts are facts:
1. It was fast.
2. It was very maneuverable.
3. It had the range to take the fight to the Germans.
4. Because of that, it technically was the aircraft that broke the Luftwaffe's back.
Like I said, I don't think it was the best fighter of the war (on a one on one comparative basis), but it was not a crap aircraft like some want to make it out to be.
As Bill pointed out, it was the best aircraft for the job. It gained control of the skies. That says something in itself. The P-51 shot down more German aircraft than any other allied aircraft. That also says something...
Like I said, I too think the P-51 is a bit over rated, but lets not be a revisionist here. That is just wrong...
Last edited:
