Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

The most over-rated aircraft of WW2


  • Total voters
    409

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Lucky13

Forum Mascot
47,725
23,985
Aug 21, 2006
In my castle....
Which, in your honest opinion, aircraft achieved a popular reputation that far exceeded their actual performance or capability in combat?
I think that this might be interesting.....:lol: 8)
 
Early in the war the P39 was supposed to be hot stuff and it certainly looked the part. Operationally it was a real dud.

Don't tell that to the Russians!

I think the PBY Catalina was one of the most overrated planes.
It was reliable, beautiful and sturdy but does not deserve all the acclaim it receives.

Don't get me wrong it was (is) an awesome plane but to often that is the ONLY image that is conjured when thinking of WW2 seaplanes or flying boats.

I love the Cat but she is overrated.
 
After the battle of Britania the Spit got the honor of the plane that did the most of saving britania from german invasion but in fact it whas the Hawker Hurricane who did the most work because by it whas more than twice faster to manucacture than the Spit and so become in greate number so the Hurricane should stand as symbol over battle of Brittania whit the Me 109 instead of the Spit.
sorry for my bad spelling.
 
The P47 didnt have the range necessary to escort the bombers to their targets, therefore it cant be under appreciated.

The P51 was in on most of the destruction of the LW, so it cant be over rated.

The PBY did what it was supposed to do. It was never thought of being the best, so it cant be over rated,

The P40 was a good performer in the first couple of years in the PTO... cant be that.

The P39, quite possibly the most over rated. And that goes for the Me-110.
 
The P47 didnt have the range necessary to escort the bombers to their targets, therefore it cant be under appreciated.

The P51 was in on most of the destruction of the LW, so it cant be over rated.

The PBY did what it was supposed to do. It was never thought of being the best, so it cant be over rated,

The P40 was a good performer in the first couple of years in the PTO... cant be that.

The P39, quite possibly the most over rated. And that goes for the Me-110.

The question was "What is the most over rated" not, "What was considered the best but really not"

>>
The PBY did what it was supposed to do t was never thought of being the best, so it cant be over rated

That is a government worker mentality. You can only be over rated if you are thought of as the best? If you do what u are supposed to do then u are immune to criticism?



I believe the PBY does not live up to many peoples lofty assesments... the same goes for the B-17.
 
The first one that comes to mind ... the Fw 190. No better than the Bf 109 was twice as expensive to build.

Kris

????HUH????

The FW-190 is often in arguments as one of the finest piston planes ever produced.

Just because it was expensive to build doesn't mean it didn't live up to the hype.

And while the P-39 didn't perform up to American standards in the PTO or ETO, it did very well in India/Burma and I think the Russian kills in it showed what it could do when given to a determined force.

I would have to go with Jank and pick the P-51. It's given all the glory, it's the cadillac of the sky, etc. Well you know what?????? I wouldn't have a cadillac. Comfy car for sure. But Lord help your wallet when it breaks. And if you shot it with anything bigger than a .22, it was going down.
 
The first one that comes to mind ... the Fw 190. No better than the Bf 109 was twice as expensive to build.

Kris

Why did FW get the contract then? TWICE is a lot for little/no pay off.

The relationship between the German military and the contractors always seemed odd to me.

The tanks, self propelled guns and recon vehicles all had so many different chassis and suspension systems. If they would have realized the power of standardization, combined with German quality, their industry would have been a huge impact on the war.
 
And while the P-39 didn't perform up to American standards in the PTO or ETO, it did very well in India/Burma and I think the Russian kills in it showed what it could do when given to a determined force.

My turn to go HUH???

Firstly, the P-39 didn't perform to RAF standards either (without the turbocharger).

And who flew the P-39 in Burma/India? It's news to me. I'm not aware of any USAAF squadrons operating it over India?burma - and only 601 had it in the RAF (didn't operate there).
 
To me the most overrated plane. far and away, is the Me 262.

Sure it was the first jet into regular squadron operations, but the effect it had was nothing comarped with the resources expended to develop and deploy it.

The B-17 bomber stream was the SAME whether or not the Me 262 was there, and Me 109s produced in lieu of the 262s would have done more damage to the bombers, if only because so many more Me 109s could have been built using the resources dedicated to Me 262 development and deployment.

I think this is a personal opinion. The P-51's real performance is as good as the hype. I never heard it built up to the point where it was claimed to be better than it was.

When it first escorted B-17s to Germany, no other plane could have done that or they WOULD HAVE DONE SO. It was faster than most operational Spitfires, but I've never yet heard anyone claim it could out-turn or out-climb a Spitfire.

All of the comparative tests I have read were done by the British and they weren't too keen on touting the Mustang, so almost all the Mustang performance data was taken at normal power (no WEP) using 87-Octane gasoline, and limiting the boost to something like 12 - 18 inches ... while the Spitfires were allowed to use WEP, 100 - 150 Octane gas, and were allowed to use 25 inches of boost or more.

In these circumstances the Spitfires almost always came out on top, as the Mustang would have done had the restrictions been reversed. Restriction tend to muddy the waters. In point of fact, the Mustang was a good all-round performer and was probably not the BEST in any single category.

The Spitfire was a specialist with no apologies for being such, and was always kept as light as possible for the fighter-interceptor role. T

The Mustang was loaded down with fuel and whatever else was deemed necessary for the escort role.

Perhaps you people who feel the Mustang was overrated could post the exaggerated claims you have heard about the Mustang? I would be curious to read overinflated claims about it. I'm not saying you wrong (actually, I'm a Spitfire nut myself), I just want to read about the overinflated claims of the Mustang's performance.

Cheers!
 
I would have to go with Jank and pick the P-51. It's given all the glory, it's the cadillac of the sky, etc. Well you know what?????? I wouldn't have a cadillac. Comfy car for sure. But Lord help your wallet when it breaks. And if you shot it with anything bigger than a .22, it was going down.

Performance figures and statistics dont lie. Even if some of the accolades are a bit of an exageration, its still among the best propellor driven planes of all time.

Maybe youre thinking of the Zero when it comes to lack of structural strength. Because the P51 wasnt a light weight like you make it out to be.Over rated? Not by much. And its certeinly not in the same league as the P39 and -110.
 
I voted for the P-51. I recognize it was one of the best combat aircraft of WW2 but at the same time many ill-informed historians have played it up to be superior to every German fighter with the exception of the Me 262.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back