Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
I always thought the Navion was one of the best looking light planes ever built. North American sure could and did build some beautiful airplanes, makes you think they had artists designing some of them.
Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thumpalumpacus
Major
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Twin Navion is sexy as hell, too.
Used to be one here at Redding Muni (RDD).
Used to be one here at Redding Muni (RDD).
drgondog
Major
Dave - define similarities? AFAIK, no common parts.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I've never paid close attention, mostly because I haven't been around them much, but I recall a conversation ages ago where it was said that the design features were based on the Mustang's.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,265
- Jan 31, 2021
Thanks for the reply. And I salute your long-term research project! Impressive.
Numbers don't mean much. Case in point - many more B-24s were built than B-17s (almost twice as many) and nobody can tell me that the B-24 was better bomber than the B-17! And I think that they built more P-40s than Spitfires. So? The Brits had one good design that they stuck to - the Spitfire. Difficult to manufacture and maintain but aerodynamically great. All their other designs during the war had a lot of issues that took forever to rectify. I submit that had they been quicker in solving the structural issues with the Typhoon and its engine, a lot of things would have looked differently.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
"Better" depends on what metrics one is looking at. I'm biased towards the B-17 myself; my grandfather fought and died on one. But the powers-that-be are the ones which write the budget and fund the procurements, and they thought the -24 was better insofar as it had longer range and usually a heavier bombload.
The Brits never built P-40s, nor the Americans any Spitfires, so those numbers, being segregated between the countries, renders the comparison inapt, to me. I'm talking about the decision-process inside an air ministry or other single-government organ of state. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
The fact the Brits built so many Spits tells me that of their early-war fighters, it was the one which checked more boxes for them.
There were a lot more Spitfires than P-40s produced, but they were in production longer and the Spitfire was also made as a PR and a carrier aircraft. Between the Hurricane, Typhoon and Tempest Hawkers sold about the same number of planes as Supermarine did but they were rarely doing the same job in the same place at the same time
drgondog
Major
There was more global demand for B-24s because overall it was a better combat performer. Longer range, larger bomb load for same range, 15% faster cruise speed at altitude, more flexible mission profile, lower loss rate per sortie - Usually one of those will work for you. And yes, B-17 my favorite bomber all-time.
Reflect that the B-17 had a very strong AAF top leadership support when WWII started and it was the bell cow for 8th and 12th AF early stage combat ops. It was only heavy bomber available in 1942 in Pacific. But also recognize that range/payload was a premium attribute and the B-17s were gradually replaced in all theatres except MTO and ETO in 1943 and that only B-24s could do something like the Ploesti strike. Further reflect that even the 8th was beginning to replace B-17 equipped BGs with B-24s and the MTO finished 3:2 ratio B-24:B-17.
All the new BGs arriving for ETO in January 1944 forward were equipped with B-24s.
Even Spaatz was 'converted'.
Aircraft had many uses apart from dropping bombs. One of the first uses of the B-24 was taking ferry pilots back to the USA. There was an Atlantic gap to close. All those VIPs, documents, drawings and pattern parts that crossed the Atlantic needed something to transport them.
Twice as many Bell P-39s were produced during the war compared to the figure for the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest put together. Make of it what you will...
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Can't have been too difficult to manufacture, when the Supermarine factory was flattened by the Luftwaffe production was dispersed to smaller units across Southampton and Hampshire. Maintenance well they kept them flying in N Africa and Malta and those conditions don't come much worse.
If the Spitfire had never fired a shot it would still have been one of the best aircraft of the war. Photo reconnaissance Spits flew over Europe constantly finding targets for RAF and USAAF bombers then checking the damage caused. Soldat Schmidt couldn't sneak off for a quick smoke without being photographed by a PR Spitfire
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,977
- Jun 25, 2013
I disagree with the logic that production numbers are directly related to whether an aircraft is overrated or not, at least once they are in mass production, as this merely shows that the customer thought they were worth enough to continue in production, even in preference to aircraft that may be somewhat better. Whether or not an aircraft is overrated is dependent on how it's viewed by posterity, not by its users at the time of its service.
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Or perhaps how it's viewed by a concurrent adversary? USAAF thought highly of the P-38; LW pilots apparently not so much. Could we not then say that the USAAF overrated it, or conversely, the LW underrated it?
No one datum will tell the entire truth of the matter, but production choices and numbers do give insight into what the respective nations thought of the planes they were building at the time they were building them.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,265
- Jan 31, 2021
Yes, but how many of those were shipped to the Soviet Union?
The USAAF didn't care much for the P-39, but the Soviets found it suited their needs well.
Shortround6
Major General
Once you have a factory (or two) tooled up and cranking out several hundred planes a month it is hard to turn off the system. Often things like landing gear and air frame forgings are ordered months in advance.
It can take months or nearly a year from first production to the 500th example.
Switching production from a not so great plane to the latest and greatest can mean hundreds of planes not built in a given year.
It can take months or nearly a year from first production to the 500th example.
Switching production from a not so great plane to the latest and greatest can mean hundreds of planes not built in a given year.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
P-38, produced 1941 - 1945: 10,037
P-39, produced 1940 - 1944: 9,588
P-40, produced 1939 - 1944: 13,738
P-47, produced 1941 - 1945: 15,636
P-51, produced 1941 - 1945: 15,586
Hurricane, produced 1937 - 1944: 14,487
Spitfire, produced 1938 - 1948: 20,350
Typhoon, produced 1941 - 1945: 3,317
Of those 9,588 P-39s built, 4,719 went to the Soviet Union.
P-39, produced 1940 - 1944: 9,588
P-40, produced 1939 - 1944: 13,738
P-47, produced 1941 - 1945: 15,636
P-51, produced 1941 - 1945: 15,586
Hurricane, produced 1937 - 1944: 14,487
Spitfire, produced 1938 - 1948: 20,350
Typhoon, produced 1941 - 1945: 3,317
Of those 9,588 P-39s built, 4,719 went to the Soviet Union.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Spitfire doesn't seem so overrated by that metric.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I have always been proud that the last official RAF Spitfire flight took off from my local aerodrome RAF Woodvale. PS915 a Spitfire XIX of the Temperature and Humidity Monitoring flight took off on the morning of 11th July 1957 flew her mission then in the afternoon flew in formation with her sister PRXIXs PS853 and PM631 to RAF Biggin Hill to join the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight.
