FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Compare some of his reports with other test pilots - he gives a very one sided perspective that favors certain aircraft.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/interview-captain-eric-brown-7136.html
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
Compare some of his reports with other test pilots - he gives a very one sided perspective that favors certain aircraft.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/interview-captain-eric-brown-7136.html
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Coors9
Senior Airman
There's no way the Mustang should be called overrated. In my opinion , the one that stands out on the list is one that is in my top 5 favorite fighters......lol. I just love the look of her. She was awesome in the pacific, not sure how she'd make out over France and Germany.......the sweet looking F6F Hellcat.
billswagger
Airman 1st Class
- 256
- Mar 12, 2009
The spitfire is somewhat over rated IMO.
It did make for a great interceptor because of its high rate of climb, but it was not as fast as some records show particularly when equipped with cannons.
There are comparisons out there with the A6M and figures were surprisingly close in all categories. Much slower.
The main hitch was in dive and said to be the biggest reason the A6M had an edge on the Spitfire more so than the P-40 despite turn radius.
109 pilots also found it easy to outrun the Spitfire in a dive.
The Spitfire also lacked range which made it somewhat useless as an offensive roll beyond 1943.
To be more specific, it probably had the legs to get there but would not be at a competitive height nor would it have the fuel to maintain combat for more than a few minutes.
Its easily one of the top fighters of the war but from a logistics standpoint there wasn't much that could be done with it beyond a point defense/interceptor.
Later variants had engine upgrades which made for faster planes but wing span would be a hindrance at higher altitudes. (see Mustang vs Spitfire)
Speaking of which,
The Mustang would not be that overrated if it wasn't also the poster warplane for the Americans.
Other than that, I've seen stats that place acceleration well below contemporaries although top speed is much faster. It was also behind the lot when it came to time to climb to 15k ft from start up but that's not really relevant given the roll of the plane.
It did make for a great interceptor because of its high rate of climb, but it was not as fast as some records show particularly when equipped with cannons.
There are comparisons out there with the A6M and figures were surprisingly close in all categories. Much slower.
The main hitch was in dive and said to be the biggest reason the A6M had an edge on the Spitfire more so than the P-40 despite turn radius.
109 pilots also found it easy to outrun the Spitfire in a dive.
The Spitfire also lacked range which made it somewhat useless as an offensive roll beyond 1943.
To be more specific, it probably had the legs to get there but would not be at a competitive height nor would it have the fuel to maintain combat for more than a few minutes.
Its easily one of the top fighters of the war but from a logistics standpoint there wasn't much that could be done with it beyond a point defense/interceptor.
Later variants had engine upgrades which made for faster planes but wing span would be a hindrance at higher altitudes. (see Mustang vs Spitfire)
Speaking of which,
The Mustang would not be that overrated if it wasn't also the poster warplane for the Americans.
Other than that, I've seen stats that place acceleration well below contemporaries although top speed is much faster. It was also behind the lot when it came to time to climb to 15k ft from start up but that's not really relevant given the roll of the plane.
Last edited:
DonL
Banned
LOL!
It is correct that the Bf 109 had problems with it's landing gears, but I have read for example that the F4U had noob killer characteristics, that I haven't read for the Bf 109!
So do you have any sources that the Bf 109 had killed more pilots by accident than any other allied aircraft type?
To be clear, my contention was that the Me-109 didn't have more fatal accidents than any other allied aircraft, but I think more Me-109 pilots died in fatal accidents than to the guns of any single Allied type.
I do not think this claim wild, as more American aircrew were lost in training/operational accidents than actual combat.
I do not think this claim wild, as more American aircrew were lost in training/operational accidents than actual combat.
then, why you choose the 109?
Because even though training and operations took the lion's share of aircraft and aircrew for many of the air forces in WWII, the Me-109 was a particularly voracious lion, not unlike the B-26 Marauder.
My great uncle was a top turret gunner for the B-25s, and he said the training squadrons had more B-26s sitting on the bottom of the ocean than in the hangars. (Normal loyalty to his particular aircraft at the expense of others.)
I had the privilege of heading up a group that brought the Collings Foundation B-25 "Tondelayo" to our hometown, since the original Tondelayo of the 500th BS was the aircraft that my great uncle won his Silver Star while manning the top turret. A spirted back and forth of the B-25 vs. B-26 was carried on by both former pilots and ground crew, and a vet who was a pilot of B-26s mentioned the fact that the B-26 had less comparative losses than any other medium bomber in Europe. The retort was that by the time the aircrews entered combat, the "Flying Prostitute" had already winnowed out all but the luckiest and most skilled.
Yes, pilots of the Me-109 did great things, but was it because they were in the 109 or in spite of it?
I don't see how that would make it overrated though...
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Maybe we all 'overrate' our personal favourite planes?
Not that I do of course....
John
Not that I do of course....
John
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
I am pretty sure I voted for the Zero 
?: 
) which, in the day, was initially incredibly underrated and then, after it became a giant killer against opposition that was mainly subpar, became ever more overrated. It did well against the Spitfire V but I would tend to chalk that up to overconfidence on the part of the RAAF believing all they needed was a Spitfire between their legs. A very understandable assumption I might add. No disrespect to either side but, unless I have missed some extended battle fought between the two, it seems to me that, given a period of absorbing the tactics necessary to defeat the A6M, the Spit and its pilots would have taken its measure.
That's my belief and unless someone argues me out of it I'm stick'n to it. This is not to say I don't have enormous respect for the airplace and the original pilots who flew it. They were a truly suberb lot and it was their weapon of choice; at least initially.
But then my vote for the most Underrated aircraft of WW2 is of course (what else?) the F4F-3!!! and for that matter the F4F-4.
?: ) which, in the day, was initially incredibly underrated and then, after it became a giant killer against opposition that was mainly subpar, became ever more overrated. It did well against the Spitfire V but I would tend to chalk that up to overconfidence on the part of the RAAF believing all they needed was a Spitfire between their legs. A very understandable assumption I might add. No disrespect to either side but, unless I have missed some extended battle fought between the two, it seems to me that, given a period of absorbing the tactics necessary to defeat the A6M, the Spit and its pilots would have taken its measure. That's my belief and unless someone argues me out of it I'm stick'n to it. This is not to say I don't have enormous respect for the airplace and the original pilots who flew it. They were a truly suberb lot and it was their weapon of choice; at least initially.
But then my vote for the most Underrated aircraft of WW2 is of course (what else?) the F4F-3!!! and for that matter the F4F-4.
Last edited:
Because I think that many of us focus too much on speed, climb, and armament, and not enough on the more mundane things such as engine reliability, ground handling characteristics, and ergonomics. If such things are not taken into consideration, then a plane can be easily overrated or underrated.
A pilot killed by a takeoff accident in an Me-109 was just as dead as a pilot killed in a P-39 trying to dogfight a Japanese Zero at 20,000 feet. In both cases it was a inherent shortcoming of the plane.
Kryten
Senior Airman
having waded through numerous pilot biographies recently I have nominated the Me109 as overrated, as every single author singled out the FW190 as the most dangerous adversary they faced, yet none give much more than passing respect to the 109!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Actually a P-39 could beat a Zero at 20K easily if the right tactics were employed
Replace Me-109, with any aircraft. Are they all overrated?
I highly doubt that more 109 pilots were killed in accidents than in combat. I also don't see how one can call the most produced fighter in history overrated. Maybe I am just biased because it is my favorite aircraft, but I would hardly call it overrated.
In the end we will agree to disagree though. I think everyone will have their own opinion on what is Overrated and what is not.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And if you "dogfight" a zero at high speeds, the zero maneuvers like a tank, that's my point. We tend to dwell on old folklore about certain aircraft and one of those is the maneuverability of the Zero.
The key in air to air combat is to actually avoid the dogfight, stalk your enemy, engage quickly, kill him and move on. If one gets into a furball they have already failed the first rules of air to air combat tactically.
Last edited:
DonL
Banned
I absolutley agree! I think the dogfight or turnfight was antiquated at the beginning of WWII with the very fast fighters.
The japanese didin't get it and stick much to long with there fixation to turning- and dogfights and this type of fighter.
That is why to my opinion the A6M is the most overrated aicraft. In the ETO it would be outclassed from the begining of it's service.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Agree....
IMO the only reason why a fighter pilot needs to learn maneuvering tactics is to deal with being placed in a situation where they have lost the tactical advantage and know what to do in order to fight another day. The other scenario is to know what to do should you loose the tactical advantage during attack and to make the decision to press the attack or break off.
