Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
DonL, you just convinced me. Good point.
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
Agreed. Most aerial victories more resembled drive by shootings rather than duels.
However, I distinctly used the term "dogfight" meaning a dogfight. You seem to be saying that a P-39 can win a dogfight by avoiding a dogfight...
I'm not disparaging the P-39 as it is a sentimental favorite of mine, and was a more pragmatic favorite of some Russian aces. However, I am going to stick to my original analogy.
I mean no disrespect to the Me-109 It was indeed one of the great aircraft of World War II. So I apologize if anyone thinks I am denigrating that aircraft too much.
However, I do believe their is a gap between perception and reality to how great this particular aircraft was, because we all overlook the more mundane faults or strengths. For example, I was told by several turret gunners of American bombers that one big plus for the P-38 was it was almost impossible to mistake it for any other enemy fighter, due to its distinctive configuration. Same gunners told me that the poor old Commonwealth Boomerang was the victim of friendly fire incidents (ranging from annoying to fatal) so much so that a gentlemen's agreement was reached that the Boomerang was better off employed as something besides an escort fighter, once they had the luxury of doing so.
Now, whoever thought the shape of a plane had any real world consequences? Certainly not me, until I heard that story. So in that same light, I believe most of us tend to think of aircraft performance only when the landing gear is up, for those planes lucky enough to be able to retract it.
However, I do believe their is a gap between perception and reality to how great this particular aircraft was, because we all overlook the more mundane faults or strengths. For example, I was told by several turret gunners of American bombers that one big plus for the P-38 was it was almost impossible to mistake it for any other enemy fighter, due to its distinctive configuration. Same gunners told me that the poor old Commonwealth Boomerang was the victim of friendly fire incidents (ranging from annoying to fatal) so much so that a gentlemen's agreement was reached that the Boomerang was better off employed as something besides an escort fighter, once they had the luxury of doing so.
Now, whoever thought the shape of a plane had any real world consequences? Certainly not me, until I heard that story. So in that same light, I believe most of us tend to think of aircraft performance only when the landing gear is up, for those planes lucky enough to be able to retract it.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
A good fighter pilot avoids a dogfight, but in your context let's see a Zero "dogfight" at 300 knots. The P-39 will (or would have) make (made) a cherry bomb out of it.
Your anology works at 180 knots....
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Tactics and the altitudes the P-39s were deployed at in the Pacific. If you look into the history of such units as the 35th and the 36th FS over New Guinea they had about a 1:1 kill ratio against the Japanese while flying outnumbered at lower altitudes. (Let's see if JoeB chimes in) It was recognized that the P-39 was inferior to the Zero and Oscar in terms of acceleration, climb and maneuverability. If researched one would find the P-39 actually held its own in direct air to air combat but was not suited for the island hopping campaign planned by the US and its allies. Buzz Wagner, one of the first US aces in the Pacific gave a good assessment of the P-39 as he scored kills in both P-39 and P-40s. It's when the P-39 (and P-400s) were used at high altitude interceptors over Guadalcanal is where they suffered heavy losses. Tactics and not recognizing the aircraft's limitation played into this.
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_P-39_Airacobra_US.html
BTW Chuck Yeager's favorate WW2 fighter? The P-39.
If you wish....
Last edited:
1:1 would show that the P-39 could hold its own if that ratio was 1:1 against fighter aircraft exclusively. I don't think that was the case, though. If the P-39 had a favorable ratio against Vals and Bettys, then it must have meant that it lost more than won against some other type of Japanese aircraft...
As for Yeager's opinion on his favorite aircraft, I don't know how many combat sorties he flew in a P-39 and what his successes were while flying those missions. I don't even know what P-39 combat squadron with which he fought.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Actually I believe most of the P-39s victories over New Guinea were against fighter aircraft. Zeros, Ki-27s and 43s.
He flew them in training but maintained his opinions about the aircraft long after the war. The P-39 could be inherently unstable and if one knew the limitations of the aircraft, they could really fling it around the sky.
The Japanese got it very well actual!
The Zero was not built for dogfight - its just happened to be very good at it - its designer was very clear about he wanted to make the aircraft to be as fast as possible. Manouverability was a secondary consideration. The Japanese designer of Zero said that they were well aware that a good skill pilot can make up for manouveriblity of plane - and Japanese pilots were excellent trained - but he could not make up for the lack of speed. Its a given. The Japanese simply did not have good enough engines..
DonL
Banned
I disagree.
The main problem of the A6M was that at high speed it's maneuvering was realy bad as FLYBOYJ stated.
This is one of the consequences to trim the fighter to maneuver very good at low speeds.
The Japanese get the HE 112 with Jumo 210G injection engines at 1938 and a HE 100D with a DB 601 at 1939.
Also they could produce the DB 601 in license at 1939.
With the two Heinkel aircrafts they had a very good comparation for high speed aircrafts and high speed maneuvering.
But they rejected both aircraft of the reason that they were not good enough for dog/turn fights at low speed.
Later at the war they developed the KI 61 Hien what is a very similar design to the two Heinkel aircrafts but three years later.
The main problem of the A6M was that at high speed it's maneuvering was realy bad as FLYBOYJ stated.
This is one of the consequences to trim the fighter to maneuver very good at low speeds.
The Japanese get the HE 112 with Jumo 210G injection engines at 1938 and a HE 100D with a DB 601 at 1939.
Also they could produce the DB 601 in license at 1939.
With the two Heinkel aircrafts they had a very good comparation for high speed aircrafts and high speed maneuvering.
But they rejected both aircraft of the reason that they were not good enough for dog/turn fights at low speed.
Later at the war they developed the KI 61 Hien what is a very similar design to the two Heinkel aircrafts but three years later.
FLYBOYJ "Actually a P-39 could beat a Zero at 20K easily if the right tactics were employed "
Would you expound on this.
Based on reading "Angels Twenty" by Ted Park the biggest problem with fighting a Zero at 20K was getting there. He didn't claim to be a superstar pilot and as a conscript pilot had a very bad opinion of the P39 as a weapon for combat at altitude. The key probem seemed to be that the higher you went the less the P39 advantages existed and all the time the limited fuel was being used.
A quote from another pilot John G " If the sector tells us to go to Angels 20 we try like hell to get to 20,000ft. In these planes it ain't easy"
In any case the P39 could be the most overrated plane of the war if you compare its US service with the early hype or the most underrated if the Russian experience with them is considered but 20K doesn't seem an altitude to bring out the best in the plane.
Would you expound on this.
Based on reading "Angels Twenty" by Ted Park the biggest problem with fighting a Zero at 20K was getting there. He didn't claim to be a superstar pilot and as a conscript pilot had a very bad opinion of the P39 as a weapon for combat at altitude. The key probem seemed to be that the higher you went the less the P39 advantages existed and all the time the limited fuel was being used.
A quote from another pilot John G " If the sector tells us to go to Angels 20 we try like hell to get to 20,000ft. In these planes it ain't easy"
In any case the P39 could be the most overrated plane of the war if you compare its US service with the early hype or the most underrated if the Russian experience with them is considered but 20K doesn't seem an altitude to bring out the best in the plane.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I'll expound - Yes - half the problem would be getting there, BUT once there the P-39 still had a faster top speed then most if not all of the earlier Zero marks it encountered, even at 20K. At the Wright Patterson performance testing done October 1942 still achieved a top speed over 350 mph at critical altitude. The key would have been to keep the speed up and avoid losing any energy to place the P-39 into speeds that would benefit the Zero's maneuverability. Again it was the Zero that became a maneuving pig at higher speeds, regardless of altitude.
Here are the results of the testing.
P-39 Performance Tests
The P-39 WAS NOT a fighter to be used at altitude or in any kind of interceptor role as many of its operators eventually found out. It carried a very bad reputation throughout its career and IMO it's because of its performance over Guadalcanal (That also included the P-400). If anything I believe it was one of the most "underrated" fighters of the war based on its performance over New Guinea and of course with the Soviets. It by far was not a war winner and can only be considered an "iron pig" if it was placed in a position where its performance disadvantages were obvious and many of its operators did that, either by necessity or by ignorance.
Last edited:
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
May I venture to suggest that the B29 was a little over rated?
Its weak spot being engine fires.
It had many good advanced features but...
John
Its weak spot being engine fires.
It had many good advanced features but...
John
Gixxerman
Senior Airman
I'm just stunned to see the Mustang Spitfire voted for so much.
I'd suggest that the Me163 was massively over-rated, technically interesting of course but such a limited point-defense plane that it could easily be avoided by route-switching.
I'd suggest that the Me163 was massively over-rated, technically interesting of course but such a limited point-defense plane that it could easily be avoided by route-switching.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Maintenance was always problematic for the B-29 but by the time the atomic bomb was dropped its MC rates were pretty high AFAIK
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Gix, Jealously of our Spitfire is a terrible thing....
John
John
buffnut453
Captain
That's the thing about our Readie - you always know where he stands ("Spitfires are FANTASTIC!! Any questions? No? Good!")
drgondog
Major
I was also amused at the number of 'over rated votes for B-29, Mustang and Spitfire.
As to the B-29 I would like to hear from the detractors why one airplane on two total missions made the invasion of Japan a 'no, never mind' and quite likely saved 1,000,000 Japanese and Allied soldier's lives not to mention Japanese civilians, can be imagined as 'over rated'.
and, the only aircraft that could carry that load from Tinian...
As to the B-29 I would like to hear from the detractors why one airplane on two total missions made the invasion of Japan a 'no, never mind' and quite likely saved 1,000,000 Japanese and Allied soldier's lives not to mention Japanese civilians, can be imagined as 'over rated'.
and, the only aircraft that could carry that load from Tinian...
Gixxerman
Senior Airman
I have to agree drgondog.
Some planes are so great at what they do their deeds so profoundly significant (like the Spitfire, Hurricane Mustang, I'd suggest) that they serve the rest of us a debt.
A debt we ought to remember and not forget.
The B29 left us one of those debts.
(.....and I'm not convinced Readie was completely sincere there on the '29, it has no votes so......call it a Washington see how he reacts. lol)
Some planes are so great at what they do their deeds so profoundly significant (like the Spitfire, Hurricane Mustang, I'd suggest) that they serve the rest of us a debt.
A debt we ought to remember and not forget.
The B29 left us one of those debts.
(.....and I'm not convinced Readie was completely sincere there on the '29, it has no votes so......call it a Washington see how he reacts. lol)
Last edited:
