Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[Dimlee]

It seems that Bf 110 of the BoB period deserves its place in that thread:

Most 'Underrated' Aircraft of WW2?

Following from the excellent question posed by Lucky13, I'd like to know what aircraft people think has received a raw deal. A number of the polls here have argued over the worst aircraft, sometimes basing their views on dated information, or information passed down from those with prejudiced...

ww2aircraft.net

 

[Greg Boeser]

Sorry. I was referring to the 15 August 1940 mission. Funny how things get garbled between brain and fingers.

14th May does seem a bit early. I know that Kettling's Gruppe (I./ZG 76) did try experimentally fitting wing tanks as well as having the Dackelbauch, but I believe the German Air Ministry jumped on that once they heard about it.

Must have a word with Chris (as fellow researchers, we have been in touch for decades, and still keep in touch now).

Here's a photo of a Dackelbauch with both:
View attachment 657286

.

 

[Spindash64]

The 109, hands down.

Yes, the Mustang gets more hype than it deserves, but it was still an excellent aircraft with few vices

Yes, the Spitfire had problems, but it was a war winner in performance in every mark but the V, and even then it wasn't out of the fight

No, these planes had problems, but in the 1944 45 era we typically think of for the "best planes" of the ETO, they were very good. The same cannot be said of the Bf 109s, which had become incredibly overweight, and even with much more powerful engines, the design was simply not up to the task anymore. Trying to take off or land from even an EARLY model was difficult, doing so in a Gustav or Kurfürst was a deathwish for a new pilot.

The Germans actually wanted to replace it years ago, but the Me 309 and 209V II projects failed, and the 190 didn't have enough power at bomber height until the Jumo 213 was introduced



I can't think of many other cases where people call a BAD version of an aircraft a GOOD aircraft

 

[pbehn]

The 109, hands down.

Yes, the Mustang gets more hype than it deserves, but it was still an excellent aircraft with few vices

Yes, the Spitfire had problems, but it was a war winner in performance in every mark but the V, and even then it wasn't out of the fight

No, these planes had problems, but in the 1944 45 era we typically think of for the "best planes" of the ETO, they were very good. The same cannot be said of the Bf 109s, which had become incredibly overweight, and even with much more powerful engines, the design was simply not up to the task anymore. Trying to take off or land from even an EARLY model was difficult, doing so in a Gustav or Kurfürst was a deathwish for a new pilot.

The Germans actually wanted to replace it years ago, but the Me 309 and 209V II projects failed, and the 190 didn't have enough power at bomber height until the Jumo 213 was introduced



I can't think of many other cases where people call a BAD version of an aircraft a GOOD aircraft

It did play a part in the invasion of Poland, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Russia and others, so not too shoddy, and one of the few that was there at the beginning and the end.

 

[SaparotRob]

That's the problem with which plane is overrated. The planes in question were, at one time or another, great. What grabbed the headlines often? It's really which plane had the better press corps.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I wouldn't call it overrated, but the -109 was by 1944 really outside its useful updating shelf-life. It seems it outgrew its ability to be upgraded. It could be, however, still a very dangerous airplane.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That's the problem with which plane is overrated. The planes in question were, at one time or another, great. What grabbed the headlines often? It's really which plane had the better press corps.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Bf109, for all it's negatives, was still a dangerous opponent even in the last days of the war, where many of it's early contemporaries had become relegated to second line duties as the war and technology progressed.

Several key issues hampered it's effectiveness in the last month's of the war, such as declining pilot experience, lack of fuel and spare parts plus overwhelming Allied numerical superiority - meaning that every time a Bf109 went up, there were scores of Allied fighters waiting for it, like a pack of dogs on a three-legged cat.

 

[tomo pauk]

P-38 may be a contender here?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

P-38 may be a contender here?

Depends where and when you're talking about. I think a lot of hype was always centered around the P-38, (mainly because of it's pre-war accolades) as the US entered WW2. It can be said in the bigger picture it was somewhat of a disappointment in the ETO (as this been beat to death) but you also have to put some blame on "operator error" which at times seems to be conveniently ignored. During Torch, P-38s were diverted away from the PTO (to the dismay of General Kenny who couldn't get enough of them). In the PTO, as we know, quite a different story.

I guess it could be considered if you don't like twin engine fighters!

 

[tomo pauk]

Depends where and when you're talking about.

That's kinda my point, too.
We have some aircraft (Zero, Bf 109) wiping the floor with Allied 'B Team', but when the Allied 'A Team' enters the fray, those tend to loose. P-38 was doing the same with Axis B Team, it's succes vs. Axis A Team was spotty. However, the P-38 rarely if gest bad press (usually it's heaps of laurels), unlike the Bf 109 or Zero.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Home team bias.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That's kinda my point, too.
We have some aircraft (Zero, Bf 109) wiping the floor with Allied 'B Team', but when the Allied 'A Team' enters the fray, those tend to loose. P-38 was doing the same with Axis B Team, it's succes vs. Axis A Team was spotty. However, the P-38 rarely if gest bad press (usually it's heaps of laurels), unlike the Bf 109 or Zero.

Well I think the P 38 fought "A" teams quite well at least statistically. Even in the ETO it's air to air claims versus losses numbers are at least close to 1 to 1, not bad when you consider many inadequately trained P-38 pilots were thrown into combat against many seasoned Luftwaffe veterans. Where I think the P 38 is severely underrated in the ETO is when it was used as a fighter bomber and ground support aircraft, I have spoken to many P 51 pilots who although recognized the superiority of the Mustang, would choose the P 38 on ground attack missions. When the P 38 entered operations in the PTO, I think there were still plenty of "A" pilots around.

 

[pbehn]

Curiously, the over rated aircraft were produced in their thousands whilst the underrated aircraft stayed on the drawing board. What would the air war look like without the overrated P-51, P-38, P-47, F4F, F4U, Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf109, FW 190 and Zero? You cannot compare the Hurricane's performance to a Tempest, but you cannot compare the Tempest's contribution to the the Hurricane.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Curiously, the over rated aircraft were produced in their thousands whilst the underrated aircraft stayed on the drawing board. What would the air war look like without the overrated P-51, P-38, P-47, F4F, F4U, Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf109, FW 190 and Zero? You cannot compare the Hurricane's performance to a Tempest, but you cannot compare the Tempest's contribution to the the Hurricane.

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating." So-called "underrated" aircraft as listed in that thread seem for the most part to have been passed over in large part because they did not perform as well as these "overrated" aircraft you've compiled from this thread here.

 

[GrauGeist]

The fastest way to determine an "over-rated" or "under-rated" aircraft, is to remove it from the equation and see how the war (or key battles) would have been altered by that type's absence.

 

[pbehn]

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating." So-called "underrated" aircraft as listed in that thread seem for the most part to have been passed over in large part because they did not perform as well as these "overrated" aircraft you've compiled from this thread here.

And in legalese "time is of the essence of the contract". The Gloster Whittle 28/39 took to the air in April 1941, the Germans had jets flying before that. All piston powered aircraft were racing against time to make an impact before they were obsolete.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

And in legalese "time is of the essence of the contract". The Gloster Whittle 28/39 took to the air in April 1941, the Germans had jets flying before that. All piston powered aircraft were racing against time to make an impact before they were obsolete.

The time frame defines the standard of quality.

 

[NTGray]

Let's remember that the question is about which planes were over-rated. That is, which planes did not actually deserve the level of praise typically heaped upon them. So, this conversation is all about our opinion of other people's opinions, not the objectively measurable actual performance of the plane in question. So maybe we think that, yeah, the P-51 was a good plane, but it wasn't that good.
Which planes were under-rated is a separate question, but obviously it is related. Maybe there should have been more than 364 F7Fs built. Either way, those are legitimate expressions of opinion.
And I stand by my opinion that the most over-rated plane of them all is the Zero, a decent enough plane, but totally undeserving (based strictly on the numbers) of its initial awesome reputation.

 

[Venturi]

Wildcat - nothing close to it in USN in 1941/2.
P-40 - nothing close to it in USAAC in 1941/2. Also why is this in the over rated thread?
Zeke - not over rated. Terribly effective until P-38, Corsair.
Bf-109 - one of the best of the war esp considering it's low construction cost
Spitfire - one of the best of the war despite its inability to escort strategic bombers long range
P-47 - a capable plane at a high altitude with longish range, where it was needed
Corsair - deadly and demonstrated a whole new performance envelope over Zeke, hampered by landing problems on CVs, something only the Brits could solve because otherwise… Seafires (with airframe issues)
Hellcat - the right plane for the right job, not a world beater but a solid step above the Zeke in most categories
Fw-190 - fastest plane in the sky initially. Not all that good at a dogfight. Later, does it do a good job against the bombers of 1944 at 20-25k feet? Argument might be made here.
P-51 - the best American fighter of the war, with range of the Zero, speed and altitude capability of P-47, turning performance between Fw-190 and Bf-109 (better depending on speed).
P-38 - Excellent turner, good range, good speed, heavy armament. complicated to operate. Good against most but pilot workload an issue. Boom and Zoom against Zekes lowered workload compared to high altitude ETO and improved effectiveness for most pilots. Change my mind.
P-39 - not overrated. Lol
Hurricane - Solid for 1940…
Macchi 202 - not many guns, good aerobatic show plane..

What I would like to see is an in depth analysis of the Russian aircraft… these seem to me to be under represented in these discussions but definitely should have their place. The Mig-1, Yak-1/3/9, La-5, Lagg-3…

Thanks to those who have given their time and much real source material to this thread. As always these individuals are what brings me to read here..