Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....? (1 Viewer)

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

Training, training, training...

It was complicated to operate because it was a twin (two of everything) and if you look at it's systems and layout was no more complicated than the Mosquito, Beaufighter or Bf 110.

2-300 hours+ of multi engine time (twins) "would have" saved many green pilots.
 
Yeah training is what it always comes down to. Of course in 1942 we were traumatized, panicked, and needed pilots STAT - nevermind airframes. Wartime brings a new meaning to the term expedience , especially if it seems you're losing, and it does cost..
 
Venturi said:
Corsair - deadly and demonstrated a whole new performance envelope over Zeke, hampered by landing problems on CVs, something only the Brits could solve
Click to expand...
The FAA Corsair pilots were trained by the USN in carrier ops.

For some reason the myth that the British "solved" several of the Corsair's carrier related issues is a persistant one.
 

Did the turbochargers and their controls add a bit of complexity for the pilot?
 
I understood it was a regular occurrence that only a portion of a fighter formation would actually open fire in an intercept. There is Malan's rules about teamwork and top cover for systematic reasons why, so those pilots who do not fire are contributing. Beyond that setting up a shot tends to lose you situational awareness, making a good number 2 valuable including while you figure out what to do next. As the formations close the fighter leaders will be moving to set up the best intercept as they see it, which usually seems to leave some pilots without obvious targets, or the same target, then there the faulty estimates of range and speed ruining the chance of a shot, pilots overshooting and losing touch, being in the middle of a fight, where it seems someone is always about to get on your tail or is shooting at you, plus hitting slipstreams and avoiding all the other solid objects in the airspace. And so on.

In WWI the Germans pulled the good pilots into the same unit and discovered this, regularly not all fighter pilots in a combat will be in a position to actually open fire, best to leave the better pilots as leaders of other units, not juniors in the elite unit.
 
P-38 was superior to the P-40 in 1941/42. The P-40 was superior in roll and turn but P-38 would always be able to extend if combat scenario not favorable.

I know I bash the P-39 but consider that VVS preferred P-39 over P-40 and P51 (NA-73/83) because it fit VVS battle doctrine better.
 
If the British FAA never adopted the Corsair they still would have had the Hellcat which was able to deliver the same capabilities as the former. This would make it a "world beater" as far as carrier fighters are concerned.

I do agree however with most of the other points you make.
 

For those reasons I don't consider the 39 overrated. I just don't put it on a mythical pedestal like a certain person we know does.
 
wuzak said:
Did the turbochargers and their controls add a bit of complexity for the pilot?
Click to expand...
IMO, no. There are manifold pressure limits shown in the flight manual and vary depending on what turbo (B-13 or B-33) is in the aircraft flown, I believe the P-38H could have either/ or. P-38J and later used the B-33 turbo. The turbos were controlled with the throttles and light illuminated when you were going into over-speed. Late P-38J and P-38Ls had supercharger regulators that prevented over-speed and did not have warning lights.
 
There were plenty of pilot trainees coming down the pipe when the war started for the US.

When France fell to Germany in 1940, the Air Corps increased the number of pilots to be trained to 7,000 per year. By December 1941, the Air Corps had contracted with 45 civilian flying schools, and by 1943 the number increased to 63.

In the first class at Randolph Field in 1939, only 257 pilots graduated. In contrast, by the end of 1941 over 2,000 were enrolled in each class.

Flight Training on the Eve of WWII

During the Depression of the 1930s, the number of pilots the U.S. Army Air Corps trained decreased until in 1937 only 184 graduated from advanced pilot training. Facing resurgent German militarism and
www.nationalmuseum.af.mil

The issue was the AAC/ AAF did not have a good high performance twin engine trainer for transition into the P-38. Some of the more successful P-38 drivers managed to get some time flying either the A-20 or B-25, I think the later was preferred.
Here's a good article that describes trainee pilots transitioning from the P-63 to the P-38.

Pacific Northwest Lightning: Portland's P-38 Lightning Flying Training Program of 1944 - 1

Many today may be familiar with the Portland Thunder professional arena football team, but how many are familiar with the Portland Lightning's? Of the P-38 variety, that is.Twin-engine fighter planes
www.142fw.ang.af.mil
 
Venturi said:
Zeke - not over rated. Terribly effective until P-38, Corsair.
Click to expand...
Not correct, according to the numbers. The initial success of the A6M0 was more due to surprise than anything else. It did in fact outmaneuver everything else; nobody disputes that. Wildcat pilots were told not to engage a Zero in a dogfight, because they would lose. However, after the Americans had time to analyze the Zero's strengths and weaknesses, they were able to come up with tactics that emphasized the Wildcat's strengths and negated the Zero's advantages. The result was that in the period from May to August, 1942, the Wildcat:Zero kill ratio was slightly better than 1:1, showing that at the very least the Wildcat was just as good as the Zero in head-to-head combat. And by the end of the Guadalcanal campaign the Wildcat:Zero kill ratio was approaching 6:1. So being more maneuverable did not directly translate to being a better airplane to be flying.

BTW, there was a saying about teamwork among Navy pilots that went like this: "A Wildcat is no match for a Zero. But two Wildcats can take on four Zeroes." It was all about tactics and teamwork, and using the Wildcat's strengths to best advantage.
 
GrauGeist said:
For some reason the myth that the British "solved" several of the Corsair's carrier related issues is a persistant one.
Click to expand...
I have been led to believe that it was the British who devised the turning approach to a carrier, giving the pilot good visibility right up until the last moment, when he had to trust the LSO. (But didn't trust in the LSO always play a key role?) So, is that not correct? What else are the British credited with that is not necessarily accurate?
 
From a performance, achievement, and technological standpoint, none of the main fighters can be considered overrated. That includes the P-51, Fw 190, Bf 109, Spitfire, Zero, etc. The fact that the Bf 109 was still a more than capable fighter in 1945 (a decade after its introduction) is an attest to its design, performance, and achievements.

I voted for the P-51. Not because I think it was overrated. On the contrary, I think it was the overall best fighter of the war. Not the best at everything, but just the best at a combination of everything if that makes sense. Rather, I find it is overrated by people today (and not people in this forum that are knowledgable). They probably have all their knowledge on WW2 aviation from watching Memphis Belle or Red Tails. It may even be because of national pride, I don't know. For so many people its the only aircraft they seem to know.

Typical conversation with your average American…

"Man the Spitfire was a sexy and powerful machine. It really came at the right time for the Battle of Britain."

"Yeah, but what about the P-51???!! Greatest airplane ever made. The best of the best, most superior of all! If it was not for the P-51, the British would be speaking German!"

"Ummm, no, it if it were not for the Spitfire and Hurricane, and the Royal Navy (Besides the fact that there was no way for the Germans to get an invasion force across the Channel) there would not even be this natural aircraft carrier parked off the European continent for your P-51 to operate off of. Slow you roll…"



Too many people simply forget there were many different types of aircraft that all contributed to victory in WW2

"What's your favorite bomber?"

"P-51, duh. What else is there?"

 
This myth is well busted in the book "The Jolly Rogers" by Tom Blackburn. Written by the CO of VF-17, the source doesn't get any better!
 
US Navy F4Us had been performing that particular turning approach from the very beginning. It was modifications to the landing gear oleos and the addition of a stall strip on starboard wing which really improved the Corsair's ability to safely land on carriers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
3
Views
384
yulzari
M
Mission 760 WWII
Replies
1
Views
291
Snautzer01
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
1K
ThomasP
T
K
Hard runways in WWII
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Thumpalumpacus
N
The B-17 Flying Fortress Was The Most Overrated Bomber Of World War 2
8 9 10
Replies
196
Views
12K
pbehn
P
Menu
Log in
Register