WHAT BLASPHEMY IS THIS?
Of course these things are true... what's your point?
You can't put anything on the internet that isn't true?
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
You can't put anything on the internet that isn't true?
Fighterguy
Airman
The Spitfire in the movie "Dunkirk" pulled this feat while at less than 1,000 feet, it seemed to fly forever, and the pilot had plenty of time to hand-pump his gear down for a smooth beach landing. Highly improbable.
That would have been the Spitfire Mk 25, specially produced for future movies, it served as a model for video games having unlimited fuel and ammunition.
YF12A
Airman
Any aircraft that uses fuel that will melt the pilot? Enough said.
About the B-24, my father was extremely unimpressed with the fuel plumbing on at least one Consolidated aircraft he saw in his career, can't remember which, and this was coming from someone whose second all time favorite airplane was the Pby-4/5.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,002
- Jun 25, 2013
I remember a statistic: the casualty rate for strategic bombing by the 8th AF and its British equivalent was not only higher than the ground forces engaged in combat, but greater than the Japanese kamikaze squadrons.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
It's a rather specific set of legal implications, as long as it glorifies the P-51 it's true, anything else is illegal...
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,002
- Jun 25, 2013
I think that that only applies to non-German aircraft, which must be reported as technologically millennia more advanced than any other country's obsolete aircraft, which could have won only because of massive numerical superiority; the Allies were fighting with the aircraft equivalent to swords against the Luftwaffe armed with Star Trek phasers and photon torpedoes.
I'd say everyone is missing the forest for the trees as its not a bird that is the most overrated POS, its an engine, one engine in particular...the USA Allison engine. Look at how many birds got crippled by that under powered POS, to this day I'm convinced there was some serious dirty dealing going on with that company, that someone HAD to be getting some kickbacks by how hard that engine was being pushed.
But if you want a particular bird? The P-40 because sadly with the exception of the Klimov P-40 the Russians tried they were crippled by Allison engines their entire run. Oh how I would love to take out a Klimov P-40 or see what it would have done with a Merlin in a sim, because the Allison engines? Yeah...no, just no.
But if you want a particular bird? The P-40 because sadly with the exception of the Klimov P-40 the Russians tried they were crippled by Allison engines their entire run. Oh how I would love to take out a Klimov P-40 or see what it would have done with a Merlin in a sim, because the Allison engines? Yeah...no, just no.
There is a difference between an aircraft being overrated and an aircraft overshadowing other types.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about the general lack of due regard being given to the more workmanlike Hurricane and Thunderbolt.
I would add the B-24 Liberator to the list as it too is overlooked in comparison to the B-17.
However, that does not mean that the performance and achievements of these aircraft should be dismissed due to the ignorance of an ill informed public imho
FWIW My model kit stash has far more Hurries than Spitfires.
P-47s and P-51s are about equal but only because I have enough Thunderbolts to do in various RAF schemes before I even consider USAAF liveries!
soulezoo
Senior Airman
That's a little harsh on the Allison... P-38's seemed to do ok with them. The Soviets seemed to be happy with the P-39.
Maybe it wasn't a Merlin, but then again, only a Merlin was a Merlin. Except for a Packard of course.
The Allison v-1710 may not be "engine Uber Alles", but it was a solid engine and definitely not a POS. It needed to be used appropriately.
On Edit while thinking on this: IIRC, the Klimov was a lower powered engine forced into service on the P-40 as the VVS didn't have parts for the Allison. So if my memory is correct, why would you want the Klimov after what you just said about the Allison?
Last edited:
Toss out you numbers, well sourced preferably, before going out to trash this or that piece of kit.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
And how many birds were "crippled" by having the Allison V-1710 and in what way? True it isn't a Merlin, it has fewer moving parts and has better fuel consumption at certain altitudes, the lack of a two speed/two stage supercharger is more of an issue.
I second Tomo's suggestion, get some facts with documentation to back up your rather dubious claims.
Perhaps this will help, this guy was actually there, not that I'd cloud the issue with facts or anything... Conversations with N.Golodnikov
Last edited:
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Oh yeah, forgot about that clause...
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,002
- Jun 25, 2013
There was a P-40 variant with a Merlin. It was still beaten by, among others, the Mustang. The P-40 is under-rated, but it's still not spectacularly good.
The Allison was also quite solidly built and, overall, well-engineered. Allison was not, however, a big company and it did not have the resources that P&WA or Curtiss-Wright had on hand. There need not be corruption, but there was a powerful meme that high-performance aircraft needed V-12 engines.
Last edited:
SPYINTHESKY
Airman
Beat me to it a Merlin P40 was tested just as the Merlin P51 was tested however the former gained virtually no advantage whatsoever unlike the latter. Equally later the P40 was redesigned/re-engineered into one of the most beautiful looking prototypes of the war and it still couldn't compete with its contemporaries. Its innate aerodynamics and overall legacy design simply limited it too much to be anything but a decent supporting character but never the star. Which actually is a shame because it did stirling service in theatres where rugged reliability and reparability was more appreciated than supreme performance i.e. Middle East and Burma/China. Certainly it and the Hurricane thrived in the Middle East where the Spit could be a pain in the ass.
Flying a "sim" gives what the sim designer wants you to see. The P40L and P40F had the Merlin engine. To have an advanced design you need an advanced airframe and an advanced engine. Putting a Merlin engine in a P40 didn't overcome the shortcomings of the P40 just as putting the latest Merlin in a Hurricane didn't make it a front line fighter, just better than it was before. If Curtis produced the P51A from 1941 then the Allison engine would have a much better reputation.
I guess by Middle East you mean the MTO? If the P-40 and the Hurricane thrived there, why was the the Spitfire sent there at all, rather than just belatedly?
Mustang got much better Merlins than the P-40, thus the small gain for the Merlinized P-40s vs. big gain for the Merlinized Mustangs.
XP-40Q was as fast or faster vs. XF8F-1, any F6F, F7F, F4U-1D, or Bf 109G6-AS/G-10, or the best Soviet ot Japanese fighters, or best Fw 190As, or Merlin Spitfires, or Spitfire XII. Slightly slower than P-38, Tempest of Fw 190D-9. Plus it was with competitive rate of climb.
Kinda shows that aircraft need increase in engine power as much as possible, and that P-40s aerodynamics were still competitive in 1944-45, even if engines left a lot to be desired on serial-produced examples.
Neither of the Grummans' A/C, nor Corsairs, nor P-38 or P-47, nor the listed German A/C, nor Soviet, nor most of Japanese A/C featured bleeding-edge aerodynamics in 1944, let alone in 1945.
