Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[Graeme]

II suspect, in reality, the RAF would have accepted a rubber-band engine if it delivered the required level of performance.

That's always how I've understood Britain's situation at the time. Purchase whatever they could if it looked usable. I've only just read that the RAF even placed an order for 100 Caproni Ca 311s in early 1940. That deal went south when Italy entered the war.

 

[Stig1207]

They basically flew rings around the Luftwaffe.

That is stretching it just a bit, don't you think?

 

[tomo pauk]

For the 1000 hp at 21,000, I was using the graph for the F4F-3 on wwiiaircraft performance, it must include ram to reach that figure. Same graph drops to 860 at 25,000. The single P36B shows 317 mph at 17,000 on 950 hp so there was obviously improvement left in the P36.

Looks like the P40B would have been a welcome addition to Darwin when the Japanese were coming in above the P40's ceiling, hence he need for Spitfires. They also said the Japanese fighters and bombers came in above the P40's ceiling in the Philippine invasion. At Guadalcanal only the Wildcats were capable of intercepting the high altitude, well above what the P39's could climb to

I'm not sure that Japanese A/C were flying above the ceiling of American fighters in any of the theaters, that would've mean that they flew above 30000 ft (= operational ceiling of the P-40E). Problem with US A/C was that they operated with barely any early warning, thus did not have enough of time to warm up and climb at or above 20000 ft. The P-40E will need almost 20 min to climb to 25000 ft (8 min more than P-40B), almost 12 min to 20000 ft, plus time for warming-up the engine.

How, in your opinion does the P40B stack up against the Spitfire II and early Me109?

Speed is in the ballpark, Spit II and 109E having the edge in climb and turn, P-40 rolls better. The P-39C is faster than P-40B, but it featured no protection.
The P-40E and P-39D are helpless, except under 10000 ft. European machines are also earlier by a year or two, a crucial advantage for them.

 

[swampyankee]

I see it a little differently, the tests were in November 1939, by the time the Hawk arrived diverted from French orders everything had already changed a lot, especially regarding props and fuels. As for V 12s being superior in the eyes of the RAF, they quite clearly were at that time, any radial engine plane had to beat what the RAF already had. The Spitfire in the test quoted was clearly much faster, so it wasn't even discussed. If such a prejudice existed it must have been well covered up, the Sea Fury had an air cooled radial engine that did not just appear from thin air. Long before any radial engine out performed the Spitfire the British had H and X type water cooled engines being developed in addition to air cooled radials. It is a simple fact that the Spitfire remained a top class front line fighter until the end of the war and the P-51 in a different role did too.

I didn't say it was a reason; I said there was a possibility it was a reason. There was and is a perception that radial-engined aircraft had, intrinsically, much greater drag than did V-12 aircraft, and for really high performance, especially high speed, one needed a V-12. The two posited reasons for the largely non-existent extra drag are nose shape and cooling drag.

Leaping back to the P-36, it's first flight was in 1935, the same year as the Bf109. I also wonder if we'd be having this conversation had the USAAC/USAAF not assigned a new designation when Curtiss stuck a V-12 into the P-36.

 

[tomo pauk]

I didn't say it was a reason; I said there was a possibility it was a reason. There was and is a perception that radial-engined aircraft had, intrinsically, much greater drag than did V-12 aircraft, and for really high performance, especially high speed, one needed a V-12. The two posited reasons for the largely non-existent extra drag are nose shape and cooling drag.
...

The top-notch radial engine installation on the Fw 190A was much draggier than the Fw 190D V12 engine installation. Fusleage + coolig amounted for 0.299 m^2 of equivalent ftat plate on the Fw 190A-8, while it was just 0.1783 m^2 on the Fw 190D-9. A difference of 0.0507 m^2 = 10% drag reduction on max speed.
The radial engine installations that predate BMW 801 were not that well streamlined.

 

[parsifal]

That is stretching it just a bit, don't you think?

No, it is not stretching things at all.

During 1939–1940, French H-75 pilots claimed around 230 kills. Losses were just 29 aircraft in aerial combat. While making up only 12.6% of the French Air Force single-seater fighter force, the H-75 accounted for almost a 33% of the victories during the 1940 Battle of France. Of the 11 French aces of the early part of the war, seven flew H-75s. The leading ace of the time was Lieutenant Edmond Marin la Mesle with 15 confirmed and five probable victories in the type. On 12 May 1940 the Curtiss H-75s of GC I/5 ran into the Junkers Ju 87 B Stukas of 1./StG 76 sw of Sedan and claimed as many as 11 shot down in air combat - this happened in the locality of Bauillon-Ste Cecilé-Poury St. Remy. This may well have been the first time that the Stuka´s 'vulnerability' was demonstrated in large scale air combat. GC I/5 was the Armée de l'Air crack unit - claims for six Stukas, plus 12 more probably destroyed, were filed following this action by the five French pilots including Marin-la-Mesle, Sous-Lieutenant Jean Rey, Sous-Lieutenant François Perina, Sergent-Chef Dominique Penzini, and Sergent-Chef François Morel.

Some of the claims were as follows;

1./StG76 Junkers Ju 87 B-1. Shot down by Curtiss H-75s of GC I/5 in action south -west of Sedan 8.30 a.m. Crash-landed and burned out behind German lines east of Bouillon. BF Uffz Richard Kny badly wounded, FF Lt Haller unhurt. Aircraft 100% write-off.

1./StG76 Junkers Ju87 B. Badly damaged in attacks by south-west of Bouillon 8.30 a.m. Belly-landed near Bellevaux. BF Fw Friedrich Petrick badly wounded in stomach, FF Oberlt Wolfgang Unbehaun unhurt. Aircraft S1+KH 15% damaged but repairable. On return to base, radio contact was established with 'Zaratza' Unbehaun by the Staffelkapitän, Oberlt Dietrich Peltz, who picked up the crew by Storch within the hour.

2./StG76 Junkers Ju87B-1. Engine badly damaged in attack from below by Curtiss H-75s of GC I/5 during sortie east of Sedan and crash-landed in the Semois valley at 'Les Longs Champs' outside Dohan, east of Bouillon, 9.00 a.m. BF Uffz Helmut Gäth badly wounded in chest – died shortly after landing, FF Lt Heinz-Georg Migeod unhurt. Aircraft S1+MK 50% damaged but repairable. Helmut Gäth was originally buried in a field grave in an orchard off the Route du Sati on the north-eastern approach to Dohan. He now lies in Noyers-Pont-Maugis Cemetery, Block 3, Grave 1835.

2./StG76 Junkers Ju87 B. Returned damaged by Curtiss H-75s of GC I/5 during sortie east of Sedan 8.30 a.m. BF Gefr Ludwig Kirner slightly wounded, pilot unhurt.

French aviation blogger "Drix" is more scathing about the "Curtiss", as the French usually refer to the H-75;

" the qualities of the Curtiss have been largely overestimated - it achieved what it achieved thanks the high quality of the French aces that flew it.."

Accart and Marin la Mesle of GC I/5, were the top scorers in the Battle of France. GC II/5 appears to have been the only group to fly the Wright-engined Curtiss fighters on combat operations over the anchorage at Mers el-Kébir. S/Lt Trémolet (N° 2) and S/C Gisclon (N° 7) clashed with Skuas over the harbour on 3 July 1940. When Ark Royal's Swordfish attacked the Dunkerque for a second time on 6 July Gisclon claimed a Skua downed after a long dogfight, but although shore-based witnesses confirmed the 'kill' all of Ark Royal's aircraft returned safely.

it is worth noting that during the 6 weeks of fighting May 10th to June 25, the LW lost more a/c in combat than they did in the first 6 weeks of the boB, though total losses over England were higher. Luftwaffe did not defeat the FAF by qualitative advantage, they defeated it with superior tactical handling and sheer numbers. .

 

[Stig1207]

During 1939–1940, French H-75 pilots claimed around 230 kills.

We both know that their is usually a difference between what one side claimed and what the other side lost.

 

[parsifal]

We both know that their is usually a difference between what one side claimed and what the other side lost.

Yes of course, that is very true, however it cuts both ways really.

The 230 figure in my opinion isn't too far fetched. just after the war, the French were claiming well over 1000 LW a/c by the H-75 units. That has since been whittled down by cross referencing to LW records to the 230 LW a/c losses that I mentioned. They are a/c lost from the right units, in the right areas. its about as accurate as possible in the confusing state in france in the summer of 1940

 

[Shortround6]

I'm not sure that Japanese A/C were flying above the ceiling of American fighters in any of the theaters, that would've mean that they flew above 30000 ft (= operational ceiling of the P-40E). Problem with US A/C was that they operated with barely any early warning, thus did not have enough of time to warm up and climb at or above 20000 ft. The P-40E will need almost 20 min to climb to 25000 ft (8 min more than P-40B), almost 12 min to 20000 ft, plus time for warming-up the engine.

The problem is that the operational ceiling of the P-40 is actually around 20,000ft or lower. The P-40 is going to have trouble maintaining a formation at 25,000ft.
Even a "D" with four guns took 15.9 minutes to hit 25,000ft but 35 minutes to hit 30,600ft. Granted this was at 2600rpm after about 13,000ft but if you are climbing at under 500fpm then a 5 minute burst of full military power really doesn't gain that much altitude and tends to push the engine up against the temperature limit.
Think about it, you get one firing pass in a dive from above the Japanese (at 27-28,000ft) even if you had an hours warning. you pull out say 3,000 ft below them, it then takes 5-6 minutes to climb back up level with them (disregarding zoom climb) at best climb speed and then you have to accelerate to catch them. And this is straight line flying and in real life there would be turns that slow things down or make it harder to climb.

However yanking a V-12 that can make 1000hp at 15,000ft or so and replacing it with a radial that makes 1000hp at 14,000ft (or under, 2 speed supercharger) sure doesn't solve the problem. You need a better supercharger on either engine.

 

[tomo pauk]

The problem is that the operational ceiling of the P-40 is actually around 20,000ft or lower. The P-40 is going to have trouble maintaining a formation at 25,000ft.
..

30000 ft service ceiling for the P-40E: link
30600 ft service ceiling: link
28700 ft: link

 

[Shortround6]

I didn't say it was a reason; I said there was a possibility it was a reason. There was and is a perception that radial-engined aircraft had, intrinsically, much greater drag than did V-12 aircraft, and for really high performance, especially high speed, one needed a V-12. The two posited reasons for the largely non-existent extra drag are nose shape and cooling drag.

Leaping back to the P-36, it's first flight was in 1935, the same year as the Bf109. I also wonder if we'd be having this conversation had the USAAC/USAAF not assigned a new designation when Curtiss stuck a V-12 into the P-36.[/QUOTE]

It wasn't perception, it was actual fact at a particular point in time or a particular time period.
You can look at the test reports for the P-36 and P-40 and see how much power was needed for certain speeds. It was also estimated that the P-36 had 22% more drag than the early P-40s when you figured power available to speed achieved.
However the state of the art for either type of installation did not stay static, both were evolving and the air cooled camp caught up (mostly). P & W by 1942 had a radial engine test bed P-40 (with the 2 stage R-1830) that showed only an 8% difference in drag compared to the Allison. What could be achieved by 1945 I have no figures for.
In the very late 30s or first few years of the 40s the difference was there and it was real.


This also gets intermingled with the fact that exhaust thrust was much easier to set up on a V-12.

 

[Shortround6]

30000 ft service ceiling for the P-40E: link
30600 ft service ceiling: link
28700 ft: link

We are confusing service ceiling with operational ceiling and combat ceiling. Service ceiling is a nice measure of aircraft performance but is almost useless for planning operations or for figuring out combat results. Except that a plane with a service ceiling of 34,000 will be able to operate around 3,000ft higher than a plane with a service ceiling of 31,000ft.

However service ceiling is for a single plane, in factory new condition, still being able to climb at 100fpm, in other words it is moving only slightly faster than stall at that altitude. It has very little extra speed in hand and is flying straight and level, any but the most gentile of turns is going to cause the plane to loose altitude.
Now lets try a formation of planes, say four. Not all have identical climb rates anymore than four identical cars have exactly the same acceleration one will always be just a bit faster (or climb better) than the others and one will always be just a bit slower.
Differences in climb tend to carry through. A plane that is 50fpm slower climbing than it's squadron mates at low altitude (not a big difference at low altitudes where you are climbing at 3000fpm) will be markedly slower climbing at high altitudes, perhaps 30fpm slower but if your squadron mates are climbing at 200-300fp and you are climbing at 170-270fpm for 5 minutes you are no longer in formation. Or say the formation turns 90 degrees, at what altitude will the 3 best planes be able to make the turn without losing altitude while poor #4 either falls behind or drops below?

The British figured you needed 500fpm worth of climb in order to fly in formation. Poor #4 being on the outside of the formation when it made a turn?
This cuts several thousand feet from the nominal service ceiling to the ceiling that small formations could even fly a patrol at with the intention of diving to to attack.
Now try to figure what altitude you can effectively fight at, not do a single diving pass and then take 5-10 minutes to regain altitude for a possible 2nd pass.
British figured they needed 1000fpm of climbing ability at a minimum.
This was part of the reasoning in giving the Hurricane the Merlin XX engine. The Spitfire with a Merlin III had a higher climb rate than the Hurricane with the Merlin III and the British were estimating (based on captured 109) that the Hurricane needed better climb in order to fight the 109 at the higher altitudes, The Spitfire was superior to the 109 in climb at the higher altitudes the Hurricane I was not. Even if the Hurricane II was still slower than the 109 at least it could out climb it.
and please remember that climb is an indication of ability to turn without loosing altitude. Doesn't do a lot of good to have a smaller turning circle if you loose hundreds of feet more per turn and wind up too low to get back in the fight.

Going back to the P-40 this explains the difference (at least partly) between the factory figures for ceiling and the combat reports. Yes you could get a P-40 up to 30,000ft given enough time, but once there you couldn't really do anything except fly in a straight line. No weaving, gentle S turns. even flying a box search pattern would be difficult. Unless each corner had a radius of miles you were going to loose altitude on each turn and have to climb back up.
Also note that "cruising" at such an altitude requires the engine to be running only slightly slower (or slightly less boost) than max continuous.
Lets face it, if max continuous power means a climb rate of 100-200fpm how much can you cut the throttle before you fall out of the sky
Or at least start descending.

 

[Smokey Stover]

I have a feeling this is going to make me rather unpopular but im afraid that one or two exceptions aside, for me its the B-17.
The B-17 was a 1930's design. With a shaky start (The prototype crashed on 30 October 1935, with test-pilot Major Ployer Peter Hill and Boeing employee Les Tower killed in the accident) And the contract was almost awarded to the Douglas B-18. But the airforce still had faith it was a sound bomber. And indeed it was. And as we know the B-17 doesnt stand alone in being a flawed concept. No matter how many guns you add to a bomber its meat and potatoes to enemy fighters. But why single out the B-17? Well for one it was basically obsolete by 1942/3 and with a tiny bomb capacity of just 4000lbs a mosquito could have done the same job without the terrible loss of men and machines. Without fighter cover daylight bombing was just suicide. And the B-17 holds the record for the most aircraft lost in one mission. To fly in daylight was suicide and the B-17's only saving grace was that it could absorb severe damage. A Lancaster could carry 14,000lbs standard in comparison and 22,000lb grandslam if modified. It's also overlooked that mechanical problems plagued the Boeing bomber, and their daylight high-altitude bombing accuracy turned out to be much less than advertised. The RAF tested a batch of B-17's and were less than impressed with the results. The test came to a dubious end after three of the 20 airplanes were lost to enemy action, five were destroyed in accidents, and the rest were grounded due to mechanical failure. In 39 sorties, only 18 Flying Fortresses managed to actually bomb a target. Only two bombs were believed to have actually hit the targets they were aimed at—and not a single German fighter had fallen to the Fortresses' guns. The same goes for the B-29. A super fortress that inherited nearly all the flaws of its older brother and then some. The pressurization ended up being made redundant thanks to the gulf stream ruining any chance of high altitude bombing. The fact it could carry a few more bombs a little further is not much of a return. So there it is, the Boeing B family. Overrated but hey thats just my opinion coupled with some facts.

One last thing. I see some chaps mentioned the P-51 and Fw-190 as being overrated. That's absolutely absurd

 

[tomo pauk]

...
The British figured you needed 500fpm worth of climb in order to fly in formation. Poor #4 being on the outside of the formation when it made a turn?
This cuts several thousand feet from the nominal service ceiling to the ceiling that small formations could even fly a patrol at with the intention of diving to to attack.
Now try to figure what altitude you can effectively fight at, not do a single diving pass and then take 5-10 minutes to regain altitude for a possible 2nd pass.
British figured they needed 1000fpm of climbing ability at a minimum.
...
Also note that "cruising" at such an altitude requires the engine to be running only slightly slower (or slightly less boost) than max continuous.
Lets face it, if max continuous power means a climb rate of 100-200fpm how much can you cut the throttle before you fall out of the sky
Or at least start descending.

The P-36 with better R-1830 in that light does not sound bad. The P-66 with that engine sounds even better.
While a thing or two can be pointed out to the pinsong's proposal (I do it often, not just to him ), even the over-weight F4F-4 was good for service ceiling of 33000 ft, and the F4F-3 was supposedly good for more than 37000 ft.

 

[Stig1207]

The 230 figure in my opinion isn't too far fetched. just after the war, the French were claiming well over 1000 LW a/c by the H-75 units. That has since been whittled down by cross referencing to LW records to the 230 LW a/c losses that I mentioned. They are a/c lost from the right units, in the right areas. its about as accurate as possible in the confusing state in france in the summer of 1940

The figures I have seen is over a 1000 LW a/c claimed by all the French flown fighters, not just by the H 75 units; while the likely actual number shot down by French flown fighters is 355.
Secret Défense - Mai-Juin 40 : le mythe des "1000 victoires" aériennes définitivement explosé - Libération.fr

 

[pbehn]

Leaping back to the P-36, it's first flight was in 1935, the same year as the Bf109. I also wonder if we'd be having this conversation had the USAAC/USAAF not assigned a new designation when Curtiss stuck a V-12 into the P-36.

It wasn't perception, it was actual fact at a particular point in time or a particular time period.
You can look at the test reports for the P-36 and P-40 and see how much power was needed for certain speeds. It was also estimated that the P-36 had 22% more drag than the early P-40s when you figured power available to speed achieved.
However the state of the art for either type of installation did not stay static, both were evolving and the air cooled camp caught up (mostly). P & W by 1942 had a radial engine test bed P-40 (with the 2 stage R-1830) that showed only an 8% difference in drag compared to the Allison. What could be achieved by 1945 I have no figures for.
In the very late 30s or first few years of the 40s the difference was there and it was real.
This also gets intermingled with the fact that exhaust thrust was much easier to set up on a V-12.[/QUOTE]
There was also the perception that Water cooled V engines were complex and sophisticated while air cooled engines were staid low tech "cooking" technology. I think you posted earlier the finning on later model air cooled radials which is a work of art itself and complex to achieve. The British were frequently caught in a "needs must" situation, in 1940 the Merlin was pretty much the only dog in the fight, everything else was having problems. Proritising this over that and then that over this resulted in its post war four engine bombers having water cooled V12 engines, its best fighter had an air cooled radial engine while the fastest twin prop fighter still had Merlins and almost identical performance to the aircooled radial engine Grumman Tigercat.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
Proritising this over that and then that over this resulted in its post war four engine bombers having water cooled V12 engines, its best fighter had an air cooled radial engine while the fastest twin prop fighter still had Merlins and almost identical performance to the aircooled radial engine Grumman Tigercat.

Sea Hornet was 15-30 mph faster than Tigercat (despite 15% less power) , difference being greater as altitude is increased. Sea Hornet climbed better and was with greater range, while RAF's Hornet was still a better performer.

 

[SuperFire]

Re: P-40 vs. ME-109 early. Dog-fighting is an art at gun range. Certainly knowing the technical abilities of one's machine is critical, but never discount inspired imagination over dicipline in a one-on-one fight. The Germans were a far more disciplined fighting force than the French were, but they--on the whole--lacked the individuality of the French pilots. In an organized attack they were superior. One on one, they were at a loss to the chaos of imagination and passion. Being essentially "nuts" and highly aggressive counts for a lot in the clutch.

 

[Shortround6]

I have a feeling this is going to make me rather unpopular but im afraid that one or two exceptions aside, for me its the B-17.
The B-17 was a 1930's design. With a shaky start (The prototype crashed on 30 October 1935, with test-pilot Major Ployer Peter Hill and Boeing employee Les Tower killed in the accident) And the contract was almost awarded to the Douglas B-18. But the airforce still had faith it was a sound bomber. And indeed it was. And as we know the B-17 doesnt stand alone in being a flawed concept. No matter how many guns you add to a bomber its meat and potatoes to enemy fighters. But why single out the B-17? Well for one it was basically obsolete by 1942/3 and with a tiny bomb capacity of just 4000lbs a mosquito could have done the same job without the terrible loss of men and machines. Without fighter cover daylight bombing was just suicide. And the B-17 holds the record for the most aircraft lost in one mission. To fly in daylight was suicide and the B-17's only saving grace was that it could absorb severe damage. A Lancaster could carry 14,000lbs standard in comparison and 22,000lb grandslam if modified. It's also overlooked that mechanical problems plagued the Boeing bomber, and their daylight high-altitude bombing accuracy turned out to be much less than advertised. The RAF tested a batch of B-17's and were less than impressed with the results. The test came to a dubious end after three of the 20 airplanes were lost to enemy action, five were destroyed in accidents, and the rest were grounded due to mechanical failure. In 39 sorties, only 18 Flying Fortresses managed to actually bomb a target. Only two bombs were believed to have actually hit the targets they were aimed at—and not a single German fighter had fallen to the Fortresses' guns. The same goes for the B-29. A super fortress that inherited nearly all the flaws of its older brother and then some. The pressurization ended up being made redundant thanks to the gulf stream ruining any chance of high altitude bombing. The fact it could carry a few more bombs a little further is not much of a return. So there it is, the Boeing B family. Overrated but hey thats just my opinion coupled with some facts.

One last thing. I see some chaps mentioned the P-51 and Fw-190 as being overrated. That's absolutely absurd

Them thar is fighting words Smokey

When making claims like that it is best to have all your ducks in a row and unfortunately your ducks are different breeds in different ponds.

Crash of prototype had nothing to do with the qualities of the aircraft, good or bad. They tried to take off without unlocking the control surfaces. Gust locks had been installed to keep the large control surfaces from flapping around in the wind and getting damaged. One thing that came of this accident was take-off check lists. Douglas got the contract, in large part, because a twin engine bomber was cheaper than a 4 engine. They could get a lot more planes for the money ( first order for B-18s was a whopping 82 aircraft)

The 4000lb bomb load is a furphy that just will not go away. It seems to have got it's start in an offhand quote from a General to a war correspondent. B-17s routinely carried 5000lb loads to Berlin and 6000lbs on occasion to Berlin and often on shorter flights. The element of truth to the 4000lb load is that while the Berlin bound B-17s carried 5000lbs of iron bombs the ones carrying incendiaries carried a bit over 3000lbs so the average was 4000lbs.
A B-17, with the external bomb racks (seldom used) could get 17,000lbs off the ground, it just couldn't go very far with it.
External racks would hold a pair of 4000lb bombs (or smaller) and did not block the bomb bay.
Mosquitoes could not carry the 4000lb cookie until 1944 so what they could or could not carry makes little difference to B-17s in action in 1942/43. Mosquitoes carried four 500lbs inside and two outside at best for the first year or more of operation. And they very rarely carried incendiaries except for target marking.

The British "test" was flawed for a bunch of reasons. Despite being told that the B-17Cs they got weren't really ready for combat the British used them anyway, in the typical British "penny packet" numbers, rarely more than 3 aircraft per mission, which is hardly enough to set up the defensive formation quantity of fire the 'theory' depended on. The as fitted armament consisted of a single manually operated .50 cal out each waist window, one, 50 cal out the back of a ventral tub and the fourth out the top of the radio compartment, however field of fire and indeed field of view for the dorsal gunner were best described as restricted.

There was one additional .30 cal or .50 cal in the nose. British were using either two or three power turrets in most of their bombers at this point and why they thought that a handful of manually aimed .50 cal guns was such a big improvement as to allow daylight operation is beyond me.

The B-17E was already on order when the RAF got their 20 Fortress MK Is and with double the number of guns and twin dorsal and ventral power turrets the firepower was significantly higher. Still not enough as it turned out but there was reason to discount earlier experience.

BTW you might want to check on that just a few more bombs a little bit further for the B-29 comparison also.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I'm with Smokey. But I go a little further. Boeing products have been victims of overhype from Alpha to Omega. As befits the biggest planemaker in the land that brought you Madison Avenue.
But it doesn't start with the B-17. With the notable exception of the 747 and possibly the 727, practically everything they've built has fallen short of its advertising. From the post WW1 biplane fighters, the Pshooter, the B-9, the 247, and on through the Stratocruiser, B-47 (a slippery, treacherous machine), B-52 (a sitting duck: Hanoi 12/'72), right on up to the 787(lithium battery fires), each has left a lot to be desired. In many cases, they were immediately followed by another manufacturer's product which was more developed but didn't beat them to market. (DC-3, B-10, B-24, DC-6/7)
I make exceptions for the 747, which was/is an outstanding achievement and deserves the hype, and the 727, which nailed the S-duct issue that had stood in the way of trijet design for several years.
My girlfriend, who spent the last couple years of her career flying 737-800s, likened it to " a Model A Ford retrofitted with a drive by wire system and an awesome stereo". A nice flying airframe, but not a fully integrated high tech airplane like the Embraers and Canadairs she'd been flying. 21st century electronics shoehorned into a 20th century airframe.
The one place where Smokey and I part ways is the P-51. Fantastic airplane, but one in a cluster of fantastic airplanes, and not the be-all and end-all the hype would have you believe.
Cheers,
Wes
PS: I know you guys SY, SR, DR, TP, BillR, Greg, and Biff, are going to pick me apart on this, but to quote MacBeth, "Lay on, MacDuff!". Burnham Wood is not yet come to Dunsinane.