Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[parsifal]

When you are trying to compare aircraft please try to compare aircraft doing the same mission.
Long over water flights at 2-5000ft and at 180 kts or less bear no relation to what was going on Europe (not picking on the Zero, many people take the theoretical range for USN aircraft and try to use that a basis for using them as escort fighters in Europe).

The early Zero carried 141-142 US gallons without the drop tank ( and strangely less than 10 gallons difference from a P-40) . A Spitfire carried 100 US gallons. DO you really think that an extra 40 gallons is going to give hundreds of extra miles? like well over 200 miles more?

Or do you think that the Zero can retain the drop tank while fighting 109Es?
Please note the early Zero really didn't have that spectacular of a climb performance. It was good compared to some of the stuff the US had in in the first 6-12 months of the war but not so good compared to some of the European fighters. What confuses things is climb angle. The Zero had a steep climb angle.
It also wasn't that fast. This is the early ones with the single speed supercharger. Against a 109 it is slower, doesn't climb much different at some altitudes, turns better, isn't any better armed and has no protection.

I haven't followed studiously this other debate about combat radii in the ETO, but for the Zeke on internal fuel it had a comat radius of just under 400 miles. that was travelling at reasonable transit speeds, say 250 mph. by comparison the hellcat had an effective combat radius at the same approach speeds of less than 250 miles, whilst the seafire, which had longer legs than the land based spitfire equivalent was a mere 185 miles.

With a standard drop tank (Ii don't know its capacity) the Zeke had a combat radius of about 650 miles. this is a far cry from the 'thousands of miles" recorded for it in its specifications, but it is still a very good endurance. You would know better than me, but I have read its long legs were the result of it small capacity engine and ultra light construction. Even so, to get from Formosa to Luzon and back, the Japanese had to develop new flying techniques and engine mixture settings to do it.

Don't know if this helps. most of what you are saying I agree with, but Zekes on these long range escort missions were not just puttering along at training speeds. they were, to an extent at least, combat missions comparable in their ardor to anything in the ETO or the MTO.

 

[parsifal]

In October 1944 Lt Law (RN) was sent to the US Naval Air Station at Patuxent River, Maryland, f to take part in a comparative performance trial between the Seafire LIIc and a captured Zeke 52.

Results of Trials
The peak speeds of the two aircraft are:
Seafire LIIc - 338mph at 5,500ft
Zeke 52 - 335mph at 18,000ft
The comparative speeds in miles per hour are:

Height Seafire LIIc Zeke 52
Sea Level 316 292
5,000ft 337 313
10,000ft 337 319
15,000ft 335 327
20,000ft 328 333
25,000ft 317 327
30,000ft 317

Climb - The Zeke 52 climbs at a very steep angle and gives the impression of a very high rate of climb. The Seafire LIIc, however, has a much better initial climb and remains slightly superior up to 25,000ft.

The climb of the Seafire is at a higher speed, but at a more shallow angle. The best indicated climbing speeds of the Zeke and Seafire are 120mph and 160 mph respectively.

Manoeuverability Turning plane - the Zeke 52 can turn inside the Seafire LIIc at all heights. The Zeke 52 turns tighter to the left than to the right.

Rolling plane - the rate of roll of the two aircraft is similar at speeds below 180mph IAS, but above that the aileron stick forces of the Zeke increase tremendously, and the Seafire becomes progressively superior.

Dive The Seafire is superior in the dive although initial acceleration is similar. The Zeke is a most unpleasant aircraft in the dive, due to heavy stick forces and excessive vibration.

Tactics - Never dogfight with the Zeke 52 - it is too manoeuvrable.
At low altitudes where the Seafire is at its best, it should make use of its superior rate of climb and speed to obtain a height advantage before attacking.
If jumped, the Seafire should evade by using superior rate of roll. The Zeke cannot follow high speed rolls and aileron turns.

Conclusions The Seafire LIIc is 24mph faster at sea level, this difference decreasing to parity between 15,000 and 20,000ft. The Zeke 52 is 10mph faster at 25,000ft.
The Seafire can out-climb the Zeke up to 25,000ft.
The Zeke is very manoeuvrable and can turn inside the Seafire at all altitudes.
The Zeke fights best between 115 and 180mph IAS.
The rate of roll of the Seafire is better than that of the Zeke above 180mph IAS.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Strangely, though, the Spitfire wasn't gradually phased out and replaced by newer fighters by the RAF unlike a certain more 'rugged or versatile' fighter was by the USAAF.

That might have been due to budgetary or missions constraints rather than aircraft performance or longevity if you're referring to late WW2 ops or the post war era.

 

[Stig1207]

Wow you can sense a little sparkle of malice there lol.

No, but calling the Spitfire overrated and then comparing it as less useful than the P-40 at the same time is going a bit far, don't you think?

That might have been due to budgetary or missions constraints rather than aircraft performance or longevity if you're referring to late WW2 ops or the post war era.

The decision was made sometime in 1943, and in the MTO they began replacing them with P-47's at twice the unit price in September. The USAAF presumably had good reasons for doing so.

 

[Schweik]

No, but calling the Spitfire overrated and then comparing it as less useful than the P-40 at the same time is going a bit far, don't you think?

I never said the Spitfire was overrated, in fact I said the opposite - and I didn't say it was less useful than the P-40, you have me confused with another poster.


S

 

[Schweik]

So who were you before becoming Schweik on March 15, 2018?

I've never been on this forum before "becoming Schweik". I've been on plenty of forums but this is the first time I ever made an account on an aviation forum. I argued with those two on another couple of threads in here since I joined the forum, one about the best possible fighter design (originally something to do with a P-61) and some other one, with similar types of conversation. Didn't find them to be on the level entirely so I quit those threads.

S

 

[DarrenW]

(not picking on the Zero, many people take the theoretical range for USN aircraft and try to use that a basis for using them as escort fighters in Europe).....

I remember a discussion similar to this and I came to the conclusion that on average the navy fighters couldn't go as deep into Germany as the army fighters. By my calculations the Hellcat with a drop tank had enough fuel to get to Fankfurt and back, maybe even a little bit further but that was about it. That's while cruising at 25,000 feet and keeping a TAS of about 280 mph (zigzagging to stay with the bomber formation to the target). That's probably the extent of its effective combat radius in ETO, as carrying three external tanks (as it was capable of doing) would slow it down considerably and in all probability the tanks would have to be jettisoned as soon as the target area was reached anyway. As Shortround6 explained to me then, one of the keys to effective range has to do with internal fuel capacity because in most cases you would be using it to return home to friendly territory. You don't want to travel too deeply into enemy territory and find out after jettisoning your tanks you don't have enough internal fuel to get you home!

 

[parsifal]

may I ask who are those "other two". I'm not a mod, perhaps I should just mind my own business. I'm just curious that's all.

 

[GrauGeist]

I've never been on this forum before "becoming Schweik". I've been on plenty of forums but this is the first time I ever made an account on an aviation forum...

In saying "plenty of forums", would these be perhaps gaming forums?

 

[Stig1207]

I never said the Spitfire was overrated, in fact I said the opposite - and I didn't say it was less useful than the P-40, you have me confused with another poster.


S

I responded to Dan originally; so I know you didn't call the Spitfire overrated. My response to you was only due to the 'malice' comment, nothing else.

 

[Juha2]

Think the most over rated aircraft was the Spitfire. Find for home defense just could not stay in the air more than an hour. Was not as rugged or versatile as the P40. Its main issues was it lacked range and second ruggedness. It was an expensive time consuming plane to build. Could it fight yeah.. like to know the shoot down numbers of the Spit.

While I disagree with you I admit that there are some foundations to your opinion. But there are Spitfires and Spitfires and IMHO all but one Spit versions could stay in the air more than an hour in home defence ops, the only version with which I'm not sure is the Mk XII. And on the other end there were Mks VII and VIII. According to Wildcat, Longest Spitfire raid of WWII., "On the 27th of Nov 1944, five spitfires from No. 549 sqn RAF and 2 spitfires from No.1 Fighter Wing, RAAF in conjuction with 4 B-25's from No. 2 sqn RAAF plus an ASR Catalina, attacked and destroyed a Japanese radar station at Cape Lore on Portuguese Timor. The raid was a round trip of some 850 miles taking 4.5 hours." Spits were Mk VIIIs. In ETO the longest Spitfire escort mission I'm aware was that made by 131 Sqn on 11 Aug 44 to La Pallice, 690mls and took 3 hours 50 min. They were flying Spit VIIs. The Spits didn't have much fuel for combat in that mission but the assumption was that mere sight of Spit escort would be enough for the few LW fighters in the area to leave the formation alone. And that was what happened a few German fighters were seen but they turned away when noticed the Spits.

 

[Juha2]

I don't think it was unusual for higher performance fighters with newer high performance engines to have some engine issues (particularly overheating), which often partly depended on the season and the climate as well as the altitude, maintenance and other factors, and these were not necessarily debilitating certainly not with the Yak-9U.

Since the Soviets had multiple variants of Yak with different performance levels - by 1944 they could concentrate the faster ones like the Yak-3 and 9U (and even the Yak-1B) against what was left of the more elite Ostfront Luftwaffe fighters - I think they manufactured more than enough for that- while the less zippy ones could focus on destroying the second string units and the few remaining German bombers and ground attack aircraft, as well as attacking flak and other ground targets.

Kind of like the way the English in the same era used Spitfires and Mustangs to counter German fighters when most necessary / crucial and sent P-47s and Typhoons out to do a lot of strafing and rocket and bomb attacks.

By 1944 most Allied fighters in every Theater were actually flying more ground-attack missions than anything else.

S

IMHO before late 1944 Yak-9U problems with its VK-107A engine were worse than the usual early problems with a new engine. Of course the Germans had even more protracted problems with early 109 Gs and DB 605A, it took about a year to solve the problems with its 1.42 ata take-off and emergency power. And why not with the early BMW 801As.

IMHO Yak-9Ms were used mostly as fighters, from ground attack they had Yak-9B fighter bombers and of course the Il-2s and -10s. And Typhoon and P-47 were significantly faster than Yak-9M and their fire power was in different category even without their capacity to carry significant dropable loads, and they were all-metal planes so less vulnerable to ground fire.

At least Yak-9M was very sleek looking plane.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I've never been on this forum before "becoming Schweik". I've been on plenty of forums but this is the first time I ever made an account on an aviation forum. I argued with those two on another couple of threads in here since I joined the forum, one about the best possible fighter design (originally something to do with a P-61) and some other one, with similar types of conversation. Didn't find them to be on the level entirely so I quit those threads.

S

Maybe it is not them who is not on the level. No need to be condescending or insulting to anyone...

 

[Jeff Hunt]

Just popped in to this thread for the first time. Have not read the posts but viewed the results of the vote. P-51 is not feeling the love of many.

Cheers,

Jeff

 

[DarrenW]

While I disagree with you I admit that there are some foundations to your opinion. But there are Spitfires and Spitfires and IMHO all but one Spit versions could stay in the air more than an hour in home defence ops, the only version with which I'm not sure is the Mk XII. And on the other end there were Mks VII and VIII. According to Wildcat, Longest Spitfire raid of WWII., "On the 27th of Nov 1944, five spitfires from No. 549 sqn RAF and 2 spitfires from No.1 Fighter Wing, RAAF in conjuction with 4 B-25's from No. 2 sqn RAAF plus an ASR Catalina, attacked and destroyed a Japanese radar station at Cape Lore on Portuguese Timor. The raid was a round trip of some 850 miles taking 4.5 hours." Spits were Mk VIIIs. In ETO the longest Spitfire escort mission I'm aware was that made by 131 Sqn on 11 Aug 44 to La Pallice, 690mls and took 3 hours 50 min. They were flying Spit VIIs. The Spits didn't have much fuel for combat in that mission but the assumption was that mere sight of Spit escort would be enough for the few LW fighters in the area to leave the formation alone. And that was what happened a few German fighters were seen but they turned away when noticed the Spits.

Interesting stuff. Do you happen to know the altitude and speed of the Spits during these escort missions?

 

[Shortround6]

With a standard drop tank (Ii don't know its capacity) the Zeke had a combat radius of about 650 miles. this is a far cry from the 'thousands of miles" recorded for it in its specifications, but it is still a very good endurance. You would know better than me, but I have read its long legs were the result of it small capacity engine and ultra light construction. Even so, to get from Formosa to Luzon and back, the Japanese had to develop new flying techniques and engine mixture settings to do it.

Don't know if this helps. most of what you are saying I agree with, but Zekes on these long range escort missions were not just puttering along at training speeds. they were, to an extent at least, combat missions comparable in their ardor to anything in the ETO or the MTO.

In reverse, I would not say that long over water flights in single engine aircraft were not difficult or nerve wracking, especially considering the state of Japanese air/sea rescue service. However the time, percentage wise, of the mission spent in 'hot zones' (AA fire or likely enemy aircraft action) was less than most European missions. Time spent in action (hot zone) could be every bit as bad as in Europe.

we do have conflicting statements.

"Even so, to get from Formosa to Luzon and back, the Japanese had to develop new flying techniques and engine mixture settings to do it."
"Zekes on these long range escort missions were not just puttering along at training speeds"

Aircraft range comes down to 3 things.

1. Drag= power needed to fly at desired speed
2. efficiency of the engine= pounds of fuel per HP hour.
3. amount of fuel carried.

There is no way to get extra long ranges without "new flying techniques and engine mixture settings" unless they include "puttering along at training speeds"

Max range or endurance ( They are not quite the same) will be rather close to the max climb speed as that is the lowest drag speed. However the engine may or may not be at it's most efficient at that speed. Most of these engines are going to be within 10-15% of each other in fuel consumption (lbs per HP/HR) in lean cruise conditions. The Zero is probably on the low end or even a bit of an outlier. The Merlin was a bit on the high side. Allison's were about 5-8% more economical than Merlins when cruising. Nobody really figured that close most of the time.

A P-47 burned about 0.45lbs per HP hour at most economical. However for a P-47 that meant 60 gallons an hour to make 800hp at 5000ft. You don't fly 12,000 planes of that size with the same fuel as planes less than half the weight. A P-38L burned 33 gallons an our (per engine) to make 425hp at 5000ft for 0.465lbs per hp hour. most economical. Very few engines get below around 0.42 and very few got above 0.50lbhp/hr. in lean cruise. Rich mixture is a whole different story.

The British were teaching their pilots to use low revs and high boost to squeeze the most fuel economy out of their engines by 1941 or 42. The whole "lean into France" fiasco taught them that "cruising" in the low 200mph range was near suicidal over occupied territory. Almost anywhere of occupied Europe.
You could keep a Spitfire in the air for almost 3 hours on the normal internal fuel, You just couldn't fight very long or go very fast.

The Zero was light, (less induced drag) but it's form, while good, wasn't great, not in the sense of a quantum change great. You need a certain amount of power so the small engine was help ( a bit less internal friction and less weight) compared to using a very large engine at very low rpm. and the Zero, especially with large drop tank (Zero was within a few gallons of the P-40 for internal fuel) carried the most fuel on combat operations (not ferry) of any early war fighters (not recon aircraft).
The Zero was a very good solution to the Japanese Navy's needs but take it out of it's element and plunk it into Europe in 1941/42 and things might turn out a lot different. Zero pilots with the same training as British pilots of 1941 vs German pilots of 1941? Zeros having to keep cruising speeds closer to 300mph rather than 200mph to minimize the disadvantage of being bounced? Ability to keep the drop tank or have to jettison to keep up performance vs Bf 109? Yes the allied fighters dropped their tanks and turned back after engaging interceptors and had a relief escort group take over.

 

[Peter Gunn]

200 TAS is probably about right, so what? I show for A6M2 207 mph cruise speed

Bf 109E had a cruise speed of 240 mph... again, so what? And a range of 410 miles. I know the P-51 had a very high cruise speed but that was 3 years later.

I also show A6M with 1,625 'typical' range and 1,929 'max'. Plus initial climb of 4,517 fpm which is nothing short of phenomenal for 1941, and climb to 19,685 in 7 minutes 27 seconds. Also excellent. Both far better than the Bf 109E (or the G-6 for that matter)

I think just about every fighter I ever heard of had a pretty low cruise speed in long flights. I know the comparison to the Spitfire was extremely disingenuous of him to make to begin with and of you to entertain. Like I said, I don't buy it. We have had these kinds of debates before on this forum and I don't think you to are on the level.

S

So what is that cruising into France @ 200mph TAS is tantamount to suicide.
Cruising over undefended water, say Rabaul to Guadalcanal is not the same as crossing the channel and into France and then Germany.
Cruising in an A6M @ 300+ mph TAS (remember, you have to get up to combat speed if bounced, that's why P-51's routinely cruised at high speed over Indian country) does not get you very far, I doubt it could range as far as the Thunderbolt at P-47 speeds.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Overall I'd have to say the Mustang. Don't misunderstand,it was certainly a capable fighter but it only showed up in numbers later on. The P-38s and P-47s had born the brunt of an experienced and capable LW force. The 51s came on the scene after the LW wasn't even capable of defending itself much less Germany. Here is a well built fighter constructed by patriot Americans to the highest standards, flown by pilots that had an obscene amount of training in the states (and expanded upon by Clobber Colleges in England) going against an enemy that was forced to use replacement pilots that were lucky to have 20 hours training in an A/C that in all probability was built by untrained slave labor that sabotaged what they could get away with. Doesn't matter how good your airplane is if you're outnumbered 10-1 or more. Not to even mention the fuel differences.
All the earlier A/C did the heavy lifting, the Mustang just had a great PR guy...

drgondog posted numbers/info in previous threads that totally dispel this line of thinking. I've got too bad of a headache right now to look them up but in fewer sorties the Mustang garnered something like twice as many kills as the Thunderbolt and Lightening combined.

And it was against the cream of the crop, both Western front veterans and Eastern front veterans transferred over to stop the Combined Bomber Offensive, not 20 hour replacement pilots flying junk.

Nor were the Germans outnumbered 10-1, it was usually the Mustangs that were outnumbered as the LW could, and did, strike with a large force against thin escort areas. Read some after action reports, they are informative and some will make you start to sweat 70 years after the fact.

 

[grampi]

Just popped in to this thread for the first time. Have not read the posts but viewed the results of the vote. P-51 is not feeling the love of many.

Cheers,

Jeff

I couldn't believe the voting results when I viewed them, the Mustang is way ahead of every other plane for being overrated. I would go just the opposite and say it's the most underrated. Planes like the Spitfire, ME-109, Zero, and P-47 are the most overrated in my book, and none of these planes could do what the Mustang could do...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Just popped in to this thread for the first time. Have not read the posts but viewed the results of the vote. P-51 is not feeling the love of many.

Cheers,

Jeff

I think everyone agrees it is one of the greatest aircraft ever built, but feel it is overrated because people put it on such a high pedestal that they forget there were many great planes contributing to the defeat of Germany.

You would think:

Best Fighter: P-51
Best Transport: P-51
Best Bomber: P-51
Best Seaplane: P-51

You get my drift...