Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[Shortround6]

I can't say I'm surprised, but you are completely missing my point while providing a good example of what I think is wrong with a lot of WW2 Aviation analysis. You are applying a single yard stick to an area where it doesn't fit.

What is the mission of the Yak 3 (or any Soviet fighter at almost any part of the Soviet involvement in WW2?)

• The Yak 3 is a highly specialized dogfighter designed specifically to take over the air space over the giant tank and infantry war which was the Russian Front. It was the best plane ever made for that purpose, and scared the crap out of the Germans.

It was without a doubt one of the best aircraft of the war.

It was, by the way actually on track to be developed by 1942 or 1943, circumstances prevented that, though the La - 5FN was there thankfully to fill the gap, not to mention the earlier / mid war Yak (-1b, 7b and 9) variants. All of the above did better in the field than the Spitfire did in this particular Theater.

YOu are going from "highly specialized dogfighter designed specifically to take over the air space over the giant tank and infantry war which was the Russian Front" and turning it into "without a doubt one of the best aircraft of the war".

Which are two different things. By the Summer of 1944 "fighters" that would have trouble with large bombers, could not fight at high altitudes (and high in this case may not even be 20,000ft), had a useful endurance of about 40 minutes in a combat area ( for Russia this is take off to landing), and had minimal ground attack capability would have been a luxury for many Air Forces.
The Yak-1M prototype for instance was only faster than a 109G-2 up to about 18,700ft. At 23,000ft the G-2 was 31mph faster. The G-2 was in production in June/July of 1942. Granted the G-2 didn't have all the lumps and bumps of 1944 109s, but then it didn't have a 1944 engine either.
Perhaps the Germans screwed up by not having East Front and West Front engines and Aircraft. They could probably have gotten a couple hundred extra HP out of a DB605 optimised for under 12,000ft.

I would also be leery of taking statements like " In climb rate up to 16,400ft (5,000m) the Yak-1M was unrivaled among the world's fighters, including the various Bf 109 sub-types." at face value. A Spit VB with a Merlin 50 (cropped impeller) could match almost to the second the time needed to climb to that altitude. Of course the Merlin 50 starved for air worse than the VK-105PF once you got into the hi teens. MK IX Spits could also match if not exceed that climb rate while using 18lbs of boost and using 100/130 fuel.
Please note that due to poor construction standards many early production aircraft suffered a 15-20km/hr speed loss from the prototypes and were up to 0.5 minutes slower climbing to 16,400ft.

It may have been a delight to fly and allowed Russian pilots an advantage over the Germans but I have trouble seeing it as one of the best aircraft of the war
when the Russian Air Force needed so many other aircraft to fill in the holes in the Yak-3s repertoire.
Also interesting the the number built after the war, perhaps as few as 737(?) compared to about 1400 of the Yak-9U and the continued development of the LA radial series.

edit: Performance data from "Soviet Combat Aircraft of The Second World War"
By Gorden and Khazanov for the YAK-3 and prototypes. (and Bf-109G-2)
Climb for Spitfires from WWII Aircraft Performance

 

[pbehn]

When discussing ease of production it is important to consider the expected production run. If the first order for Spitfires was 10,000 not 300 the design would have been different, as far as production engineering goes. When the hurricane and spitfire first flew it was a fair bet that war was coming but no one knew when. The first USAAC ordered 525 P-40s (April 1939) it was the biggest order it had ever placed. By the time discussions started about the P-51 the war was already started and it was clear production would be in thousands. If the production line and tooling used to build the P-51 was used for 300 aircraft the company would fold and heads would roll.

 

[Shortround6]

Some sources say when the "C" wing was designed for the Spitfire the opportunity was taken to make it at least somewhat easier to build.

Very few planes were built over a period of years in large numbers where the number of man hours needed didn't fall quite a bit as new tools, techniques and jigs/fixtures were brought into play or were developed.

The whole state of the art in mass production of just about everything was constantly changing and as pbehn has suggested, truly large scale production requires truly large scale investment.

 

[pbehn]

Some sources say when the "C" wing was designed for the Spitfire the opportunity was taken to make it at least somewhat easier to build.

Very few planes were built over a period of years in large numbers where the number of man hours needed didn't fall quite a bit as new tools, techniques and jigs/fixtures were brought into play or were developed.

The whole state of the art in mass production of just about everything was constantly changing and as pbehn has suggested, truly large scale production requires truly large scale investment.

I have seen video of the P-51 production line, very much like car plant practice of the day. You cannot take a Mk1 spitfire and do that, it is done at the design stage. I am sure there were many mods to the Spitfire to make it easier and quicker to make but it is always best when designed for mass production to start with.

 

[pbehn]

I wish uncle Joe had told us he had the best plane of the war, we could have stopped sending Hurricanes and Spitfires.

 

[wuzak]

I have seen video of the P-51 production line, very much like car plant practice of the day. You cannot take a Mk1 spitfire and do that, it is done at the design stage. I am sure there were many mods to the Spitfire to make it easier and quicker to make but it is always best when designed for mass production to start with.

I think one of the improvements was the way they produced the spar.

I can't recall how it was made originally, or how it was improved, as I am away from my books.

Edit: IIRC, the original was some sort of composite structure, while the later ones were simplified.

 

[Shortround6]

I have seen video of the P-51 production line, very much like car plant practice of the day. You cannot take a Mk1 spitfire and do that, it is done at the design stage. I am sure there were many mods to the Spitfire to make it easier and quicker to make but it is always best when designed for mass production to start with.

It is done both at the design stage of the aircraft and the design stage of the factories to produce it. A good design will use fewer parts (and fasteners) and go together in major sub-assemblies but good tooling (jigs/fixtures/platforms and short distances from parts supply to work station) can help a lot.
A lot of early US aircraft production was in less than ideal conditions.

Build airplanes outdoors in California is one thing, doing it in Buffalo , New York is another in winter.

Found a Flickr account concerning the Curtiss Factory. 100 photos
Curtiss-Wright Aircraft Production: Buffalo 1941

 

[Schweik]

YOu are going from "highly specialized dogfighter designed specifically to take over the air space over the giant tank and infantry war which was the Russian Front" and turning it into "without a doubt one of the best aircraft of the war".

There is absolutely no contradiction between those two statements. You are just having a failure of imagination. The Spitfire lacked the range to make a good fighter in the Pacific, and lacked a host of qualities necessary on the Russian front, but it too was obviously one of the best fighters of the war - (or maybe you could say it was 'several of the best fighter(s) of the war').

Which are two different things. By the Summer of 1944 "fighters" that would have trouble with large bombers,

How about 'fighters' that couldn't fly 600 miles? Every fighter design had it's limitations. Do you even have a point?

could not fight at high altitudes (and high in this case may not even be 20,000ft),

What percentage of combat on the Russian Front was taking place at 20,000 feet?

would have been a luxury for many Air Forces.

Which Air Force specifically? The Martian Air Force? What you seem to have a tough time grasping is that the quality of a fighter is directly related to it's degree of success Where. It. Was. Fighting. Not it's degree of success in calculations you make on the back of an envelope, or in WarThunder, or in your imagination. The Yak 3 was so dangerous in the Russian Front that Lufwaffe Lieutenant General Walter Schwabedissen noted after the war:

"Whereas the German Bf109G and Fw190 models were equal to any of the afore mentioned Soviet fighter models in all respects, this cannot be said of the Soviet Yak-3, which made its first appearance at the front in the late summer of 1944. This aeroplane was faster, more manoeuvrable and had better climbing capabilities than the Bf109G and the Fw190, to which it was inferior only in armament".
Source: 'The Russian Air Force in the Eyes of German Commanders'

Perhaps the Germans screwed up by not having East Front and West Front engines and Aircraft. They could probably have gotten a couple hundred extra HP out of a DB605 optimised for under 12,000ft.

• Coulda woulda shoulda. If their factory hadn't been bombed the Yak 3 would have been flying in 1943 and who knows the outcome on the war.
• Yes, they should have - that is exactly the idea behind the Yak 3 - or the Spit for example. Specialization to excel at a particular task (in a specific environment)

I would also be leery of taking statements like " In climb rate up to 16,400ft (5,000m) the Yak-1M was unrivaled among the world's fighters,

Shortround- who are you arguing with here? What makes you think I'm taking that statement any way at all? I don't remember talking about a Yak 1M - do you mean the Yak 9M or the Yak 3?

It may have been a delight to fly and allowed Russian pilots an advantage over the Germans but I have trouble seeing it as one of the best aircraft of the war

What you can and cannot see, thankfully, is not my responsibility. All I can say is that the Yak 3 shot down many, many more German aircraft than it lost. It was still in production 7 years after the war ended. The Yak 3 was not clumsy, it was not slow, it was not undergunned. As far as I can see, the only thing it wasn't was English (or American).

when the Russian Air Force needed so many other aircraft to fill in the holes in the Yak-3s repertoire.

Hmmm... in 1944 lets see the US had the P-51B/C, P-51D/H, P-40 (yes, still operating them right up to 1945), P-47, P-38, P-61 night fighter, P-70 (night fighter version of the A-20) [Army] plus the F4F-4 / FM2, F6F, and F4F / F2G Corsair, plus the Bearcat and F7F Tigercat waiting in the wings (Navy / USMC), the English had the Hurricane (still), Mosquito, Beaufighter, Gloster Meteor Jet, Tempest, Typhoon, and at least 6 operational variants of the Spitfire including .... wait for it.... specialized low altitude variants with clipped wings and modified superchargers with cropped impellers and so on... Imagine that!

So what exactly was your point again?

So between USAAF, USMC, USN and RAF / Fleet Air Arm / Coastal Command, that's 8 American types plus 6 British (not counting night fighters or the F8F or the F7F- counting the Spit as only one fighter, and counting the P-51 only once) for ... 14 types.

In 1944 the Russians had the Yak 9, Yak 1B (a few left), Yak -3, La 5FN, La 7... and that's about it. By my count it's 5 types. What am I missing here?

Also interesting the the number built after the war, perhaps as few as 737(?) compared to about 1400 of the Yak-9U and the continued development of the LA radial series.

That's 737 more than the Fw 190 or the Me 109 (not counting that odd looking thing made by Spain).

It's also 737 more than the P-47. I think any WW2 prop fighters still being produced after 1945 were probably pretty good.

S

 

[Schweik]

I wish uncle Joe had told us he had the best plane of the war, we could have stopped sending Hurricanes and Spitfires.

This is disingenuous for the following reasons:

• Implies I'm a fan of, or identify with "Uncle Joe" because I respect some Russian fighters.
• Implies that I said the Yak was "the best plane of the war" as opposed to "one of the best [fighter] planes of the war*."
  
• What do you say to people who like the Bf 109 or Fw 190?
  
• Implies anyone was still sending Hurricanes in 1944.
• Implies that the Russians wanted Hurricanes in 1944.
• Implies Spitfires were being used on the front line in 1944.

Answer me this - when the Normandie Niemen [as I'm sure everyone knows - French volunteer] squadron had choice of any aircraft they wanted, including Spits or every other Anglo-American type available, why did they choose the Yak 3?

By 1944 surviving Hurricanes in Russia were being used as "Meteorological Reconnaissance**", for artillery spotting, and as two-seat trainers.

* To be clear, by my estimation Yak 3 would be in the Top 5***.
**They would have used Po-2s for this but they were needed on the Front Line
***By the way, google top 5 fighters ww2 or similar and see what rises to the top...


S

 

[wuzak]

and at least 6 operational variants of the Spitfire including .... wait for it.... specialized low altitude variants with clipped wings and modified superchargers with cropped impellers and so on... Imagine that!

What Spitfires would they be?
Mk.IX
Mk.XIV
Mk.XI (PR)
Mk.X (PR)
Mk.V - doubtful that any ones with cropped impellers remained in service to 1944 since they were now new when they had the modified engines fitted and were in specific response to the Fw 190A in late 1941/early 1942. It was merely an emergency measure - an emergency that did not exist in 1944.
Mk.VIII - far east deployment

There was also the Mk.XVI, but that was basically the IX with a (Packard built) Merlin 266.

There would have been Mk.IXs with Merlin 63s (F.IX), Merlin 66s (LF.IX) and Merlin 70s (HF.IX). Mk.VIIIs were either Merlin 66 (LF.VIII) or Merlin 70 (HF.VIII). Not sure if any VIIIs were built with earlier engines. The engines could be easily changed from one to another, if it was so desired. And while the Merlin 66 was a lower altitude rated version of the 2 stage Merlin, its altitude was still higher than most contemporary engines (turbo engines not included).

The MK.XII was withdrawn from service in early 1944, replaced by XIVs.

Vs were probably still around, but decreasing in number and used in secondary roles, like ground attack.

But to summarise, the Spitfire force in 1944 was predominately Mk.IXs, with Mk.XIVs and PR versions.

PS: Clipped wings was to improve roll rate, not to do with low altitude performance.

 

[Schweik]

What is y'alls deal with the Russians anyway? You do know Stalin is dead right? Putin doesn't "Win" if you admit the Yak was a good fighter.

Etc.

What Spitfires would they be?
Mk.IX
Mk.XIV
Mk.XI (PR)
Mk.X (PR)
Mk.V
Mk.VIII
There was also the Mk.XVI

That is seven right there thanks for saving me the effort. Mk VIII wasn't just in the far east either. Mk V was still in fairly wide use by the way.

And of course these all came in various subvariants, such as with clipped or (god forbid) extended wings, or with various types of guns.

Merlin 66s (LF.IX)

PS: Clipped wings was to improve roll rate, not to do with low altitude performance.

Actually, I believe the Merlin 66 engine was specifically rated for low altitude. And the LF Mk VIII and LF MK IX were low altitude Spit variants. From the wiki:

"Many Spitfires had their elliptically "pointed" wingtips replaced by shorter, squared off fairings, this slightly improved maximum speed at low altitude and enhanced the roll rate. While many "LF" Spitfires (e.g. the LF.IX) had the "clipped" wings, a number did not. The true distinguishing feature of "LF" versions was the fitting of low-altitude versions of the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine."

Like the Merlin 66 in the LF Mk VIII and IX.

S

 

[Greyman]

'Low altitude' being a relative term in the case of the Merlin 66.

Compared with the Merlin 61, the 66's critical altitudes were only about 5,000 feet less (11,000 and 22,000 feet), so it was still performing its best at 20,000 to 25,000.

EDIT: You wanna talk low altitude versions - look no further than the Merlin 45M. Regular Merlin 45 = 20,000 feet, Merlin 45M = 6,000 feet.

 

[wuzak]

Actually, I believe the Merlin 66 engine was specifically rated for low altitude. And the LF Mk VIII and LF MK IX were low altitude Spit variants. From the wiki:

I don't believe that either the IX or the VIII typically had clipped wings, even in their LF version.

XIIs did, for the reason of roll rate, have clipped wings, the engine not giving good altitude performance.

Some Vs were as well, combined with the Merlin 45M or 50M modified engine.

Some XIVs had their wings clipped for structural reasons - there was some localised skin buckling on the wing, so it was suggested to clip the wings to lower the stresses, though Supermarine were confident it was not a problem.

 

[wuzak]

That is seven right there thanks for saving me the effort. Mk VIII wasn't just in the far east either. Mk V was still in fairly wide use by the way.

Firstly, I consider the IX and XVI to be the same aircraft, since the only difference was the source of the engine (the Packard built Merlin 266 was identical in performance to the the Merlin 66).

I would exclude PR versions, because they are the specialist photo-recon aircraft, and were identical in any case.

Which leaves you with models of Spitfire.

The VIII was not in use in the ETO. So 3 models there.

The XIV wasn't in use in the MTO or PTO, so a maximum of three models there.

And of course these all came in various subvariants, such as with clipped or (god forbid) extended wings, or with various types of guns.

The variants I described did not come with extended wing tips.

The Mk.VI (Spitfire V with Merlin 46 or 47 and extended wing tops) and Mk.VII (similar to Mk.VIII but with extended wing tips), but were not built in large numbers, because the high altitude threat did not materialise. The VI and VII had pressure cabins, the VIII did not.

Morgan and Shacklady show the HF VIII with extended wingtips, and suggest that the LF could be fitted with clipped wing tips. But I am not sure how many would have been - I believe most were produced with the standard wing.

In any case, with the wing tips could be removed and replaced with clipped or extended versions in the field. The wing tips were, essentially, bolt-on items.

Regarding armament, from the Mk.V the universal (C) wing was used. It could be fitted with 8 x 0.303", 2 x 20mm + 4 x 0.303" or 4 x 20mm.

Few were fitted with 4 x 20mm, basically only those Vs converted from the II (and not having the universal wing) had the 8 x 0.303" combination.

The vast majority of Spitfires were, thus, armed with the 2 x 20mm + 4 x 0.303" combination.

At some point in 1944 the E-wing went into production. This was based on the C-wing, but had the 0.303" gun ports blocked off, with the 20mm cannon moving from the inner to outer cannon bay, with the inner cannon bay taken up by the 0.5" Browning.

Presumably the C-wing could have used the 2 x 0.50" + 2 x 20mm combination, and the E-wing could have used the 4 x 20mm combination. But neither of these seem to have occurred.

It may have been possible for the gun configuration to be changed in the field, like was done for the P-40 with guns being yanked to give the plane a chance*.


* Some Spitfires (Vs, IIRC) had all but 2 or 4 0.303" mgs taken out, as well as other weight saving measures, in order to make high altitude interceptions early in the war.

 

[Stig1207]

What you can and cannot see, thankfully, is not my responsibility. All I can say is that the Yak 3 shot down many, many more German aircraft than it lost.

So what are the numbers and the sources ?

 

[Vincenzo]

Near 80 operational RAF squadrons operated the Spit V in 1944, not all were fighter squadrons and most operate it for few months but almost until the spring was a main aircraft of RAF, more that a half dozen operate with it also in '45

 

[pbehn]

It is done both at the design stage of the aircraft and the design stage of the factories to produce it. A good design will use fewer parts (and fasteners) and go together in major sub-assemblies but good tooling (jigs/fixtures/platforms and short distances from parts supply to work station) can help a lot.
A lot of early US aircraft production was in less than ideal conditions.
View attachment 495460
Build airplanes outdoors in California is one thing, doing it in Buffalo , New York is another in winter.

Found a Flickr account concerning the Curtiss Factory. 100 photos
Curtiss-Wright Aircraft Production: Buffalo 1941

I remember seeing sub assemblies of the P-51 being assembled then transported on a sort of monorail system, that takes a lot of forward thinking and spending. For an order of 300 planes I think you could assemble all planes in the factory without having a line at all, as in your pic of the P-40.

 

[pbehn]

This is disingenuous for the following reasons:

• Implies I'm a fan of, or identify with "Uncle Joe" because I respect some Russian fighters.
• Implies that I said the Yak was "the best plane of the war" as opposed to "one of the best [fighter] planes of the war*."
  
• What do you say to people who like the Bf 109 or Fw 190?
  
• Implies anyone was still sending Hurricanes in 1944.
• Implies that the Russians wanted Hurricanes in 1944.
• Implies Spitfires were being used on the front line in 1944.

Answer me this - when the Normandie Niemen [as I'm sure everyone knows - French volunteer] squadron had choice of any aircraft they wanted, including Spits or every other Anglo-American type available, why did they choose the Yak 3?

By 1944 surviving Hurricanes in Russia were being used as "Meteorological Reconnaissance**", for artillery spotting, and as two-seat trainers.

* To be clear, by my estimation Yak 3 would be in the Top 5***.
**They would have used Po-2s for this but they were needed on the Front Line
***By the way, google top 5 fighters ww2 or similar and see what rises to the top...

I was just making a point, whatever a Hurricanes strengths or weaknesses were it trumped everything on the Allied side by being available in numbers in 1940. Please check which was the most numerous model of Spitfire sent to Russia.

From wiki
The Soviet Union was then supplied with some 1,200 Mk.IXs from 1943. Soviet pilots liked them but they did not suit Soviet combat tactics and the rough conditions at the forward airfields close to the front lines. Spitfires Mk. IXs were therefore assigned to air defence units, using the high altitude performance to intercept and pursue German bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. By 1944, the Spitfire IX was the main fighter used in this role and would remain so until 1947. unquote

However I believe these were not MK IX but the Packard engined MK XVI .


For all the macho discussions of performance here, a huge number of Spitfire MK XIVs were produced in the armed recon version. This is because intelligence wins battles and conflicts. If there was one area where the allies completely trumped Nazi Germany it was intelligence of which photo recon was a major part, the allies were prepared to use large numbers of their best aircraft for it, Spitfire, Mosquito and P-51. By the reverse, preventing enemy recon is also vital when on the offensive, as above this was done by Spitfires in Russia, it doesn't make many kills of have dramatic exchanges but is vital. The allies managed to maintain an almost complete blackout of the UK in 1944, that was vital for D-Day. also do not disparage "met recon", in the early days of the allied bomber offensive many lives were lost and raids executed completely ineffectively because of poor "met-recon" and the D-Day landings hinged on a weather window that was known because of good "met-recon"

 

[Juha2]

As Vinzenzo wrote in the message #856, Spit Mk Vs were still in use in 1944, and at least 64 and 402 Sqns flew ops with Vbs on D-Day and 234, 345, 350, 501 and 611 Sqns with LF Mk Vbs. And Kingaby got his last kill while flying a LF V over Normandy during the summer of 44.

 

[wuzak]

Hmmm... in 1944 lets see the US had the P-51B/C, P-51D/H, P-40 (yes, still operating them right up to 1945), P-47, P-38, P-61 night fighter, P-70 (night fighter version of the A-20) [Army] plus the F4F-4 / FM2, F6F, and F4F / F2G Corsair, plus the Bearcat and F7F Tigercat waiting in the wings (Navy / USMC), the English had the Hurricane (still), Mosquito, Beaufighter, Gloster Meteor Jet, Tempest, Typhoon, and at least 6 operational variants of the Spitfire including .... wait for it.... specialized low altitude variants with clipped wings and modified superchargers with cropped impellers and so on... Imagine that!

I think you meant P-51D/K - H was a different model, whereas the K was the same model produced in another factory.

F8F didn't happen in 1944.
F7F didn't happen in 1944.

The Navy planes were, mainly, for aircraft carriers - which the Soviets did not have, so didn't need that class of aircraft.

When it went operational, there were only 5 squadrons on P-70s. Most of these changed to P-61s or Beaufighters before going into action. P-70s saw a little action in the PTO, but not for very long before being replaced by the P-61.

The Mosquito and Beaufighter performed roles other than night fighting - bombing, attack, PR, etc.

The Meteor was Britain's first jet service aircraft, and was used only over Britain in 1944.

The Typhoon and Tempest would be the closes British aircraft to a specialist low altitude fighter, and much of the time they operated as fighter-bombers.

I had too look back to see what this was all about....

The Allies did not need to fill the gaps with their variety of aircraft, but rather replacement aircraft arrived where they were needed to most, so Spitfire V squadrons took time to replace with IXs - as there were so many of them.

P-51D/K replaced P-51B/C over a period of months, or more.

P-40s in key regions were replaced with P-51s or P-47s.

New versions of P-38s replaced old versions, etc.

PS: How many P-40 variants were still in use in 1944?

Es? Fs? Ks? Ns? Ms?