Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[Navalwarrior]

Typically, when the USAAC/USAAF accepted a type on a limited basis, it was delivered as a "YP-XX", like a YP-61", etc. Then when the type's full production version was approved, it was designated as such with an "A" suffix (P-61A).

In the case of the P-51, it was a foreign ordered type that was adopted without a trial purchase. So there was no "Y" prefix applied.

The "Y" stands for "Service test pending production orders" and the Mustang was an unusual exception to the standard process.

Resp:
I think the horse is already dead; however, I believe this thread is a result of the confusion of which the USAAF played a dominant role. Thanks to all who have participated. You cannot change what actually happened (history). My attempt, and that is all that I believe I accomplished . . . was to explain the confusion, as A is the first letter of the alphabet. It should have come first, rather than last.

 

[fubar57]

Well....that settles it....I'm done here....Peace, out!

 

[Shortround6]

About the only thing that was consistent about the USAAC use of the letter A in the designations of aircraft was it's inconsistency.
The first 77 P-35s were just that P-35, The A was used on the P-35s the US got after embargoing the Swedish aircraft.
The first 210 P-36s were called P-36A's. No plann P-36.
The P-39 jumped from YP-39 to P-39C, no plain P-39 or P-39A or P-39B (unless on paper?)
The first 534 P-40s were (at the signing of the contract) P-40's with no letter, The letters came later as the contract was amended to cover changes in equipment.
The P-43 went from the YP-43 (13 built) to the P-43 (54 built) to the P-43A (80 built) to the P-43A-1 ( 125 ordered for China) and finally the P-43B which were modified P-43s, P-43As and P-43A-1s with cameras added. Apparently there was no difference in designation regardless of the original model of the aircraft.

given that history it is not surprising (or out of character) for the first squadron use of the P-51 first production model to carry no letter.

 

[GrauGeist]

Well....that settles it....I'm done here....Peace, out!

You 'n me both.

An old adage comes to mind: "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

 

[Smokey Stover]

I don't get all hate for the .50 cal. If it was such a piece of crap it still wouldn't be in use by the US military today. Just sayin'...

I dont think anyone is suggesting the 50 cal was a piece of crap as you put it. Yes it suffered now and then from stoppages (but what gun didnt) and it was not as effective in range as cannons, but it was still a very cheap, easy to mass produce and generally reliable bullet. But to say it was better than cannon for aerial combat is a bit like blowing smoke to me. Or as someone correctly suggested, "flag waving" The fact is for an experienced pilot, cannon could take out an enemy a/c in just one or two shots. And i dont care what anyone says. Cannon is head and shoulders above MG calibre armament all day long....

 

[Kevin J]

I dont think anyone is suggesting the 50 cal was a piece of crap as you put it. Yes it suffered now and then from stoppages (but what gun didnt) and it was not as effective in range as canons, but it was still a very cheap, easy to mass produce and generally reliable bullet. But to say it was better than canon for aerial combat is a bit like blowing smoke to me. Or as you correctly suggested, "flag waving" The fact is for an experienced pilot, canon could take out an enemy a/c in just one or two shots. And i dont care what anyone says. Canon is head and shoulders above MG calibre armament all day long....

Think about this. You're a British interceptor trying to shoot down either a diesel powered Ju-86R or maritime patrol BV-138, bullets aren't going to be very effective, you need the destructive power of cannon shells. Sure, 0.5 inch bullets are going to wreck large German transports, although I'm sure the British 0.303 was just as effective. Axis bombers with armour, I'm the 0.5 in was much more effective than our 0.303, but us Brits needed cannon for our air war.

 

[Smokey Stover]

Think about this. You're a British interceptor trying to shoot down either a diesel powered Ju-86R or maritime patrol BV-138, bullets aren't going to be very effective, you need the destructive power of cannon shells. Sure, 0.5 inch bullets are going to wreck large German transports, although I'm sure the British 0.303 was just as effective. Axis bombers with armour, I'm the 0.5 in was much more effective than our 0.303, but us Brits needed cannon for our air war.

Oh i absolutely agree. The major complaint british pilots had during the b.o.b, was the clear disparity between the spitfire and hurricane .303's and the Bf-109 with it's two 20mm cannons. At least one hurricane was retro-fitted with two cannon during mid 1940, but because the early merlin engines had not yet reached full potential it was rather slow and sluggish in its flight controls because of the added weight. But as soon as the Mk ll hurri & Mk V spit began in full production both machines were outfitted with cannons and would continue this configuration to the end of the war.

 

[pbehn]

Oh i absolutely agree. The major complaint british pilots had during the b.o.b, was the clear disparity between the spitfire and hurricane .303's and the Bf-109 with it's two 20mm cannons. At least one hurricane was retro-fitted with two cannon during mid 1940, but because the early merlin engines had not yet reached full potential it was rather slow and sluggish in its flight controls because of the added weight. But as soon as the Mk ll hurri & Mk V spit began in full production both machines were outfitted with cannons and would continue this configuration to the end of the war.

One squadron of Spitfires had cannon fitted during the BoB but they had problems with the drum feed and jamming, it took time to get them sorted with a belt feed.

 

[Smokey Stover]

One squadron of Spitfires had cannon fitted during the BoB but they had problems with the drum feed and jamming, it took time to get them sorted with a belt feed.

Yes, there were also problems with freezing at altitude. They had problems perfecting a reliable heating system to stop the guns from icing up. One squadron of Spitfires had cannon fitted during the BoB but they had problems with the drum feed and jamming, it took time to get them sorted with a belt feed.
Although, by this time, production of the Spitfire had started to increase, a Merlin XX powered Hurricane Mk I was built and first flew on 11 June 1940. The initial Mark II, later known as the Mark IIA Series 1, went into squadron service in September 1940 at the peak of the Battle of Britain.

Hawker had long experimented with improving the armament of the fighter by fitting cannons. Their first experiments used two 20 mm (.79 in) Oerlikon cannons in pods, one under each wing, (one aircraft was tested during 1940 with 151 Squadron[8]) but the extra weight and drag seriously compromised the aircraft's performance and manoeuvreability, and the limited amount of ammunition carried coupled with the frequent stoppages suffered by the drum-fed guns, meant the arrangement was unsatisfactory at that time.

 

[pbehn]

Yes, there were also problems with freezing at altitude. They had problems perfecting a reliable heating system to stop the guns from icing up. One squadron of Spitfires had cannon fitted during the BoB but they had problems with the drum feed and jamming, it took time to get them sorted with a belt feed.
Although, by this time, production of the Spitfire had started to increase, a Merlin XX powered Hurricane Mk I was built and first flew on 11 June 1940. The initial Mark II, later known as the Mark IIA Series 1, went into squadron service in September 1940 at the peak of the Battle of Britain.

Hawker had long experimented with improving the armament of the fighter by fitting cannons. Their first experiments used two 20 mm (.79 in) Oerlikon cannons in pods, one under each wing, (one aircraft was tested during 1940 with 151 Squadron[8]) but the extra weight and drag seriously compromised the aircraft's performance and manoeuvreability, and the limited amount of ammunition carried coupled with the frequent stoppages suffered by the drum-fed guns, meant the arrangement was unsatisfactory at that time.

The Hurricane was already approx. 30MPH down on the opposition, adding cannon in pods was not any type of solution.

 

[Kevin J]

Oh i absolutely agree. The major complaint british pilots had during the b.o.b, was the clear disparity between the spitfire and hurricane .303's and the Bf-109 with it's two 20mm cannons. At least one hurricane was retro-fitted with two cannon during mid 1940, but because the early merlin engines had not yet reached full potential it was rather slow and sluggish in its flight controls because of the added weight. But as soon as the Mk ll hurri & Mk V spit began in full production both machines were outfitted with cannons and would continue this configuration to the end of the war.

I think the only thing that perhaps that we could have done better would have been to rearm our Kittyhawks with two cannon and two 0.5's, likewise our Hurricanes and Spitfires. IIRC, you could fit a pair of 20 mm cannons in the Kittyhawk, but it was never done. The 1944 E wing Spitfires had that combination and the Soviet Hurricanes in 1942 also. Some Canadian Hurricanes and Fulmars were fitted with four 0.5 in guns so it obviously could have been done. Think how much more effective our Kittyhawk air superiority fighter (bombers) in the Middle East and Hurricane interceptors / fighter bombers in the Far East would have been if we had done this from 1942 onward for these two planes. Not so sure about the Spitfire Vc/IXc/VIII though as I don't think there would have been enough spare 0.5 in guns from the re-armed Kittyhawks available.

 

[Kevin J]

The Hurricane was already approx. 30MPH down on the opposition, adding cannon in pods was not any type of solution.

The Spitfire II was 30 mph down on what it should have been in 1940. I remember reading one of my uncles aircraft books from 1940 as a child, the Spitfire II was supposed to have done 387 mph but once you add all the mods to make it combat worthy, it only did 354 mph, not much more than the Hurricane IIa at 342 mph. Also don't forget a late 1942 Sea Hurricane IIc did 342 mph and a Seafire IIc depending on its armament did 342/345 mph. The Spitfire had the four cannon wing added to it so the effect was that it reduced its speed to that of a comparable Hurricane, cleaned up versions came later. The big advantage of a Spitfire was that it could dive and climb faster. Another example would be the Hurricane V with the Merlin 32 which did 327 mph at 500 feet, or a Seafire LIIc with the same engine that did 316 mph at sea level.

 

[Smokey Stover]

I think the only thing that perhaps that we could have done better would have been to rearm our Kittyhawks with two cannon and two 0.5's, likewise our Hurricanes and Spitfires. IIRC, you could fit a pair of 20 mm cannons in the Kittyhawk, but it was never done. The 1944 E wing Spitfires had that combination and the Soviet Hurricanes in 1942 also. Some Canadian Hurricanes and Fulmars were fitted with four 0.5 in guns so it obviously could have been done. Think how much more effective our Kittyhawk air superiority fighter (bombers) in the Middle East and Hurricane interceptors / fighter bombers in the Far East would have been if we had done this from 1942 onward for these two planes. Not so sure about the Spitfire Vc/IXc/VIII though as I don't think there would have been enough spare 0.5 in guns from the re-armed Kittyhawks available.

While i agree in general im not sure if the spitfire would have comfortably housed that kind of configuration. Even though the wings were elliptical and had quite a large surface area they were incredibly thin and the extra weight of the 50 cal + ammunition might have had some negative effect on performance. The Hurricane on the other hand had a much thicker wing andd was a much better gun platform than the Spitfire. Some mk's were after all fitted with 8 .303 MG's in each wing for a total of 16 machine guns. The Spitfire could never have coped with such a heavy amount of wing loading. Oh and the only ww2 Spitfire to carry x4 cannon was a few limited Mk Vc's sent to Malta. The Spitfire would not make that configuration of armament standard until the Mk 22/24 post war.Which with the use of the Rolls Royce Griffin engine over the slower Merlin could easily offset the weight.

 

[Navalwarrior]

About the only thing that was consistent about the USAAC use of the letter A in the designations of aircraft was it's inconsistency.
The first 77 P-35s were just that P-35, The A was used on the P-35s the US got after embargoing the Swedish aircraft.
The first 210 P-36s were called P-36A's. No plann P-36.
The P-39 jumped from YP-39 to P-39C, no plain P-39 or P-39A or P-39B (unless on paper?)
The first 534 P-40s were (at the signing of the contract) P-40's with no letter, The letters came later as the contract was amended to cover changes in equipment.
The P-43 went from the YP-43 (13 built) to the P-43 (54 built) to the P-43A (80 built) to the P-43A-1 ( 125 ordered for China) and finally the P-43B which were modified P-43s, P-43As and P-43A-1s with cameras added. Apparently there was no difference in designation regardless of the original model of the aircraft.

given that history it is not surprising (or out of character) for the first squadron use of the P-51 first production model to carry no letter.

Resp:
Well said. My only train of thought is that there is much confusion that inhibits an accurate description of the sequence of these Allison engined Mustangs. If you go to a Squadrons's website that flew razorback (P-51B and C) Mustangs, you often see a b/w photo of an F-6B, etc. As if all Razorbacks are the same. The site I am thinking of did not fly these early models, but rather B, C and D (possibly K as well) Mustangs. Not all Mustangs were drop tank capable. The USAAC (USAAF) restricted aircraft manufacturers from incorporating fighters destined for their service the capability of carrying external fuel stores (drop tanks) since 1939. The Navy had no such restriction. Only the A-36A and P-51A/F-6B variants had plumbing/hard points for drop tanks. 8th AF P-47s first began a retro-fit for a single belly tank (75 gal originally built for P-39) in September 1943. Retro-fit was a slow process, as each squadron from each FG had to wait their turn. The F4U got its second drop tank in April 1943. F4Us could have escorted bombers to Berlin and back. But this is another story.
I just finished re-reading a story about a guy who flew the A-36A with the 27th FBG, 12th AF in the Feb 2017 'Flight Journal.' He stated: "Some of the A-36s in our squadron were armed with 20mm cannon in the wings instead of MG." This statement needs verifying. Were any F-6As parked on their field, or were they actually
A-36 dive bombers? The confusion continues!

 

[Shortround6]

I think the only thing that perhaps that we could have done better would have been to rearm our Kittyhawks with two cannon and two 0.5's, likewise our Hurricanes and Spitfires. IIRC, you could fit a pair of 20 mm cannons in the Kittyhawk, but it was never done. The 1944 E wing Spitfires had that combination and the Soviet Hurricanes in 1942 also. Some Canadian Hurricanes and Fulmars were fitted with four 0.5 in guns so it obviously could have been done. Think how much more effective our Kittyhawk air superiority fighter (bombers) in the Middle East and Hurricane interceptors / fighter bombers in the Far East would have been if we had done this from 1942 onward for these two planes. Not so sure about the Spitfire Vc/IXc/VIII though as I don't think there would have been enough spare 0.5 in guns from the re-armed Kittyhawks available.

Problem here is the P-40 was overloaded as it was.
Weight wise you need to trade 2 two .50s for each cannon. The US tried cutting some P-40s back to four guns from six to get the weight down.
The P-40Es also didn't carry a lot of ammo. Design load was 235 rounds per gun (for six guns) max load was 312 rounds for the inner guns, 291 rounds for the middle guns and 240 rounds for the outer guns.

If you are trying to build air superiority fighters Both the P-40 and Hurricane were a bit lacking in performance. If you are trying to build ground attack planes it makes a bit more sense.
Please note that what the Russians did was not doable by the western nations, or at least a lot harder to imitate. The Russian 20mm cannon was 50-60lbs lighter than the Hispano cannon and 100 rounds of Russian 20mm ammo was over 16lbs lighter than 100 rounds of Hispano ammunition. The Russian 12.7mm machine gun was around 20lbs lighter than a US .50 cal Browning. ammo was close in weight. The Russian suite of 20mm/12.7mm guns/ammo used in the Hurricanes would be over 200lbs lighter than using the Hispano and Browning.

The P-40D had provision for hanging a 20 mm gun under the wing. I have yet to read a good description of this (or see diagram/photo). The Pilots manual says " Cannon: Provisions for external attachment of 20mm Hispano-Suiza Brikgit cannon are made on the underside of the wings outboard of the outer .50 cal gun. One cannon may be mounted under wing panel by the making of the proper skin cutouts and the installation of the equipement. "

This leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Was the gun faired in or hung out totally exposed? What kind of feed was used? drum or Belt? How far below the wing surface was the gun? If Belt feed, where did the Belt go?

They only built about 30 of the D model and the whole 20mm cannon thing was forgotten about on the E.

 

[pbehn]

The Spitfire II was 30 mph down on what it should have been in 1940. I remember reading one of my uncles aircraft books from 1940 as a child, the Spitfire II was supposed to have done 387 mph but once you add all the mods to make it combat worthy, it only did 354 mph, not much more than the Hurricane IIa at 342 mph. Also don't forget a late 1942 Sea Hurricane IIc did 342 mph and a Seafire IIc depending on its armament did 342/345 mph. The Spitfire had the four cannon wing added to it so the effect was that it reduced its speed to that of a comparable Hurricane, cleaned up versions came later. The big advantage of a Spitfire was that it could dive and climb faster. Another example would be the Hurricane V with the Merlin 32 which did 327 mph at 500 feet, or a Seafire LIIc with the same engine that did 316 mph at sea level.

All combat aircraft are slower in service, there is no way at all that a Spitfire and Hurricane were separated by 12 MPH in service with the same engine.

 

[Smokey Stover]

All combat aircraft are slower in service, there is no way at all that a Spitfire and Hurricane were separated by 12 MPH in service with the same engine.

Not only that, but the gap in speed only increased time after time as the Spitfire was able to be constantly improved and updated, while the Hurricane was very limited to how far it could be advanced. Ergo, the design and manufacture of the Typhoon & Tempest. But even the Spitfire Mk l was 35-40mph faster than a Hurricane

 

[pbehn]

Not only that, but the gap in speed only increased time after time as the Spitfire was able to be constantly improved and updated, while the Hurricane was very limited to how far it could be advanced. Ergo, the design and manufacture of the Typhoon & Tempest. But even the Spitfire Mk l was 35-40mph faster than a Hurricane

The Spitfire and Hurricane were not competitors, Camm and Hawkers knew that the Hurricane was behind the times in technology, but that was an advantage in some respects...it was easy to make, repair and keep in service. The Typhoon and eventually the Tempest were supposed to replace the Spitfire but only did at low level.

 

[wuzak]

Yes, there were also problems with freezing at altitude. They had problems perfecting a reliable heating system to stop the guns from icing up. One squadron of Spitfires had cannon fitted during the BoB but they had problems with the drum feed and jamming, it took time to get them sorted with a belt feed.
Although, by this time, production of the Spitfire had started to increase, a Merlin XX powered Hurricane Mk I was built and first flew on 11 June 1940. The initial Mark II, later known as the Mark IIA Series 1, went into squadron service in September 1940 at the peak of the Battle of Britain.

To be clear, the Mk IIA Series 1 had 8 x 0.303" mgs, the Mk IIB/Mk IIA Series 2 had 12 x 0.303" mgs, the Mk IIC had 4 x 20mm and the Mk IID had 2 x 0.303" mgs and 2 x 40mm Vickers S cannon.

 

[wuzak]

The Hurricane on the other hand had a much thicker wing and was a much better gun platform than the Spitfire. Some mk's were after all fitted with 8 .303 MG's in each wing for a total of 16 machine guns.

12 rifle calibre machine guns, 6 in each wing, in the IIB.