Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[davparlr]

Another factor to consider in any discussion of the relative merits of F4U4 and the P51 H is that the F4U4 had a service ceiling of 41400 ft so it was no slouch at getting up there and it's critical altitude was 26200 ft where it got it's 446 mph TAS. From a practical point of view I wonder how much acm with recip engines took place at altitudes above 30000 ft. Other factors to consider might be controllability and ammo load. I have read in a number of places that the Mustang could be a handful in certain flight regimes whereas the Corsair had the reputation of being a sweet handling plane in the air with excellent control force modulation throughout. The Corsair of course had an ammo load of 2350 rds of 50 cal. I wonder what the H carried. By the way, it is my understanding in a turning fight the Corsair was improved vastly by 10 or 15 degrees of flap. Corsair turning ability was impaired by the right wing spoiler which more or less cured the left wing drop. I read somewhere that Hub Zemke spent time in a LW POW camp because he lost a wing on his P51 in a thunderstorm. As you said for long range fighter escort the P51 was the obvious choice. For a carrier capable fighter the Corsair hands down. For all the other roles except possibly the interceptor job, seems to me the Corsair comes out on top.

The only maneuvering problem I have heard of for the P-51 was if the pilot failed to use his aft tank of gas first. This moved the cg aft and caused handling problems. Also, stall characteristics could be exciting. However, a Mustang pilot should always avoid low speed maneuvering since his advantage was always at high speed.

The '43 P-51B was at a disadvantage to the F4U-1 except above 25k. The '44 P-51B was significantly faster than the F4U-1 at all altitudes and is actually close to the F4U-4. The P-51D had airspeed advantage over the F4U-1 except between 15 and 20k. In maneuvering, the F4U-1 has wing loading and power loading advantage. The P-51H was faster at altitudes than the F4U-4, significantly faster below 15k (over 30 mph at SL and 40 mph at 5k). In addition, the P-51H has a power loading advantage. Wing loading is a slight advantage for the F4U-4.

So, nose to nose,
F4U-1 has advantage over '43 P-51B below 25k. Naval comparison test confirm this comparison. Test also revealed that the P-51 had a much superior dive speed than the F4U.

'44 P-51B has advantage over F4U-1 at all altitudes (due to much greater level speed and dive speed)

P-51D and F4U-1 pretty well even with speed advantage for P-51 over most of the envelop up to 25k, but better maneuvering for F4U-1. Above 25k, the P-51 would have the advantage. Again, P-51D would have superior dive speed.

P-51H has advantage over F4U-4 below 15k due to much higher level speed advantage. Above 15k they are pretty equal with the P-51H having an airspeed advantage and power loading advantage but the F4U-4 having better wing loading. Both planes climb superbly with the F4U-4 having a slight advantage. Again, P-51H would have superior dive speed. Also, two thousand pound weight advantage would certainly benefit the P-51H in sustained turns.

The Joint Fighter Conference perfered the P-51 to the F4U-1, although very close below 25k.

As to losing a wing in a thunderstorm, many an aircraft has come out of a thunderstorm in pieces. Thunderstorms are dangerous to all aircraft and have to be avoided. We lost a C-141 over England in one. The plane had lost its radar. Later analysis indicated that it got into vertical down draft of 6000 ft/min immediately followed by an updraft of 6000 ft/min. The engines pulled off the wings.

 

[drgondog]

Dave - off topic but one of the greatest lessons I ever learned was when my father and I were caught in a massive cell north of Atlanta on the way to Nashville (in a 51 modified to two seater).

Basic rule - tightnen up, lower seat and follow him throught with light stick.

Just keep the wings level and forget about altitude integrity. Keeping wings on a better thing than maintaining altitude per the ATC contollers sipping on a coke watching all the 'red' on the radars.

Renrich - the 51 had no problems passing carrier trials on the Great Lakes and as Dave said 'losing stuff is easy in a T-storm" and that axiom follows whether a 51 or F4U (or 1011 or F4 or Spitfire or ______ pick one)

I love the F4U as you do but more sympathetic to 51H as the best all around US Piston Fighter but Ok with F4U if someone gets purple about it.

PS I found it (51D-30) a simple F%%%^ing delight to fly in any situation but never flew with a full 85 gallon fuse tank because my butt occupied that space. No CG problem replacing 500 pound of 150 LL with 130 pounds of snot nosed kid!

God I love the 51. Just don't run the throttle thru the gate on a Missed approach with flaps down - won't ever do it TWICE. PS nor with an F4U and certainly NOT with an AD! those Hogs will kill you low speed, flaps down, throttle up!

Regards,
Bill

 

[davparlr]

Dave - off topic but one of the greatest lessons I ever learned was when my father and I were caught in a massive cell north of Atlanta on the way to Nashville (in a 51 modified to two seater).

Basic rule - tightnen up, lower seat and follow him throught with light stick.

Just keep the wings level and forget about altitude integrity. Keeping wings on a better thing than maintaining altitude per the ATC contollers sipping on a coke watching all the 'red' on the radars.

Renrich - the 51 had no problems passing carrier trials on the Great Lakes and as Dave said 'losing stuff is easy in a T-storm" and that axiom follows whether a 51 or F4U (or 1011 or F4 or Spitfire or ______ pick one)

All good procedures similar to what we were taught. There is nothing good in a thunderstrom, rain, hail, lightning, wind shear, tornadic winds, et.al.

I love the F4U as you do but more sympathetic to 51H as the best all around US Piston Fighter but Ok with F4U if someone gets purple about it.

I have no problems with the F4U. I girded my loins and did battle defending the F4U-4/5 as the best prop fighter ever. I didn't include the P-51H because of no combat experience.

God I love the 51. Just don't run the throttle thru the gate on a Missed approach with flaps down - won't ever do it TWICE. PS nor with an F4U and certainly NOT with an AD! those Hogs will kill you low speed, flaps down, throttle up!

Never had controllability problems with a jet. Just push the throttles and up you go. One thing I think is funny, as much a we practiced missed approaches, the one time I had to do it (because of weather), I really screwed it up. It seems that we always practiced missed approachs a minimums. The one time I did it, we were about 1000 ft high with go-around altitude of 1500 ft. Procedures were, throttles - Normal EPR (engine pressure ratio), flaps approach, climb to go-around altitude. I did all that and by the time I got my nose up, I was zooming through go-around altitude by about 500 ft. I had to nose down a bit and pull power. I was embarrassed as I was an experienced aircraft commander at that time.

 

[drgondog]

On the missed approach I have to tell one on myself and ultimately how my old man caught me 'not reading the 'book.

Early in the cycle of learning how to fly the 51 I was doing it all from back seat of course.. we set up some approaches one fine day and were at maybe 4-5,000 feet... shooting a not completely believable approach on the top of low cloud formation .. bleed some speed, flaps down, gear down - down wind-base and final leg - when he barks 'missed approach'

I am rattled a little as I wasn't expecting it and ran the throttle past 50" almost to the gate and.........

as he recovers from the snap roll/split ess he really chews my ass out and wonders if I have the focus I need to fly something more complex than a J-4.

I wasn't a mental giant but I had the imagination to understand what that situation would have done for us coming over the inner marker or threshold

I never forgot the lesson..

 

[FLYBOYJ]

On the missed approach I have to tell one on myself and ultimately how my old man caught me 'not reading the 'book.

Early in the cycle of learning how to fly the 51 I was doing it all from back seat of course.. we set up some approaches one fine day and were at maybe 4-5,000 feet... shooting a not completely believable approach on the top of low cloud formation .. bleed some speed, flaps down, gear down - down wind-base and final leg - when he barks 'missed approach'

I am rattled a little as I wasn't expecting it and ran the throttle past 50" almost to the gate and.........

as he recovers from the snap roll/split ess he really chews my ass out and wonders if I have the focus I need to fly something more complex than a J-4.

I wasn't a mental giant but I had the imagination to understand what that situation would have done for us coming over the inner marker or threshold

I never forgot the lesson..

Pretty Wild!!!

What was the speed for the P-51 in the pattern? I've shot localizer and ILS approaches in an L-29 and more recently a Jet Provost. The hardest thing was maintaining the sink rate but controlling the airspeed. The Provost wasn't that hard as it accelerated better then the L-29. The Delfin is a brick, once it starts sinking it wants to meet the earth real fast and that slow spooling M 701 isn't much help....

 

[davparlr]

Pretty Wild!!!

What was the speed for the P-51 in the pattern? I've shot localizer and ILS approaches in an L-29 and more recently a Jet Provost. The hardest thing was maintaining the sink rate but controlling the airspeed. The Provost wasn't that hard as it accelerated better then the L-29. The Delfin is a brick, once it starts sinking it wants to meet the earth real fast and that slow spooling M 701 isn't much help....

The T-37 was similar to your L-29 on acceleration. Those centrifugal compressors were really slow. We flew final with the speed brake out along with thrust attenuators (flap deployed into the jet exhaust), all just to keep the revs up. Now the T-38, that was another story, instant go power.

 

[drgondog]

Pretty Wild!!!

What was the speed for the P-51 in the pattern? I've shot localizer and ILS approaches in an L-29 and more recently a Jet Provost. The hardest thing was maintaining the sink rate but controlling the airspeed. The Provost wasn't that hard as it accelerated better then the L-29. The Delfin is a brick, once it starts sinking it wants to meet the earth real fast and that slow spooling M 701 isn't much help....

Joe I think every one had a slightly different approach. I wanted 110-115 IAS over the threshold - I think book says 105-115IAS but he liked it on the hot side..

2700rpm, reduce speed below 170 and lower gear, trim to maintain 120IAS and drop flaps 15 degrees to help drag it up and steepen the angle.

I usually lowered flaps fully after turning on final and kept a close eye on airspeed and real careful throttle. The 51 isn't a sinker per se, I just flew it in and kept the tail up for a bit down the runway.

The 51 loses airspeed a lot slower than a T-6

I miss it (flying)

Regards,

Bill

 

[Trautloft]

i agree with snauzer and voted for the Il-2.
sure,the mustang been overestimated,but even Göring shouted 'we lost the war' as he sighted the p-51 the first time. i consider this also as 'over-rated' by public,by the politics,propaganda etc. and this is clearly the Sturmovik. remember,not only me in hungary,but all citizens of 'eastern block' countries + ex soviet states,this is half of europe, heard for 40years about nothin else as the victories of the 'stalin-hawks' as we talked about aviation in ww2. the glorious red army..pff.. well,sure it was the most built plane in ww2,and if im right the 2.or 3.most built in history with 35000+, with impressive armament and protection but a miserable loss rate (also because of accidents), poor defense of the rear gunner ( every pilot,before he got shot down himself, 'consumed' 7 rear gunners, that was the average, after 10 solved missions they recieved a hero order already), the extremely low flying level and so on. the germans recognized its weaknesses( the infamous oil-cooler spot at the bottom of the engine armor plate) and developed tactics against them. their successes are clearly overestimated aswell, and finally,after the political change in 1989,the TRUTH about the history of Udssr planes,due to statistics they destroyed only 6% of axis living forces and equipment on eastern front (65% been killed by cheap mines/mortar). all at all, 65000!! soviet airmen (most of them the poor meatballs called rear gunners) die in this plane because of accidents,training,enemy aircraft/AA guns.


you,my friends who grew up in countries with a 'better,luckier' fortune,i mean western countries,certainly heard/red more about the godlike mustang, the lightning,the jug etc. ,i think we all agree that overall,german pilots been superb to allied if we check out the aces , the 100 top scorers killed 10000 planes! and bf-109,fw-190 are among the best fighters but i personally think the late versions of mustang ,or the spit XIX been very well a match for even ta-152,they been available in great numbers without a lack of well trained pilots,fuel,and airfields,air superiority and so on-my conclusion: quality above quantity,that was the recipe of early german successes(or even japanese) but later a bf-109g14 had to face 15 p-51d and a pather 100 t-34-85,and experienced personal of the axis been mostly dead in 44-45.by the way,im a great fan of the gustavs and the ta-152 so no offense,in my eyes the messer and the fw190 are the best fighters cosidering the whole war and the ta-152 is the best piston engined fighter ,but this is another topic.
so i agree if u put the mustang, but please think about my word of the 'zementbomber' which fell down like a stone if hit.

i checked the other planes of the rest of the list:
-the p-47 been great in ground attack role (yes,air superiority etc. so this victories cant be compared to the stuka's)
-the p-39 cobras(if Aira;-or p-63 King) been essential for the soviets
-the p-38 lightning killed more planes with the red sun as any other allied fighter types
-the p-40 been a bit owned everywhere,but it was an important, reliable,rugged plane and widely used in all allied airforces,often as ground attack ac, in africa,far east (remember the flying tigers), sovietunion lend-lease etc.
-the spit been overestimated especially because the hurri played the major role in the battle of britain,not the spit,but later it became obviously obsolete
so the spit could take his deserved place as RAF's best fighter,beloved by his pilots,feared by its opponents (still some Luftwaffe experten downed like 50 each ...for case you dont know this amazing site: Kacha`s Luftwaffe Page )
- me-262 hmm,if he enters service 2years later after its engine probs are fixed,if hitler use them as fighters insted of jabos, if if if..well a clearly overrated ac,unfortunate and too late to play a significant role. still i like it
me163 is crap.)
all the other planes do not really belong on this list,or at least i dont/cant criticize them, all pros and contras are equal or tending to the overall positive side.

sorry,it became longer as i expected ,cheers

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The T-37 was similar to your L-29 on acceleration. Those centrifugal compressors were really slow. We flew final with the speed brake out along with thrust attenuators (flap deployed into the jet exhaust), all just to keep the revs up. Now the T-38, that was another story, instant go power.

Interesting!

On the L-29 I like to leave the dive brake closed until I'm on the runway and then use it to slow down because of the pneumatic brake system (Soviet style). If I'm high and fast on final I may pop it out for a second...

Joe I think every one had a slightly different approach. I wanted 110-115 IAS over the threshold - I think book says 105-115IAS but he liked it on the hot side..

2700rpm, reduce speed below 170 and lower gear, trim to maintain 120IAS and drop flaps 15 degrees to help drag it up and steepen the angle.

I usually lowered flaps fully after turning on final and kept a close eye on airspeed and real careful throttle. The 51 isn't a sinker per se, I just flew it in and kept the tail up for a bit down the runway.

The 51 loses airspeed a lot slower than a T-6

I miss it (flying)

Regards,

Bill

Neat stuff Bill, amazing that the 51 would loose airspeed slower than the T-6. I understand your dad liking it hot, sometimes that extra 5 or 10 knots are quite helpful!

 

[renrich]

I have a long technical description of the handling problems in a dive of the Merlin P51, probably, in part, caused by the propellor but obviously it did not render the a/c unusable and I am too poor a typist to copy it and post it.

 

[Soren]

But the 51B and H had lower to really lower wing loading than the F4U. Physics and aero suggest that the Corsair doesn't out turn 51 unless at really low speed - has anyone ever done a side by side turn test/comparison?

None of what you have said there is true. Like Davparlr pointed out the F4U Corsair has always enjoyed a much lower wing-loading than the P-51 Mustang, throughout its different versions.

My reference of choice is "America's One Hundred Thousand" by Francis H Dean. One of the last sections in the book compares US fighters as to many of their performance characteristics. It is a very technical book,(written by an aeronautical engineer), and as far as turning is concerned with no flaps the relative performance is as follows in this order,(best to worst), FM2, P63A-9, P61B-1, F6F5, P51D-15, P38L, P47D-30, F4U-1D. As one can discern, turning does not guarantee superiority and does not necessarily translate to maneuverability.

Which is reason enough for you to throw that book away.

 

[T4.H]

Interesting Thread.

Most overrated aircraft...

Hmmm...

P51?
It was the right aircraft, but get on duty little bit too late.
P51 and the last versions of FW190 (FW190 D with the Jumo engine) were the best fighters of WWII. Perhaps the FW190 D was a little bit better. Overrated? Yes, but only because it comes too late.

Spitfire?
Yes. Too short range.

Me262?
Yes. It comes too late. The well known jet-engine problems.

IL2/IL10?
Yes! Produced in masses, send in masses, realy difficult to shoot it down.
A "Widowmaker".



"My First Place"
C-47!!

Why?
In WWII the transport of material and soldiers by aircrafts in total were less or more unimportant. It is nice to have them. But without transport of material and soldiers by air, the war wouldn't have finished earlier.
Parachute jumpers?
Important at begin of the war, because of the surprise.
After Crete (operation "Merkur") the time of the parachute jumpers was over.
All operations of the allies ended less or more in disasters, even when they won.
Perhaps sometime I will tell you the story of my grandfather, he was in the "German airforce" as commander of a well armored radio half-tank.
He was in "Arnheim". It is not a nice story. They got out of the mess alive and unhurt.

 

[Lucky13]

Didn't P-47 take off from.....yep! Look at this fellas...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRGYXMs9n1s
DAMN! I wish it had sound!!

 

[drgondog]

Soren you are wrong (and right) about the Corsair having a 'lower to much lower wing loading", but in your enthusiasm, you might have gone overboard on your statement that "all F4U's enjoyed much lower wing loading than the P-51 Mustang in any of its variations".

I don't think you realized I was talking about the two specific ships in that test - but I DID cherry pick one set of comparative loading conditions - namely the one at 'manufacturer's published combat load"

To your blanket statement about all Mustangs having larger wing loading I invite you to pull the data on Basic and Max specifications for the P-51A, the A-36, the P-51F,G and J and compare against the F4U-4 for example.

So, I gave you no context for the 'wing loading' comment you referred to, which was a continuing discussion w/Renrich and Dave on the subject of comparative performance between the two fighters and cites the below report as an example of deciding an outcome before the Test.

You also 'erred' ,I believe, as badly as I did by not having a valid comparison chart to the two a/c and relevant statistics in front of you when you made your own wing-loading pronouncment.

Let me be clear that the statement I made that the 51 wing loading was "lower to much lower" is simply wrong if you compare a P-51D against any F4U - it overstates the very slight advantage the 51B had over the F4U-1 in that test.

This is the link for the Navy Test in 1944 (below) found on Mike Williams' site containing the US NAVY Comparison between P-51B and F4U-1 in 1944.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf

Moving forward

The 51H had lower wing loadings than the 51D and just slightly higher than many, if not alll F4U's - but in normal load conditions the two ships at the same point of relative fuel condition are very close.

My comparisons (and I should have done the math as I depended on a memory note from many years ago) was between the F4U-1 and the 51B-5 (or -7 I would have to look it up) that was in the Navy report.. The wing area and weights, respectively are 235.75ft2 and 9100 pounds for the P-51B; 314.0 ft2 and 12162 pounds for the Corsair.. as the report stated - "each to its own specified full load fighter weight"

In honesty, they also loaded that same 51 up to Max Gross at 9453 pounds which would have increased the wing loading by 1.5#/ft2.. but then they had to be careful because at the higher weight the resulting range at the higher load would have been much more than the F4U and they didn't want to go there in their report (my opinion only)

The resultant wing loadings for the Mfr spec load in the Test are 38.73#/ft2 and 38.60#/ft2 respectively for F4U-1 vs P-51B, at the Test Conditions

I humbly apolgise, the 51B was only (.0033) .33% lower ("not lower to much lower" - as I overstated) than the F4U in one test condition and 1.2#/ft2 - about 1% higher than the F4U in the heaviest load condition above spec on the 51B.

The F4U-4 is heavier than the -1 and is almost exactly the same wing loading at Basic and Max - with the 51H about 2 oz of HEAVIER wing loading than the F4U-4.

I'm not gonna do the math on every variant because I believe that the difference one way or the other is probabaly insignificant - after doing the math above.. so you do the math - tell us what the combination of wing loading and comparative aerodynamics yields from a theoretical point of view in a turn performance competition?

Now, you quickly dismissed the data in Dean's book that the F4U was less capable in turn?

Can we assume that you have a better and more reliable reference to compare these two turn -as this was the question I was seeking answers to?

Regards,

Bill

 

[drgondog]

Renrich - What may be interesting is that a specially prepared and instrumented 51D was fitted with Spinner but no prop and towed to 26000 ft by a P-61 for dive tests... got up to .75 Mach vs power on .76 mach..

Test designed to compare readings and actual data versus wind tunnel - and demonstrated the wind tunnel readings very close..

What suprised everyone is the at .70 to ..75 mach the propless/torqueless 51 yawed to the right - taking the prop effect out of the question.

 

[renrich]

Soren, with all due respect to your advice and your technical expertise which I understand is considerable I think I will keep Dean's book. As I have mentioned before on this forum, his book is exhaustively researched and footnoted. The report on the turn capabilities is based on a NACA report( I believe # 829 dated May 19, 1944) and the results are taken directly from the report. I have had this book since about 2000, the book is copyrighted 1997, have read it more than once and never fail to get something new from it. It is too technical for an itinerant homebuilder like me to understand all, you would probably get a lot more than I from it but I am surprised that I have heard no other members of this august forum quote from this source as it is, I believe, a must read for all with our kind of interests. Besides it has imnumerable photos of US fighters going back to the early 20s.

 

[renrich]

I believe on the P47 takeoff from the carrier a catapult was used. Good film and highly interesting. Bill, that is interesting about the propless P51.

 

[Lucky13]

A catapult was used, true, since USS Manila Bay CVE-61 is an escort carrier. I think though since the Essex class was a fair bit larger, the P-47 could take off from their decks without the assist of a catapult. Right?

 

[renrich]

I don't think so unless the a/c was really light. The P47 had a reputation of being a superlative ground lover. Although if they had a half a gale blowing over the bow and the ship was turning up 28 knots, maybe. They launched B25s off hornet with no catapult.

 

[Lucky13]

Let's borrow a P-47 and one of the preserved Essex class carriers and find out... I didn't know that she had that reputation renrich.