Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....? (1 Viewer)

[Zipper730]

Martin certainly had plans for two stage R-2800s.

That's cool

The Army chose the single stage R-2800 version with short wings, because that was the configuration that promised the best performance with the engines available at the time.

I'd have figured they could have designed it for twin-stage supercharging, but built the first variants with single stage-supercharging and just leave some empty space in the plane where the intercoolers would occupy.

Other configurations had projected speeds in excess of 400 MPH, but required technology that was not yet available in 1939.

How much speed would the short-winged version do with a twin-supercharger? I ask because the XB-27 has bigger wings and that would throw off performance guesses.

 

[Navalwarrior]

We probably could say it that way. On the other hand, these engines were actual, 'flying' hardware. Too bad the 2-stage R-2800 was a better engine (so the Hellcat got it), though, while USAAC/AAF was not interested in it (so it was not installed in their A/C, say B-25s or B-26s, or some fighter).

Resp:
The P-47 used the R-2800, which was USAAF.

 

[Greg Boeser]

That's cool
I'd have figured they could have designed it for twin-stage supercharging, but built the first variants with single stage-supercharging and just leave some empty space in the plane where the intercoolers would occupy.
How much speed would the short-winged version do with a twin-supercharger? I ask because the XB-27 has bigger wings and that would throw off performance guesses.

Tomo posted the Martin design proposals here:
B25 or B26, which was the better bomber?

 

[wuzak]

Resp:
The P-47 used the R-2800, which was USAAF.

But not a 2 stage engine.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Correct. It had a turbocharger.

 

[Big Jake]

Which, in your honest opinion, aircraft achieved a popular reputation that far exceeded their actual performance or capability in combat?
I think that this might be interesting..... 8)

A6M Zero. The aircraft had a lot of shortcomings (fragile structure, no self sealing tanks, engine would quit in a nose over maneuver and more.) Once the US airmen figured out how to fight it, it was done.

I'd also like to add the Spitfire. Was a good airplane during the beginning of the war but was overtaken by a lot of other types and was left only with its glorious reputation and nothing more.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

A6M Zero. The aircraft had a lot of shortcomings (fragile structure, no self sealing tanks, engine would quit in a nose over maneuver and more.) Once the US airmen figured out how to fight it, it was done.

You might want to dig a little deeper on the nose over maneuver part. IIRC, that's a myth that arose out of the restoration crew misrigging the carburetor on the Koga Zero which then got repeated til it became part of the accepted wisdom. GregP, you out there? Does your museum's Sakae Zero have that problem?
Somewhere in the depths of past reading, I recall that the Sakae engine had an "improved" version of a license built Bendix pressure carb, which would by definition be immune to negative G fuel feed problems.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[wuzak]

I'd also like to add the Spitfire. Was a good airplane during the beginning of the war but was overtaken by a lot of other types and was left only with its glorious reputation and nothing more.

Tell that to the Spitfire XIV, arguably the best pure fighter of the war, The IX, which could handle anything the enemy threw up against it, the PR.X, XI and XIX, the best photo reconnaissance planes of teh war.

 

[Milosh]

A6M Zero. The aircraft had a lot of shortcomings (fragile structure, no self sealing tanks, engine would quit in a nose over maneuver and more.) Once the US airmen figured out how to fight it, it was done.

It did get exhaust gases fed to the fuel tank. Skin on the wings got thicker.

 

[rochie]

A6M Zero. The aircraft had a lot of shortcomings (fragile structure, no self sealing tanks, engine would quit in a nose over maneuver and more.) Once the US airmen figured out how to fight it, it was done.

I'd also like to add the Spitfire. Was a good airplane during the beginning of the war but was overtaken by a lot of other types and was left only with its glorious reputation and nothing more.

you really must read more than Dr zeus's big print version of my first book about areo-planes !

you might just learn a thing or two.

unless you posted that just to get a reaction, which i think is the real reason

 

[Greg Boeser]

Isn't that the point to a thread dedicated to the most overrated aircraft of WW2?

 

[Gwaredd Thomas]

P-51 Mustang.

Understood. But the P-51 was the early version. The P51-D, however, was quite a different animal. With it's Rolls-Royce Merlin engine it could out fly and outmanoeuvre just about anything the Germans had, except, as you wrote, the ME 262 and the P51-D even shot-down a few of those as well. In the Pacific theatre, it wasn't even close.

 

[fastmongrel]

Understood. But the P-51 was the early version. The P51-D, however, was quite a different animal. With it's Rolls-Royce Merlin engine it could out fly and outmanoeuvre just about anything the Germans had, except, as you wrote, the ME 262 and the P51-D even shot-down a few of those as well. In the Pacific theatre, it wasn't even close.

P51Ds didnt use Rolls Royce Merlins they had Packard V-1650s

 

[Big Jake]

you really must read more than Dr zeus's big print version of my first book about areo-planes !

you might just learn a thing or two.

unless you posted that just to get a reaction, which i think is the real reason

Cute, very cute.
And yes, the A6M was the most over-rated aircraft in WW2. It was a formidable adversary when the allied pilots couldn't figure out how to fight it. Once they did - it was a goner. But its reputation stayed - when mentioning Japanese fighters, it was always "Zeros" regardless of the fact that the actual aircraft might have been Ki-43s or others. The Flying Tigers never encountered "Zeros" yet it was always "Zeros" that they shot down.
And for all you "serious" people considering the P-51D as the most over-rated aircraft of WW2 - are you kidding me?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

It was a formidable adversary when the allied pilots couldn't figure out how to fight it. Once they did - it was a goner. But its reputation stayed - when mentioning Japanese fighters, it was always "Zeros"

The allies figuring it out just about exactly coincided with the cumulative effects of attrition of high caliber pilots to destroy the dominance of the Zero.
You might say the mythology of the Zero outran the reality. But you could also say that happened to the Spitfire, the Mustang, the Messerschmitt, the Focke Wulf and others. (Fortress? Stuka? Lightning? Stormavik? Corsair? - you name it, it's got a fan club out there.) It's all partisanship to me.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Gwaredd Thomas]

P51Ds didnt use Rolls Royce Merlins they had Packard V-1650s

Well, maybe you're right. But the P51-D's I know about did.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Well, maybe you're right. But the P51-D's I know about did.

View attachment 519184

Hey guys, how nitpicky can we get? A Merlin is a Merlin is a Merlin, whether it's built in Rolls Royce's legacy craftsman UK shops or Packard's spanking new state-of-the-art plants stateside or in Canada. They all look to England as the mother country.
And Gwaredd, North American-built Mustangs just about exclusively used Packard-built Merlins.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Gwaredd Thomas]

Hey guys, how nitpicky can we get? A Merlin is a Merlin is a Merlin, whether it's built in Rolls Royce's legacy craftsman UK shops or Packard's spanking new state-of-the-art plants stateside or in Canada. They all look to England as the mother country.
Cheers,
Wes

Heh, your comment is funny! Well, for a bit more nitpicking. The P-51C [flowen by the "Red Tails"] and the later P-51D both had the RR Merlin and, yes, many were built by Packard.

 

[rochie]

Cute, very cute.
And yes, the A6M was the most over-rated aircraft in WW2. It was a formidable adversary when the allied pilots couldn't figure out how to fight it. Once they did - it was a goner. But its reputation stayed - when mentioning Japanese fighters, it was always "Zeros" regardless of the fact that the actual aircraft might have been Ki-43s or others. The Flying Tigers never encountered "Zeros" yet it was always "Zeros" that they shot down.
And for all you "serious" people considering the P-51D as the most over-rated aircraft of WW2 - are you kidding me?

I agree it is impossible to overstate the impact of the P-51, taking the fight to the Luftwaffe was the real game changer

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Heh, your comment is funny! Well, for a bit more nitpicking. The P-51C [flowen by the "Red Tail"] and the later P-51D both had the RR Merlin and, yes, many were built by Packard.

Well if you want to get REALLY picky, here's a tidbit for you. My engines instructor in A&P school was a crusty old dude who was a Mustang wrench in the 8th AF over across the pond. His (depot level) outfit looked after a wing of B, C, and D Mustangs as well as a few genuine RR-powered photorecon Spitfires that flew in US colors. He said parts support was a nightmare, as the US supply system didn't understand the subtle differences between Packard Merlins and RR Merlins, and the slight differences in machining tolerances that made "equivalent" parts not necessarily "interchangeable" parts.
He said Packard parts were generally "drop-in" replacements in Packard engines, whereas RR parts usually needed a little custom fitting for a RR engine, and serious machine work if they had to be made to fit a Packard. He said you could, in a pinch, put a RR engine in a Mustang, but it required some rework, and you had to tag the plane as an "oddball" to give the squadron mechs a heads up.
Cheers,
Wes