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

[drgondog]

Maybe not many of them were developed around 1939 (Ju 88, Pe 2, B 25) but plenty of aircraft were capable of doing the same work in a better way at the same time that the A 20 was in widespread service, such as the Mosquito, the Beaufighter, the fighterbombers (P 38, P 47, P 40, Typhoon, Fw 190, Bf 110), all capable of doing pinpoint bombing and straffing with a sizable bomb load, faster and better air capability.

My point is that the light bomber was largely a compromise in WW2 that wasn't as capable as a medium bomber in payload and range and wasn't able enough to survive unescorted so better the resources were directed in others ways and since the A 20 can be regarded as the epitome of the light bomber, therefore can be judged as overrated.

It wasn't as versatile as other twins, neither exceptionally good at its main role.

The A-20 was spawned when the USAAC became aware that they still were part of the US Army and the Air Ground Support role was evolving to include fast but light and well armed attack bombers to provide tactical air support beyond enemy lines. They AAC evolved their thinking based on observations of the Spanish conflict and the early successes of the LW/Wermacht in Europe.

For that role it was vey successful indeed, and was also a fairly good low to medium altitude light bomber with greater range and load than any US fighter or Allied/Axis fighter (I'm talking air superiority fighter until late 1943) until the Douglas A-26 replaced it. The P-39 and P-40 were substitutes for the Attack fighter role to balance against extremely slow and vulnerable A-24 etc until the AAF decided on the A-36 Mustang, modified for max performance under 5500 feet. By the time the A-36 was operational to team with the A-20, AAF doctrine had matured to point the fighter as a battlefield air superiority role combined with CAS. The Merlin Mustang was originally selected to replace P-39/P-40 but the air war in ETO/MTO took them away from TAC. But remember ONLY the NAA Mustang derivatives and the P-38 were equipped with bomb racks capable of 500/1000 pound GP until the P-47D-15/-16 were produced and delivered ~ March 1944.

 

[drgondog]

I can follow your arguments on aerodynamics even if I couldn't advocate them, because I don't have the depth of knowledge. What happens to the Spitfire wing's 2% washout at supersonic speed? In my lay-mans mind it becomes two wings. If the tip is going in the direction of the fuselage then the wing root is trying to execute a 2% turn in level flight, is that what is the basis of the problem? In addition to that "shock wave" stuff.

The washout/Twist on the Spit/Mustang, etc had no influence per se on the development or response to onset transonic mach or subsequent shock wave phoenomena. Strictly a design approach to compensate for the upwash at the wingtip due to the trailing vortices - all for improved high CL aileron authority at moderate to low speeds. That said, most fighter development in the future, particularly swept wing designs incorporated slats but maintained 'zero washout leading edge, and well into supersonic designs also incorporated wing fences to compensate for nasty issues associated with swept wings.

 

[wuzak]

Maybe not many of them were developed around 1939 (Ju 88, Pe 2, B 25) but plenty of aircraft were capable of doing the same work in a better way at the same time that the A 20 was in widespread service, such as the Mosquito, the Beaufighter, the fighterbombers (P 38, P 47, P 40, Typhoon, Fw 190, Bf 110), all capable of doing pinpoint bombing and straffing with a sizable bomb load, faster and better air capability.

The Mosquito started life as a light bomber (maximum bomb load 1,000lb, upgraded to 2,000lb before service introduction), and its air-to-air and strafing capabilities (the bomber version) was non-existent.

However, it was harder to catch when carrying bombs than most of those others mentioned. Also could carry the bombs farther.

My point is that the light bomber was largely a compromise in WW2 that wasn't as capable as a medium bomber in payload and range and wasn't able enough to survive unescorted so better the resources were directed in others ways and since the A 20 can be regarded as the epitome of the light bomber, therefore can be judged as overrated.

I do believe the RAF did use the Boston in the bomber role without escort.

In fact, in December 1942 47 Venturas, 36 Bostons and 10 Mosquitoes flew unescorted to Eindhoven to raid the Philips factory.

Operation Oyster - Wikipedia

 

[MikeMeech]

The Mosquito started life as a light bomber (maximum bomb load 1,000lb, upgraded to 2,000lb before service introduction), and its air-to-air and strafing capabilities (the bomber version) was non-existent.

However, it was harder to catch when carrying bombs than most of those others mentioned. Also could carry the bombs farther.




I do believe the RAF did use the Boston in the bomber role without escort.

In fact, in December 1942 47 Venturas, 36 Bostons and 10 Mosquitoes flew unescorted to Eindhoven to raid the Philips factory.

Operation Oyster - Wikipedia

Hi

Yes it was too far for escorts, however, 9 Venturas, 4 Bostons and 1 Mosquito were lost over Holland or the sea. Others suffered damage from Flak, hitting trees or bird strikes.
One damaged Ventura was met by long-range Spitfires on the way back and escorted. Spitfires had also escorted a diversionary raid by 84 B-17s of the 8th Air Force on Lille, RAF Mustangs also carried out missions along the Dutch Coast giving indirect support. Mitchells of the RAF were also due to take part in this operation but they had only recently be received and more training of the crews was required plus a few small modifications to the aircraft so they were taken off the mission.

Mike

 

[wuzak]

Late Mosquito might carry 5000lbs-4000lb cookie and single 500lb under each wing, how often this was done I don't know. Without the cookie the max load was 3000lbs. A late A-20 could carry four 500lb bombs inside and four 500lb under the wings (4000lb total) but range was much, much shorter than the Mosquito.

The 5,000lb bomb load was only for B. Mk XVI and later (maybe the IX as well, but relatively few of them were made). The Mk.IV/XX could not.

Generally the B.XVI would had the 4,000lb bomb and extra fuel tanks on the wing for extra range.

Certainly the Mosquito used the 4,000lb MC against oil targets such as Homburg.

As well as the 4,000lb HC

Sometimes Target Indicators (T.I.)/Markers were carried by one aircraft, as this entry shows. It doesn't mention what the bombs were, but likely to be 500lb MC, as in the entry of 15-6-44.

I do recall seeing entries for a raid in which the Mosquitoes carried 6 x 500lb bombs. But I can't recall seeing the 1 x 4,000lb + 2 x 500lb load being mentioned.

It is possible, if unlikely, that a 4,000lb bomb carrying Mosquito could also be carrying 250lb TIs (the target marker most often used, with the 1,000lb TI being rarely used), but unlikely.

The entries above are from 109 Squadron's ORB from June 1944.

The problem with ORBs is that they sometimes simply say "bombed" or "marked" without specifying the bomb load used.

 

[wuzak]

Ah found it.

109 squadron ORB, July 1944.

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you, I will leave actual usage to people like yourself with large resources of information, I was merely listing possible bomb loads.
The Mosquito was a great aircraft but too many people assume that the majority of Mosquitoes could carry the 4000lb cookie and it is assumed they carried it earlier than they did.

 

[wuzak]

627 Squadron used their aircraft to drop 2 x 1,000lb TIs as well as, on occasion, 2 x 1,000lb MC bombs.

This required the bulged bomb bay.

 

[wuzak]

Thank you, I will leave actual usage to people like yourself with large resources of information, I was merely listing possible bomb loads.
The Mosquito was a great aircraft but too many people assume that the majority of Mosquitoes could carry the 4000lb cookie and it is assumed they carried it earlier than they did.

You're welcome.

We have discussed previously (years ago) a request to increase the stowage of 250lb target indicators (TIs).

One system discussed would have had 6 TIs in teh bomb bay:

Maybe this is where the idea of the Avro 6 store carrier originated.

View attachment 362852

The highlighted item 4 could be the genesis of the Avro 6 bomb carrier, that has been mentioned in literature and the internet for years, without much, if any, evidence of its existence or use.

Item 3 is more interesting, proposing the use a modified Wellington bomb beam to carry as much as 8 250lb TIs internally in the Mosquito.

Note the date of April 1944. Not too many B.XVIs were available at that time, so these were being proposed for the B.IV with bulged bomb bay.

Such a bomb beam was even trial fitted to a Mosquito.

Inevitably, the discussion moved towards possibly carrying 8 x 500lb MC bombs, but de Havilland were not keen.

In early-mid 1944 there were moves made to better utilise the bulged bomb bay in aircraft performing target marking. It was deemed poor economics to send a Mosquito with the larger bomb bay to target carrying a load of 4 x 250lb TIs. A solution that was tried was the adaptation of a bomb beam from a Vickers Wellington. The description is of a double beam (presumably that means it could hang bombs on both sides) which was shortened, with additional stiffeners.

The Wellington bomb bay
View attachment 446556

A meeting was held at RAF Upton in June 1944 to inspect the installation of a modified Wellington bomb beam fitted to a Mosquito. The meeting notes show that there were some minor revisions to be done to the installation. The installation achieved the goal of carrying 8 x 250lb TIs. Other loads were discussed:

8 x 500lb MC bombs - de Havillands thought that the all-up weight would be too high and the CoG too far rearwards for this to be viable (this may be for a B.IV with bulged bomb bay, it isn't clear).
4 x 500lb + 4 x 250lb bombs - which was to be forwarded to de Havillands for their consideration.

The 8 x 500lb bombs may have been too much for a B.IV, but what about a B.XVI?

 

[wuzak]

Item 3 is more interesting, proposing the use a modified Wellington bomb beam to carry as much as 8 250lb TIs internally in the Mosquito.

Note the date of April 1944. Not too many B.XVIs were available at that time, so these were being proposed for the B.IV with bulged bomb bay.

Such a bomb beam was even trial fitted to a Mosquito.

Inevitably, the discussion moved towards possibly carrying 8 x 500lb MC bombs, but de Havilland were not keen.

The 8 x 500lb bombs may have been too much for a B.IV, but what about a B.XVI?

I apologize. The Wellington bomb beam was being proposed for the B.XVI, de Havilland had concerns about AUW and CoG carrying 8 x 500lb bombs.

Which is interesting, in terms of AUW, as the XVI was rated for a 5,000lb bomb load.

 

[Shortround6]

Bomb bay goes to almost the rear of the wing/flaps.
CG is about 30% of cord? Just forward of the tail fins of the forward bombs?

4000lb cookie

hollow tail section is to the left, joint is under the crewman's head.

I believe the Mosquito required modifications to the horizontal stabilizers to carry the 4000lb bomb?
The Mosquito may have been flirting with CG problems carrying the cookie (before modification), adding more weight to the rear of the bomb bay with more than 4 500lb bombs might not have worked well???

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The Mosquito may have been flirting with CG problems carrying the cookie (before modification), adding more weight to the rear of the bomb bay with more than 4 500lb bombs might not have worked well???

I can say from sorry experience a plane loaded out of limits aft is a flying squirrel. Can't imagine going into combat like that.

 

[wuzak]

View attachment 573674

Bomb bay goes to almost the rear of the wing/flaps.
CG is about 30% of cord? Just forward of the tail fins of the forward bombs?

4000lb cookie
View attachment 573676
hollow tail section is to the left, joint is under the crewman's head.

I believe the Mosquito required modifications to the horizontal stabilizers to carry the 4000lb bomb?
The Mosquito may have been flirting with CG problems carrying the cookie (before modification), adding more weight to the rear of the bomb bay with more than 4 500lb bombs might not have worked well???

I would have to look into that.

The Mosquito B.IV was the first to carry the 4,000lb bomb and taht certainly had marginal stability due to CoG.

The IX and XVI (one of which is pictured) had the longer, heavier 2 stage Merlins ahead of the wing, so that would have been less of a problem.

 

[Shortround6]

I seem to remember something about the horizontal stabilizers being modified (or elevators?) which may have helped?

The Mosquito certianly did some amazing things with the cookies but it's payloads were a bit restricted in flexibility.

 

[wuzak]

I seem to remember something about the horizontal stabilizers being modified (or elevators?) which may have helped?

The Mosquito certianly did some amazing things with the cookies but it's payloads were a bit restricted in flexibility.

The prototype, W4050, had problems with buffeting of the tailplane due to the wake from the short nacelles. Th eultimate solution was the long nacelles and the No.2 Tailplane, which had a longer span and greater elevator area. Some early Mosquitoes had the No.1 Tailplane.

The tailplane was even given dihedral on some tests, but the standard No.2 tailplane was found to be better.

 

[DerGiLLster]

Why is the P-51 the most voted on overrated aircraft? It had its fair share of kills and played a role in winning the war in the skies.

You wanna talk overrated? How about the ME 262? German fanboys will constantly bark about how it could have won the war, when it engines flamed out at 10-20 hours, it was vulnerable in turns where the P-51 could shoot it down(Chuck Yeager shot two of them down) and even then, the Allies would have just introduced the P-80 Shooting Star, a much more reliable, much faster plane and of course it pilots would be trained on how to use it. Don't tell me how ME 262 pilots had nothing more than a dozen hours of training flying that thing.

Don't know who said it, but the Me 262 didn't come late in the war, but too soon.

I shudder when I used to take those WW2 docus seriously for how they would boast about the ME 262 being a "war winning weapon."

Besides maybe the atom bomb, there is no weapon that could have "won" World War Two. The war itself was won through the scientific application of logistics, careful illustration for how to manufacture its goods to the utmost quality and quantity, and leaders who all managed to make strategic goals which most could agree on.

But everyone here knows this, sadly most outside don't know, and treat Nazi UFOs hiding in Antarctica as something legitimate.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Why is the P-51 the most voted on overrated aircraft? It had its fair share of kills and played a role in winning the war in the skies.

You wanna talk overrated? How about the ME 262? German fanboys will constantly bark about how it could have won the war, when it engines flamed out at 10-20 hours, it was vulnerable in turns where the P-51 could shoot it down(Chuck Yeager shot two of them down) and even then, the Allies would have just introduced the P-80 Shooting Star, a much more reliable, much faster plane and of course it pilots would be trained on how to use it. Don't tell me how ME 262 pilots had nothing more than a dozen hours of training flying that thing.

Don't know who said it, but the Me 262 didn't come late in the war, but too soon.

I shudder when I used to take those WW2 docus seriously for how they would boast about the ME 262 being a "war winning weapon."

Besides maybe the atom bomb, there is no weapon that could have "won" World War Two. The war itself was won through the scientific application of logistics, careful illustration for how to manufacture its goods to the utmost quality and quantity, and leaders who all managed to make strategic goals which most could agree on.

But everyone here knows this, sadly most outside don't know, and treat Nazi UFOs hiding in Antarctica as something legitimate.

I voted for the P-51 as the most overrated. Not because it was not great or anything. It was probably the best fighter to see large scale service during the war.

I voted for the P-51 because all your Mustang "Fan Boys" just to steal your words place it on such a high pedestal that everyone forgets there were other aircraft in the war fighting the Germans.

Who needs the Spitfire? P-51! But what about the B-24? Who cares, P-51! Transport aircraft? P-51!

 

[DerGiLLster]

I voted for the P-51 as the most overrated. Not because it was not great or anything. It was probably the best fighter to see large scale service during the war.

I voted for the P-51 because all your Mustang "Fan Boys" just to steal your words place it on such a high pedestal that everyone forgets there were other aircraft in the war fighting the Germans.

Who needs the Spitfire? P-51! But what about the B-24? Who cares, P-51! Transport aircraft? P-51!

Eh, German fanboys are much more cringey than American fanboys. Constantly harping about how the war could have been won.

Unless they discover large deposits of oil Libya many years pre-war and have future knowledge of tech up to the 50s, I don't see how it could have been different. And you had idiots like Goering and Canris ruining things on the strategic scale. They weren't the only ones, but they surely were one of the worst.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Eh, German fanboys are much more cringey than American fanboys. Constantly harping about how the war could have been won.

Yeah, ok...

 

[DerGiLLster]

Yeah, ok...

Well is there some way Germany could have won that maybe I am not aware of? I always like to believe that I could be wrong and can earn from it.