Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[Jackson]

During the fall of 1944, Tank converted an existing Fw 190 prototype airframe (Werk-Nummer or serial number 0040) into the Ta 152H prototype. This aircraft and several other Ta 152 prototypes crashed early in the test program, due largely to intense pressure from the RLM to field production airplanes. Critical components suffered quality-control problems. Superchargers failed, pressurized cockpits leaked, the engine cooling system gave trouble, the landing gear failed to properly retract, and oil temperature gauges gave false readings.

Definitive information about the NASM Ta 152 has always been lacking but research conducted late in 1998 may have revealed the airplane's true identity as Werk-Nummer (serial number) 150020, not 150003 or '010 as has been widely reported. This places the airframe toward the end of the range of pre-production H-0 models, a variant marking the transition from the Ta 152 prototypes to full production Ta 152H-1 airplanes. It was probably built at Focke-Wulf's production facility at Cottbus, Germany, in December 1944, and delivered to Erprobungskommando Ta 152 at Rechlin, Germany, for service testing. As with most Ta 152s produced, '020 was apparently transferred to Jagdgeswader (fighter squadron) JG 301 in early 1945. A green '4' was painted on the fuselage and this may have been the squadron identification and radio call sign "Green 4" but much remains unknown about this aircraft.

In 1998 Museum restoration staff were treating deteriorated sections of the wooden aft fuselage, fin, rudder, and right elevator when they discovered several interesting items that offered tantalizing glimpses into the airplane's shadowy past

Extensive wood rot was found in where the horizontal stabilizer joins the vertical fin. The restoration staff speculated that during testing at Wright Field, pilots and engineers became concerned that the wooden tail may have been weakened by defective glues or sabotage. They strengthened the entire area with steel plate.



Lucky it did not fall apart...

wood rot, glue..

faulty guages


It was held together with chewing gum (and boogers)- built by slaves who sabotaged it..

dangerous according to the people who have flown it, inspected it, restored it and OWN it..


I know why it saw saw no real air battles.. with first rate aircraft.

It jumped a few Yaks before it was mothballed..

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Extensive wood rot was found in where the horizontal stabilizer joins the vertical fin. The restoration staff speculated that during testing at Wright Field, pilots and engineers became concerned that the wooden tail may have been weakened by defective glues or sabotage. They strengthened the entire area with steel plate.

Having worked with wood I could tell you there is no way you could "date" dry rot, especially if it was found during restoration. No denying that shortcuts and less than quality material and construction techniques were used in the Ta 152 construction, but at this point the aircraft was being produced for longevity and it's wooden tail was easily replaced.

More than likely the aircraft dry rotted while being shipped to Wright Pat....

 

[drgondog]

at great risk I would offer the following opinion on the Ta152H.

In the context of "would it fly great, was it fast, was it formidable"

It did and it was.

Would a lot of German pilots been KIA because of faulty engines, or workmanship if it had been delivered to the field - maybe.

But what coulda happened (dominate the skies or be a "Feldwebel Killer" as other excellent a/c before it) didn't happen.

But still a very great airplane that nobody on our side wanted to see in great numbers.

This is opinion only - not backed by flight profiles or comparative facts against the best Allied Piston Engine fighters.

 

[Soren]

Bill, here's my question;

Why is it you insist upon dancing around the fact that the F4U-1 proved superior in maneuverability compared to the P-51B in every way - is it because you don't understand what it means or is it because you don't want to acknowledge this fact ? What is it thats so wrong about that Navy test according to you ?

As to the weight figures, I told you to look in the POH if in doubt, but apparently you just choose to ignore this and started spewing out lies about me not providing any substantiating evidence.

Now as to turn performance, well like I've said before you can dance around it all you like but the F4U features a higher lift airfoil and a lower wing-loading, hence why its superior in turn performance compared to the P-51.

Now as to your flying time in the P-51 - tell me about it please. Were you the pilot or were you in the back seat ?

Also the veteran a/c flying around today aren't like the ones flying around during WW2, they are significantly lighter.

 

[drgondog]

Bill, here's my question;

Why is it you insist upon dancing around the fact that the F4U-1 proved superior in maneuverability compared to the P-51B in every way - is it because you don't understand what it means or is it because you don't want to acknowledge this fact ? What is it thats so wrong about that Navy test according to you ?

As to the weight figures, I told you to look in the POH if in doubt, but apparently you just choose to ignore this and started spewing out lies about me not providing any substantiating evidence.

Now as to turn performance, well like I've said before you can dance around it all you like but the F4U features a higher lift airfoil and a lower wing-loading, hence why its superior in turn performance compared to the P-51.

Now as to your flying time in the P-51 - tell me about it please. Were you the pilot or were you in the back seat ?

Also the veteran a/c flying around today aren't like the ones flying around during WW2, they are significantly lighter.

Sigh - what 'lies' have I been spewing about you not providing any substantiating evidence?

I recall and I can substantiate, and you can substantiate and everyone reading this thread can substantiate, what I have asked you to produce.

1. I asked as aero engineer and pilot to you - (?? and ??) to show me, "the unconvinced but willing to be conviced" person the performance data of both the P-51B and the F4U-1 in either head to head or separate performance tests which highlighted all the turn, climb, roll, dive and acceleration results of instrumented test procedures.

Stuff that form basis of opinons in a fact based discussion?

2. Your reference (I gave you mine for the 51s) for the various manufacturer specs on the F4U - I shamefully admit I haven't found the on-line source yet either for the complete F4U series.

3. When you pulled the Fw190G Tests out of the hat and proudly declared victory (HuH!) against the P-51 I said "gee that's interesting - show me the figures please?"

4. You pulled a quote from the Mike Williams site on the specific Naval Tests at Pax River January, 1944, conducted by the US NAvy by Naval Aviators, to compile a report why the 51B is is not 'better' than the F4U-1 (my Words). This is precisely the same report I referenced to Dave and Renrich earlier.

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

I joked about this report because the only data driven charts to substantiate the comparison was the Speed/Boost comparisons vs altitude and Horsepower available vs Altitude.

The report states that the 51B outclimber the F4U (both) above 20,000 feet but nowhere does it show the data. BTW this statement is not particularly favorable to your statement that the F$U is 'everywhere and every way superior in manuever" is it? But no data by Navy pilot to support that either... so you are off the hook.

You might have noticed also that the F4U-1A was fitted with Special Boost to give it 65" vs the standard 60 and the atandard 60" for the F4u-1A. I'll come back to this point later.

The report states that the F4U-1 was superior in turn and acceleration and (special note excepted) was everywhere superior in climb below 20,000 feet

But no data presented

Then you stroll along, and declare Dave, Renrich and myself clearly not possesing your vast knowledge of these mortal things and declare 'victory'

I'm interested in learning, even at my advanced stage of dimentia so I ask YOU "where's the data, great Soren-master?"

and you hit me with the comment that I am 'spreading lies" - Wow

Where is the Data on that subject please? I have tried to be respectftful in this debate and will continue to do so.

Now back to me-

I have 56.5 hours as s/e pilot in command (understand 'solo'), with 20 hours command in back seat with a miserable no talent retired colonel by the name of Bert Marshall, Jr attempting to impart wisdom on his clueless son - (yes I was clueless long before I ran into you), and 10 hours beginning time when I basically looked and listened. You may decree whatever expertise you wish on that humble experience - I don't associate much, particularly in high speed desparate manuevering and said so above.

The miserable, demanding character instructor in this scenario, that was self inflicted, but inflicted nevertheless, on teaching me to fly was the fastest ace in the 355th FG, was promoted from Captain to Lt Colonel in the span of 7 weeks (Aug 18-October 23, 1944), commanded two different groups of Mustangs - and when retired had 8,950 hours in about 30 different aircraft including Fw190d-9, Me109G (no version specified) but a two seat trainer, a Fw 190 two seat trainer.

He was probably a 'low talent/experience' from your perspective - he certainly couldn't speak German. He only had perhaps 800-1000 hours USAF time in 51B/C/D/H

In the process he shot down one miserable Stuka on D-Day and six 109Gs between June 20 and September 11, all a/c that should have been able to out turn, him and out climb him but somehow gfailed to exploit their superior performance -

then maybe 500 more hours after retirement when he had it in the 59-61 timeframe.

I have a Masters Degree in Engineering in Aero (Univ Texas 1972) with a BS in Aero Engineering (Structures). It is probable that your credentials far out weigh mine - but guess what?

I'm not proclaiming victory by experience - I'm not declaring victory. Period.

I am asking you this last time because we are boring the Sh!t out of everyone on this forum ---- where is your performance DATA backing up your pronouncement of victory?

Last but not least I am a scarred veteran of the great wars fought at the Pentagon by the USN and the USA, then USAAF, then USAF on fighter procurement.

I suppose you know that the US Navy NEVER has purchased a fighter aircraft originally designed for the Air Force (to my humble knowledge) - not even under Congressional decrees (F-111 and F-16) come to mind immediately. I don't count the 86 because USAF bought hte Navy version of interest but stipulated the design mod of swept wing.

I was joking about this to Renrich but half serious because I didn't see the data.. and at the end of the day think the squids did just fine not buying the 51!

But I remain skeptical when pronouncements of performance are made without data - even by honorable squid aviators or lowly AF types - or by forum posters.

Now we can agree to completely disagree - I am not going to respond to you asking me to prove your claim - I have said I can't because I can't find the data.

I have submitted that you can't because you can't find the data (on either of your a/c in competition) I believe this is called 'impasse' but---

you stand corrected - I have not and will not call you a "liar' just because you disagree with me.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Soren]

So you think acting childish with alot of sarcasm will get you anywhere Bill ?

You like complicating things alot, don't you Bill ?

That the F4U proved superior in turn performance compared to the P-51B is more than enough DATA Bill - what you want is exact figures of turn radius, rate, speed of entry etc etc - well considering that the conclusion reads that the F4U is superior in maneuverability in every way, also response time, I think you've got your answer.

And if you still doubt the weight figures I provided then go read the POH - but incase you don't have it:
F4U-4:

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Allright both of you chill out. If you have a personal problem with one another take it to private messaging okay!

And Soren you do the same thing and make childish remarks with lots of sarcasm, so dont go accusing others until you look in the mirror.

Debate friendly or take it the pm's. Infractions are next and if need be this informative thread will be closed dont ruin it for everyone.

That is for both of you.

 

[Soren]

I can look passed a single remark Adler, but he continues it throughout his post - thats why I said the above.

 

[rogthedodge]

I voted Spitfire!!

To me the poll was about overrated (over-rated?) which I took to mean 'reputation / place in history out of significant proportion to its actual role / achievement'.

So the reasons for voting Spitfire?:

It over-shadows the achievement of the Hurricane (Luftwaffe pilots were adamant they'd been downed by Spitfires when they'd been shot down by Hurricanes [professional pride?])

The Spit was a fine, fine aircraft without doubt but in terms of availability 'repairability @ squadron' the Hurricane was the true hero of the BoB but the reputation / history would have the Spit as the hero.

Camm is now largely forgotten but Mitchell is a 'hero' - a misjustice in my book!

The Spit went onto many great achievements but only after the Air Ministry decided one a/c was to be developed, the other to be 'disposable' - hence Hurricat etc

The others? - I don't know, I'm no expert but the P51 certainly played its part in the 'big week', the zero was a real handful etc etc so I couldn't vote for them.

Just my $0.04's worth

 

[Negative Creep]

Yes the Spitfire's part in the BoB was overplayed, but I don't think it takes away from the aircraft itself. Until the end of the war, it remained a match for virtually anything thrown against it, whereas the Hurricane was obsolete as a dogfighter by 1942. The Spit used the same basic design throughout its life, whilst Hawker produced an entirely new aircraft in the Typhoon. The fact it was a morale booster for the British public is still an important factor in continuing the war. I think it happens all the time; ask someone with little knowledge of planes to name some WW2 aircraft and they will say the Spitfire, 109, P-51, Lancaster, B-17 and Zero, not the Hurricane, FW 190, P-47, Halifax, B-24 or Oscar, all of which could be argued were just as good, if not better. Whilst in absolute terms I wouldn't say the Spitfire was the best plane of the war (was certainly the best looking) I wouldn't call it the most overrated

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I can look passed a single remark Adler, but he continues it throughout his post - thats why I said the above.

Soren go and look at all the posts your make when you are in disagreement with someone...

Come on now okay both of you are good members of this site, dont ruin it.

Now lets all get back on topic in a friendly manner. It really is not that hard. Debating can be fun but only if it is done right.

 

[Trautloft]

what you guys think about my vote of il-2?

 

[davparlr]

what you guys think about my vote of il-2?

Good selection. It has a reputation of a flying tank but took massive losses.

 

[Negative Creep]

Considering the environment it operated in, wouldn't any gorund attack plane have suffered similar losses? My vote would go for the Zero however. When it achieved its success early in the war, it was flying against inexperienced and unprepared allied pilots in often outdated machines. As the old saying goes, you never underestimate your opponent twice, and once the allies had got measure of its limits and weaknesses, it became decidedly outclassed. By the end of the way, it was inferior to almost anything in the sky, and lacked the punch needed to take down bombers. Being able to outmaneuver your opponent is all well and good, but as the Hellcat would prove, you still needed armour and firepower. I tihnk the kill loss ratios against the Hellcat and Corsair are vindication of this. Japan had far better fighters, like the Frank or Tony, but the Zeke always gets the credit.

 

[renrich]

I see your point about the Zero but at the time it first went in to action in 1940, it was a revolutionary fighter. Good Vmax performance from sea level to 25000 ft. Good acceleration, good maneuverability, good armament, excellent climb, excellent range and could operate off a carrier. In 1940, all things considered, it was equal to or better than any other fighter in the world and that was unheard of for a carrier fighter. It just did not happen! However, the caliber of Japanese pilots began to erode, the Japanese had some difficulty developing higher powered aero engines and the A6M design did not have much "stretch" in it, unlike the Spitfire and BF. However, in the hands of an experienced pilot like Sakai, one could not get slow with a Zero, even in 1945.

 

[Soren]

By late 1942 the Zero was no'more a first class fighter, it was simply not fast enough. Had the Japanese put a more powerful engine on the Zero things might have been very different - however power levels would have to increase dramatically, up to around 1,700 - 1,800 HP levels.

 

[Jackson]

Even a P40 was faster than a Zero

 

[renrich]

Yep, you are right Soren. In fact, I believe when the Zero was first developed they were trying to put an engine with more HP in it but had to compromise because the engine they hoped to use did not develop well and the Japanese had no really first class high powered engine during the whole war. In contrast, the Germans had the DB engines, although the first BF had a RR Kestrel, I believe, and then the BMW radials, the British had the Merlin and Bristols, the US had the PW and Wrights.

 

[evangilder]

Putting a more powerful engine in a Zero would not have done it any good. Above 275 MPH it was pretty much impossible to turn, no self sealing fuel tanks and one piece of armor in the back of the seat made this an obsolete fighter that would have been better relegated to training or non-combat duties by 1942. Addition of all of the necessary stuff would have changed weight, CG and a number of other things that would have had to be engineered for. Better to spend the time designing a new airplane.

 

[drgondog]

Yep, you are right Soren. In fact, I believe when the Zero was first developed they were trying to put an engine with more HP in it but had to compromise because the engine they hoped to use did not develop well and the Japanese had no really first class high powered engine during the whole war. In contrast, the Germans had the DB engines, although the first BF had a RR Kestrel, I believe, and then the BMW radials, the British had the Merlin and Bristols, the US had the PW and Wrights.

Richard The US also had the Allison - even though it 'had problems at 60 below over Europe' it was still a really good powerplant