Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[Milosh]

Reading a lot of accident statistics it seems that the trainers were the most dangerous, why didn't they just put pilots in P-51s straight away because they were statistically much safer?

Only because they survived the training.

 

[pbehn]

Only because they survived the training.

Dang, I knew there was something I hadn't taken into account.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Help me out here:
What's the body of water along that route called again?

Straits of Denmark? Irish Sea? North Sea? Certainly not the broad Atlantic!
On a 2003 Lufthansa flight, Boston to Munich, we passed just south of Greenland and Iceland, were in sight of the Faroe Islands, went just north of Ulster, crossed over Hadrian's Wall, and hit mainland Europe with the Netherlands under our right wing. (According to our bilingual tour guide pilot.) From FL410, with scattered to broken under cast, it was kind of hard to visually verify.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[swampyankee]

No one can deny that the Germans had a heckuva lot of rather fantastic ideas, and the technological know-how to do most of them. They didn't have the resources to fulfill their obviously talented brains, nor the time to do it. The US DID have the time, resources and brains to do it, which is why, in part, the Allies won. The Soviets had massive manpower, and the will to let them die to win. There's just no way the Germans could have won, regardless of their technological expertise. It always seemed to me that if there two ways of doing things, the Germans would take the "busy" road, making things a lot more complicated than necessary to get things done.
The Allied side more or less took the Stalin way of thinking, "Quantity has a quality of it's own".

To put some of these myths in perspective:

The snorkel was first used on Dutch submarines; the Germans adopted it after they invaded that country.
Messerschmidt used NACA airfoils on many, if not most, of its aircraft.
The jet engine was developed roughly simultaneously in the UK and Germany.
Centrimetric radar was developed by the Allies
Germany used Italian aerial torpedoes, as they were significantly better than the domestic ones.

In reality, the technological levels of the more highly industrialized of the belligerent countries were, overall, quite similar.

 

[pbehn]

To put some of these myths in perspective:

The snorkel was first used on Dutch submarines; the Germans adopted it after they invaded that country.
Messerschmidt used NACA airfoils on many, if not most, of its aircraft.
The jet engine was developed roughly simultaneously in the UK and Germany.
Centrimetric radar was developed by the Allies
Germany used Italian aerial torpedoes, as they were significantly better than the domestic ones.

In reality, the technological levels of the more highly industrialized of the belligerent countries were, overall, quite similar.

You can also add to that the technological advance in B ull Sh it, which was used against the V1 and V2 attacks on London and "stuff" like proximity fused artillery which brought down a lot of V1s and changed the battlefield after D Day.

 

[Shortround6]

You stated that it was conceived to fly back and forth across the Atlantic which isn't the same.as iceland to Europe

A lot of planes were "conceived" with totally unrealistic goals. for example the specification for the B-26 was issued in 1939 and said, in part:

"According to the requirements listed in the specification, a bombload of 3000 pounds was to be carried over a range of 2000 miles at a top speed of over 300 mph and at a service ceiling exceeding 20,000 feet."

Now please note that specification didn't say what the cruising speed was just the top speed. And the B-26 didn't come close to meeting this specification as far as bomb load over a set distance.

Also please note that the B-29 "concept" went through a number of different stages/designs before the final one showed up.

" With its own funds, Boeing built a mockup of its bomber design in December of 1939. It envisaged wing loadings as high as 64 pounds per square foot, a twelve-man crew and the ability to carry 2000 pounds of bombs over distances in excess of 5000 miles."

and
"In January of 1940, the Army issued the formal requirements for the VLR "superbomber". The requirements called for a speed of 400 mph, a range of 5333 miles, and a bomb load of 2000 pounds delivered at the halfway-point at that range.This became the basis for Request for Data R-40B and Specification XC-218. On January 29, 1940, the War Department formally issued Data R-40B and circulated it to Boeing, Consolidated, Douglas, and Lockheed. The official specification was revised in April to incorporate the lessons learned in early European wartime experience, and now included more defensive armament, armor, and self-sealing tanks. "

and
". In August of 1939, Boeing had started work on the Model 341 project, which featured a new high-lift aerofoil for a high aspect-ratio wing of 124 feet 7 inches in span. The Model 341 offered a maximum speed of 405 mph at 25,000 feet. It was to have been powered by four 2000 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800 radials. Weighing 85,672 pounds, the range was to have been 7000 miles with one ton of bombs. A maximum load of 10,000 pounds could be carried over shorter distances. "

The 341 project was reworked into the 345 project which was the actual basis for the B-29. Reality had reared it's never pretty head and armor, self sealing tanks and defensive armament all cut into speed and range.
It was figured out fairly soon that the actual performance was NOT going to reach the levels in the "concept" and operational experience made the 2000lb bomb load a bad joke.

Alternate bases were going to be needed to get any sort of worthwhile bomb load onto european soil.
And the B-36 (and B-35) were the fall back position in case the forward bases were lost.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You stated that it was conceived to fly back and forth across the Atlantic which isn't the same.as iceland to Europe

How so? That is still across the Atlantic. It's just not non-stop.

 

[GrauGeist]

How so? That is still across the Atlantic. It's just not non-stop.

It seemed to me that saying "flying across the Atlantic" was a simplified statement - I didn't realize that a 1,000 word dissertation on the logistics, routing and specific route detailing was necessary.
It appears that I was wrong

 

[Peter Gunn]

*SNIP*

I didn't realize that a 1,000 word dissertation on the logistics, routing and specific route detailing was necessary.


*SNIP*

Due by next Wednesday or suffer letter grade reduction for every day late.

 

[swampyankee]

Due by next Wednesday or suffer letter grade reduction for every day late.

Don't forget: use Chicago format and citations. Encyclopedias don't count as valid sources.

 

[GrauGeist]

Aww damn - there goes the trip to the beach with the gang
*facepalm*

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Aww damn - there goes the trip to the beach with the gang
*facepalm*

And you sit home alone and don't get infected.

 

[Dimlee]

I didn't diss the plane, I dissed the HYPE. That's what this thread is about, yes? The folks who said the P-51 was over-hyped didn't say it wasn't a marvelous plane. Neither have I said that the B-29 wasn't the best of it's time.
I said it killed more of it's crew than the enemy did. I'm waiting on more knowledgeable folk to educate me.
I said it (and it's A-bombs) didn't convince Japan to surrender, the Soviets who'd destroyed the Japanese army in Machuria in very short order and stood poised to invade and absorb Japan convinced the Japanese government to surrender while they still had a nation. Evidences to the contrary are welcome.

All factors were important: A-bombs, the threat of Allied invasion, the crisis in Manchuria (no, not the "destruction" yet - Japan's decision to accept Potsdam terms was made just hours after the USSR has broken the pact), the potential threat of the Soviet landing in Hokkaido. Really, there is no need to set one factor against another.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm about halfway through this slog ... where's the bathroom and the bar?

I've got my own ideas about which plane was most overrated in the war, but will read another 46 pages before offering it, because so many, ahem, great points have been made ... so it'll be a couple of days, lol.

It all hinges on the term greatness I suppose. The Yak-3 appeared in 1944 same as the Tempest, whatever their performance was they didn't influence the direction of the war. In that respect, in my view the Hurricane was a far more significant and "great" aircraft that the plane two generations later from Hawkers the Tempest. There were many aircraft and some were for a time the best in one or two niches and from that changed the course of the whole conflict, it is to these few aircraft the term "greatness" applies.

Replying to a post almost three years old, I know -- but I agree with your assessment of "greatness", because it is in the context of the times that greatness is assigned, unless we're talking GOAT. And in WWII technology advanced so rapidly that what was great in 1941 was outmoded in 1944, generally. Impact matters.

I think greatness is also in the context of usage, which gives the Yak an entree into the conversation. It had an impact, and did what it did well.

 

[GrauGeist]

I'm about halfway through this slog

The recent P-39 discussions kept reminding me of this extensive "P-40" thread...

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The P-40, born from the P-36, was a design embedded in the 1930's. It truly had the aerodynamics of a brick when compared to later aircraft designs of the war. The fact that it soldiered on, across all fronts from the start of the war, to the end, is a testament to Curtiss' design.

... and to the pilots who flew it, I'd think. Not directed at you, but never undersell the human factor in any realm of combat. Using strengths against weaknesses in something that happens in air, land, and sea combat all the same.

 

[33k in the air]

Well, now that this thread has been resurrected . . .

The P-40, born from the P-36, was a design embedded in the 1930's. It truly had the aerodynamics of a brick when compared to later aircraft designs of the war. The fact that it soldiered on, across all fronts from the start of the war, to the end, is a testament to Curtiss' design.

Curiously though, if one calculates the air miles per gallon in the most economical cruise condition, the P-40N has a very similar AMPG figure as the P-51D. At least, that's according to the cruise tables in the Pilot's Flight Operating Instruction manuals. Figures for the P-38L and P47D-25 provided for comparison.

P-40N, 8,400 to 6,660 lbs, no external load, maximum range cruise condition
At 15000 feet: 232 TAS, 39 GPH = 5.95 air miles per gallon
At 20,000 feet: 249 TAS, 42 GPH = 5.93 air miles per gallon
At 25,000 feet: 256 TAS, 43 GPH = 5.95 air miles per gallon

P-51D-5, 9,600 to 8,000 lbs, wing bomb racks only, maximum range cruise condition
At 15000 feet: 260 TAS, 44 GPH = 5.91 air miles per gallon
At 20,000 feet: 280 TAS, 48 GPH = 5.83 air miles per gallon
At 25,000 feet: 305 TAS, 52 GPH = 5.87 air miles per gallon

P-38L, 17,400 to 13,500 lbs, tank supports only, maximum range cruise condition
At 15000 feet: 229 TAS, 61 GPH = 3.75 air miles per gallon
At 20,000 feet: 248 TAS, 66 GPH = 3.76 air miles per gallon
At 25,000 feet: 267 TAS, 71 GPH = 3.76 air miles per gallon

P-47D-25, 14,200 to 12,000 lbs, no external load, maximum range cruise condition (preliminary data)
At 15000 feet: 266 TAS, 88 GPH = 3.02 air miles per gallon
At 20,000 feet: 288 TAS, 95 GPH = 3.03 air miles per gallon
At 25,000 feet: — no figures given —

 

[wuzak]

Well, now that this thread has been resurrected . . .



Curiously though, if one calculates the air miles per gallon in the most economical cruise condition, the P-40N has a very similar AMPG figure as the P-51D. At least, that's according to the cruise tables in the Pilot's Flight Operating Instruction manuals. Figures for the P-38L and P47D-25 provided for comparison.

P-40N, 8,400 to 6,660 lbs, no external load, maximum range cruise condition
At 15000 feet: 232 TAS, 39 GPH = 5.95 air miles per gallon
At 20,000 feet: 249 TAS, 42 GPH = 5.93 air miles per gallon
At 25,000 feet: 256 TAS, 43 GPH = 5.95 air miles per gallon

P-51D-5, 9,600 to 8,000 lbs, wing bomb racks only, maximum range cruise condition
At 15000 feet: 260 TAS, 44 GPH = 5.91 air miles per gallon
At 20,000 feet: 280 TAS, 48 GPH = 5.83 air miles per gallon
At 25,000 feet: 305 TAS, 52 GPH = 5.87 air miles per gallon

P-38L, 17,400 to 13,500 lbs, tank supports only, maximum range cruise condition
At 15000 feet: 229 TAS, 61 GPH = 3.75 air miles per gallon
At 20,000 feet: 248 TAS, 66 GPH = 3.76 air miles per gallon
At 25,000 feet: 267 TAS, 71 GPH = 3.76 air miles per gallon

P-47D-25, 14,200 to 12,000 lbs, no external load, maximum range cruise condition (preliminary data)
At 15000 feet: 266 TAS, 88 GPH = 3.02 air miles per gallon
At 20,000 feet: 288 TAS, 95 GPH = 3.03 air miles per gallon
At 25,000 feet: — no figures given —

Note that the P-51D is going 12-19% faster, depending on height, than the P-40N, which would be vital in enemy air space.

 

[33k in the air]

Note that the P-51D is going 12-19% faster, depending on height, than the P-40N, which would be vital in enemy air space.

Oh, no doubt there are other factors which are important and which push the P-40 down in any comparative ranking. But in terms of straight fuel efficiency, the P-40N performed very well. Much better than I expected, in fact. I had assumed the P-51 was likely the best in terms of air miles per gallon, given its demonstrated record of long-range flight, so I was quite surprised to see the P-40's figures.

 

[Shortround6]

Oh, no doubt there are other factors which are important and which push the P-40 down in any comparative ranking. But in terms of straight fuel efficiency, the P-40N performed very well. Much better than I expected, in fact. I had assumed the P-51 was likely the best in terms of air miles per gallon, given its demonstrated record of long-range flight, so I was quite surprised to see the P-40's figures.

You might be quite surprised at a number of aircraft if you fly them slow enough or at the right speed and Altitude. Which is a rather unfair way to compare them.
For example the Spitfire V could do 6.08mpg (US gallon) while doing 263mph true at 20,000ft. It could also get 6.45mpg (US gallon) while doing 225mph at 10,000ft but flying at the speed over enemy territory means you are providing target practice for the enemy with little hope of retaliating. Upping the speed at 20,000ft to even 300mph lowered the fuel mileage to 5.42mpg.

What was the fuel mileage at the speed and altitude needed to do the mission?