Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

In that comparison, it might be interesting to note that the fuel consumption also coincides with the aircraft's weight, the P-40 being the lightest of the four, the P-47 being heaviest with full loadout.
Which also asks the question:
In the comparison of the four, what was their loadout, were the aircraft tested in factory fresh condition, were they all tested at the same time (under the same atmospheric conditions) or is this a compilation put together from seperate trials?

Shortround6 said:

You might be quite surprised at a number of aircraft if you fly them slow enough or at the right speed and Altitude.

Click to expand...

At 20,000 feet the P-40N and P-38L were flying almost the same true airspeed for maximum range (249 mph vs. 248 mph).

Shortround6 said:

Which is a rather unfair way to compare them.

Click to expand...

I'm not claiming the P-40 was the superior aircraft.

I posted the figures in response to GrauGeist's comment that the P-40 "had the aerodynamics of a brick when compared to later aircraft designs of the war." It seems the aerodynamics of the P-40 are perhaps a little better than that. This would seem to be borne out also by the drag comparison tables appearing on pages 113 and 592 of Dean's America's Hundred Thousand, which showed the P-40 having a better drag coefficient than the F4U-1D, P-38J, and F6F-3. (Of course, the P-40 lacked in performance in ways others that impacted on its ability as a fighter.)

Perhaps it's a matter of how one defines "aerodynamics of a brick".

Nobody built a military airplane that did not pass an acceptance test. So, at SOME point in a production fighter's early life, it was deemed to meet the requirement that was issued for its development OR it was the best likely to be available when they absolutely foresaw needing a fighter airplane. Even in the Soviet Union, they didn't just build a fighter aircraft because Stalin wanted it that way. They either passed or didn't pass state acceptance tests ... OR it was the best they thought they'd get in the time seen as when they needed it.

And that's true of ALL production fighter aircraft, P-40 included. When the war started for the U.S.A., it was almost the only game in town for us that was available in sufficient numbers to mean anything. The P-40Q proves it wasn't a basically flawed airframe since the P-40Q was essentially about as good as a P-51. It was a small bit slower, but also rolled a LOT better. It wasn't adopted primarilly because the P-51 was already available and in production, didn't have the range and thus, while the P-40Q was good, it also wasn't a leap above the already in-service P-51. It would likely have been adopted for certain has it been available in 1942. But the first one didn't fly until June 1943 and the second one didn't fly until January 1944. By the time the third one was delivered in April 1944, the P-51 was hitting its stride in Europe and making quite a name for itself.

There were quite a few fighters other than the P-40 that were good enough when the production decision was made, but were perhaps less than that 2 years later. The people at Boulton Paul probably initially thought the Defiant was pretty good, too, and the powers that be agreed with them. The Zero was pretty darned good in 1939 - 1942 but was less than top tier in 1944 - 1945. All that really shows is the speed of development during wartime when technology was at a point where significant improvements were possible every few months. It doesn't show that any particular airplane was "bad" when it was selected for production ... with the possible exception of the PZL Zubr, widely accepted as the worst WWII combat aircraft ever produced, even in small numbers. Someone in Poland was very drunk when the Zubr production decision was made ...

33k in the air said:

Perhaps it's a matter of how one defines "aerodynamics of a brick".

Click to expand...

Your definition and mine might be rather close. The early P-40s had rather good aerodynamics. Just compare speed to installed horsepower for the P-40, Bf 109, Hurricane and Spitfire.
The P-40 was the heaviest by far and yet it was almost tied with the Spit MK I for first place in speed. What they did with the weight is subject to question but the plane was aerodynamic.

as for comparing to late war aircraft, one would hope that they learned something in 5 years, P-40 aerodynamics started in 1935 and finished in 1940. P-51 was designed in 1940 and perhaps improved in 1942 with the Merlin (referring to the radiator installation).

33k in the air said:

I'm not claiming the P-40 was the superior aircraft.

I posted the figures in response to GrauGeist's comment that the P-40 "had the aerodynamics of a brick when compared to later aircraft designs of the war." It seems the aerodynamics of the P-40 are perhaps a little better than that. This would seem to be borne out also by the drag comparison tables appearing on pages 113 and 592 of Dean's America's Hundred Thousand, which showed the P-40 having a better drag coefficient than the F4U-1D, P-38J, and F6F-3. (Of course, the P-40 lacked in performance in ways others that impacted on its ability as a fighter.)

Perhaps it's a matter of how one defines "aerodynamics of a brick".

Click to expand...

P-40 was certainly not with the one with "aerodynamics of a brick". While it certainly was not as streamlined as P-39, it was about as good as Fw 190D or the Spitfires, and far better than Wildcat or Hurricane. The Bf 109E was the one with "aerodynamics of a brick", it's saving grace being it's small size and early availability.
The main failing of P-40 was that it never received engine upgrade to the tune the Spitfire or P-51 gotten by mid-war. Or an engine as good as what Fw 190 or Bf 109 received.

tomo pauk said:

The main failing of P-40 was that it never received engine upgrade

Click to expand...

And spent most of it's life overloaded for the engine it did have.

The mechanical two stage Allison -93 was in production by April 1943, about the same time that the first two stage Merlin started production at Packard for the P-51. P-40 (and P-39) would have greatly benefitted from this engine with critical altitude of 21000'. Move the carb from the second stage up to the normal position on the first stage and critical altitude goes up to about 25000'. Makes the P-40 a very competitive plane but the P-51 carried a lot more internal fuel and range was all important at this stage of the war. P-40 (and P-39) had been relegated to export and training by 1943 and the AAF certainly didn't want to gift the Russians with a high altitude plane at that stage of the war.

P-39 Expert said:

...
P-40 (and P-39) had been relegated to export and training by 1943 and the AAF certainly didn't want to gift the Russians with a high altitude plane at that stage of the war.

Click to expand...

Russians will not get the 1st pick on P-40s powered by 2-stage V-1710s.

tomo pauk said:

Russians will not get the 1st pick on P-40s powered by 2-stage V-1710s.

Click to expand...

Maybe not, but if they did want them (who wouldn't) they would be demanding them, like P-39s and P-63s. Just more friction between our allies. Just another reason not to build them.

P-39 Expert said:

Maybe not, but if they did want them (who wouldn't) they would be demanding them, like P-39s and P-63s. Just more friction between our allies. Just another reason not to build them.

Click to expand...

They can have P-39s - they like them, they keep asking for more, and no other air force does the same. Or they can say - okay, we don't want your free stuff.

I don't understand you last sentence? Russians are going to turn down lend lease supplies?

P-39 Expert said:

I don't understand you last sentence? Russians are going to turn down lend lease supplies?

Click to expand...

Last sentence was my point. They will not turn down LL supplies, the P-39 being part of them.

Thanks for the clarification.

P-39 Expert said:

The mechanical two stage Allison -93 was in production by April 1943, about the same time that the first two stage Merlin started production at Packard for the P-51. P-40 (and P-39) would have greatly benefitted from this engine with critical altitude of 21000'. Move the carb from the second stage up to the normal position on the first stage and critical altitude goes up to about 25000'. Makes the P-40 a very competitive plane but the P-51 carried a lot more internal fuel and range was all important at this stage of the war. P-40 (and P-39) had been relegated to export and training by 1943 and the AAF certainly didn't want to gift the Russians with a high altitude plane at that stage of the war.

Click to expand...

By the beginning of the Sicilian campaign the P-40 was being mainly used as a ground attacker - no need to be flying at 25,000 feet or worry about its air-to-air capability.

Regarding the poll my first choice for overrated aircraft is the Spitfire. My second choice would have been the Il-2.

Ovod said:

Regarding the poll my first choice for overrated aircraft is the Spitfire. My second choice would have been the Il-2.

Click to expand...

Because?

The Spitfire was limited in use in the first part of the was due to small internal fuel. As a point defense fighter it seemed to be excellent. Later in the war, when closer airfields were available, limited range was less important.

I agree with the IL 2 being overrated. It was available and was valuable but poor precision and vulnerability was devastating with 15,000+ shot down? Even the light brigade was able to penetrate the Russian cannon line but at what cost.

davparlr said:

The Spitfire was limited in use in the first part of the was due to small internal fuel. As a point defense fighter it seemed to be excellent. Later in the war, when closer airfields were available, limited range was less important.

Click to expand...

In the 1st part of the war, Spitfire was excellent. For the British, 1st part of war ended by Autumn of 1941?

davparlr said:

The Spitfire was limited in use in the first part of the was due to small internal fuel. As a point defense fighter it seemed to be excellent.

Click to expand...

The Spitfire didnt have small internal fuel, it had exactly the amount of fuel required for its job of defending Britain's airspace.

davparlr said:
The Spitfire was limited in use in the first part of the was due to small internal fuel. As a point defense fighter it seemed to be excellent.

fastmongrel said:

The Spitfire didnt have small internal fuel, it had exactly the amount of fuel required for its job of defending Britain's airspace.

Click to expand...

IE, a point defense fighter. (And with the help of an extensive radar and GCI network.) Later, in Australia, without those tools to aid it, it didn't fare so well.

Shortround6 said:

Your definition and mine might be rather close. The early P-40s had rather good aerodynamics. Just compare speed to installed horsepower for the P-40, Bf 109, Hurricane and Spitfire.
The P-40 was the heaviest by far and yet it was almost tied with the Spit MK I for first place in speed. What they did with the weight is subject to question but the plane was aerodynamic.

as for comparing to late war aircraft, one would hope that they learned something in 5 years, P-40 aerodynamics started in 1935 and finished in 1940. P-51 was designed in 1940 and perhaps improved in 1942 with the Merlin (referring to the radiator installation).

Click to expand...

Aerodynamics has many facets, one of which is speed. Weight does have an effect on speed but not a huge effect. The Spitfire had to intercept at all altitudes. It may have been almost tied with the Spitfire at most altitudes but not at the highest, with the same engine. There would be little point in stripping the guns and radios out of Spitfires to get up to 40+ thousand feet if it weighed half a ton more to start with. The spitfires small frame and lightweight construction are often criticised but that was part and parcel of what it was and what it was designed to do, which others weren't.