Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

The most over-rated aircraft of WW2

  • Total voters
    409

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Shortround6 said:
And spent most of it's life overloaded for the engine it did have.
Click to expand...

I spoke to a guy who has spent time restoring P-40s and is working on a P-40N. He summarised that somewhere along the way, Curtiss lost their way with the P-40 and he could tell this in the standard of manufacture between the early P-40s compared to the later ones. The 'E model was beautifully made with attention to engineering norms, such as edge distance etc. The P-40N was not well made. Rivetting was not standard and was all over the place, the finish of parts was roughshod and the aircraft was unsophisticated compared to the previous aircraft.

When coming up with the 'N model, Curtiss was told to make it cheaper, faster, better, lighter, carry more fuel and be made of more non-strategic parts and make it faster to build. They achieved the first one and the last two. Production time was reduced and the use of plastics for things like map cases etc instead of aluminum was incorporated, and it cost less. However, the rest of the requirement it couldn't achieve. It was slower than previous models and didn't have an appreciable increase in performance. What's more, the vacuum pump that drove the blind flying instruments was removed, thus the aircraft couldn't fly in IMC, which resulted in an incident where a bunch of P-40Ns escorting B-24s got lost in cloud and flew into a mountain in PNG.

A P-40E awaiting its turn for restoration. It'll be returned to flying condition and then put up for sale.

NZ3043 ii
 

And yet it also excelled as a high altitude photo recce aircraft, and one that wasn't short on range.

This whole "point defence" thing is overblown. The Spitfire range certainly wasn't up to that of the P-51 but it was far from just being point defence.

As to the latter point, any defending fighter that isn't aided by radar and GCI will likely have a tough time. The very nature of defensive ops mean that the enemy has the advantage of attacking wherever and whenever he chooses, which makes it really hard to respond for the defending fighters.
 
A lot of the judgments about the Spitfires short range come from changing conditions.

In 1939 there were very few fighters that could perform like the Spitfire (or even the Hurricane) that could fly much further at similar speeds.
Things changed by 1941 and changed even more by 1943.
How many "long range" P-40s were there in 1939? how about none.
Anybody fancy trying to fight Spitfires with P-35s?
When does the long range Ki-43 show up? By the end of May 1941 the Japanese have built 12 production planes.
 
buffnut453 said:
This whole "point defence" thing is overblown. The Spitfire range certainly wasn't up to that of the P-51 but it was far from just being point defence.
Click to expand...
And range is not only important for escort but also allows for deep interdiction, extended combat air patrol over the battlefield, and extended time in combat, things the Spitfire would come up short due to limited internal fuel. I don't necessarily thiink the Spit was overrated. It did fight valiantly over England, Africa, Western Europe, etc., confronting the best Germany and Italy had to offer, a beautiful, well designed aircraft.
 
The problem with debating the Spitfire's range is, like so many things here, context. As has been pointed out, no fighter designed in 1935/1936 had what we have come to understand as excellent range. It's worth remembering that Spitfires escorted the first 8th Air Force missions into France in 1942.

Also, look at the size of the UK and compare it with the size of the United States and then think about how far away from Britain its nearest enemy is and think about how far away from the United States those enemy countries that it found itself going to war with were. US fighters need a long-range, just to go from production facility to home air bases, let alone fly combat operations abroad.

Before WW2 the fear was that the Germans would fly their bombers all the way from Germany to Britain unescorted (hence the rationale behind the Defiant, but that's another story), so did the British expect the Spitfire to need what we consider a long-range? No, and as for fighter escort, it didn't exist in the RAF's vocab prior to the war; everyone, that is all armed forces equipped with bombers believed they could operate unescorted before the outbreak of WW2, including the USAAC.
 
Last edited:

If they were surprised it is because they didn't read the P-40 training manual. It was on page 5.
Now the wording may be a bit misleading. It says no more P-40s are being sent to the war theaters, but replacement aircraft were sent to the units still using them.
However no new units equipped with P-40s were sent and many units in the field with P-40s were re-equipped with later fighters as supplies permitted.
The manual goes on to say how due to the characteristics of the P-40 a good P-40 pilot was a good fighter pilot.
 
nuuumannn said:
The P-40N was not well made. Rivetting was not standard and was all over the place, the finish of parts was roughshod and the aircraft was unsophisticated compared to the previous aircraft.
Click to expand...
My dad, who worked at the Bell plant, 22 miles up the road from Curtis, and many others I've spoken with who worked in defense industries said that towards the end of the war the draft was taking many of the experienced prewar workers who had been deferred earlier due to age and critical skills. With the expansion phase over and the end in sight, but many bloody battles yet to come, the insatiable demand of the infantry meatgrinder was running into a manpower crisis. The "arsenal of democracy" new hires were ramping up their skills and some were moving into low level supervisory positions, so the draft started re-evaluating the critical skills and age deferments of many of the old hands who looked like they might be fit enough to march and carry a rifle. My dad, who had lost an eye and suffered leg and foot deformities from a childhood accident had to go to the induction center in Buffalo to get his 4F deferment reevaluated.
The loss of a lot of this talent was said to have had a detrimental effect on the workmanship of late war production.
 

I assume that you know that the A-20/DB-7 intended role was a battlefield attack light bomber - tasked for interdiction. When proposed the AAC 'remembered' that they were part of the US Army and they (AAF) had nothing specified for battlefield tasking other than Observation (O-47A, etc.). Perhaps you could name other similar role aircraft operationally available in 1941-1942?

Recall that the A-20 was tasked for medium level bombardment as required - simply because it was available in quantity when the B-25 and B-26 (and Successor A-26) were not. So it was tasked to perform fighter bomber/attack roles in Pacific/CBI and Africa and Italy. It was tasked for recon and night fighting because it could be modified to fit those roles until newer attack/recon/NF aircraft replaced it. It was well liked by the pilots that flew them, it was reliable, cheap and an excellent performer from SL through middle altitudes.

To your point of 'most over-rated'. Versus what? What 'rating' do you take exception to? AFAIK it was never rated as Best of anything, merely good at a lot of things.
 
What g-loads was the O-47 stressed for?
 
I'm leaning towards the F6F or the P-61. The former because while it racked up an amazing tally, it made its reputation in 1944 against largely second-rate pilots in second-rate airplanes; the latter because for all the ballyhoo and chilling moniker, it tallied humdrum numbers.

I think most WWII aircraft are fairly rated.
 
Last edited:
Such machines are normally very highly rated, at least by the people involved at the time. When things kick off, something that can do lots of things allows you the time to build experience, infrastructure and learn what it is that you need so better things can be developed.
 
I have 10,000 O-47 drawings, have worked for more than 6 years on one of them, completing the starboard stub wing and some mainspar work, and do not kow to what G-level it was stressed. Go figure.

Below, we have the leading edge clecoed in place. We reused the stub ribs and made new top skin and leading edge.


We also had just finished riveting in the landing gear attach points, on the main spar, right above the front support. We made the middle rib vertical supports from scracth and also made the new trailing edge. About the only thing we reused were the ribs, and we made a few of those, too. It hasn't progressed all that far since here because my partner in restoration quit for medical reasons and I can't find anyone else who is interested enough in the O-47 to work on it.

What makes it a great museum airplane is that fact that you can put three people under the greenhouse and 2 or 3 in the belly and have some help at an airshow. It will cruise around 200 mph or so, so it can easily fly in with the fighters whenever they go to an event.

Below is the O-47 before we fitted the leading edge. You can see the observation port under the wing where the observer(s) could look out and down. A really good plane for observing the countryside.



Perhaps an ugly airplane, but faster than it looks and quite useful. It performed yeoman service in WWII flying along the Atlantic and Carribbean coasts looking for U-boats.
 

It looks pregnant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
Replies
17
Views
366
SaparotRob
T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
3
Views
753
yulzari
M
USAAF aircraft lost through transport sinkings during Battle of the Atlantic?
Replies
2
Views
410
fubar57
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
634
CHen10
WWI Aces Flying WWII Planes
Replies
17
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
Menu
Log in
Register