Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....? (2 Viewers)

[Peter Gunn]

There were only about 500 made, look at the accident rate. and compare to the P-51(and others). per 100,000hrs flying 274 for the A-36 and 105 for the P-51.

AH HA!!! I see what you mean now, thanks for clarifying.

So in the end, the answer was "A", I was reading the chart wrong.

 

[SaparotRob]

AH HA!!! I see what you mean now, thanks for clarifying.

So in the end, the answer was "A", I was reading the chart wrong.

I'm guessing that since you read the chart wrong OR don't know how to read a chart, you must be an experienced pilot.
Source: this thread.

 

[SaparotRob]

Wait, which thread is this?

 

[GrauGeist]

Wait, which thread is this?

Nice shootin', Tex.
The thread you want is next door...

 

[pbehn]

AH HA!!! I see what you mean now, thanks for clarifying.

So in the end, the answer was "A", I was reading the chart wrong.

Its that thing with statistics, lies and damned lies. It is a valid point to say that the actual numbers were low. You cannot extrapolate to what the numbers would have been if they made 10,000 A-36 aircraft. Some accidents were due to incorrect use of dive brakes (deploying after the dive started). So it would be fair to assume the rate would drop as frequency increased. Similarly, primary, basic and advanced trainers look "safe" but a pilot has to fly all three so in part the accident rate is cumulative. What cant be argued is the total, 13,621 fatalities in training is a huge number of deaths and 12,506 aircraft lost is around the production numbers of many popular individual types of WW2 aircraft.

 

[Schweik]

From Shores, the A-36s had a pretty high loss rate in combat (to all causes). But they were doing very dangerous work: tactical bombing over German held territory at low altitude. Most fighter bombers (including P-40, P-47) lost 5-10% when doing similar raids.

 

[pbehn]

Once you have a factory (or two) tooled up and cranking out several hundred planes a month it is hard to turn off the system. Often things like landing gear and air frame forgings are ordered months in advance.
It can take months or nearly a year from first production to the 500th example.
Switching production from a not so great plane to the latest and greatest can mean hundreds of planes not built in a given year.

This was the story of both the Spitfire and the Typhoon.
Before war was declared all Spitfires were MkIs despite all the many differences they had during and after construction. With the opening of the Castle Bromwich factory it could be put into "mass production" with the MkII. But the new fatory started producing as the BoB was reaching its height and only numbers mattered. The next generation of Spitfire should have been the Mk III but this was shelved in favour of more Mk Vs which were almost as good and used the many already manufactured fuselages. Then there should have been the Mk VII and VIII but these were made in small numbers because the MK IX was almost as good and could be made in bigger numbers because the fuselages were already there. It wasnt until the last months of the war that Supermarine could start to produce what they wanted instead of what was needed.

With the Typhoon after the tip and run scare was over some Typhoons were produced and put in storage then uprated in preparation for D-Day. There were many things that could have been done to make a better Typhoon but what was wanted was more of the same basic Typhoon.

 

[glennasher]

Holy Bejeebers, I'm gone for a month or so, and this thing ballooned up like a Zeppelin being chased by a beltfull of DeWilde ammo. I had my old computer die on me, and I took my time getting a new one. Looks like I've got a lot of catching up to do.

 

[Greg Boeser]

I'm not an expert on it but the stats are for USA training. I think the problem with the B-26 was the landing speed. Experienced pilots werent used to the high landing speed and accidents happened just because they came in too slow. So accidents were more likely abroad with operational units making a transition. There never was a problem with the plane itself, and its landing speed was the new normal in aviation anyway.

Only one operational unit transitioned to B-26s during the war. That was the 73rd Bomb Squadron in Alaska that traded in their old B-18s in early 1942. All others 22nd BG, 38th BG, 42nd BG trained on them prior to the war or were stood up as B-26 units from the get go. Exception being the 17th BG that was converted from B-25s to become one of the two B-26 training units in 1942, before handing that job off and going to North Africa later that year. 1942 was the worst year for B-26 accidents as thousands of newly graduated pilots were thrust into an unforgiving high performance twin with zero prior twin engine experience. The early short wing birds, B-26 and B-26A and early B-26Bs that formed the core of training units had the early R-2800-5 engines that were only rated to 1850 BHP at takeoff. They also had a lot of issues with prop failures and weak landing gear. In Alaska, based on the accident reports that I have seen (Tip to aviationarcheology.com for making these available at a reasonable price) most accidents were weather related, with landing accidents being the next biggest offender. Of the landing accidents, material failure was a major cause - burst tires, hydraulic failure or failure of landing gear to properly extend or lock. A couple crashes were due to too much speed, not enough runway. Only a couple were due to running out of altitude before reaching the runway.

 

[Ascent]

Only one operational unit transitioned to B-26s during the war. That was the 73rd Bomb Squadron in Alaska that traded in their old B-18s in early 1942. All others 22nd BG, 38th BG, 42nd BG trained on them prior to the war or were stood up as B-26 units from the get go. Exception being the 17th BG that was converted from B-25s to become one of the two B-26 training units in 1942, before handing that job off and going to North Africa later that year. 1942 was the worst year for B-26 accidents as thousands of newly graduated pilots were thrust into an unforgiving high performance twin with zero prior twin engine experience. The early short wing birds, B-26 and B-26A and early B-26Bs that formed the core of training units had the early R-2800-5 engines that were only rated to 1850 BHP at takeoff. They also had a lot of issues with prop failures and weak landing gear. In Alaska, based on the accident reports that I have seen (Tip to aviationarcheology.com for making these available at a reasonable price) most accidents were weather related, with landing accidents being the next biggest offender. Of the landing accidents, material failure was a major cause - burst tires, hydraulic failure or failure of landing gear to properly extend or lock. A couple crashes were due to too much speed, not enough runway. Only a couple were due to running out of altitude before reaching the runway.

When 14 Squadron RAF converted to B26's in 1942 from Blenheim's the only accident was one of the American instructors and that wasn't his fault.

Winged Crusaders extract

Attached is an article from the 14 Sqn association about their conversion to the type.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

That's my statistical contribution to this thread. I have all the surviving German Air Ministry (RLM) records digitised to text searchable pdf. I've simply run a few keyword searches and the chart above is the result.

The disclaimers are:
This does not cover the entire war
Some pages are too rough for the OCR to work
The dates covered are not balanced (ie there is very little during the battle of Britain, but a virtually complete record from late 42 to late 44. So that would obviously slightly bias the chart towards aircraft which were most active in the last three years of the war.

Obviously it is only pertinent to aircraft in engagement with Germany. There are others I could search for, but this was my first serious attempt.

 

[DarrenW]

252 Kokutai launched 23 Zeros to intercept the raid, claiming 14, but losing 16 pilots, a further six Zeros escorting seven G4M to reinforce the atoll were bounced by F6Fs. losing three, but the bombers turned back and escaped.

Source: Japanese Naval Fighter Aces, Hata, Izawa, Shores

F6F Hellcat vs A6M Zero-Sen (Young) mirrors similar statistics. It further adds that 48 Hellcats from VF-5, VF-9, VF-16, and VF-25 claimed 30 "Zekes" in the early morning attack on October 5th.

The book also mentions encounters between the A6M and F6Fs on both the 6th and 14th of September 1943, with Ensign James A. Warren of VF-33 becoming the first Hellcat pilot to claim a Zero-Sen in aerial combat on September 6th.

 

[Deleted member 79357]

The most over rated aircraft has to be the B-17.

Only place it was really used was in England, every other theatre it was surpassed by the B-24.

The B-17 was designed as a 4-engine medium bomber (they used 4-engines to get the speed required for the AAC competition).

If WWII was started one year earlier, the B-17C/D was the front line variation and would have been dropped faster then the TBD-1.

If WWII was started 1-year later, the B-17 would have been out of production (as obsolete) and Douglas and Vega would have been already building B-24's and Boeing gearing-up for the B-29.

The only place the B-17 is the hero is in the movies because England during WWII was the vacation spot for war correspondents and Bassingbourne was the country club of WWII airfields.

The next most over rated design has to be the Bf 109 - again, a cheap design, poor armament, poor handling, pretty much obsolete in 1943

 

[GrauGeist]

wow...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The most over rated aircraft has to be the B-17.

Only place it was really used was in England, every other theatre it was surpassed by the B-24.

It was used in the Pacific and in the MTO, 15 AF, do your homework

The B-17 was designed as a 4-engine medium bomber (they used 4-engines to get the speed required for the AAC competition).

Not true

If WWII was started one year earlier, the B-17C/D was the front line variation and would have been dropped faster then the TBD-1.

If the Queen had balls she'd be the King!

If WWII was started 1-year later, the B-17 would have been out of production (as obsolete) and Douglas and Vega would have been already building B-24's and Boeing gearing-up for the B-29.

Again, If the Queen had balls she'd be the King!

The only place the B-17 is the hero is in the movies because England during WWII was the vacation spot for war correspondents and Bassingbourne was the country club of WWII airfields.

Can I have a hit of what ever you're smoking?

The next most over rated design has to be the Bf 109 - again, a cheap design, poor armament, poor handling, pretty much obsolete in 1943

Delirium has now set in!

 

[GrauGeist]

Good thing the Bf109 was so poorly built and armed, the Allies would have had a rough go, otherwise...

 

[drgondog]

The most over rated aircraft has to be the B-17.

Only place it was really used was in England, every other theatre it was surpassed by the B-24.

The B-17 was designed as a 4-engine medium bomber (they used 4-engines to get the speed required for the AAC competition).

If WWII was started one year earlier, the B-17C/D was the front line variation and would have been dropped faster then the TBD-1.

If WWII was started 1-year later, the B-17 would have been out of production (as obsolete) and Douglas and Vega would have been already building B-24's and Boeing gearing-up for the B-29.

The only place the B-17 is the hero is in the movies because England during WWII was the vacation spot for war correspondents and Bassingbourne was the country club of WWII airfields.

The next most over rated design has to be the Bf 109 - again, a cheap design, poor armament, poor handling, pretty much obsolete in 1943

Are you a professional - or amateur - Troll? If professional, please register for limited access via Joe or Chris? If amateur, bless your heart.

 

[SaparotRob]

I was going to choose either the Lancaster or Me-262 because I'm bored. This is better.

 

[GrauGeist]

I was going to choose either the Lancaster or Me-262 because I'm bored. This is better.

My favorite bit, is this:

Only place it was really used was in England,

Just imagine if the B-17 had ventured to other places, like perhaps France, Belgium, Germany, Italy and so on.

Would have been interesting to see how things turned out...

 

[SaparotRob]

It would have been interesting, though, if B-17s had been at the Philippines or the New Guinea campaign or even flying reconnaissance from some island in the Pacific. Say mid way between some place and another.