Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[Glider]

Bingo! Saying that you're going to put a bigger engine on a naval fighter or configure a land based aircraft as a carrier bird involves a lot of work. The seemingly most minor modifications will turn into major issues when applied to what was described above....

I am sure that you are aware of rule of thumb, but others may not be.

The basic rule of thumb is that if you add a pound of weight to the aircraft and everything else e.g range payload remains the same, you add 10 pounds to the take off weight as everything needs to be strengthend enlarged etc.

 

[Magno]

For the role it had in the Battle of Britain: Supermarine Spitfire

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I am sure that you are aware of rule of thumb, but others may not be.

The basic rule of thumb is that if you add a pound of weight to the aircraft and everything else e.g range payload remains the same, you add 10 pounds to the take off weight as everything needs to be strengthend enlarged etc.

Sounds right - unfortunately when modifying some of the primary structure the CG will more than likely change as well, affecting other components as well...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Dead on.

The whole land to naval/carrier ops conversion of airframes is also complicated by the carrier landing G requirement. As I recall, the Navy Std for max design load on airframe load bearing structure (gear, main spars if main gear out on wing instead of fuse, etc) for carrier landing was multiples of land based design (I never was involved in USN design) - always a significant weight increase.. that's why the Navy version of F-111 was such a failure, performance wise, from spec.

That doesn't have anything to do with Zero, but putting a bigger engine usually means much more torque - stiffer load carrying structure back to airframe, stronger bulkhead and stiffeners to distribute the new laods, Bigger rudder, stronger rudder attach, maybe longer fuse to get the cg back and the list goes on, and on...

Regards,

Bill

Exactly. Every change you make effects the aircraft in some way. Just like I said, it is not a car!

 

[renrich]

You are so right Adler, and even cars if you read road tests particularly small ones are effected by seemingly small weight additions.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I have heard this before. Two aircraft of the same mark, can behave completely differant from each other. So, don't think all Bf 109's behave the same way as the one you flew in WWII.

Still, how differant can two Merlin engines be from each other? Can even a small chip on an airplane change it's performance drastically?

 

[Glider]

I have heard this before. Two aircraft of the same mark, can behave completely differant from each other. So, don't think all Bf 109's behave the same way as the one you flew in WWII.

Still, how differant can two Merlin engines be from each other? Can even a small chip on an airplane change it's performance drastically?

Very small production differences in the way the jigs were set up or how recently the machines tools were reset, blades replaced ect can make a huge difference in the final outcome.

You can prove this to yourself when testdriving cars. Its possible to testdrive three or four different cars of exactly the same type and find a difference in how they feel and perform.

 

[Soren]

Take a look at how low the weight of the Zero is compard ot other Allied a/c, even it its final version with armor, self sealing fuel tanks etc etc.. It would take a huge increase in weight for the Zero to reach the same wing-loadings as the Allied fighters.

The Zero's biggest problem was its limited dive speed, and to heighten this the contruction of the a/c had to be redesigned - now this would cause a weight increase! The difficulties would be greater than designing an entirely new fighter.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No Soren just a little bit of weight will effect the Zeros performance. Please go and read up on Weights and Balances and about aircraft construnction.

It does not matter how much it takes to get to a comparable point to other aircraft. You can not make a comparison of it.

Wing loading really has nothing to do with it. You add weight at point "A" you are going to effect the performance and handling of the aircraft.

Trust me Soren I know what I am talking about here. I did plenty of mods to aircraft which effected weight and balance of the aircraft which in turn effects performance and handling.

 

[dobravery]

What's the point of using the Zero as an example. Japan suffered because it had trouble producing high performance engines on a mass scale. Why even argue the point of giving the Zero more power?

I understand people are tired of hearing how great the P-51 was, but in reality atleast the P-51 had performances (range/speed) that really set it apart. IMO for USA, overrated goes more to --P-38, P-47, F4U, F6F-- aside from the carrier aspect, these planes are rather redundant (and I love'em?).

 

[Soren]

No Soren just a little bit of weight will effect the Zeros performance. Please go and read up on Weights and Balances and about aircraft construnction.

It does not matter how much it takes to get to a comparable point to other aircraft. You can not make a comparison of it.

Wing loading really has nothing to do with it. You add weight at point "A" you are going to effect the performance and handling of the aircraft.

Trust me Soren I know what I am talking about here. I did plenty of mods to aircraft which effected weight and balance of the aircraft which in turn effects performance and handling.

Adler don't put words into my mouth, I never claimed it didn't have any effect on handling or performance, ofcourse it did, but the Zero was already way more maneuverable than any Allied fighter - the heigher weight of a bigger engine wouldn't negatively affect the Zero's handling to such a degree as to make it inferior to its Allied counterparts.

Lets not forget how much both the Bf-109 and Spitfire were modified throughout the war.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Bottom line folks, a more powerful engine and minor airframe modifications weren't going to fix the Zero's problems. By late 1942 the only thing that was going to make the Zero competitive would of been about 2000 Saburo Sakai clones flying them....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Adler don't put words into my mouth, I never claimed it didn't have any effect on handling or performance

Ummm lets see you did say this:

Soren said:

Agreed, but the Zero was already so light that the little extra weight gained from this would mean nothing.

Oh and dont get all angry here, it is just a debate. You have a habit of going on the offensive like that when someone does not agree with you.

but the Zero was already way more maneuverable than any Allied fighter - the heigher weight of a bigger engine wouldn't negatively affect the Zero's handling to such a degree as to make it inferior to its Allied counterparts.

The Zeros superior handling was only at lower speeds. You put a heavier engine in it, more armour, modifications as you are suggesting it would have gotten heavier, slower and less maneuverable.

Lets not forget how much both the Bf-109 and Spitfire were modified throughout the war.

And both were effected by the added weight...

 

[drgondog]

Ummm lets see you did say this:

Soren said:

Agreed, but the Zero was already so light that the little extra weight gained from this would mean nothing.

Oh and dont get all angry here, it is just a debate. You have a habit of going on the offensive like that when someone does not agree with you.



The Zeros superior handling was only at lower speeds. You put a heavier engine in it, more armour, modifications as you are suggesting it would have gotten heavier, slower and less maneuverable.



And both were effected by the added weight...

I wonder how many major airframes other than the P-51 had a follow on design which REDUCED the weight in concert with bigger engine. The 51H comes to mind, what about the 109K series?

Carving 900 pounds out of the 51H made a noticable difference in its performance relative to the D - as it should

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I wonder how many major airframes other than the P-51 had a follow on design which REDUCED the weight in concert with bigger engine. The 51H comes to mind, what about the 109K series?

Carving 900 pounds out of the 51H made a noticable difference in its performance relative to the D - as it should

Yeah but the Zero was not going to get lighter...

 

[drgondog]

Yeah but the Zero was not going to get lighter...

I don't think I had that ship in mind - lol

 

[renrich]

Adler, your point about added weight is well made. The lighter the a/c the more impact some added weight is going to have. Just purely from a proportional point of view, 200 added lbs is going to affect a Zeke a lot more than 200lbs added say to a P47.

 

[Soren]

I never claimed that any extra wait wouldn't have ay effect on the Zero's handling or performance Adler, I just said that what'ever effect it had would mean nothing considering the already huge advantage in agility the a/c enjoyed. The full metal elevators would also help greatly reduce the huge control forces at high speeds.

And I am not going on the offensive here Adler, I just want to make clear what I didn't say.

Drgondog,

As to your question regarding wether any German a/c lost weight, well there's the FW-190 for example. The Dora-9 weighes less than the A-8 and -9. Considering the extra size and fuel capacity the Ta-152 is also very light. The Russian La-7 also weighed less than its predecessor the La-5.

As for the P-51H being lighter than its predecessor, well as you can see there's nothing unusual about that.

 

[Captn javy Wilson]

me 262 was way over rated but the p-51 deserves it if it can take down jets

 

[Parmigiano]

Considering the tactical and strategical scenario (inferiority 1:10 at best, lack of fuel, no more radar warning service etc.) and that her best estimated kill ratio was in the range of 2.5:1 (over 700 claimed kills, about 350-400 probably real vs 150 losses including those during landing approach) it looks that the 262 in general is way UNDER rated...

(comment from somebody -me- who used to think the 262 was overrated before analyzing numbers and historical scenario...)