FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
A "prove the P-38 was over rated thread."
MOST OVERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII
- Thread starter DAVIDICUS
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A "prove the P-38 was over rated thread."
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
In all honesty, I can toss out an opinion like "the Spitfire is grossly over rated" or the "P-51D is just a glory bird" but without any real stats to back it up, it's just an opinion.
The P-38 certainly has it's share of opinions, good and bad, but in this case, there's been a rich discussion offering both good and bad points to help put it's place in history into better perspective.
To be honest, I've enjoyed it
MrMojok
Airman
Did Rau maybe just have a batch of really undertrained pilots all at once?
The P-38 is intriguing to me, because it really seems like maybe the most maligned fighter of the war. And if you read pilot accounts, interviews, and memoirs for years, you become used to inconsistencies/contradtictions. But the sheer amount of them for the P-38 is baffling. You get some people saying its rate of roll was horrid, others say it's decent. Some say it wasn't a great turner, others say (perhaps later versions G or J??) with combat flaps it could turn with anything, and could hold right on the edge of a stall, etc. I suppose as with all fighters later models performed better and better, but it doesn't seem to quite account for the wild variations in the accounts.
Despite my avatar I'm not a fanboy, except of WW2 aircraft in general. Nor am I a hater. I'm well familiar with how things work on boards like these, where often you have people with agendas and want to defend a plane, or all of a nation's planes, or tear down a particular plane. But I'm not into that. Sorry for the P-38 derail.
The P-38 is intriguing to me, because it really seems like maybe the most maligned fighter of the war. And if you read pilot accounts, interviews, and memoirs for years, you become used to inconsistencies/contradtictions. But the sheer amount of them for the P-38 is baffling. You get some people saying its rate of roll was horrid, others say it's decent. Some say it wasn't a great turner, others say (perhaps later versions G or J??) with combat flaps it could turn with anything, and could hold right on the edge of a stall, etc. I suppose as with all fighters later models performed better and better, but it doesn't seem to quite account for the wild variations in the accounts.
Despite my avatar I'm not a fanboy, except of WW2 aircraft in general. Nor am I a hater. I'm well familiar with how things work on boards like these, where often you have people with agendas and want to defend a plane, or all of a nation's planes, or tear down a particular plane. But I'm not into that. Sorry for the P-38 derail.
MrMojok
Airman
One last note-- I was at the "Gathering of Mustangs and Legends" in Columbus, OH in 2007, and there was a P-38 there. First time I've ever seen one fly, and the thing that's always stuck out in my mind about it was how eerily quiet it was!
You would hear this kind of high-pitched... I don't know if I would call it a whine, or a hiss, from a distance. As it got closer you could hear the engines, but the engines were SO quiet compared to every other fighter that was flying. Made me think it would have been real good at sneaking up on troops/vehicles...
I have a video of this somewhere at home, if I recall a P-47 flies by followed by the Lightning, and the sound difference between the two, and between it and the Mustangs, was amazing.
You would hear this kind of high-pitched... I don't know if I would call it a whine, or a hiss, from a distance. As it got closer you could hear the engines, but the engines were SO quiet compared to every other fighter that was flying. Made me think it would have been real good at sneaking up on troops/vehicles...
I have a video of this somewhere at home, if I recall a P-47 flies by followed by the Lightning, and the sound difference between the two, and between it and the Mustangs, was amazing.
I never could figure out why it was so quiet either...
Gixxerman
Senior Airman
Would that not be a by-product of the turbo-supercharging?
Rather than vent exhaust gasses directly to the atmosphere through some kind of short manifold (as with non-turbo engined aircraft) they are piped to spin the turbo-charger & then exhausted out, I'd expect a notable silencing effect.
The same ought to be true of the P47, how does it compare, in the air, to an F4 (ie turbo R 2800 verses supercharged R2800)?
Last edited:
soulezoo
Senior Airman
This is correct. The noise attenuation has to do with the exhaust being routed to turbines rather than hot, rapidly expanding gases that include an amount of unburned fuel directly into the atmosphere.
MrMojok
Airman
That makes sense, thank you.
Token
Senior Airman
I have seen this on a few forums over the years, folks badmouthing the P-38, and I have never really understood why.
Each major aircraft had its strong and weak points. If the P-38 had been given the upgrade priority that the P-51 received the P-38 may have been a much better aircraft. The smarter decision was to put that level of effort and material into the P-51, the aircraft being less complex and cheaper to build with arguably more performance overhead easier to achieve. Upgrades, of course, occurred with the P-38 also, but less focused and less pressing.
Regardless, the P-38 was not a bad aircraft, no matter what some people today may think. Just on the surface, the P-38 produced the top two American aces of the period (and 3 of the top 10 overall US aces). In order to find the top P-51 ace you have to first go past the top P-38, P-47, F4F, F6F and F4U ace, with the P-51 coming in 9th of the top 10.
Yes, I understand different tasking. Yes, I understand different target environments. But for such a 'bad' aircraft the P-38 did pretty well.
T!
Last edited:
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
I can't agree with the A6M as being overrated. If you consider raw performance statistics against later aircraft, it does come out looking pretty mediocre. But at the time and place it was introduced it was a literally a terrifying development. No aircraft in WW 2 was so dominant over its competition during the the first year after its introduction. Sure, beginning in late 1942, it became progressively less dominant and began showing signs of its eventual eclipse even when pitted against early, prewar models such as the F4F and the P-40, as the mystery surrounding its performance evaporated. But during that first year, it's ability to inspire terror among its opponents is, I believe, unequaled in air combat.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Undertrained in flying twin engine aircraft and I would even guess himself included.
VALENGO
Senior Airman
Bf 110 was an escort fighter... that needed fighter escort!.
It was used as an escort fighter, not designed as one. The 'zerstorer' concept envisaged a role clearing the way for bombers that was not really the same as the bomber escort role that developed, though the two do share some similarities. It wasn't just the Germans who underestimated the effects of the quantum leap in single engine fighter performance and armament in the immediate pre-war period.
The Bf 110 was also an excellent fighter bomber, ground attack aircraft and night fighter. The attacks of Erprobungskommando 210 during the BoB period include some of the most successful operations of the Luftwaffe during that period.
It was planned to replace it, but the Me 210/410 debacle delayed those plans. The Bf 110 was still in service and production at the end of the war. All in all it was one of the most successful aircraft of the period and it's a good job the Germans had it in 1939...and 1945.
Cheers
Steve
VALENGO
Senior Airman
Well, one way of overrating a machine is to try to use it for a purpose other than that for which it was conceived.
It was exactly the case with Bf 110 in BoB. Germans believed that their machine had the ability to withstand single engine fighters when it didn´t. It fits one definition of overrating.
Well, one way of overrating a machine is to try to use it for a purpose other than that for which it was conceived.
It was exactly the case with Bf 110 in BoB. Germans believed that their machine had the ability to withstand single engine fighters when it didn´t. It fits one definition of overrating.
Yes. The British and the Germans thought their bombers could operate in daylight, so in that sense all their bombers were over rated too
The Bf 110 gets under rated as an aircraft because of its difficulties against Fighter Command in 1940. It couldn't really compete with the single engine fighters of the RAF, though it shot plenty of them down. It showed itself in various roles and many different theatres to be a good aircraft.
Cheers
Steve
VALENGO
Senior Airman
I agree, steve. Indeed, I can´t imagine, in middle of a brutal war, some leader with an attitud like "well, our aircraft is a more or less decent machine, acceptable performance, etc.".Yes. The British and the Germans thought their bombers could operate in daylight, so in that sense all their bombers were over rated too
The Bf 110 gets under rated as an aircraft because of its difficulties against Fighter Command in 1940. It couldn't really compete with the single engine fighters of the RAF, though it shot plenty of them down. It showed itself in various roles and many different theatres to be a good aircraft.
Cheers
Steve
Cheers.
Shortround6
Major General
There was a lot of fuzzy thinking going on in the 1930s about what types of aircraft were needed. And what kind/s of tactics to use. The 110 was able to fulfill it's intended role in Poland and to some extent in France. The French counterparts didn't do so well. The Japanese Ki-45 also failed a a long range escort. What complicates things is that when these aircraft were conceived single engine aircraft could NOT do the job/s envisioned. However the progress in engines/fuel/aerodynamics and structure was so fast that some of them only had a small window of opportunity to operate in their intended roles/s as single engine aircraft improved. Some had no opportunity depending on development time.
Some of the resulting aircraft were adaptable to other roles and some were not.
The 110s may not have been able to fulfill their intended role over Britain but that may be because of the different conditions. Instead of being able to catch the defenders on the Ground or climbing at low altitude and speed the Radar gave better advanced warning. Bomber crews could not see advanced fighter sweeps and could only see British fighters attacking them and no or few German fighters in sight leading the the claims that the 110s were not helping them.
Throw in a few bombastic claims by certain leaders and/or newsreel footage/propaganda and some planes got a rather overblown reputation among the public that they may not have had in the units that used them or in the headquarters that planned operations.
Plenty of planes were over rated by their users in the first year of the war, some air forces just learned quicker than others.
Some of the resulting aircraft were adaptable to other roles and some were not.
The 110s may not have been able to fulfill their intended role over Britain but that may be because of the different conditions. Instead of being able to catch the defenders on the Ground or climbing at low altitude and speed the Radar gave better advanced warning. Bomber crews could not see advanced fighter sweeps and could only see British fighters attacking them and no or few German fighters in sight leading the the claims that the 110s were not helping them.
Throw in a few bombastic claims by certain leaders and/or newsreel footage/propaganda and some planes got a rather overblown reputation among the public that they may not have had in the units that used them or in the headquarters that planned operations.
Plenty of planes were over rated by their users in the first year of the war, some air forces just learned quicker than others.
Shortround6
Major General
Trouble is, in a brutal war, what do you have as an alternative?
What factories are tooled up and building the superior machine with outstanding performance so you can stop building the "decent machine".
In most air forces that survived 1940/41 the light bomber class disappeared (Russia and Japan excepted?), replaced by older types of fighters. One reason the P-40 was kept in production so long.
Radar equipped night fighters tended to be small bombers due to the space needed for equipment despite the low performance.
The Germans had the 110 in production in several factories and even if not a good daylight fighter it made a good light bomber/strike aircraft. It's large cockpit had room for electronics for night fighting and it had better performance than the converted bombers. The better aircraft were one to three years away and several fell on their faces when tried out needing extensive modifications before being acceptable for service use.
For some of these "secondary" roles being easy to fly was as important as the last 10-20mph in top speed (night landings and take-off, take-offs with heavy bombs from crappy runways,etc).
Precisely what I was alluding to with my reference to the "quantum leap in single engine fighter performance and armament in the immediate pre-war period."
Two major tenets of British fighter design policy fell foul of this. The first was no allowance shooting which was dependent on an unmolested attack on a formation which did not break up or manoeuvre. The second was the entire turret fighter concept, which was based on a similar idea. In the same way many of the Fighting Area tactics developed between the wars also proved more or less useless.
The Bf 110 still did sterling service daytime in almost all theatres apart from NW Europe and even there it was a successful night fighter.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
For the most overrated my vote goes to the A6M Zero, the bushido infalible lighter, for the most underrated and somewhat ridiculized...the Messerschmitt 110 heavy fighter.
