MOST OVERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII

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

The thing with the Zero was that it was a good airplane, in fact it was very good at number of things.
It just wasn't quite as good as it's opponents believed it to be. Or perhaps not as good as they pretended it to be to cover some of their own mistakes. Like the British and Americans depending on 2nd (or even 3rd) rate aircraft for defense in the Pacific in 1941/early 42.
The Zero (and Ki 43) being better than expected caught the British and Americans off guard. With veteran pilots flying them (and veteran bomber crews) the Japanese inflicted disproportionate losses on the allies almost wherever they showed up.
This doesn't mean the Japanese planes were invulnerable or couldn't be shot down. It means their loses (of planes anyway) were acceptable given the results. Elimination of existing forces in the areas the Japanese were interested in.
The Allies countered with better planes, however in some cases these were still not the best that could be built/provided. British didn't send Spitfires for quite some time. Americans used P-39s and P-40s because that was what was in production to help cover things (hold the line) while the planes the Army really wanted were being worked on (P-38s and P-47 had been ordered in 1940).
US planners also bumbled things by installing too much armament for the airframe/engine in the P-39/P-40 as opposed to the Japanese Army that installed too little in the Ki 43.
The Zero failed to keep up, though not from lack of trying. Unfortunately adding guns, ammo and decent protection without increasing power put them in the same situation as the P-39s/P-40s. A late model Zero had the firepower of a P-40 or F6F/F4U, just not as much ammo as the last two. But trying to carry that amount of guns on 11-1200hp killed some of the performance.

I would note that a great many planes were fitted with more powerful engines than they were designed for and worked pretty well.
P-36 first flew with an experimental 900hp engine that never entered production. It ended as the P-40 with Allisons of 1400-1500hp in WER. Spitfire went to the Griffon engine. A number of Italian fighters went from 840/870hp engines to 1100hp engines and one went to 1475hp ( the other two used new airframes). The Japanese swapped engines on the Ki 61 to make the Ki 100.
 
Even against inferior equipment?

Agree to a point but some of those numbers need to be broken out by Squadrons and Groups and I'm pretty certain you'll find some of them were at least (I believe the 80th FG was one) 1: 1.5 until equipped with the P-38.

Mute point then

Because a fighter thats design is 6 years old cannot keep running forever against a newer and newer opponents makes it over rated ?
Because the Japanese did not design or pursue growth into the design, it couldn't keep up with newer opponents (you even covered that in your earlier post). There were also interchangeability, maintenance and operational issues with the aircraft as well.
Well, I'm sorry but what does it make of F6F ?
Fighter that entered service in late 1943 and by mid 1945 was already obsolete and being replaced by F8F ?
Actually the F6F was in use well after the war in reserve and training squadrons.
In 1930s-1940s technology was quickly becoming old, with the amount of development and new discoveries the progress was tremendous.
Agree
 
Last edited:
Even against inferior equipment?
Maybe its my lack of English understanding, as it is not my native language, but could you please what exactly you mean by this question ?

Agree to a point but some of those numbers need to be broken out by Squadrons and Groups and I'm pretty certain you'll find some of them were at least (I believe the 80th FG was one) 1: 1.5 until equipped with the P-38.
As you wish. I can break down the losses of the 17 P-40s and 38 P-39s/P-400s, though this is pretty tough work. Hope it will be appreciated.
In some cases I could not find details, so you have to forgive me.

April 6th, 1942 :
- Kittyhawk A29-9 - Flt Lt Les Jackson - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron
- Kittyhawk A29-32 - P/O Edmund Johnson - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron

April 9th, 1942 :
- Kittyhawk A29-24 - Sqd-Ldr John Jackson - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron

April 11th, 1942 :
- Kittyhawk A29-38 - Sgt Don Brown - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron
- A6M2 V-109 - Flyer1c Tanji Jufuku - Tainan Ku (shot down by RAAF pilot)

April 17th, 1942 :
- Kittyhawk A29-7 - Sqd-Ldr Barney Cesswell - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron
- A6M2 V-122 - FPO2c Sakai Yoshimi - Tainan Ku (shot down by RAAF Kittyhawks)

April 18th, 1942 :
- Kittyhawk A29-47 - Flt A.H Boyd - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron

April 24th, 1942 :
- Kittyhawk A29-43 - Oswald Channon - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron
- Kittyhawk A29-29 - F/Sgt Michael Butler - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron
- Kittyhawk A29-76 - Bob Crawford - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron

April 28th, 1942:
- Kittyhawk A29-8 - Sqd-Ldr John Jackson -RAAF No. 75 Sqadron
- A6M2 V-110 - FPO3c Maeda Yoshimitsu - Tainan Ku

April 30th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7128 - 1/Lt Edward Durand - 8th FG
- A6M2 - FPO2c Izumi Hideo - Tainan Ku (shot down by 8th FG)

May 2nd, 1942 :
- Kittyhawk A29-48 - Sgt D.W Munro - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron

May 1st, 1942 :
- A6M2 V-112 - FPO2c Arita Yashisuke - Tainan Ku (shot down by 8th FG)

May 2nd, 1942 :
- A6M2 V-104 - Flyer 1c Kawanishi Haruo - Tainan Ku (shot down by 8th FG)

May 3rd, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39D #41-6909 - 2/Lt Joseph Lovett - 8th FG
- Airacobra P-39D #41-6956 - 2/Lt Charles Schwimmer - 8th FG

May 4th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39D #41-6971 - 2/Lt Patrick Armstrong / 2/Lt Jefford Hooker / 2/Lt Victor Talbot - 35th FS (3 Aircobras went missing and there was a single claim that day made by WO Handa Watari, which would indicate that at least one of those 3 pilots was his victim)

May 8th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7188 - 2/Lt Guy Alva Hawkins - 36th FS of 8th FG

May 12th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39D #41-6802 - 2/Lt Robert Wilde - 36th FS of 8th FG

May 13th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39D #41-6945 - 1/Lt Hervey Carpenter -
- A6M2 V-104 - FPO3c Honda Toshiaki - Tainan Ku (shot down by 8th FG)

May 17th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7122 - Lt Jessie Bland - (8th FG ?)

May 18th, 1942 :
- Airacobra (Serial no. unknown) - 2/Lt William Plain (40th FS)

May 26th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7221 - 2/Lt Arthur Schulz (35th FS of 8th FG)

May 27th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7153 - 2/Lt Alva Hawkins (36th FS of 8th FG)
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7162 - Capt. T.W Hornsby (36th FS of 8th FG)

May 28th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39D #41-6970 - Lt Ward (36th FS of 8th FG)
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7190 - Capt. Wyatt Exum (36th FS of 8th FG)
- Airacobra (Serial no. unknown) - 2/Lt Art Andres (36th FS of 8th FG)

May 29th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7116 - 2/Lt Grover Gholson (36th FS of 8th FG)
- A6M2 - FPO2c Komori Hisao - Tainan Ku (damaged by 8th FG and force landed)

June 1st, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39D #41-6942 - 2/Lt Thomas Rooney (36th FS of 8th FG)
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7200 - 2/Lt William Hosford (35th FS of 8th FG)
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7194 - 2/Lt Gerry Plunkett (35th FS of 8th FG)
- A6M2 V-114 - WO Miyazaki Gitaro - Tainan Ku (shot down by 8th FG)

June 9th, 1942 :
- A6M2 V-117 - WO Yoshino Satoshi - Tainan Ku (shot down by 39th FS)

June 16th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7204 - 2/Lt Harvey Rehrer (39th FS)
- Airacobra P-400 British no. AP 348 - 1/Lt Thomas Lynch (?)
- Airacobra P-39F #41-6941 - 2/Lt Paul Magre (40th FS)
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7136 - 2/Lt Stanley Rice (40th FS)
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7222 - 1/Lt William Hutcheson (40th FS)
- A6M2 - Flyer 1c Hidaka Takeichiro - Tainan Ku (shot down by 39th FS pilot)

June 18th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-400 British no. BX 169 - 1/Lt Carl Rauch (39th FS)
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7140 - 1/Lt George Bartlett (39th FS)
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7222 - 1/Lt Donald Greene (39th FS)

June 26th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7137 - 1/Lt William Stauter (?)

July 4th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7148 - 2/Lt James Foster (39th FS)
- Airacobra P-400 British no. AP 378 - 2/Lt Frank Angier (39th FS)
- Airacobra P-39F #41-714x - 2/Lt Wilmott Marlott (39th FS)

July 6th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-400 British no. unknown - 2/Lt Howard Welker (40th FS)

July 11th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-400 British no. unknown - 2/Lt Orvile Kirtland (40th FS)

July 25th, 1942 :
- Airacobra Serial no. unknown - 2/Lt Frank Beeson (?)
- Airacobra P-400 BW 117 - 2/Lt David Hoyer (?)

August 2nd, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-400 British no. AP 290 - 1/Lt Jess Dore (41st FS)
- Airacobra P-400 British no. AP 232 - 1/Lt Jesse Hague (41st FS)

August 11th, 1942 :
- RAAF Kittyhawk A29-123 - F/O Mark Sheldon (RAAF No. 75 Sqadron)
- RAAF Kittyhawk A29-93 - F/O Albert McLeod (RAAF No. 75 Sqadron)
- RAAF Kittyhawk A29-100 - W/O Francis Shelley (RAAF No. 75 Sqadron)
- RAAF Kittyhawk A29-84 - F/Sgt George Inkster (RAAF No. 75 Sqadron)

August 26th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-400 British no. BW 112 - 2/Lt Gerald Rogers (80th FS)
- A6M2 - FPO3c Nakano Kiyoshi - Tainan Ku (shot down by 80th FS)

August 27th, 1942 :
- RAAF Kittyhawk A29-108 - P/O Stuart Munro (RAAF No. 75 Sqadron)
- A6M2 - FPO1c Yamashita Sadao - Tainan Ku (shot down by RAAF No. 75 Sqadron)
- A6M2 - Flyer1c Ninomiya Kihachi - Tainan Ku (shot down by RAAF No. 75 Sqadron)
- A6M2 - FPO3c Matsuda Takeo - Tainan Ku

November 1st, 1942 :
- P-40 E-1 #41-36173 - 2/Lt Glenn Wohlford
- A6M2 - FPO1c Kaneko Toshio - 251st Ku (shot down by 8th Fighter Squadron P-40)

80th Fighter Squadron (if thats what you mean) arrived on July 20th, and by the time it started serious flying it was August. Tainan Ku from August 7th was mostly occupied with Guadalcanal operations as well as many other Navy units in the area. Thus it is possible that 80th FS could achieve some success at that time (though I couldnt find any details), given only small detachment of Zeros was kept at Buna at that time. And not so long after, Navy would request Army support in New Guinea.

Well, considering the amount of requirements to satisfy Horikoshi did as much as he could, to envision the need of a Zero to tackle with P-38 and F4U is a bit too much to ask. Still, Horikoshi admitted that he did not design A6M specifically to fight in the Pacific War, if he knew of the Navy plans and possible changes then he would approach the topic differently.
But Zero was based on experiences gathered in China.

Afaik, I was always tempted to ask the question, how well would American constructors do given the specification issued by the Japanese Navy. How much "better" could Grumman or Vought do.

Actually the F6F was in use well after the war in reserve and training squadrons.
Reserve and training squadrons ...
 
Maybe its my lack of English understanding, as it is not my native language, but could you please what exactly you mean by this question ?
Even though they were flying distances and were not newcomers (as you say) they were still flying against aircraft that they technically outclassed and many times came away inflicting higher losses then they received but still did not achieve victory - my point.

As you wish. I can break down the losses of the 17 P-40s and 38 P-39s/P-400s, though this is pretty tough work. Hope it will be appreciated.
In some cases I could not find details, so you have to forgive me.
No apologies necessary and do appreciate the work - we could all learn from this.

That's what I was looking at with regards to some of the more successful P-39 operations, again thanks you for this list, I'll go though it when I have more time, I'm at break at work.


And that's all true - remember the p-38 was never intended to be placed in full scale production, let alone fight a war in Europe at altitude.
Afaik, I was always tempted to ask the question, how well would American constructors do given the specification issued by the Japanese Navy. How much "better" could Grumman or Vought do.
Hard to say - but considering that both F6F and F4U were being designed before WW2 says a lot of the forward thinking of their designers. One thing American manufacturers would have never considered was the lack of pilot survivability (minimal armor protection).

Reserve and training squadrons ...
And in the US military they remained operationally prepared to be activated until the 1950s. It was determined that there was a viable use for these aircraft and they had the maintenance and logistic support. There were plenty combat US aircraft from WW2 that served an effective role well after WW2.
 
A few points if I may.

The Zero was bit earlier in timing to the F4U. but the F4U was started in June of 1938 in reply to a Navy request for a single engine fighter (there was also a request for a twin engine fighter) with the "maximum obtainable speed, and a stalling speed not higher than 70 miles per hour (110 km/h). A range of 1,000 miles (1,600 km) was specified.[11] The fighter had to carry four guns, or three with increased ammunition. Provision had to be made for anti-aircraft bombs to be carried in the wing." from wiki.
The Prototype F4U first flew 29 May 1940.
First Zero prototype flew 1st of April 1939 but that was with the Mitsubishi Zuisei engine. first prototype with a Sakae engine flew in Jan of 1940.
Development of the F4U was held up by changing requirements and acceptance tests that date from biplanes, like a full speed dive of 10,000ft which with monoplanes either started so high that compressability problems started or if started lower, didn't allow enough room for pull out.
The F6F was somewhat later in timing. The mock up being inspected in Jan 1941, modifications were requested and two prototype aircraft were ordered 30 June 1941, the same date Vought got a contract for 584 production aircraft.
The F4U was started before WW II started (unless you consider China as the start) but the F6F was started before the Japanese attacked but well after the Germans started the war in Europe.
F4U was started before protection was required. It was added after the first prototype flew in addition to changing the armament and about 798 other changes
The F6F was started after protection had become a requirement (argument can be made on this as Grumman had worked on designs 33 and 33A as follow ons to the WIldcat and then worked on design 50 after a two year lapse. and the XF6F-1 was about 2 feet longer, had 1ft 4 in more wing span and 44 sq ft more wing area than design 50 so trying to figure out what requirements were added when is rather difficult)

Some WW II aircraft lasted for years in the jet age in US Air Force or Navy service, others were gotten rid of with almost indecent haste (Martin B-26 for one) . and few were never even offered as surplus with a valid airworthiness certificate (AT-9 trainer). While not fool proof how fast a particular aircraft was gotten rid of is some measure of the regard they were held in.
 
Hard to say - but considering that both F6F and F4U were being designed before WW2 says a lot of the forward thinking of their designers.
That true, there was a lot of vision put into those aircraft but one must remember that both went through horrendous amount of modifications before they reached the front service. In particular F6F got a new engine, since Wright R-2600 was deemed not enough and R-2800 was placed to power Hellcat.
F4U was also largely modified from its original design, to adjust it for the needs.

One must remember that both Vought and Grumman had more room to make changes and adjust aircraft to the needs, given their aircraft would be powered by 2000 HP engine.

At the same Mitsubishi wanted a fighter powered by 870 HP Zuisei (later swapped for 950 HP Sakae 12, a comparison to R-2600 and R-2800 comes to the mind a bit ), able to reach more than 500 km/h top speed, reach 3000 meters in less than 3.5 minutes. Have a flight endurance of 6 to 8 hours on economic cruising speed, take off distance of less than 70 meters with a head wing of 12 m/s and importantly no worse dogfight performance than Type 96 fighter - A5M. The wingspan was specified to be as 12 m, armament was specified as well.
This basically called for an interceptor that can dogfight as well as escort and protect bombers. Machine that can fly fast and climb fast, but with a great wing and rather weak 870 HP engine.

In my opinion it required a lot of mind stretching to satisfy all of this at once.

One thing American manufacturers would have never considered was the lack of pilot survivability (minimal armor protection).
As Shortround6 said, its not exactly correct. Before the war no country except for Soviet Union provided any kind of protection to its warbirds. First to catch up were British and Germans, while Americans decided to focus in 1940-1941 period on designing and testing best possible protective features, which resulted in all rubber fuel cells.
I think I've already addressed that in the other thread :
Top 3 mistakes per country, in field of military aviation
 
Once the F6F received the R-2800, there was little modification from the original design, and if I remember correctly, it had the least amounts of design changes of all US fighters. I think the only noticeable design change was the installation of a window behind the pilot's head on later versions.
One must remember that both Vought and Grumman had more room to make changes and adjust aircraft to the needs, given their aircraft would be powered by 2000 HP engine.
And that's the case of those powerplants becoming available in a mass production basis.
Availability?
In my opinion it required a lot of mind stretching to satisfy all of this at once.
That's the ongoing situation when designing combat aircraft - then and now.

Aside from just bolting armor plating into fighter aircraft, self sealing tanks and 'wet wing' technology that was "mass production friendly" just being introduced when WW2 was beginning. No one in the 1930s (at least in the US) envisioned the way aerial combat would have taken place during WW2 and that's why you have US combat aircraft produced with little or no pilot protection. Once it was discovered the amount of combat damage a fighter could be exposed to, this was reversed and made a priority. Self sealing tanks were first introduced during WW1 and were sometimes not considered because a self sealing fuel tank carries less fuel than a conventional fuel cell or for that matter, an entire wet wing. I think I read somewhere that Martin was the only company that featured self sealing fuel tanks in their aircraft prior to WW2.
 
The Book "Aircraft Power Plants" by Arthur P. Frass copyright 1943 has a short section on self sealing tanks and states, as Flyboyj did that self sealing tanks date from WW I. They went out of favor during peacetime due to weight and being cumbersome.

A rough comparison is that integral tanks weigh about 1/4 pound per gallon.
Sheet aluminium tanks weigh 3/4lb per gallon decreasing to 3/8lb per gallon for large tanks (100 gallons and over).
Bullet proof tanks can weigh between 0.7 to 1.5 lb per gallon.

Tank weight is pretty much dependent on the surface area of the tank/s and the more volume per unit of surface area you have the lower the pounds per gallon of tank weight. Large flat tanks and/or multiple small tanks having a higher weight penalty than the same volume of fuel in single (or few) squarish tanks.
 
I thought the original patent was applied for by George Murdock. The Glenn Martin Company used this system but either bought the patent or payed a royalty to Murdock.
Cheers
Steve
 
The P-40 and P-39 were better off than the F4F given their lower drag and superior speed, dive acceleration and speed retention using dive and zoom tactics.

With proper energy tactics against early-war Japanese fighters, and proper exploitation of the superior roll rate and high-speed maneuverability, the P-40 and P-39 should have been all-around superior fighters. However, if the fight went down low (and the American fighter didn't break off and run when they still had speed), there'd obviously be trouble. (though the Flying Tigers style head-on approach still applied at low altitude, that wasn't so useful if you've already started maneuvering ... which, granted, wouldn't really fit into the AVG's tactics anyway) Even the F2A was better off using those tactics, particularly as its weight went up, but even aside from that it had the common advantage of superior high-speed control and maneuverability. (even if it didn't handle high-G terminal dive pull-out stresses as well as some other American Fighters -incidents like ailerons tearing off during 400+ MPH pull-outs during dive bombing practice in Hawaii pre-war ... though that case may have been more related to balooning aileron skin than just structural limitations)


Now, the more intrinsic problems with the US aircraft, even using the best tactics, came as interceptors. Without stripping the things down and pushing the engines out of spec (both of which the Flying Tigers sometimes did for special interception duties) you'd be rather slow climbing and ill suited to reaching bombers quickly, let alone escorting fighters. (George Welch did exceptionally well in his P-40B during Pearly Harbor in spite of the extremely late warning -and initial lack of .50 cal amunition, but those were also extremely low-flying aircraft, not level bombers at altitude) They were all better offensive aircraft than defensive ones, though. (be it ground attack/strike aircraft or medium/low-altitude bomber escorts -OTOH the Hurricane IIA or Spitfire II might have made pretty good interceptors against 1940/41 Japanese bombers ... while being terrible escorts or fighter-bombers, though the Buffalo I with minimal interceptor fuel load and -relatively typical- .303 nose gun conversion might have been equal or better in climb and firepower -given the wing-mounted .50s effectiveness against the externally self-sealing fuel tanks of Japanese bombers -at least some pre-war IJA bombers had external self-sealing)

Aside from the F2A, none of the US fighters of the time came close to the Zero's maximum range either (the P-40B at ideal manual lean cruising conditions and overload fuel still couldn't compete with the unprotected A6M ... the unprotected P-40 might have managed it though, especially if the wing guns were omitted).



US and Commonwealth forces were nearly always at tactical disadvantages early war on top of having less experienced pilots and more often than not using less than advantageous tactics for their aircraft while the Japanese usually used their aircraft to best ability. Had the IJA fielded a 1940 equivalent of something closer to the Ki 44 in place of the Ki 43, I'd imagine IJA pilots would use their speed and diving ability to good effect in the same way they relied on climb and turning performance of the Ki 27 and Ki 43.

The Ki 43 wasn't necessarily a very well-liked aircraft by the pilots who flew it either, and not just because of the armament. Structural strength (and build quality) and limited performance both came up in this interview:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-eBmnpCO18
 
The P-40 and P-39 were better off than the F4F given their lower drag and superior speed, dive acceleration and speed retention using dive and zoom tactics.
On performance level indeed, P-40 and P-39 could outperform Wildcats but there is so much more than this. Wildcats were often flown by better trained pilots and could count on a better tactical situation (vide Guadalcanal where sufficient warning time would be given so machines could reach altitude allowing to take advantage of their high speed performance).

With proper energy tactics against early-war Japanese fighters, and proper exploitation of the superior roll rate and high-speed maneuverability, the P-40 and P-39 should have been all-around superior fighters.

But first up high were Japanese with their vastly superior climb performance.


I have yet to see P-40 that can stay in the air for 12 hours. But i like being positively surprised, so who knows, maybe it is possible

The Ki 43 wasn't necessarily a very well-liked aircraft by the pilots who flew it either, and not just because of the armament.
Make no mistake, Mr. Hinoki refers directly to first Oscars. Ki-43-I indeed had issues with structural integrity during high G maneuvers. Especially the machines delivered before 1942, the first ones, could be even dangerous.

But after initial discoveries, Army obliged Nakajima to strengthen the construction and add additional bolts in crucial places. And issue was not even mentioned in Ki-43-II which appeared by the end of 1942. But as Mr. Hinoki said in 5:22, when Oscar II became available it had greater firepower and improved integrity (shorter wingspan) as well as higher top speed. A fighter to fly with confidence. The only issue is that it came a bit too late and lacked performance for the new type of tasks.
 

A telling bit from the third volume of Shores' "Air War for Burma":

A bad day, 81 got a completely new opinion of the Japs. Reckon ME and UK squadrons would be very surprised. Most of their (81 sqn.) aircraft u/s for rippled skins and warped engine bearings! We've had a bit of it too."
- Dudley Barnett, 136 Squadron RAF (15 February '44)​

EDIT: sorry, should provide some context - this was after a running fight from Buthidaung to Akyab, where 29 Spitfire VIIIs from 81, 136 and 607 Squadrons battled a reported 60+ Japanese Army fighters.
 
Last edited:
- R. Dunn, Tuluvu's Air War, Chapter V, Untitled Document

Oscar wasn't defenseless, for many in turned out to be a tough nut to crack due to great maneuverability and good rate of climb.
 
Spitfire, great plane for a 1930's design. A great intercepter but lacked the range to take the fight to the enemy.
 
The Spitfire was developed as a single engine fighter. The tag "interceptor is applied to it to hide its inability to compete with the P-51 in terms of range and thus versatility. The Spitfire is a great aircraft, but still overrated.
 

Users who are viewing this thread