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
You don't design an aircraft to have a 1000 mile range when the enemy is at your doorstep - that would just be a waste of time and money.
You would if you considered yourself an "Empire" and you had the ability.
Why?
Prior to 1939, Britain's Empire was based around Naval supremacy. The Spitfire was there to do a job - protect Britain. By the time the US entered with the P-51, the requirement had changed, and there was a need for escort fighters.
And performance.
BLine22 realize that the Spit was designed as what today is called a point defense fighter (as well as the Me-109 and FW-190). It did not need to go far but it did need to be a hot rod. A comparison would be a NASCAR racer designed to do the entire 500 mile race on one tank of gas. It's competition will gas up several times during the race. Who will cross the finish line first? The winner of that race can be seen any weekend during race season.
The paradym shift in WW2 ETO was the Merlin powered Mustang. Not only did it carry enough fuel to do the entire race without stopping, it also could more than hold its own over Berlin in a fur ball with Germany's best, then fly back to the UK.
Cheers,
Biff
Last edited:
I understand the differences between the Mustang and the Spitfire and how they came about. The range of the Spitfire is similar to most pre-war fighters. This thread is about the most overrated aircraft. If you think of the different fighter missions; Intercepter, Air superiority, Ground Attack, Escort, any top ranked fighter should be able to accomplish all of these missions. I don't think the Spitfire does these missions as well as other aircraft such as the P-51 or F4U but may people will argue that it is the greatest fighter ever. Thats why I think it is overrated.
wuzak
Captain
A jack of all trades and master of none?
I don't think its necessarily the best, and by the end of the war there were certainly other aircraft that were better than it, but its a bit of a stretch of the imagination to say it was the most over-rated.
No. It was developed as a home defence fighter and to be the sharp end of an integrated air defence system being developed by the British at the same time.
Like all aircraft it was a compromise and speed and fire power were prioritised at the cost of endurance. This was done intentionally as any number of discussions and meetings from the period clearly demonstrate. I have posted excerpts from the minutes of some of these meetings in other threads.
The Spitfire was developed as an interceptor and its range was optimised for this role.
The issue of the Spitfire's range only became a problem when it was used in roles for which it was never intended, nor designed.
Incidentally as early as November 1934 the minutes of a meeting of the Air Fighting Committee refer explicitly to Hawker's submission to Specification F.7/30, which eventually became the Hurricane, as "the Interceptor Fighter design from Hawker". It too was quite explicitly designed for that role and to specifications tailored to that role.
Why let the facts get in the way of prejudice? The fact that the Spitfire and to a lesser extent the Hurricane, did prove competent in several other roles is a testament to the strength of their design. They were both good aircraft, the Spitfire was exceptional, undoubtedly one of the best aircraft of the era.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
The P51 benefitted from the failure of US bombers to protect themselves, it was designed as a fighter, the idea of an escort fighter only came into being when it was needed and could be produced. To say that the Spitfire did nothing after 1940 is nonsense it outlived the planes that were supposed to replace it. The P51 was a 1940s design, how would it perform with a 1000BHP 1940 engine? I suspect its rate of climb would make it of less use than a Hurricane. Dissing the Spitfire invites people to have a go at the P51 which is a waste of effort, the P51 was a fine machine even with an Allison engine, it was even better with a British engine, canopy, airfield and gun sight.
The war started in 1939, the spitfire out performed the P51B/C in 1939 1940, 41, 42 and most of 43 did the P51 ever out perform the Mk XIV? The Tempest or P47 Only as an escort fighter was the P51 exceptional in other roles it was very good or good.
I believe the "G" and "H" models did.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
What always struck me and I think what many tend to forget is that the Mustang was besting whatever the Germans could throw at it while still carrying around a lot more fuel doing it. I'm not talking total amount, but the amount they had when involved in any sort of furball over the Reich, after dropping the externals you still were going into combat with what, both wing tanks full or close to it? Not to mention what might be left in the fuselage tank. The interceptors had no such extra weight on board, those here more knowledgeable than me can set that record straight and correct me if I'm wrong.
Also the fact that I believe in half as many sorties as the P-47, it has twice as many kills. Again, those more in the know can correct me on this if I'm off base.
Also the fact that I believe in half as many sorties as the P-47, it has twice as many kills. Again, those more in the know can correct me on this if I'm off base.
That may be correct but the P47 was doing escort missions to and from Germany where the germans were not likely to attack outward and inward, if only the P51 was used the score wouldnt have improved by much at all, it was the range of the P51 hat made the difference,Also the fact that I believe in half as many sorties as the P-47, it has twice as many kills. Again, those more in the know can correct me on this if I'm off base.
I think the 51 was overrated in some areas, and underrated in others...
The P-51 was a game changer. Without it the one unequivocal victory of the combined bomber offensive, the destruction of the Luftwaffe (or German Air Force as the Americans liked to call it) would not have been possible.
It might be over rated in some respects as a fighter, but it is impossible to over rate it's impact on WW2 in Europe.
Cheers
Steve
It might be over rated in some respects as a fighter, but it is impossible to over rate it's impact on WW2 in Europe.
Cheers
Steve
Shortround6
Major General
To try to figure out if a fighter (or other aircraft) was just good or truly great try plugging into other aircraft's jobs/missions.
Not every aircraft can do all missions (you can't swap P-51s and Hellcats, either way) but the P-51 can do more of the missions that were required in 1944/45 than any other fighter of the time period and do them well even if not the best at some.
A P-51D might not be the best for intercepting 4 engine bombers but with six .50s it should have done fairly well (better than planes with a single 20mm and a pair of smaller machineguns).
It might not have been as good as a Typhoon or Tempest for strafing or bombing (less armor?) but it could carry a similar bombload and was about as fast lowdown.
And so on,
There were few, if any jobs, done by single seat land based , single engine day fighters that the P-51 couldn't do and do well.
How many other fighters can say that?
Not every aircraft can do all missions (you can't swap P-51s and Hellcats, either way) but the P-51 can do more of the missions that were required in 1944/45 than any other fighter of the time period and do them well even if not the best at some.
A P-51D might not be the best for intercepting 4 engine bombers but with six .50s it should have done fairly well (better than planes with a single 20mm and a pair of smaller machineguns).
It might not have been as good as a Typhoon or Tempest for strafing or bombing (less armor?) but it could carry a similar bombload and was about as fast lowdown.
And so on,
There were few, if any jobs, done by single seat land based , single engine day fighters that the P-51 couldn't do and do well.
How many other fighters can say that?
