MOST OVERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII (1 Viewer)

mstennes · Sep 24, 2016

Gemhorse said:
I believe the Bf-110 was hopelessly over-rated, as it found-out during the BoB, and perhaps the Ju-87....all very well during the Blitz over European countries prior to the BoB, but both were hopeless against fighter-opposition......Furthermore, neither were particuarly developed further despite these operational setbacks, the Bf-110 worked better in the dark as a NF, but the Stuka plodded-on in spite, only good for bombing escaping refugees and outmanoeuvred infantry.......

I take exception to the Spitfire being drawn into this....The British Empire would be talking German now if the Spitfire was 'over-rated'....read your bloody history!!...sure the Hurricane was on the scene first, but these two worked in concert during the BoB, then the Spits escorted Hurri-bombers into Europe and the MTO....and both served in various theatres respectively with distinction.....

I also feel the Corsair could've been used more extensively than it was, but the inter-service mascinations of the US Forces dictated it staying in the PTO....the Mustang earned it's rep, useful in all it's versions, excelling in the 'D' model..... again why the P-47 didn't receive more glory was it's deployment - same thing occurred with the Typhoon too....

The B-17 was a good aircraft but it's deployment as an aerial fortress was the cause of many lives lost....they refused to listen to lessons already learned by Bomber Command.... then they had to resort to Bomber Command tactics to make the B-29 viable in Japan....height and firepower aren't everything, if 'foxy-tactics' can be used........

They didn't resort to bomber command tactics witj B29's in Japan. They went to lower levels because they were not hitting as they should have because of how strong the jet stream was. No one wanted to be that low, but it was the only way to hit the targets. Buildings and houses were very combustible in Japan so setting everything ablaze was easy, or so they thought. When they started bombing the bombs were miles upon miles off target, the jet stream would grab them and send everything off course, once Lemay changed the tactics to lower elevations then the bombing became effective, but at a higher cost to the planes and crews.

FLYBOYJ · Sep 24, 2016

mstennes said:
They didn't resort to bomber command tactics witj B29's in Japan. They went to lower levels because they were not hitting as they should have because of how strong the jet stream was. No one wanted to be that low, but it was the only way to hit the targets. Buildings and houses were very combustible in Japan so setting everything ablaze was easy, or so they thought. When they started bombing the bombs were miles upon miles off target, the jet stream would grab them and send everything off course, once Lemay changed the tactics to lower elevations then the bombing became effective, but at a higher cost to the planes and crews.

You do realize that you replied to a post that is 11 years old? I doubt you'll get a response from that member. He hasn't been here in at least 5 years.

drgondog · Sep 25, 2016

tomo pauk said:
Bill - on what accounts it was a superb design, and how real was it's performance advantage vs. major Allied types of 1945?
How many negative points does it score due to the H-1 having half of it's fuel tankage in non-self-sealing tanks?
How many due to it's low G limit, even on light weight (5G at 4500 kg = no GM-1 nor MW-50 mixtures are carried, half of ammo, fuel only in lower fuselage tanks, obvoiusly no drop tank)?

Tomo - the H was one of two viable variants, including the C. The H was developed for High Altitude and while a 4.5 turn Limit Load is not the same as Allied, most Allied fighters are stalling in turns above 30K so there is a trade off. Given a few minutes of alert, the Ta 152H can climb to any altitude - and higher than its allied counterparts plus throttle up to speeds and altitude that will always give it choice of Fight or run.

Among the attributes included a.) Pressurization enabling ceiling higher than any Allied fighter by far, and only topped by 1000 feet by MiG 15. b.) advanced avionics enabling auto pilot, nav and poor weather landings, c.) Introduction of GM-1 Nitrous Oxide boost, d.) extremely heavy firepower, e.) exceptional performance (Spit could out climb and out turn the C but not H, P-51B/D with 150 octane fuel could out run and out turn H and C on the deck and middle altitudes, e.) both C and H had extremely good acceleration, the C retained the roll characteristics of the A and D, f.) the range was exceptional compared to every Allied fighter except the Mustang, P-47N and P-38.

And, yes - firepower combined with speed and ceiling to take out any Allied bomber in existence or on the drawing board, including the B-36.

A few of those attributes will ordinarily garner some praise as 'Noteworthy of High Ranking"

tomo pauk · Sep 25, 2016

Thank you very much for the overwiev. I agree that it deserves a high ranking.

What is your take on how much of the 'book' performance would've been lost if the Ta-152 was actually loaded with full fuel, since the available performance charts are just for case with half of the internal fuel? A combat aircraft with non-self-sealing tanks in 1945?
The Spitfire XIV/18/21, Merlin Mustang nor P-47D/M/N should've not stalled above 30kft?

The P-51H have had, with full internal fuel and ammo, the G limit of 7.33.

stona · Sep 25, 2016

I doubt that a Griffon Spitfire XIV, contemporary of the Ta 152, with a service ceiling (max. weight) of 43,500 feet was stalling in turns at 30,000feet.
Cheers
Steve

BiffF15 · Sep 25, 2016

Gents,

Any aircraft will stall if you pull hard enough, or if at the wings upper altitude limit if you pull at all. A comparison is an F15 at 350kts at 5k is a different beast than one at 350kts and 30k. At 5k the motor makes great power (but never enough) and in full A/B can probably sustain 4-6 Gs & level flight depending on stores and weight. At 30k it in A/B at 350 you are coming down if you want more than 3-3.5 Gs period. The plane flies the same for a given airspeed at a given altitude for the most part, but the difference, and it drastically affects your maneuvering, is the power your motor or motors put out.

Bill please feel free to "clean up" any misspeaks i made as a "user" (not an engineer).

An aircrafts G limit only matters if the plane can generate enough lift to get there. I have merged / turned with plenty of Vipers and Hornets at 30k+, and none of us were at the G limits of the aircraft. I can't speak for the F22, but suspect his limits are a similar curve, just MUCH higher.

Cheers,
Biff

stona · Sep 25, 2016

I agree, my point was that a an aircraft whose configuration was good enough for a service ceiling well over 40,000ft would not be incapable of maneuvering at 30,000ft. The Spitfire wing being what it was I suspect it would not have been outclassed in this respect by the Ta 152 H, even given its extended wing, still based on that of the Fw 190.
Cheers
Steve

drgondog · Sep 25, 2016

Biff nailed my point about turns becoming increasingly tenuous. Sorry that everybody inferred that 30K was a hard threshold.

Simply, Lift is proportional to density and CL if speeds are the same. Induced Drag is proportional to CL^^2 and inversely proportional to Aspect ratio.

The fact that the Ta 152H could lift a 12,000 pound airplane 6-8K higher than a 4000 pound lighter Spit XIV with the same basic wing area should make the point about growing turn (and climb) performance as a function of altitude.

That said - I am quoting weights and performance from multiple sources - none of which include actual flight test data with specified conditions.

drgondog · Sep 25, 2016

drgondog said:
Biff nailed my point about turns becoming increasingly tenuous. Sorry that everybody inferred that 30K was a hard threshold.

Simply, Lift is proportional to density and CL if speeds are the same. Induced Drag is proportional to CL^^2 and inversely proportional to Aspect ratio.

The fact that the Ta 152H could lift a 12,000 pound airplane 6-8K higher than a 4000 pound lighter Spit XIV with the same basic wing area should make the point about growing turn (and climb) performance as a function of altitude.

That said - I am quoting weights and performance from multiple sources - none of which include actual flight test data with specified conditions.

Forgot to mention that the AR of the Ta 152H at 9.3 was nearly 60% better (as in the case of Induced drag - leading to improved climb and ceiling performance). .

tomo pauk · Sep 25, 2016

Thank you again.
This table (link) shows the Ta-152H-1 with take off weight of 4760 kg (~10500 lbs) with service ceiling of 45600 ft. Now, loaded weight of the Ta-152H-1, with full fuel, ammo, GM-1 and MW-50 tanks full is 5217 kg (~11300 lbs) - to what loss of climb performance, speed and ceiling?
Spitfire XIV has service ceiling of 43500 ft at 8488 lbs. Re. heavy armament - Spitfire 21 has 4 x 20mm cannons (data sheet), with ceiling of 43 (=9186 lbs) to 44 kft.

I'm afraid that Ta-152 did not offered in 1945 such an advantage in performance (speed, climb, ceiling) vs. range as it was the case when drop-tank equipped P-38, -47 and Merlin Mustang and were introduced in 1942-43, and Ta-152 accepted several important compromises in order to achieve it's high performance.

Milosh · Sep 25, 2016

tomo pauk said:
Thank you again.
This table (link) shows the Ta-152H-1 with take off weight of 4760 kg (~10500 lbs) with service ceiling of 45600 ft. Now, loaded weight of the Ta-152H-1, with full fuel, ammo, GM-1 and MW-50 tanks full is 5217 kg (~11300 lbs) - to what loss of climb performance, speed and ceiling?
Spitfire XIV has service ceiling of 43500 ft at 8488 lbs. Re. heavy armament - Spitfire 21 has 4 x 20mm cannons (data sheet), with ceiling of 43 (=9186 lbs) to 44 kft.

I'm afraid that Ta-152 did not offered in 1945 such an advantage in performance (speed, climb, ceiling) vs. range as it was the case when drop-tank equipped P-38, -47 and Merlin Mustang and were introduced in 1942-43, and Ta-152 accepted several important compromises in order to achieve it's high performance.

Tomo, how can a Spitfire get to that height at max weight? It had to burn fuel to get there so would not be at max weight.

tomo pauk · Sep 25, 2016

Applies for most of the aircraft....

Milosh · Sep 25, 2016

But a/c carried different amounts of fuel.

Venturi · Sep 25, 2016

At altitudes that were found in missions other than strategic bomber interception, would the Ta152

(I don't specify the H version because the H was the only model built, as the low alt versions did not give any perf improvement over the fw190d, but I digress)

have still held overall performance advantage over any of the allied designs of similar age, except perhaps in a straight line?

Agree it's possibly not the most overrated, but I find most German fighters post 190d to be near experimental designs with serious compromises made in construction due to labor/materials deficits. Not the fault of the designers, of course. But it does affect ultimate performance.

stona · Sep 25, 2016

Milosh said:
But a/c carried different amounts of fuel.

maximum weight for the Spitfire simply means that it took off fully loaded with fuel and armament and climbed to service ceiling. This was tests carried out at Boscombe Down. The details will be available somewhere, maybe Mike Williams site?

As Tomo points out, the data often quoted for the Ta 152 is for something less than its maximum weight, which will have an effect on its ceiling(s).

Cheers

Steve

drgondog · Sep 25, 2016

Hence the reason I put some caveats on my comments. Any more discussion needs Test results for better insight.

wuzak · Sep 25, 2016

In Wings of the Luftwaffe Eric Brown opined that the Spitfire XIV was superior to the Ta 512H up to 30,000ft, they were evenly matched from 30,000ft to 35,000ft, the Ta 152H being superior above that altitude.

Venturi · Sep 25, 2016

While I'm courting controversy, how about......?

GrauGeist · Sep 25, 2016

How is the Me262 considered over-rated?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 25, 2016

GrauGeist said:
How is the Me262 considered over-rated?

It's not...

MOST OVERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII (1 Viewer)

Airman

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Tech Sergeant

Major

Major

Major

Creator of Interesting Threads

Senior Master Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman

Major

Major

Captain

Airman

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads