MOST OVERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII (4 Viewers)

[davparlr]

Whether the Me 262 was overrated or not is a complex question. In 1944-45 it was certainly a threat to daylight bombing but I don't believe it could have provided air superiority over Germany without a powerful supporting cast protecting the airfields, where the Me 262 was most vulnerable. Post D-day, the Western allies had just too many aircraft to flood the air. But it, along with the poorer aero-designed Meteor, ushered in a new epoch in air warfare and travel. But both were dead end streets of jet fighter designed. Both were designed with specific requirements that hampered follow-on fighter designs and this was the wing nacelle mounted engines. Both the P-59 and the P-80 laid out the engine configuration for the future jet fighter, the P-59 with its conformal engine mounts, although hampered by poor aero design including a 60% increase in wing area over the Me 262, and the P-80 with its large single engine buried in the fuselage, which, by the way was incorporated in the earliest British and German test planes. The big impact on future jet fighter designs were the very late German aircraft designs including the P 1101 and German research. So, other than ushering jet fighter operations, both the Me 262 and Meteor contributed little to follow on jet fighter designs and were therefore overrated in that regard.

 

[Shortround6]

The Early jet aircraft designs were overtaken by the rapid progress in Jet engines. In 1942 it wasn't possible to build an effective fighter using a single jet engine. For the Americans the P-80 was initially designed for a 3,000lb thrust engine but soon switched to the 4,000lb thrust J33 which first ran in Jan 1944 (although note at full rating?) which was over double what any engine in 1942 was achieving.
Granted the J33 was heavy but with the need for two engines the placement of the engines did tend to limit placement. How much the desire to keep the engines separated by a certain amount of distance in order to make sure a malfunction (thrown turbine blades) in one engine didn't take out the other influenced things I don't know.

 

[Ascent]

Given that the Gloster E28/39 had a single engine buried in the fuselage the P-80 probably had less influence than you think.

Also edited to add that (according to wiki at least) design work for the De Havilland Vampire started in 1941.

 

[wuzak]

Given that the Gloster E28/39 had a single engine buried in the fuselage the P-80 probably had less influence than you think.

As did the Heinkel He 178.

 

[GrauGeist]

As did the Heinkel He 178.

Which first flew in 1939

Regarding the embedded engines, the Germans were well aware of the advantages of the embedded engines over the underslung engines, but they were limited by the low thrust of the engines in the early designs.

If you look at the later concepts and projects, including Messerschmitt's next generation Me262 design (HGIII), you'll find that the trend for embedding the engines was well underway. The Me P.1101 (Bell X-5) was a good enough proof of that concept.

 

[stona]

Many of the projected early versions of what became the Me 262 had engines mounted centrally in the wings rather than under slung. I don't think the fuselage was an option given the need for two engines, given the size of WW2 fighters generally, and a requirement for the armament to be in or close to the fuselage.

The early engines were so short lived and unreliable that having them fitted under the wings, almost as a modular power egg arrangement, may have been a significant operational bonus.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

Given that the Gloster E28/39 had a single engine buried in the fuselage the P-80 probably had less influence than you think.

Also edited to add that (according to wiki at least) design work for the De Havilland Vampire started in 1941.

The Gloster E28/39 was also supposed to be a fighter prototype although the four .303 guns were never fitted. However four .303 guns and with speeds no higher than piston engine planes were achieving in 1943 plus the short endurance the Gloster E28/39, while a truly significant aircraft, shows that an aircraft using a single jet engine of the time (1940-43) would NOT be an effective fighter plane.

AS for the Vampire, keep reading Wiki. the answer is there.
"for the projected fighter Halford decided to go ahead with the design of a "straight through" centrifugal engine of what was at the time the very high thrust of 3,000 lb, that was to emerge as the Halford H.1. Design of the engine was complete in April 1941, the first engine running one year later."
and it took almost another year before the engine was flown in a Meteor. 5 March 1943
Flight in the Vampire was delayed when the available engine was sent to Lockheed for the prototype P-80 so the Vampire Flew in Sept 1943.
However early production engines were of 2700lbs thrust and went to 3000lbs thrust for the actual production Vampire I aircraft.
Which had a few problems with range/endurance. As in only 202 imp gallons of fuel in internal tanks. Quickly supplemented by 50/100 gal drop tanks and the MK II Vampire with 354 imp gallons of internal fuel.

Getting the right balance of engine power and performance (speed/climb) vs weight of armament and fuel load (endurance/range) was a bit tricky in the early years of jet design/development as the engine power was changing so fast. Faster than airframes could go from drawing board to production.

 

[Ascent]

My point was more about the fact that the design was being worked on before they would have been aware of the P-80 rather than the success or otherwise of the aircraft itself.

 

[Shortround6]

For a lot of aircraft engine installations the location/layout is pretty simple. For an experimental aircraft it is often desirable to use a single engine. For jet that really gets simple because it pretty much has to go the the centerline and that means it can go pretty much in the center or center rear of the fuselage in order to leave room on the CG for the fuel tanks. Vampire layout was an attempt to limit losses in intake and exhaust ducts as was the Hawker Seahawk. Once you get those out of the way you get things like the He 162 and the Yak-15.

If you are starting with a clean sheet of paper and not trying to use as much as possible of an existing fighter the Yak-15 route is not the way to go.
The He 178, the Gloster E28/39 and the XP-80 all used the most logical arrangement for a single engine jet. Engine close to the CG, Thrust line close the center of the fuselage, not high or low, and least amount of frontal area (drag) possible given the size of the engine/s in use. The He 162 and the Yak using axial flow engines considerably smaller in diameter than the three aircraft mentioned.

 

[GrauGeist]

The He162 would still have drag penalties for the engine being mounted above the fuselage.

As far as the Me262 HGIII is concerned, the engines weren't to be embedded in the fuselage, but rather the wing-root. While it's not the ideal layout in comparison to second generation jets, it was a huge step forward from the He280, Me262A, Ar234, etc.

As was mentioned before, the idea of the embedded engine was not lost to the Germans but it was the low power of the engines that was keeping them shackled to twin engines (along with Allied counterparts) - perhaps the Ho.IX would be the best example of embedded engines of the day!

The He162 was a departure from that by virtue of it's lightweight construction, as was the Hs132.

The Ta183 and Me P.1101were examples of thinking smaller.

The Bell X-5 based on the P.1101:

 

[Old Wizard]

 

[BLine22]

Wing mounted jet engines may not have been the future for fighters, but the concept seems to have worked well for Boeing, Airbus and others.

 

[davparlr]

The Early jet aircraft designs were overtaken by the rapid progress in Jet engines. In 1942 it wasn't possible to build an effective fighter using a single jet engine. For the Americans the P-80 was initially designed for a 3,000lb thrust engine but soon switched to the 4,000lb thrust J33 which first ran in Jan 1944 (although note at full rating?) which was over double what any engine in 1942 was achieving.
Granted the J33 was heavy but with the need for two engines the placement of the engines did tend to limit placement. How much the desire to keep the engines separated by a certain amount of distance in order to make sure a malfunction (thrown turbine blades) in one engine didn't take out the other influenced things I don't know.

No disagreements here. There is no doubt that engine development was the critical design driver where the Allies, US and Britain, had a significant advantage over the Germans by wars end. They had the big engines, effectively in production.

Given that the Gloster E28/39 had a single engine buried in the fuselage the P-80 probably had less influence than you think.

Also edited to add that (according to wiki at least) design work for the De Havilland Vampire started in 1941.

Which is what I stated, "large single engine buried in the fuselage, which, by the way was incorporated in the earliest British and German test planes." Neither the Gloster E28/39 nor the He 178 led to any production aircraft and each countries design went to a different place. The Vampire got a raw deal when their engine went to the P-80, maybe preventing it from being available in WW2. In my opinion, it would have been a formidable opponent to the Me 262, which I don't think the Meteor really was.

As did the Heinkel He 178.

See above.

The Me P.1101 (Bell X-5) was a good enough proof of that concept.

As I said "The big impact on future jet fighter designs were the very late German aircraft designs including the P 1101 and German research." I think the P 1101, with its ground adjustable wing sweep could have evolved quickly into the first swept wing fighter.

The early engines were so short lived and unreliable that having them fitted under the wings, almost as a modular power egg arrangement, may have been a significant operational bonus.

Which is what I meant when I said "Both were designed with specific requirements that hampered follow-on fighter designs and this was the wing nacelle mounted engines."


Both the P-80 and the Vampire uncovered a new aerodynamic challenge, high speed ducted inlet design, something that has become much more important in the world of stealth design. In fact the damage done to the first P-80 was due to a collapsed inlet. This was the engine replaced by the Vampire engine.

The lineage for the Me 262, Meteor, and Vampire designs ended very quickly, but the P-80, and even the poorly specified twin engine P-59 design, can be traced to modern aircraft. I'm not saying the P-59 or P-80 specifically influenced follow-on aircraft, several designs started before these, but rather they represent the first of a long line of successful design concepts. Attached are some examples of the lineage of the two design concepts. Pictures are out of order should be P-80, F9F, Hunter, F-35 and P-59, F-4, F-22.

 

[zulu fox]

The Mustang had a one of the top kill to loss ratios in the war. Definitely sounds like the most overrated aircraft of the war.

 

[Zipper730]

In fact the damage done to the first P-80 was due to a collapsed inlet.

Collapsed? Like the inlet caved?

 

[Milosh]

A flyable Halford engine was delivered to Lockheed in mid November of 1943. The de Havilland-built Halford H.1B turbojet had a bench thrust of 3000 pounds at 10,500 rpm and an installed thrust of 2460 pounds at 9500 rpm. On November 17, 1943, while the H.1B engine installation in the XP-80 was undergoing ground testing, both intake ducts collapsed, and the ingestion of debris damaged the engine. While waiting a replacement engine, the ducts were strengthened. The British selflessly rushed over a replacement engine which had been intended for the number 2 Vampire fighter. The replacement engine arrived on December 28 and was promptly installed in the XP-80. The XP-80 was finally ready for its maiden flight.

Lockheed XP-80 Shooting Star

 

[swampyankee]

Most overrated?

Me262. Trivial effect on the war, but lots of effect on the fanboys. Certainly, using it as the ancestor of all swept-wing jets is nonsense; its wings were probably swept because somebody screwed up the c/g calculation, not because of compressibility.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I don't think the 262 is overrated at all. Regardless of ones thoughts, it was the most advanced fighter aircraft built during WW2. Whether one likes it or not, it impacted future jet aircraft design. Fact is fact, period.

Now yes, its impact on the war was negligible because of teething problems. Now imagine though it would have been entered into service earlier..

Overrated? Hardly. Just as some people like to overstate its impact and call it a "Wunder Weapon", others just like to understate it. Probably because it was a German built aircraft. Had it been built by Lockheed or any other US manufacturer, it would have been the greatest single invention in the history of mankind. Hailed as the best of the best in every history book written, in every museum, and hollywood movie ever made. (Not saying anyone here is like that, just pointing out an observation I see on the interwebs...). Extreme "fanboys" on both sides of the argument cloud the reality.

 

[drgondog]

On the 262? If the 9th AF had been offered 262s instead of P-47s I suspect they would have traded up.

 

[pbehn]

There is a thread on most over rated aircraft, the planes considered to be most over rated (by the poll) are some of those considered the highest performers P51, F6F, Spitfire etc.