Most 'Underrated' Aircraft of WW2?

[wuzak]

My vote is the B18. Long rang and large bomb bay. Perfect for low and slow anti sub patrol. Plenty of room for the crew.

This?
Douglas B-18 Bolo - Wikipedia

 

[DBII]

This?
Douglas B-18 Bolo - Wikipedia

That is the one. Saw one in Dayton, and started looking for information. Interesting history.

 

[michael rauls]

Ok the engine weighed 125lbs more,but the engine is positioned further forward in either the P-40 or P-51 airframes due to the longer length and that affects the center of gravity, even shifting the engine only a few inches forward and modifying the area behind the engine will call for some serious redesign. The two stage Allison was far from a drop in replacement for the single stage engine. Now I assume that with no more weight allowed for in your plans you are going to keep using the same propellers as the single stage allisons? The same radiators and oil coolers despite the much increased heat loads? No water injection system to act as crutch due to the lack of intercoolers?

I like the "started to coincide with the anticipated production date of April '43. After all it had been in development since '40."

The Continental IV-1430 had been in development since about 1932-33 and the Army was still hoping it could be turned into a useable engine in 1943.

Lets look at a few of the P-63 benchmarks to see how practical this scheme is.

The XP-63A makes it first flight April 26th 1943.
The Army formally accepts the XP-63 in May of 1943.
Production deliveries of the P-63A start in Oct of 1943.
May 16th 1944 has a report on operational suitability of the P-63A conclude that the aircraft in it's current form cannot be considered an operationally suitable front line fighter.
Aug 1944 has the USAAF with 339 P-63As on hand, How many have already been sent to the Russians I don't know.

The -93 engine was 100-200hp behind the two stage Merlin in the low 20,000ft altitude range in early/mid 1943.

Just a thought, maybe the reason the 2 stage Alison in the p40 was not persude ( just guessing here)was that by mid/ late 43 the powers that be were already looking forward and planning on winding down p40 production so by the time Curtis re tooled and got production going they might already be approaching the end of the production line with the p40.
I'm thinking this might be the case because in 43 nobody new ve day would be may 45. For all they new it could have been may 46 and if they were planning on keeping p40 production going and for all they knew at the time there could still be say almost 3 more years left to go it would only make sense to put the effort into the 2 stage for it but if there were planning on ending production soon it would not.
Not saying this was the right or wrong decision just what the thinking may have been.
Dont know if this is the case but it seems logical.

 

[Shortround6]

Just a thought, maybe the reason the 2 stage Alison in the p40 was not perused ( just guessing here)was that by mid/ late 43 the powers that be were already looking forward and planning on winding down p40 production so by the time Curtis re tooled and got production going they might already be approaching the end of the production line with the p40.
I'm thinking this might be the case because in 43 nobody new ve day would be may 45. For all they new it could have been may 46 and if they were planning on keeping p40 production going and for all they knew at the time there could still be say almost 3 more years left to go it would only make sense to put the effort into the 2 stage for it but if there were planning on ending production soon it would not.
Not saying this was the right or wrong decision just what the thinking may have been.
Dont know if this is the case but it seems logical.

There is a pilots manual dated 1943 that tells prospective P-40 pilots that no new US fighter units will be formed using P-40s. They will undergo training on P-40s but will transition to other aircraft when they join service squadrons. The manual says (as a morale builder?) that if they can handle the P-40 in training they will not have any trouble with the service fighters.

See;
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/p-40-pilot-training-manual-pdf.68961/

So basically we have a US manual, stating in 1943, that the P-40 will only be used as an advanced trainer in US service. Granted it was used in combat, in decreasing numbers through 1944 and into 1945 in US service but was being phased out as quickly as P-51s and P-47s could be issued to the units equipped with P-40s as nay new units got the P-51 and P-47 to begin with. P-38s were being supplied but in much fewer numbers.

 

[GrauGeist]

The B-18 was also the testbed for an airframe mounted 75mm cannon. Because it's frame couldn't handle the recoil, the tests were discontinued. However, the lessons learned were applied to the B-25.

The B-18 also made the first kill of any American aircraft against a German U-Boat, sinking the U-654 in August '42.

 

[michael rauls]

There is a pilots manual dated 1943 that tells prospective P-40 pilots that no new US fighter units will be formed using P-40s. They will undergo training on P-40s but will transition to other aircraft when they join service squadrons. The manual says (as a morale builder?) that if they can handle the P-40 in training they will not have any trouble with the service fighters.

See;
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/p-40-pilot-training-manual-pdf.68961/

So basically we have a US manual, stating in 1943, that the P-40 will only be used as an advanced trainer in US service. Granted it was used in combat, in decreasing numbers through 1944 and into 1945 in US service but was being phased out as quickly as P-51s and P-47s could be issued to the units equipped with P-40s as nay new units got the P-51 and P-47 to begin with. P-38s were being supplied but in much fewer numbers.

Ok sounds like I may have actually been right about that then?( there's a first time for everything) At least in part.

 

[davparlr]

I know the B-26 torpedo idea was noble, but they may have had a better chance for results with skip-bombing.

Of course, this is purely hind-sight.

I agree that would have been effective, however, neither the torpedo nor the skip bombing had been sufficiently developed at that time.

 

[Elvis]

Apologies if I've already posted in this thread. Seems like I did, but I couldn't find it (didn't go through entire thread, though).
Like some of the other early posters in this thread, I too say the Brewster Buffalo...however, only in the context of the original B-239 version.
The others added weight and made the plane pretty much a slug, but that first version, what the navy referred to as the F2A-1, was (apparently) quite a delight to fly.
The pilots who flew the plane during the Navy's tests back in '38 all remarked that it was more responsive and, overall, more of a joy to fly than the Grumman plane.
The Finns obviously found this trait to also be true and used it to great advantage during their conflict with Russia.
Interesting note about this plane, also...there was a test conducted by the Russians at some point during the war (probably after the Germans withdrew, but I'm not sure). It was quite simple....how fast could current fighters make it through a 180 degree turn at 2000 metres.
I remember the 109 and (I believe) the P-51 were in the neighborhood of about 20-25 seconds. The P-40 and the Spitfire, I believe did it in the high teens (I seem to remember reading numbers like 17 or 19 seconds), but after seeing most of the planes test fall somewhere between the lower 20's to lower teen's range, the B-239 was found to BLAZE through the exercise in...….7 seconds....admittedly, a nice thing to have in your back pocket, when trying to get on your opponents six.
If I can ever find the place where I saw that, I will link it here, but so far, I have not been able to find it.
I did find out about it in a long thread at this site, but it was many years ago and I have been unable to locate that thread since returning here.


Elvis

 

[James Duff]

Following from the excellent question posed by Lucky13, I'd like to know what aircraft people think has received a raw deal.

A number of the polls here have argued over the worst aircraft, sometimes basing their views on dated information, or information passed down from those with prejudiced views during the war.

For me it has to be the Buffalo and P-36 Mohawk.

The Buffalo because of its excellent service for the Finns, and the fact that it did actually provide a commendable stop-gap service in Singapore (after reading Buffalos over Singapore) I really admire the pilots and the aircraft for what they achieved DESPITE all the difficulties. Most of the negative views seem to be based on Midway being extrapolated across the board.

And the same for the Mohawk (over Burma it did sterling service, despite the circumstances).

There must be other aircraft that look cr*p on paper but then turned out to have achieved more than one could expect.

I agree with The Buffalo & the Mohawk, and also the inclusion of the Hurricane.
The RAF didn't do particularly well in the Far East initially anyway, but that wasn't the fault of the aircraft or the pilots, it was largely down to poor leadership from high ranking officers in both the SEAC theatre and at home. The RAF were either almost always caught on the ground or shortly after take-off, in the few instances where the RAF were in an advantageous position the Japanese air formations suffered heavy losses at the hands of the Buffalo, Mohawk & Hurricane.
The RAF were very much at a severe disadvantage by having no early warning system, this was a similar outcome in France although the senior leadership was much better, but quite frankly, without radar during the Battle of Britain would have been similar result.

 

[Kevin J]

I agree with The Buffalo & the Mohawk, and also the inclusion of the Hurricane.
The RAF didn't do particularly well in the Far East initially anyway, but that wasn't the fault of the aircraft or the pilots, it was largely down to poor leadership from high ranking officers in both the SEAC theatre and at home. The RAF were either almost always caught on the ground or shortly after take-off, in the few instances where the RAF were in an advantageous position the Japanese air formations suffered heavy losses at the hands of the Buffalo, Mohawk & Hurricane.
The RAF were very much at a severe disadvantage by having no early warning system, this was a similar outcome in France although the senior leadership was much better, but quite frankly, without radar during the Battle of Britain would have been similar result.

I'd add the P-40 series.

 

[grampi]

Hmm the 3 that I think are the most underated are the Bf 109, Buffalo and Hurricane.

I don't know how you can say the BF-109 was under rated. It was regarded as one of the most lethal fighters of the war produced by any nation...

 

[Blenheim]

I have to offer the Bristol Blenheim as a very much underrated aircraft. At the start of the Second World War the RAF had more Blenheims than any other type of aircraft; the Blenheim served in every operational command of the RAF and in every theatre in which the RAF fought. Although obsolescent by the outbreak of war, the Blenheim had to soldier on for almost three years, suffering great losses with the deaths of many crewmen before other, more advanced aircraft came along. The Victoria Cross, our highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy, was awarded to thirty-two members of the Air Forces during the Second World War, three of these to Blenheim crewmen.

 

[Greg Boeser]

I know the B-26 torpedo idea was noble, but they may have had a better chance for results with skip-bombing.

Of course, this is purely hind-sight.

US Pacific based squadrons attempted torpedo attacks only a few times. At Midway, at Dutch Harbor, and at Kiska. No hits were obtained. Skip bombing in the Aleutians sank a destroyer, and a 4000 ton cargo ship, and damaged a destroyer and several other cargo ships between 14 October 1942 and 19 Jan 1943. Two aircraft were lost to AA. Very few sorties were made due to the miserable weather. These were the early B-26 MA model.
The RAF 14 Sqn actually sank a ship or two in the Aegean Sea in early '43 using Marauders as torpedo planes. This unit was then used for maritime recon.

 

[GrauGeist]

More enemy shipping was sunk by Allied medium and heavy bombers skip-bombing than by Torpedo bombing.

A prime exaple: the Japanese convoy HOMO-03, steaming from Hong Kong to Shanghai, was decimated by skip-bombing attacks.
First, by B-25s on 4 April 1945 and then again the following day by B-24s. The survivors of the convoy were caught again on the third day by more B-24s while they were making a dash for Amoy, resulting in the the last three destroyers being sunk.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Looking at the pictures in Warpath Across the Pacific is enough to convince me of the awesome terror of a low level shipping attack. Photos by the rear facing cameras of the hapless crews crouching in fear as the bombs go off is gut wrenching.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Great info, Shortround. Only 465 gallons of fuel in an early B-26? WOW, the P47N carried more than that with a bit heavier bombload. Now, I realize that I'm comparing a 1945 fighter with a 1941 bomber, but still, that seems like a tiny amount of fuel for a plane that large and powerful. I was also in the camp that the B-26 should have stuck with the short wings, but now Im not so sure. An aggravating factor is that the Martin B-26 should have been phased out in favor of the Douglas A-26 starting in early 1944, but the Army's indecision on design changes to the A-26 slowed its introduction. I think the A-26 is the largest underachiever among American planes in WW2, but only because the plane had so much potential.

Early B-26s could carry up to 1212 us gallons if fitted with a bomb bay tank. B-26As and beyond could be fitted with 2 bay tanks for 1462 US gallons. In B-26B and beyond, two additional tanks could be fitted in the rear bay for a total of 1962 US gallons, but this was only done on ferry flights.
In the Pacific, typical missions with the B-26 MA were flown with full wing tanks and 3000lbs of bombs, or for long range missions 2000 lbs and a 250 gallon bomb bay tank.
The short wing B-26B, with the R-2800-5 were usually flown with only 2000 lbs of bombs due to the heavier basic weight compared to the B-26 MA. Oxygen systems were removed because all the action was down low, except over New Guinea, where they had to hop over the Owen Stanleys, but then descended to 4000 to 8000 ft.
Top speed for the -5 equipped B-26B was considered to be 310 mph. Seven man crews. A 1943 pilot's manual restricts R-2800-5 equipped aircraft to a max take-off weight of 36,500 lbs. The chief complaint against the B-26 in the Pacific theater was its incredibly long take-off run, which limited it to fields capable of handling B-17s. Reducing take-off weight meant either lightening the bomb load or reducing combat radius.

 

[Macchi]

The Macchi 205.

 

[Madelman]

My list:

MiG-3, excellent performance but not at the altitude that the combats took place; a really sleek machine. With the il-2 engine (there were some prototypes) could have been a superb low altitude fighter

Other, mainly from previous posts:

He 177
Do 217 nightfigther
Fairey Firefly
C-46 Commando
Wellington
Me 410

 

[againstthebar]

Following from the excellent question posed by Lucky13, I'd like to know what aircraft people think has received a raw deal.

A number of the polls here have argued over the worst aircraft, sometimes basing their views on dated information, or information passed down from those with prejudiced views during the war.

For me it has to be the Buffalo and P-36 Mohawk.

The Buffalo because of its excellent service for the Finns, and the fact that it did actually provide a commendable stop-gap service in Singapore (after reading Buffalos over Singapore) I really admire the pilots and the aircraft for what they achieved DESPITE all the difficulties. Most of the negative views seem to be based on Midway being extrapolated across the board.

And the same for the Mohawk (over Burma it did sterling service, despite the circumstances).

There must be other aircraft that look cr*p on paper but then turned out to have achieved more than one could expect.

Martin Baltimore - Desert Air Force - North Africa and Italian campaigns

 

[Kevin J]

Martin Baltimore - Desert Air Force - North Africa and Italian campaigns

I'd add the Martin Maryland to your post, excellent reconnaissance fighter bomber in the Med until the Beaufighter arrived. Shot down enemy planes.