MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?

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

Has to be the
Halifax which from the Mk III onwards had an excellent performance and was overshadowed by the Lancaster
Do 217 probably the best medium bomber anywhere until the end of the war
Ki44 a very capable fighter
Macchi 202 why didn't they put a couple of 20mm guns on them
 
Another type that doesn't show up much, is the Westland Whirlwind.

Fast, well armed and capable in a fighter/bomber role, it was a scourge of U-Boats in the channel and held it's own against the Bf109 when bounced.

It had it's shortcomings like a lack of range or poor performance at high altitudes, but it simply wasn't given enough time to be fully developed.
 
I don't know about the PO-2 and the Storch but the Lysander could very well be in the list for most overrated at least in 1938 through April/May of 1940.
It went from being a high priority item to a "what the heck do we do with them" in a matter of 8 weeks or less.
Granted as an agent dropper it had few, if any, peers and was certainly an interesting aircraft from an aerodynamic (STOL) point of view but it was a failure at most of it's intended roles (so were most other planes of it's type to a greater or lesser degree).
 
GrauGeist said:
Another type that doesn't show up much, is the Westland Whirlwind.
Click to expand...

There were never enough operational to really form a real assessment. It certainly wasn't a bad aircraft, it would make my top thirty, but I don't think it was underrated. The British were always looking to lift four cannon with a single engine type (which became the Typhoon). Fighter Command never really liked them and in 1940 didn't have a role for them. The number of Whirlwinds built was due to the availability of parts and engines which would otherwise have been scrap.
Cheers
Steve
 
Considering that it performed as well it did and made a good showing in spite of it's engines' shortcomings and small numbers that were produced, I think it doesn't get nearly half the credit it should.

Greyman said:
Hands down the Spitfire.

Most people think it's merely the greatest aircraft of the second world war - when in actuality it's the greatest thing created by our species.
Click to expand...
That comment right there just pushed the Spitfire directly into the over-rated category...
 
GrauGeist said:
Considering that it performed as well it did and made a good showing in spite of it's engines' shortcomings and small numbers that were produced, I think it doesn't get nearly half the credit it should.
Click to expand...

But the Whirlwind did have serious shortcomings. Serviceability rates were very low. It also had problems with the tail wheel assembly, intakes, slats, wing tips, canopy, armament, etc. That's before we even consider its lack of performance at the sort of altitudes to which combat was soaring in NW Europe by 1940. I think it was a design with potential, but as seen on the sort of low level operations at which it excelled, when protected by other fighters, I think it also showed its limitations. It wasn't just the rationalisation of British aero engine production which caused the Air Ministry axe to fall on the Whirlwind (it took two blows to finally finish it off).
It was a good looking aircraft, modern for its time, but I'm not sure that it was underrated, except possibly by Dowding, who definitely didn't like it at all
Cheers
Steve
 

I don't think serviceability had anything to do with the end of Whirlwind production/development. If it was that bad they wouldn't have continued to operate them for as long as they did. The RAF certainly tossed other aircraft in the 'bin' a lot faster (Airacobra). I think that even if maintenance happened to be a dream on the Whirlwind - engine rationalisation would have ended things no matter what.

Altitude performance of the Whirlwind was fine for 1940, certainly better than the Hurricane and Bf 110. The jig was up by the end of the year though with the Spitfire II and 109F (above 16,000 feet anyway).

But again, not really the Whirlwind design's fault. Development had stopped while the Spitfire's and 109's continued. Somewhat like faulting the Dewoitine 520 for not keeping up either.
 
The serviceability of the Whirlwind was not an issue with the two squadrons operating the type, though despite the numbers produced, both of these often had single figure numbers operational. You would not want to build hundreds of aircraft with these problems equipping dozens of squadrons as that would seriously impact efficiency.
Other problems were not properly fixed. The tail wheel oleo just had to be re-filled almost continuously, a heavy landing still ripped the whole assembly off, damaging the rear bulkhead in the process and removing the aircraft from service for major repair. The slats were simply wired shut, increasing an already high landing speed. The other issues are well documented. It was an aircraft with potential, but never realised.
The MAP consistently argued that it was an expensive and cost ineffective way to lift four 20mm cannon. It carried out what would later be called fighter bomber missions, similar to those carried out by Hurricanes, in 1941 using its low altitude performance to evade interception. Whirlwind squadrons were told to run away rather than fight and were often escorted by Spitfires. This shows a lack of confidence in the type's ability to defend itself emanating from the higher echelons of Fighter Command, despite some limited successes.

As for 1940 and the BoB, the few Whirlwinds available to Fighter Command were based with No. 263 Squadron in 13 Group, in Scotland, a long way from the action. Dowding's 'no passengers' signal shows that he did not share your confidence in the type in October 1940. When the Whirlwinds did move south it was to 10 Group, again, out of harm's way.

The Whirlwind was not underrated, it was just superseded.

Cheers

Steve
 
The Whirlwind was a way to bring 4 cannons in the air and still perform. Spitfire and Hurricane with 4 cannons were bad proposals before 1942 - Hurricane with 4 cannons and couple of bombs flying against the targets in occupied France?
Beaufighter was probably an even more expensive way to carry 4 cannons in the war, and it was a wrong machine to both fight against and run from the LW.
Let's recall that Whirlwind was an aircraft of 1939/40 flying against the LW of 1941 and '42. Sending Hurricane I or Spitfire I to do the same? And that RAF was not sending it's P-39s and P-40s against the LW in ETO.
 
To second Tomo let's not forget that the RAF was operating only two fighter bomber squadrons of Hurricanes (an no Spitfires or any other single engine fighter bombers) at one point across the English channel, one reason the Whirlwinds got the crude bomb racks they were given (other Hurricanes were going to the Mid-east/Med) and let's not also forget that the Typhoon, that "oh so cheap" way of carrying four 20mm guns was a long, long way from being trouble free in 1941 and 1942. Having your tail wheel fall off while landing is a whole lot better for the pilot than having the tail fall off while flying. The "fix" which didn't actually entirely solve the problem was ,according to Wiki...., "Modification 286" which suggests that a whole bunch of other things on the Typhoon also needed modification.

I do like this quote from the 197 Squadron Website. "With its major engine problems solved and tail failures much reduced, the Typhoon was chosen as the premier ground attack aircraft for the 2nd Tactical Air Force, which was being formed to provide support for the British and Canadian armies in the forthcoming invasion of Europe."

Bolding by me.
 
I will cast my vote for the T-6 Texan. Without properly trained pilots, all of the other aircraft listed are ineffective.... Besides that, it continued to serve in its primary function well into the jet age.
 
There was not that many tail failures for the Typhoon. Engine failures was a much bigger problem.
 
Not sure if anybody has the true number of tail failures and there seem to be several causes and/or contributing factors.

Point is that many aircraft had problems upon introduction with the first few dozen (or several hundred) built. P-36 had structural problems. P-40 had engine problems, P-47Bs caught fire in flight among other problems for instance, early FW 190s were hardly trouble free. Since there was never a MK II Whirlwind it's initial problems never really had a chance to get straightened out. How many of it's problems were fundamental flaws or were the fault of components/sub assemblies that could have been fixed in a later production run, like the tail wheel strut. Much more likely than not a bought in part/assembly from an outside supplier.
Since the manufacturing program was effectively canceled before a single squadron came close to being equipped with it and continued production was allowed only to use up already manufactured (or close to completed) parts there was zero incentive to design any "fixes" that would require major new parts/assemblies.
Canceling the Peregrine and Whirlwind made sense from a manufacturing stand point given what was known at the time but many of the reasons given after the fact don't seem to very solid.

Typhoon might actually be a candidate for most overrated, at least overrated in in 1940/41 when it was seen to be the answer to many of the RAFs needs/problems before actual flight performance and engine problems became known.
 
PO-2s were not that great as an aircraft, but the Soviets used them to great effect as a night harassment aircraft that would keep the exhausted Wehrmacht troops awake all night when all they wanted was some sleep. they were easy to fly, easier to build and didn't care about abuse.

For an aircraft that cost next to nothing to build, flown by a pilot with maybe 10 hours flight time.

it doesn't get more cost effective than that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
Replies
17
Views
369
SaparotRob
T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
3
Views
753
yulzari
M
USAAF aircraft lost through transport sinkings during Battle of the Atlantic?
Replies
2
Views
410
fubar57
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
634
CHen10
WWI Aces Flying WWII Planes
Replies
17
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
Menu
Log in
Register