MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?

[ChrisMcD]

I agree with Shortround, I think you have to take into account some of the practicalities that led to aircraft being "underrated"

1) Halifax - not as much fun to fly as a Lanc, much harder to land and a lower ceiling what attracted the flak. Hardly surprising that the Halifax crews felt like second class citizens. And Bomber Harris hated it with a passion!

2) Whirlwind - Petter's overly complex design was hard for Westland to cope with - hence a lot of the niggles. Also it's high landing speed restricted the number of airdromes that it could operate from. And it was typical of Petter to go for the minimum dimensions/weight route and fixate on the RR Peregrine. Willy Messerschmidt was much more sensible with the Bf 110 and designed a bigger airframe that was way outside the RLM spec, but able to take a lot of stretch (Jumo210 to DB605's) and last out the war.

3) Liberator - boring to fly, "like driving a bus" to quote Winkle Brown. Vulnerable wing spar, easily damaged and well known to the experten. Why did such a much later design have a performance not much better than the B17, and yet be less fun to fly and easier to shoot down?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Liberator - boring to fly, "like driving a bus" to quote Winkle Brown. Vulnerable wing spar, easily damaged and well known to the experten. Why did such a much later design have a performance not much better than the B17, and yet be less fun to fly and easier to shoot down?

Depends who you talk to. I've met PTO veterans who flew the B-24 over the Pacific and they swore by it, others hated it. Whether it flew like a bus was unimportant (there goes Brown's opinions again), it's job was to carry a lot of bombs long distances, and it did that well. It was also easily produced and the basic design did allow for growth.

A couple of threads making comparisons on the B-24.

Comparative Study of B-17 vs B-24

B-24 tricycle landing gear vs B-17 taildragger

 

[ChrisMcD]

Depends who you talk to.

A couple of threads making comparisons on the B-24.

Comparative Study of B-17 vs B-24

B-24 tricycle landing gear vs B-17 taildragger

Looking at those links - sounds like B24 vs B17 is an argument of long standing!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Looking at those links - sounds like B24 vs B17 is an argument of long standing!

Very long standing and I think the argument will continue for the next 70 years.

 

[CharlesBronson]

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

I think that capabilities are more related with the skills and courage of the people flying that small rusky plane, the Po.2 was an outdated piece wich had some sucess enlarged by the propaganda, not much different to swordfish.

 

[Shortround6]

I agree with Shortround, I think you have to take into account some of the practicalities that led to aircraft being "underrated"

1) Halifax - not as much fun to fly as a Lanc, much harder to land and a lower ceiling what attracted the flak. Hardly surprising that the Halifax crews felt like second class citizens. And Bomber Harris hated it with a passion!

A lot of times planes were somewhat sacrificed to the "Production Gods". Improved Halifax's were delayed (mainly the redesigned tail fins/rudders) due to a desire to avoid disrupting production. Even the best Halifax's are not the equal of the Lancaster but a lot more crews would have survived had the redesigned tails showed up earlier ( that and using higher cruise power settings on most of the short/medium range raids)

2) Whirlwind - Petter's overly complex design was hard for Westland to cope with - hence a lot of the niggles. Also it's high landing speed restricted the number of airdromes that it could operate from. And it was typical of Petter to go for the minimum dimensions/weight route and fixate on the RR Peregrine. Willy Messerschmidt was much more sensible with the Bf 110 and designed a bigger airframe that was way outside the RLM spec, but able to take a lot of stretch (Jumo210 to DB605's) and last out the war.

Petter does seem to have been a bit of a prima donna but the two planes were designed for rather different missions. The Bf 110 was actually designed to use the DB 600 engines. it was a shortage of early DB 600/601 engines that forced the fitting of Jumo 210s, not
any great degree of stretch in the design and in fact Messerschmidt actually designed a smaller airframe than the RLM wanted (even if it was much larger than the Whirlwind) by leaving out the bomb bay the original specification called for.
BTW the Whirlwind wound up operating from many of the airdromes (or staging through) it wasn't supposed to be able to use. How much the airdromes had been modified between 1939/40 and 1942/43 I don't know (made larger or bordering trees cut down.

3) Liberator - boring to fly, "like driving a bus" to quote Winkle Brown. Vulnerable wing spar, easily damaged and well known to the experten. Why did such a much later design have a performance not much better than the B17, and yet be less fun to fly and easier to shoot down?

And here we get into how and why a plane was initially designed and how it was modified/used several years later. Neither the B-17 or B-24 had been designed with self sealing fuel tanks or with power turrets. The B-24 was initially designed with a wet wing and leading edge slots and used two speed superchargers not turbos. The B-24 gained over 5000lbs in empty weight between the YB-24 and the B-24D (first really combat capable version) and a whopping 10,500lbs from the YB-24 to the B-24J. The B-24J weighed about 6,000lbs less empty than the YB-24 did at gross weight. The B-17 also gained very large amounts of weight but both planes saw their most extensive use at weights and in configurations that were very different than the original designs.

 

[pbehn]

With the Halifax/ Lancaster and B17/B24 the crews were not aware of what those in high office were. The Halifax suffered higher losses but some crews liked it because flying in it you were aware that it was easier to get out of, you were not aware that statistically you would have more reasons to get out.

 

[stona]

BTW the Whirlwind wound up operating from many of the airdromes (or staging through) it wasn't supposed to be able to use. How much the airdromes had been modified between 1939/40 and 1942/43 I don't know (made larger or bordering trees cut down.

They did fly from a lot of airfields, most of which will be unknown to casual readers, being in Scotland or SW England. That is an important point. Though a decent aircraft it was never developed and was never at the sharp end of Fighter Command's pointy stick.
Instead roles were found for it which suited its abilities, in itself not a bad thing, but not something you want to be doing with your first line fighters.
Cheers
Steve

 

[buffnut453]

Depends who you talk to. I've met PTO veterans who flew the B-24 over the Pacific and they swore by it, others hated it. Whether it flew like a bus was unimportant (there goes Brown's opinions again), it's job was to carry a lot of bombs long distances, and it did that well. It was also easily produced and the basic design did allow for growth.

True enough, although I met a WWII vet who flew both types and he unequivocally preferred the B-17 because it was just easier to fly in formation for long periods. Now...that's just one anecdote and I'm not seeking to extrapolate, but it comes from someone who flew both in combat.

It must be remembered that aircrew must trust the aircraft they fly, and so there's a natural tendency to argue in favour of "your" type when others criticize it. The number of scraps we got into with other squadrons (typically when under the affluence of incohol) if they dared criticize the "Mighty Fin!" (Tornado GR1A for the uninitiated!).

 

[soulezoo]

My dad started as a right seat in -17's then went to -24's and flew mostly the -24.

His opinion was like many others... he preferred the -17 simply because it was easier to fly and could take more damage. He saw a couple of -24's blow up on take off (no known reason that he stated) and that always scared him. I recall him saying at higher altitudes it felt like the -24 just didn't have any air under the wing and one had to be really cautious on pilot input.

That said, the -24 was always my favorite bomber of the war.

 

[Ascent]

buffnut, 2 or 13?

 

[buffnut453]

buffnut, 2 or 13?

Stabbed cats forever!

 

[Ascent]

I'll always be a Crusader myself.

XIV the one for me!

 

[buffnut453]

I'll always be a Crusader myself.

XIV the one for me!

Better that than II (AC) Sqn (aka "Aye-Aye (Absent Canopy) Sqn"!).

Shiny? My *****!

 

[BLine22]

1. A-20 Havoc/Boston
2. F4F Wildcat
3. Petlyakov Pe-2
4. Hawker Hurricane
5. Vickers Wellington
6. P-40 Warhawk
7. Lavochkin La-5
8. Bristol Blenheim
9. P-39 Airacobra
10. P-38 Lightning

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

How was the Lightning underrated?

I have always seen people pointing out it's faults, but never underrated it.

 

[BLine22]

Its underrated in the since that it doesn't get the respect if the P-51, P-47, and Corsair even though at carried the load for the 5th AF and the highest scoring U'S. pilot flew. It was only #10 on my list. I take it the others are ok/

 

[GregP]

1. Hurricane
2. Anything Soviet
3. Anything Japanese
4. P-40

Not to say some other British planes weren't underrated, but perhaps not to the same extent as the above.

 

[stona]

I don't disagree that the Hurricane is generally under rated, but there is an obvious reason for this. It's name is almost always spoken in the same breath as the Spitfire, in the UK they are as much a pair as Castor and Pollux or Cheech and Chong. Being the 'twin' of one of the best fighters of WW2 invariably leads to unfavourable comparisons.

I'm close to completing the Fly 1/32 scale Hurricane IIc and have compared it to a Tamiya Spitfire in the same scale. All I can say politely is that in a beauty pageant the poor old Hurricane is going to come a very distant second
This too influences people's perceptions.

Cheers

Steve

 

[GrauGeist]

To be fair, the Hurricane wasn't that bad looking for an aircraft, and you could certainly see it's predecessors in it's design.