Planes that are simultaneously both the most over rated and the most under rated.

[michael rauls]

I thought an interesting topic would be ww2 aircraft that are chronically both over rated and under rated by different individuals or demographics.
For me the walk away winner hear is the A6m. Seems like it has almost supernatural capabilities in they eyes of many a less knowledgeable aircraft enthusiasts and writer while at the same time perhaps being a bit, or maybe sometimes more than a bit, under rated by those with more knowledge in that it's mediocre performance as the war went on was more attributable to declining pilot quality than that the plane itself was not still a formidable opponent in the hands of a good pilot but the A6m seems to receive a disproportionate share of the blame. Imho.

 

[fastmongrel]

Ju87 Stuka it seems to be simultaneously the greatest thing since the invention of Beer and a big waste of time that got many a fighter ace started n his career.

 

[Conslaw]

The Spitfire was both underrated and overrated. As a legitimate front-line fighter from 1940 through 1945, the Spit deserves points for longevity and competitiveness. That it was "only" equal to the Bf-109 during much of that period and was inferior to the FW-190 for part of that period is also true. That pilots loved the plane for its responsiveness and handling is without a doubt. It's also true that the Spitfire-V was judged inferior to the A6M-21 Zero in a dogfight under 20,000 ft, and turned about even with a lightly-loaded P-40. It was the best interceptor the Allies had for most of the war. On the other hand, with equal Merlin engines, the P-51 was faster and had twice the range.

 

[mikewint]

Ju87 Stuka it seems to be simultaneously the greatest thing since the invention of Beer and a big waste of time

It seems to me that these labels come into play when one attempts to use a device in a way and manner that was never intended. The Stuka is a prime example. In defense of the Stuka, it is an inexcusably ugly aircraft, but like so many designed-for-a-mission utilitarian airplanes (Consolidated PBY for example), the Ju-87 looks better the longer you consider its rugged lines. That same straightforward ruggedness made the Stuka easy to manufacture, repair and maintain. Let's face it, the Stuka was a bomb truck intended to fly to a target little farther away than its pilot can see, do a job and rumble back home again. Did it really need elliptical wings, or a stylish P-51 radiator doghouse or retractable landing gear to do the job it was designed for?

The Rolls-Royce Kestral-powered Ju-87 V-1 prototype first flew on September 17, 1935. The Ju-87 was designed to attack and destroy specific military targets supporting the Heer. Nine Ju-87s were used at one time or another during the Spanish Civil War, but they were operated only occasionally and conservatively as they were considered "secret" weapons at the time. Republican anti-aircraft was pretty primitive, so the Stukas bombed at will—as they were intended to—and even the worst drops typically landed within less than 100 feet of the target. Good hits were either on target or no more than 15 feet off-center.

Ernst Udet was a verticalbombing proponent and is often credited as the "father" of the Stuka though in actual fact his one important role in the Stuka's development was that when RLM Technical Director Wolfram von Richthofen canceled the Ju-87 program (Richthofen thought that a slow, cumbersome, diving Stuka would never survive the anti-aircraft guns toward which it was pointed). Udet happened the next day to be given Richthofen's job. His first move was to countermand that order, so the Stuka survived.

The sole benefit of dive bombing is accuracy. If the dive is truly vertical, the flight of the bomb will follow the path of the bomber to wherever the airplane is pointed—at a tank, a ship, a bunker, a building.
The Ju-87 was one of the only dive bombers that could actually perform a vertical dive without surpassing VNE. Most dive bombers couldn't put the nose more than about 70 degrees down (the Vultee Vengeance was also a truly vertical bomber). The Stuka's under-wing dive brakes, a Hugo Junkers invention, were remarkably effective despite their small size and simplicity, and apparently the airplane's bluff chin radiator, large wheel pants, upright greenhouse and general avoidance of drag reduction sufficed to maintain a 375-mph vertical dive speed. (Later models could dive at up to 405 mph.)

British test pilot Eric "Winkle" Brown spent an hour flying a captured Ju-87D and later wrote:

"A dive angle of 90 degrees is a pretty palpitating experience, for it always feels as if the aircraft is over the vertical and is bunting, and all this while terra firma is rushing closer with apparent suicidal rapidity. In fact I have rarely seen a specialist dive bomber put over 70 degrees in a dive, but the Ju-87 was a genuine 90-degree screamer…the Ju-87 felt right standing on its nose, and the acceleration to 335 mph was reached in about 4,500 feet, speed thereafter creeping up slowly to the absolute permitted limit of 375 mph, so that the feeling of being on a runaway roller coaster experienced with most other dive bombers was missing. I must confess that I had a more enjoyable hour's dive-bombing practice than I had ever experienced with any other aircraft of this specialist type."

One of the Ju-87's advanced features, at least for that era, was an automatic pullout mechanism, to avoid the possibility of pilots being overcome by target fixation or rendered unable to fly by the effects of high-G pullouts. The pullout was also the point at which a Stuka was most vulnerable, its speed paying off rapidly as it fought for altitude, following a predictable course and unable to maneuver. Allied pilots who opposed Stukas didn't bother trying to catch them in a dive; they waited until the Germans released their bombs and pulled out. Ju-87s were intended to operate only where the Luftwaffe had complete air superiority and could make bomb runs with impunity. Out of their element, Stukas were a "fighter magnet" and required heavy air cover but again: nobody ever meant for them to go head-to-head with eight-gun Spitfires and Hurricanes.

When they did as during the Battle of Britain, Stukas were downed by the dozens while trying to do a job—strategic rather than tactical bombing—for which they were never intended. They were ground- support airplanes, designed to work in tandem with tanks. After their poor performance in the BoB the RAF proclaimed that the Stuka was finished as an offensive weapon, beaten bloody by Spitfires and Hurricanes. That myth has become part of Stuka lore. But the Stuka went on to be a superb anti-shipping weapon sinking hundreds of thousands of tons of merchant shipping and warships. The armored-deck aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious, and its support ships, would soon be battered so badly by Stukas off Malta that it was out of action for nearly a year. Stukas also thoroughly chased the Royal Navy out of Norway's waters. The Ju-87G, one of the most effective Stuka models, was no longer a dive bomber and didn't even have dive brakes. The G was armed with a huge 37mm, 12-round anti-tank cannon under each wing. The top 58 Stuka pilots on the Russian Front eliminated some 3,700 Soviet tanks, the Ju-87 could still get the job done.

Only two intact Stukas remain—one in the Chicago Museum of Industry and the second in the RAF Museum at Hendon. Neither is flyable, though when the 1969 film Battle of Britain was in production, plans were laid to restore the Hendon Ju-87 to flight for use in the movie. A pilot from the film company, Vivian Bellamy, reportedly climbed into the museum Stuka, cranked it through three blades and the Jumo V-12 lit off and idled perfectly. But the project of full restoration proved to be too expensive for the studio and the project was scrapped

 

[FLYBOYJ]

 

[pbehn]

How do you "rate" something. Long time service at the top level. Conflict deciding performance in one area or outstanding performance in many areas. In performance you cannot not "rate" the F8F Bearcat but it was only produced at the end of WW2 too late to affect anything.

 

[swampyankee]

Brewste Buffalo, a disaster for the USN, USMC, and RAF, but quite successful for Ilmavoimat

 

[Shortround6]

Brewste Buffalo, a disaster for the USN, USMC, and RAF, but quite successful for Ilmavoimat

And here we have part of the myth. The USN never flew the Buffalo in combat (at least air to air combat, they may have strafed or used light bombs on something), The US Marines only had one squadron of them that engaged the enemy (and that squadron was not 100% Buffaloes) and that was one engagement.

The RAF (and commonwealth squadrons) that used them would have had problems using P-51Ds (ok, something of an exaggeration but many RAF buffaloes were destroyed on the ground, abandoned on arifields as units retreated and suffered from a poor early warning network and that is just for starters).

I am not claiming the Buffalo was a great plane or a missed opportunity but most of it's negative press comes from the losses suffered by VMF-221 one one mission at the battle of Midway which is hardly a decent basis for statistical analysis,

We can certainly find other planes that suffered horrendous losses on one mission (often an early one) and went on to become very well thought of aircraft.

 

[michael rauls]

How do you "rate" something. Long time service at the top level. Conflict deciding performance in one area or outstanding performance in many areas. In performance you cannot not "rate" the F8F Bearcat but it was only produced at the end of WW2 too late to affect anything.

By the terms over or under rated I was referring to the subjective perception a person or demographic might have of an aircrafts capabilities either greater or lesser than were actually the case.

 

[michael rauls]

I think another great example of a plane that is over rated by some whe being under rated by others is the p38. In my estamation it was a good design overall that had some shortcomings but was pretty effective overall.
I've seen some authors write about it as if it we're the best design of the war and others call it a failure and not alot In between.

 

[michael rauls]

And here we have part of the myth. The USN never flew the Buffalo in combat (at least air to air combat, they may have strafed or used light bombs on something), The US Marines only had one squadron of them that engaged the enemy (and that squadron was not 100% Buffaloes) and that was one engagement.

The RAF (and commonwealth squadrons) that used them would have had problems using P-51Ds (ok, something of an exaggeration but many RAF buffaloes were destroyed on the ground, abandoned on arifields as units retreated and suffered from a poor early warning network and that is just for starters).

I am not claiming the Buffalo was a great plane or a missed opportunity but most of it's negative press comes from the losses suffered by VMF-221 one one mission at the battle of Midway which is hardly a decent basis for statistical analysis,

We can certainly find other planes that suffered horrendous losses on one mission (often an early one) and went on to become very well thought of aircraft.

Good point about the Buffalo. I've often thought it was probably better than generally given credit for. It did find considerable success with the Finns.

 

[tomo pauk]

P-38.

 

[buffnut453]

The Spitfire was both underrated and overrated. As a legitimate front-line fighter from 1940 through 1945, the Spit deserves points for longevity and competitiveness. That it was "only" equal to the Bf-109 during much of that period and was inferior to the FW-190 for part of that period is also true. That pilots loved the plane for its responsiveness and handling is without a doubt. It's also true that the Spitfire-V was judged inferior to the A6M-21 Zero in a dogfight under 20,000 ft, and turned about even with a lightly-loaded P-40. It was the best interceptor the Allies had for most of the war. On the other hand, with equal Merlin engines, the P-51 was faster and had twice the range.

One minor point but the Spitfire was a front-line fighter in August 1938.

Now one slightly snarky point...the P-51 had zero speed and zero operational range for the period August 1938 to January 1942. The Spitfire also maintained a clear altitude advantage until the P-51B came along in August 1943. So, while the P-51 eventually reached better speed and longer range than the Spitfire, it wasn't until the Spitfire had been in service for 5 years. Good job the RAF didn't wait for the P-51 to show up.

More seriously, you say that the Spitfire was "inferior to the Fw-190 for part of that period" but, surely, the opposite is also true...that the Spitfire was also superior to the Fw190 for part of the period?

 

[Conslaw]

One minor point but the Spitfire was a front-line fighter in August 1938.

Now one slightly snarky point...the P-51 had zero speed and zero operational range for the period August 1938 to January 1942. The Spitfire also maintained a clear altitude advantage until the P-51B came along in August 1943. So, while the P-51 eventually reached better speed and longer range than the Spitfire, it wasn't until the Spitfire had been in service for 5 years. Good job the RAF didn't wait for the P-51 to show up.

More seriously, you say that the Spitfire was "inferior to the Fw-190 for part of that period" but, surely, the opposite is also true...that the Spitfire was also superior to the Fw190 for part of the period?

I don't know when the RAF truly thought the Spitfire was ready for combat, but the Spit was held out of the defense of France, and first saw combat during the Norway campaign in May 1940.

No argument from me about the periods of the war that other planes weren't available. That's why I gave the Spitfire points for being a front-line fighter for practically the entire war. I suppose you could say the Spitfire outperformed the very early FW-190s that were more like service-test units. Most of the rest of the war, the latest FW-190s and Spitfires were pretty competitive with each other.

 

[buffnut453]

I don't know when the RAF truly thought the Spitfire was ready for combat, but the Spit was held out of the defense of France, and first saw combat during the Norway campaign in May 1940.

No argument from me about the periods of the war that other planes weren't available. That's why I gave the Spitfire points for being a front-line fighter for practically the entire war. I suppose you could say the Spitfire outperformed the very early FW-190s that were more like service-test units. Most of the rest of the war, the latest FW-190s and Spitfires were pretty competitive with each other.

The Spitfire was withheld from service in France because Dowding was adamant that Fighter Command's best fighter should be conserved to defend the British Isles. The Spitfire did NOT see service in Norway. The only RAF fighters were a single squadron of Gladiators followed, belatedly, by a single squadron of Hurricanes.

As to "ready for combat" that rather depends on whether we're looking at the situation as it was or applying hindsight. Fighter Command believed Hurricanes with no armour playing were combat ready in early 1940. That was proved not to be the case, sadly at the loss of a number of very brave men. Bottom line is you go to war with what you have. Had war broken out in late 1938, then Fighter Command absolutely would have used the very early Spitfire with 2-bladed propeller and no armour protection for the pilot.

As to the Fw190, I think it was the other way round. The Spitfire MkV was trounced by the Fw190 when the latter was introduced. It was only when the MkVIII and IX came into service that the Spitfire at least was on par with the Fw, a position that it maintained through the rest of the war

 

[P-39 Expert]

As soon as the two stage Spitfire became operational the FW190 was toast. At 25000' the Spitfire IX climbed fully twice as fast as the FW190. And more maneuverable.

 

[Barrett]

The late Paul Allen's Flying Heritage Collection has a Stuka that reputedly will be restored...and flown. Man-o-man, surely woulda liked to share ramp space with that hummer alongside the Dauntless!

 

[mikewint]

has a Stuka that reputedly will be restored.

This Stuka, an R-4 version modified to fly long distances, was built in 1941 and was destined for North Africa before being diverted to the fighting in Russia. Serving with Lehrgeschwader (demonstration wing) 1 and then Sturzkampfgeschwader (dive bomber wing) 5, the plane operated in northwest Russia, near the border with Finland and Norway.

The aircraft was on a mission to bomb Murmansk in April of 1942 when it was attacked by Soviet fighters and crashed to the west of the city. The wreckage remained in the wilderness until the early 1990s, when it was acquired by a private collector and shipped to England. The rare plane was eventually obtained by the Deutsches Technikmuseum (German Museum of Technology) in Berlin in 1997.

The Flying Heritage & Combat Armor Museum began a restoration to flying condition on this rare and important aircraft in 2013. This is one of only three surviving Stukas left in the world.

 

[bowfin]

The Spitfire. It was a war winner...as long as the war didn't get further away than a hundred miles from its own aerodrome.

Also, the Bf-109 for the same reason, along with the fact that its tendency to kill pilots and destroy itself on takeoffs and landings, although it was very formidable if it could survive those.

 

[warbird51]

P-39 Airacobra