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

bowfin said:

along with the fact that its tendency to kill pilots and destroy itself on takeoffs and landings

Click to expand...

Hm, a bit of a generalisation. Yes, it could be tricky to land, but its worst issue was taxiing whilst rolling in after landing when it had a tendency to ground loop if not handled correctly, but a problem the LW suffered was training rather than the aeroplane being a killer. Let's not get into 'narrow undercarriage' - the Spitfire's was narrower and it didn't suffer any more than the Bf 109. I'd describe the Me 163 as a pilot killer, but not the Bf 109.

Agree with the A6M being both over and underrated. It was a very good design when it first appeared with many novel features for its time (few fighters in 1940 had washout on their wings) and wasn't structurally weak, contrary to common opinion, but the myths that surrounded it didn't help its cause once those were exploded. That it was overtaken in performance by more modern aircraft as the war went on was a given, but that wasn't the Zero's fault that it was still in service when it should have been succeeded, besides, even at the very end of the war, Allied pilots were still being warned not to dogfight with a Zero at low speed. That says something positive about it.

The Problem with the Stuka was the same as the Zero, the perception didn't match reality once the clouds of myth evaporated. It was slow, as were most dive bombers - the Lancaster Mk.I had a faster cruise speed than the Ju 87B, 210mph (Aircraft of the RAF since 1918, Thetford) versus 174mph (German Aircraft of WW2, Smith & Kay, both Putnam), which made it vulnerable in a high threat environment.

The Bf 110 can be included in this - it was another good design and despite the initial specification as a Kampfzerstorer being found wanting in practice, the type remained in service longer than it should, but it performed well as a multi-role fighter throughout the rest of the war, specifically as a night fighter.

The P-38 is overrated and underrated. Overrated, IMHO, when it is asserted that the US needed more P-38s and fewer P-47s and P-51s to defeat Germany. (The P-47 and P-51 were simply more operationally efficient in addition to certain performance attributes.) Underrated when it is asserted the P-38 couldn't combat the Bf-109 and FW-190 on equal terms. I wouldn't say it was superior to those types in a dogfight, but it could hold its own. Overall, the P-38's big problem is it was more complex and more expensive than alternatives that could perform most of the same roles at least as well if not better, but those alternatives weren't available until mid 1943 at the earliest.

bowfin said:

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.

Click to expand...

The P-51 was a war winner, once it had a secure base won by other types. There were far too many German 109 aces who survived the war to believe that the Bf 109 randomly killed its pilots any more than any other type did.

Shortround6 said:

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.

Click to expand...

True enough - the only USN F2As that saw combat, were the ones strafed at Pearl Harbor.

In regards to "over-rated/under-rated", we also need to take into consideration the time period that the aircraft was operating in.

The He177 one of the great LW "If only" aircraft. If only its engines hadnt caught fire so often. If only its airframe hadnt been so heavy yet so comparitively fragile. If only Germany had developed an Atom bomb. If only Germany had produced 10,000 of them. If only the Soviets hadnt inconsiderately moved their factories behind the Urals and out of range. If only the Atlantic wasnt so wide.

The He177 the greatest bomber of the war............................If only.

The P-40 Warhawk

pinehilljoe said:

The P-40 Warhawk

Click to expand...

Definitely not under rated by the many pilots shot down by the P40

The He177 engine problems were worked out. It was an overly complex a/c tho.

bowfin said:

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.

Click to expand...

There is that old myth again about the 109..

Shortround6 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The major users of the type, the KNIL and RAF, were using later variants of the Buffalo (the 339 and 439 series) with lower HP engines. They were optimized as long-ranged scout planes and which suffered (at least in the case of the RAF/RAAF/RNZAF) by the addition of all sorts of equipment which increased weight. At least in the case of the Buffalo Mk. I, the oil tank was far too small and oil cooling equipment was sub-par, which led to serious oil overheat issues. RAF units tried to address the serious overweight issue by pulling out much of the Buffalo's fuel tankage and removing some guns and safety equipment, but that still didn't help the overheating problem.

Another issue that everyone seems to miss is that the Buffalo was approved for production by the USN back in 1939 and had minimal potential for upgrades (e.g., like the P-40, Bf-109, and A6M) when it was introduced. By 1942, aircraft technology had advanced sufficiently that the Buffalo was obsolete. The USMC realized this and had optimized the F2A2 as a long-range scouting/light attack plane, loaded up with fuel and safety equipment so it could perform its new job adequately. The RAF and KNIL were desperate for anything that had guns, wings, and an engine, and assumed that they'd be fighting Japanese biplanes like were used in China in 1937-39, so they didn't pay that much attention to the Buffalo's obvious limitations.

Finally, even pilots equipped with otherwise competitive aircraft struggled to deal with the IJN/IJAAF in early 1942. The mere notion that the Japanese could field a halfway decent airplane took (more or less virulently racist) American and European planners by surprise. The fact that the A6M was an outstanding aircraft and that Japanese pilots were highly-trained and battle-hardened was a complete shock. There were BoB veterans flying in Hurricanes who got their butts kicked by the Zero and Ki-43 because they tried to turn-fight. With the Buffalo's low ceiling, sluggish handling, and low top speed, there was just no way it could win a 1-on-1 fight against the A6M2 or Ki-43 I. The only hope they had was "Thatch Weave" style squadron tactics, which weren't invented until ~3-6 months later. (Even then, the Japanese pilots would need to make some mistakes for the Buffaloes to win.)

As for the Buffalo's excellent reputation with the Finnish AF:

A) The Finns were flying the 239 series Buffalo which had better handling at the expense of pilot protection.
B) They were flying in Arctic/sub-Arctic conditions where the Buffalo's overheating issues weren't so much of a problem.
C) Their mechanics had lots of time between the end of the Winter War (Early 1940) and the start of the Continuation War (June 1941) to work out all the Buffalo's bugs.
D) Soviet 1941-43 pilots weren't nearly as good as 1942 IJN/IJAAF pilots.
E) The Soviets always treated the Finnish Fronts as secondary, so never committed their best aircraft to it.
F) For whatever reasons, the squadrons who operated the Buffalo had the personal and organizational qualities that resulted in an elite squadron filled with aces, including the Finnish Ace of Aces, "Hasse" Wind. By contrast, the other Finnish fighter squadrons, operating aircraft the Hurricane Mk. I and/or Fokker D.XXI, weren't quite so hot.
G) I've read well-argued articles which make the claim that, at least by 1942, the Buffalo was actually holding otherwise excellent pilots back. Once those squadrons reequipped with Bf-109Gs, their kill ratios went up by something like 50%. Even prior to full reequipment with the Bf-109, the Finns made a practice of sending out mixed flights of Buffalos and Bf-109s. If the enemy was flying slower and more maneuverable aircraft, the Buffalo pilot would take the lead. If they were flying faster aircraft, the Bf-109 pilot would engage.

tomo pauk said:

P-38.

Click to expand...

+1.

By mid-1943, the P-38 wasn't competitive in the ETO and MTO. It had better range than the P-47, but couldn't dogfight effectively at medium or high altitudes vs. German fighters. Furthermore, the P-38 cockpit was COLD, to the point that pilots risked frostbite. Not good when you're flying over Northern Europe.

As a result, P-38s in Europe were turned into heavy fighter bombers or recon aircraft as soon as better aircraft became available to escort the bombers, and once bomber gunners were sufficiently well-trained to tell the difference between a P-47 and a FW-190, or a Bf-109 and a P-51.

By contrast, the P-38 was the perfect weapon for the PTO, where its long range allowed it to fly long distances over water, where fighting tended to happen at medium altitudes, and it was hunting much less heavily-armed and -armored aircraft. Against lightly-built, lightly-armed aircraft like the Ki-43, which had the same high speed maneuverability problems as the A6M, it was the perfect weapon, as aces like Richard Bong and Thomas McGuire demonstrated.

Does somebody have a memo, directive, letter or so form of documentation about the latter Buffaloes being intended as " long-ranged scout planes"
and not conjecture based on the increased fuel capacity which can be explained another way?

Pursuivant said:

suffered (at least in the case of the RAF/RAAF/RNZAF) by the addition of all sorts of equipment which increased weight.

Click to expand...

Yeah, some of this additional equipment was armor, BP glass, and self sealing tanks. A more specific list of the additional equipment would be appreciated.

Pursuivant said:

RAF units tried to address the serious overweight issue by pulling out much of the Buffalo's fuel tankage and removing some guns and safety equipment, but that still didn't help the overheating problem.

Click to expand...

Ok, lets address the Buffalo's fuel tankage. There were up to five tanks.

the original tanks which lacked self sealing were formed by the the front and rear wing spars, solid ribs at the appropriate points along the wing for tanks ends and the top and bottom skinning of the wing for the top and bottom of the tanks. This gave a capacity of 160 US gallons. This was the tankage supplied on the early Buffaloes. Please note that this space/volume of tankage could NOT be removed from the plane as it formed part of the structure. On at least some of the British aircraft parts or all of these tanks was covered in a treated horsehide covering in an attempt at self sealing.

These original fuel spaces could not be upgraded to the self sealing standards the US was looking for and could not be made easily repairable it they took battle damage.
Which lead to tanks no 3, 4 and 5 being added which were self sealing. A 20 gallon tank in each wing leading edge and a 40 gallon tank below and behind the pilot.

Now here is where the story gets a bit strange, The US Navy never considered the 160 gal fuel capacity of the original fuel tanks as Normal. They considered 110 gals as a normal fuel load with 160 gallons as the overload fuel capacity. When they fitted an extra 80 gallons of fuel tankage with the protected tanks they sealed one of the 80 gallon tank fuel fillers and stenciled it as to be filled on the orders of the squadron commander only. SO despite having a theoretical capacity of 240 gallons most US Buffaloes operated with 160 gallons or less.

US Buffaloes were flown by fighter squadrons and not scout squadrons. US Navy squadrons equipped with Buffaloes were re-equipped with F4F Wildcats with even less fuel capacity than the 160 gallon Buffaloes and few, if ANY, US carriers operated Buffaloes and F4Fs at the same time leaving the intended scout mission of the Buffaloes somewhat in question. Scouting for who? And without the long range radio and radio operator the scout planes had.

T

michael rauls said:

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.

Click to expand...

Resp:
I know the USAAF (or rather the USAAC) under rated it before Pearl Harbor. Gen Chenault sent a full evaluation of the Zero circa 1940 to both the RAF and USAAC. I cannot speak for the RAF, but the USAAC leadership simply deposited the report in a lower desk drawer. It gave the Zero's range at @ 1,000 miles. Chenault flew to Hawaii @ 4 mos before the attack on Pearl Harbor to give pilots there an idea of the Zero's capabilities. The rest is history.

I believe the Hawker Hurricane. The pilots who flew them reported turning inside the Emil's flying over Malta. Not as nimble as a Spit, and reportedly slower climbing, the Hurricane took enormous damage and still get the pilot home. Their kill numbers, from what I have read, exceed the Spits.

The German pilots thought very little of the aircraft. Luftwaffe pilots often, according to what I have read and has not been vetted by me, misidentified Hurricanes as Spitfires, and would not be pleased to learn the Hurricane.

Not misIDed, but vanity of Lw pilots.

Pursuivant said:

+1.

By mid-1943, the P-38 wasn't competitive in the ETO and MTO. It had better range than the P-47, but couldn't dogfight effectively at medium or high altitudes vs. German fighters. Furthermore, the P-38 cockpit was COLD, to the point that pilots risked frostbite. Not good when you're flying over Northern Europe.

As a result, P-38s in Europe were turned into heavy fighter bombers or recon aircraft as soon as better aircraft became available to escort the bombers, and once bomber gunners were sufficiently well-trained to tell the difference between a P-47 and a FW-190, or a Bf-109 and a P-51.

By contrast, the P-38 was the perfect weapon for the PTO, where its long range allowed it to fly long distances over water, where fighting tended to happen at medium altitudes, and it was hunting much less heavily-armed and -armored aircraft. Against lightly-built, lightly-armed aircraft like the Ki-43, which had the same high speed maneuverability problems as the A6M, it was the perfect weapon, as aces like Richard Bong and Thomas McGuire demonstrated.

Click to expand...

Resp:
Part of the confusion with the 109 and P-51 fell to the failure to update aircraft recognition 'placards.' The 109 E had rectangular wing tips similar to the P-51. However, by the time the P-51s arrived in the ETO, the 109Es were replaced by F, G, etc 109s. These newer models had pronounced rounded wing tips.

Pursuivant said:

+1.

By mid-1943, the P-38 wasn't competitive in the ETO and MTO. It had better range than the P-47, but couldn't dogfight effectively at medium or high altitudes vs. German fighters. Furthermore, the P-38 cockpit was COLD, to the point that pilots risked frostbite. Not good when you're flying over Northern Europe.

As a result, P-38s in Europe were turned into heavy fighter bombers or recon aircraft as soon as better aircraft became available to escort the bombers, and once bomber gunners were sufficiently well-trained to tell the difference between a P-47 and a FW-190, or a Bf-109 and a P-51.

By contrast, the P-38 was the perfect weapon for the PTO, where its long range allowed it to fly long distances over water, where fighting tended to happen at medium altitudes, and it was hunting much less heavily-armed and -armored aircraft. Against lightly-built, lightly-armed aircraft like the Ki-43, which had the same high speed maneuverability problems as the A6M, it was the perfect weapon, as aces like Richard Bong and Thomas McGuire demonstrated.

Click to expand...

The P-38 was always competitive in the West, but only competitive. Bf-109Gs or Fw-190As taking on an equal number of P-38Js would have their hands full. The difference is the P-51, and over a narrower range of conditions, the P-47, were superior to the Bf-109 and FW-190. For an equal commitment of resources, you could have more than double the number of P-51s over the combat area as P-38s.

Conslaw said:

The P-38 was always competitive in the West, but only competitive. Bf-109Gs or Fw-190As taking on an equal number of P-38Js would have their hands full. The difference is the P-51, and over a narrower range of conditions, the P-47, were superior to the Bf-109 and FW-190. For an equal commitment of resources, you could have more than double the number of P-51s over the combat area as P-38s.

Click to expand...

Exactly. A very expensive plane that took a long time to develop and didn't solve the low mach number problem until mid '44 after air superiority had been won in Europe. Great plane in the Pacific since it usually had a 70mph speed advantage and climbed faster than most of it's opponents. But a titanic waste of resources in my opinion.

Shortround6 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Resp:
Yes, the new Grumman TBF suffered greatly at the battle of Midway, but it proved itself in later engagements. So one engagement is not a true analysis.

P-39 Expert said:

Exactly. A very expensive plane that took a long time to develop and didn't solve the low mach number problem until mid '44 after air superiority had been won in Europe. Great plane in the Pacific since it usually had a 70mph speed advantage and climbed faster than most of it's opponents. But a titanic waste of resources in my opinion.

Click to expand...

They didn't solve the "low mach number problem" at all.

What they did was to reduce the affect of compressibility on the handling of the aircraft by limiting the acceleration in a dive.