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

[AlfaKiloSierra]

P-47. It is largely ignored as a fighter because of the presence of a P-51D, even though the P-47D offered superior speed and climb except around the P-51 first stage ACA, where the P-51 outclasses the P-47 (comparison between a 67" P-51 with -7 Merlin engine and a 70" P-47 with -63 or -59 Double Wasp engine, see wwiiaircraftperformance.org for speed vs altitude and climb vs altitude graph). The P-47 also outclassed the Fw 190 A-8 (1.65 ata) at nearly all altitudes except at sea level, which I commented on in another thread.

 

[Navalwarrior]

P-47. It is largely ignored as a fighter because of the presence of a P-51D, even though the P-47D offered superior speed and climb except around the P-51 first stage ACA, where the P-51 outclasses the P-47 (comparison between a 67" P-51 with -7 Merlin engine and a 70" P-47 with -63 or -59 Double Wasp engine, see wwiiaircraftperformance.org for speed vs altitude and climb vs altitude graph). The P-47 also outclassed the Fw 190 A-8 (1.65 ata) at nearly all altitudes except at sea level, which I commented on in another thread.

Resp:
One must be careful about extrapolating from the aircraft performance testing as the aircraft likely had minimum fuel, etc, during the tests, which wouldn't be the same in aerial combat. Once tactics were refined the P-47 performed well. It just took the USAAF too long in extending its range . . . one great advantage the P-38 had from the time it entered combat. It was late 1943 (Aug-Sept) before a single 75 gallon drop tank was retro fitted to in ETO theater P-47s. The USAAC established a contract prohibition to aircraft manufacturers in 1939 against incorporating plumbing/hard points for external fuel stores (drop tanks). Shameful!

 

[P-39 Expert]

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.

Call it what you want, it was June '44 before the plane could dive away from trouble from high altitude. Too complicated to build and maintain, too complicated for the pilot, and way too expensive.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Call it what you want, it was June '44 before the plane could dive away from trouble from high altitude. Too complicated to build and maintain, too complicated for the pilot, and way too expensive.

You're opinion -

Amazing though how it quickly replaced the P-39 in the SW Pacific.

At the end of the day it fulfilled its mission, did what the P-39 couldn't.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Sure, my opinion. If by quickly you mean September 1943 because that was the first month that there were more P-38s in the Pacific than P-39s and P-40s.

Had the P-38 not been available in the Pacific the P-39 was always faster and after the end of '42 outclimbed it's Japanese opponents. Better trained pilots like Bong and Mcguire would have had a field day in P-39s in '43 and '44.

 

[Navalwarrior]

Sure, my opinion. If by quickly you mean September 1943 because that was the first month that there were more P-38s in the Pacific than P-39s and P-40s.

Had the P-38 not been available in the Pacific the P-39 was always faster and after the end of '42 outclimbed it's Japanese opponents. Better trained pilots like Bong and Mcguire would have had a field day in P-39s in '43 and '44.

Resp:
You're dreaming inre to the P-39.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Okay, you win. All that information in wwiiaircraftperformance is all wrong. Official military/government tests were all bogus. And all the Russian information on the P-39 was all fabricated. P-38 was the best plane in history.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Sure, my opinion. If by quickly you mean September 1943 because that was the first month that there were more P-38s in the Pacific than P-39s and P-40s.

Had the P-38 not been available in the Pacific the P-39 was always faster and after the end of '42 outclimbed it's Japanese opponents. Better trained pilots like Bong and Mcguire would have had a field day in P-39s in '43 and '44.

Would have, should have, could have - better trained pilots "would have" done well in the P-39, provided they had the range to get home.

Okay, you win. All that information in wwiiaircraftperformance is all wrong. Official military/government tests were all bogus. And all the Russian information on the P-39 was all fabricated. P-38 was the best plane in history.

At the end of the day, lets look at the combat record, especially in the SWP. At that point all tests, charts, and foreign information are meaningless.

While I have my positive opinions about the P-39, in most cases the P-38 was just the better tool for the job.

 

[ClayO]

I have to add the B-26 Marauder on to that list. It was difficult to fly; all of its nicknames were negative (Widow Maker, One a Day in Tampa Bay, etc.); sent to the scrap heap after the war; very few survivors even in museums; even had the B26 designation superseded by the Douglas A26 (not sure if that happened to any other airplane) - but its actual war record was top notch, including its loss rate.

 

[Navalwarrior]

Okay, you win. All that information in wwiiaircraftperformance is all wrong. Official military/government tests were all bogus. And all the Russian information on the P-39 was all fabricated. P-38 was the best plane in history.

Resp:
In all fairness, one day three P-400s (few aircraft were available) took off from Henderson Field on Guadalcanal and flew along the tree line parallel to the runway and straifted the Japanese hidden in the foliage with their 20 mm cannons. The Japs were about to attack US forces that morning, but were largely decimated before they could launch their attack. A hell of a lot of Marines owe their lives to the pilots flying the Airacobras.

 

[AlfaKiloSierra]

Sure, my opinion. If by quickly you mean September 1943 because that was the first month that there were more P-38s in the Pacific than P-39s and P-40s.

Had the P-38 not been available in the Pacific the P-39 was always faster and after the end of '42 outclimbed it's Japanese opponents. Better trained pilots like Bong and Mcguire would have had a field day in P-39s in '43 and '44.

What the P-39 could never do, is fly over long distances. There's no way a P-39 can out-range even a Typhoon, not to mention long-range types like the P-38 or P-51D.

 

[P-39 Expert]

What the P-39 could never do, is fly over long distances. There's no way a P-39 can out-range even a Typhoon, not to mention long-range types like the P-38 or P-51D.

True, but nothing else could fly as far as the P-38 or P-51. P-39 had about the same range as a Hellcat or Thunderbolt.

 

[AlfaKiloSierra]

True, but nothing else could fly as far as the P-38 or P-51. P-39 had about the same range as a Hellcat or Thunderbolt.

That is complete disinformation. P-39 has range slightly shorter than Typhoon, and the P-47 in comparison has significantly more range. A P-39 can never match a Hellcat or Thunderbolt in terms of range, even if it's a Thunderbolt without droptanks.

 

[swampyankee]

A small sample (like mine with the Buffalo) can skew an aircraft's reputation, as can poor training (one of the problems with the P-38 in early operations), poor doctrine (possibly a problem with the French Air Force in 1940), and underestimating the enemy's capabilities (possibly a problem with the US and Commonwealth in the Pacific).

So can politics, nostalgia, lack of information, and propaganda. As an example, in the US, at least, Soviet use of US aircraft was quite mis-reported until the 1990s and Soviet forces, in general, were reported as near-mindless, semi-barbarian hordes which succeeded against the infinitely better Germans only by massive numbers. To some extent, the same comparison is applied to the Western Allies against the Germans: stupid, clumsy, but successful only because of near-infinite supplies from the Americans.

 

[unkated]

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.

Another (oft-forgot) issue with the Buffalo is that its manuevering characteristics changed a lot based on version. The Finns got the first, spritely version (F2A-1 equivalent). The Dutch and the British got the F2A-2, with more guns but no more horsepower. It was used in the Far East and did not fare well vs Japanese A6M2s. The US had ordered a few of each of these, but ordered the F2A-3 with heavier guns, armor, and carrier landing equipment was even less maneuverable, and did not do well against the agile - nor did it stack up well against a new contender from Grumman - F4F Wildcat, which began to replace it as quickly as it could be produced.

unkated

 

[Shortround6]

Actually the F2A-1s the US used (all 11 of them) had carrier equipment, 9 of them going to VF-3 on the Saratoga in Dec of 1939.

I have no idea of how spritely the F2A-1s (and Finnish 239s) were in reality, they used a single speed supercharger, a 9 ft diameter propeller driven by a direct drive engine (no reduction gear, prop turned at the same speed as the engine) and were rated at 950hp at sea level at 2200rpm and 800 hp at 16,000ft (at 2200 rpm).

The bulk of the export 339s got engines with two speed superchargers (which seem to help low altitude power more than high altitude) reduction gears (16:11) driving 10 ft 1 or 10 ft 3 in props

The engines were good for 1100hp at sea level and 800hp at 17100ft at 2350rpm.

The USN F2A-2 and -3s got 1200hp engines (at 2500rpm) at sea level, 3:2 reduction gears and 10 ft 3 in props.

You are correct in that the increased power did not compensate for the increased weight of armor, self sealing tanks and other equipment.

 

[Conslaw]

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.

I agree, with just 4 TBFs committed to battle at Midway, an "incomplete" is probably a more accurate grade than "pass" or "fail", Because of the bad US torpedoes, even if there had been a couple of dozen TBFs, they may not have had a better result.

 

[Conslaw]

Resp:
One must be careful about extrapolating from the aircraft performance testing as the aircraft likely had minimum fuel, etc, during the tests, which wouldn't be the same in aerial combat. Once tactics were refined the P-47 performed well. It just took the USAAF too long in extending its range . . . one great advantage the P-38 had from the time it entered combat. It was late 1943 (Aug-Sept) before a single 75 gallon drop tank was retro fitted to in ETO theater P-47s. The USAAC established a contract prohibition to aircraft manufacturers in 1939 against incorporating plumbing/hard points for external fuel stores (drop tanks). Shameful!

P-47. It is largely ignored as a fighter because of the presence of a P-51D, even though the P-47D offered superior speed and climb except around the P-51 first stage ACA, where the P-51 outclasses the P-47 (comparison between a 67" P-51 with -7 Merlin engine and a 70" P-47 with -63 or -59 Double Wasp engine, see wwiiaircraftperformance.org for speed vs altitude and climb vs altitude graph). The P-47 also outclassed the Fw 190 A-8 (1.65 ata) at nearly all altitudes except at sea level, which I commented on in another thread.

The FW190 was a victim of guessing the wrong direction the wind was going to blow from late 1943 through late 1944. The Luftwaffe focused on upgunning the FW-190 to take on bombers at the same time American fighter escort got more numerous and penetrated deeper, with better pilots and better planes. The FW-190A8 was armed with 4 cannon and 2 heavy machine guns, plus armor protection, but it entered service in April 1944 when Mustangs were flooding into American and British units. The P-47, already the most numerous fighter, now had water-injection, paddle-blade props and would very shortly have 150-octane avgas.

 

[Navalwarrior]

I agree, with just 4 TBFs committed to battle at Midway, an "incomplete" is probably a more accurate grade than "pass" or "fail", Because of the bad US torpedoes, even if there had been a couple of dozen TBFs, they may not have had a better result.

Resp:
True statement from many aspects. The USN also entered the war with outdated tactics; submarine warfare being one of the worst. Japan did the US a favor by forcing us to 'do battle' without Battleships due to their destruction at Pearl Harbor. It enabled US carriers to operate at faster speeds (battleships were much slower) which allowed them to cover more ocean and to launch aircraft from one position and to quickly move to recover the same aircraft in another location. Much of the aircrews at Midway had very little combat experience (nearly all torpedo pilots had never even launched a 'live' torpedo) so relied on pre-war doctrine. If they had tested dropping live torpedos, they likely would have found the denotation failures and learned that the torpedos could have been dropped at a greater airspeed than they flew at Midway. The TBFs would have likely fared better as a result. Just my two cents worth.

 

[P-39 Expert]

That is complete disinformation. P-39 has range slightly shorter than Typhoon, and the P-47 in comparison has significantly more range. A P-39 can never match a Hellcat or Thunderbolt in terms of range, even if it's a Thunderbolt without droptanks.

As long as we're comparing ranges, at what altitude and external fuel load will we be using?