Most under rated Allied aircraft.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: jakla1027

How about the Blenhiem Mk. IV? I have been using them to great effect in the ground attack role in India & Burma. I got air superiority in the skys in that region with my Hurricanes & P-40E's so the few squadrons of Blenhiem Mk. IV's i have thier are free to bomb at will.

If you are playing the AI then yes they will work fine. Vs a good human opponent they are flying coffins just like the Betty.

[mdiehl]

Kill ratios are a very good way of comparing the plane+pilot combination of two different (hostile) a.c. types as they fought each other. One cannot say that the F2A was a good plane against the Zero, because in combat, F2A3s flown by very good pilots had a crappy record against A6M2s flown by very good pilots. It was the plane that stunk in that case, because similarly trained USN pilots in F4F4s had a superior record against the similarly trained A6M2s under similar circumstances.

In Finnish hands, during the Winter War and in 1941, the Brewster was a better plane because in Finnish hands the plane+pilot combination was superior to the plane+pilot combinations thrown against them by the USSR. I suspect that most of that was due to training and doctrine, because on paper the Brewster was just not a very good plane in 1941 compared to other a.c. And of course, by 1943-44, not only were Soviet pilots using better tactics and doctrine, but they had better logistics, and better planes.

I'd say the most underrated plane in a historical sense, used by the US, was the Curtiss Hawk. A really good plane for the time, and if they'd gone with upgraded radial engines instead of converting to the Allison in-line, it may have been one of those models that could last through the end of the war.

Now, just to make this discussion a little less contentious, let me ask this:

Does anyone else share my fascination with building models of those hopeless relics that performed so poorly in combat? I mean, the F2A3 was a pig, but as a subject, a yellow wings Brewster Buffalo is a really fun project, IMO.

[pharmy]

http://www.amazon.com/Sorry-Saga-Brewst ... B0017KT5L2

just got this for my kindle, maybe I'll get an answer for 4 dollars

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


In Finnish hands, during the Winter War and in 1941, the Brewster was a better plane because in Finnish hands the plane+pilot combination was superior to the plane+pilot combinations thrown against them by the USSR. I suspect that most of that was due to training and doctrine, because on paper the Brewster was just not a very good plane in 1941 compared to other a.c. And of course, by 1943-44, not only were Soviet pilots using better tactics and doctrine, but they had better logistics, and better planes.

It was combination of lot of things. 1941-42 Soviet AF had on Finnish front mostly older planes (I-153, I-16), second class pilots and poor tactics & doctrine. Brewster Buffalo definitely outclassed older Soviet fighters and was able to use energy fighting against them during that period.

In 1943, Buffalo was already hopelessly outclassed by more advanced planes in Soviet hands, but was still able to hold it's own because of better tactics and pilot quality. From 1943 onwards only Bf 109G of FAF planes was seen as survivable and other plane types were relegated to secondary roles.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Kill ratios are a very good way of comparing the plane+pilot combination of two different (hostile) a.c. types as they fought each other. One cannot say that the F2A was a good plane against the Zero, because in combat, F2A3s flown by very good pilots had a crappy record against A6M2s flown by very good pilots. It was the plane that stunk in that case, because similarly trained USN pilots in F4F4s had a superior record against the similarly trained A6M2s under similar circumstances.

In Finnish hands, during the Winter War and in 1941, the Brewster was a better plane because in Finnish hands the plane+pilot combination was superior to the plane+pilot combinations thrown against them by the USSR. I suspect that most of that was due to training and doctrine, because on paper the Brewster was just not a very good plane in 1941 compared to other a.c. And of course, by 1943-44, not only were Soviet pilots using better tactics and doctrine, but they had better logistics, and better planes.

I'd say the most underrated plane in a historical sense, used by the US, was the Curtiss Hawk. A really good plane for the time, and if they'd gone with upgraded radial engines instead of converting to the Allison in-line, it may have been one of those models that could last through the end of the war.

Now, just to make this discussion a little less contentious, let me ask this:

Does anyone else share my fascination with building models of those hopeless relics that performed so poorly in combat? I mean, the F2A3 was a pig, but as a subject, a yellow wings Brewster Buffalo is a really fun project, IMO.

I made this about 15 years ago. Not to say it was a bad plane. I have always loved the late 30s aircraft.

[mdiehl]

She's a beauty!

[MateDow]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

She's a beauty!

+1

[JeffroK]

http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm

Some interesting articles about various users of the Buffalo

It appears the RAF Buffs had reconditioned engines, undertrained pilots, poor co-ordination from the ground, recent conversion to type etc etc.

Maybe they could have been more of a fighter force if a few of these things were sorted.

My 2 bob for most underated is the P40 family, never the best in the sky it was a solid performer throughout in the roles it was assigned.

[Commander Stormwolf]

Spitfire I

most underrated aircraft


360mph speed
120kg/m2 wing loading

...in 1940

revision history in 2010 says ~

"Sptifire was just a little better than the Bf-109E"
"Britain would have done okay to build hurricanes and didn't need the spitfire"
"sptifire couldn't dive because of it wasn't fuel injected"

this is utterly nonsensical

no. no fighter in the world had both speed AND maneouverability (Bf-109E was 170kg/m2, that is a MASSIVE difference)
if it was armed with 20mm guns instead of the 7.7mm, the Bob would have been over much sooner

the spitfire was the best dogfighter at any time throughout the war, any results to the contrary are due to pilots,
numbers, or a myriad of other factors that are not related to the aircraft itself

it is not meant to escort 4E in daylight, not meant to strike tanks with rockets,

the Spitfire I (and other marks later) are meant to do one thing: engage the enemy fighters and shoot them down

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

Spitfire I

most underrated aircraft


360mph speed
120kg/m2 wing loading

...in 1940

revision history in 2010 says ~

"Sptifire was just a little better than the Bf-109E"
"Britain would have done okay to build hurricanes and didn't need the spitfire"
"sptifire couldn't dive because of it wasn't fuel injected"

this is utterly nonsensical

no. no fighter in the world had both speed AND maneouverability (Bf-109E was 170kg/m2, that is a MASSIVE difference)
if it was armed with 20mm guns instead of the 7.7mm, the Bob would have been over much sooner

the spitfire was the best dogfighter at any time throughout the war, any results to the contrary are due to pilots,
numbers, or a myriad of other factors that are not related to the aircraft itself

it is not meant to escort 4E in daylight, not meant to strike tanks with rockets,

the Spitfire I (and other marks later) are meant to do one thing: engage the enemy fighters and shoot them down

Agree. The best plane ever, especially the MkIXe.
However it was a point-defence fighter with no legs at all...and in a very complex air war its lack of legs really lowered its amazing qualities.
Anyway...i'd fly a 190A4 all life long instead of a spit[8D]

[YankeeAirRat]

I would vote for the N3N or the Boeing-Stearman Model 75. Think about it without the N3N or Model 75, where would all the hours we spend figuring out training would be done?

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat

I would vote for the N3N or the Boeing-Stearman Model 75. Think about it without the N3N or Model 75, where would all the hours we spend figuring out training would be done?

In a Tiger Moth or Magister

[Commander Stormwolf]

Also need the Texan,

can't put pilots from Biplanes right into Spitfires.. did they really do that?

[mdiehl]

I don't think most informed people have underrated the Spitfire. And yeah, it was hands down better than the ME109. I would not call it the best fighter of the era but we can agree to disagree. IMO, the F4U wins that comparison, but then I don't think anyone has undersold the F4U either. Of course, the Spitfire *was* both antecedent and a sufficiently great design to carry it through, with modifications as new models/blocks were produced, the entire war.

IMO the F4F qualifies at least as underappreciated by revisionists. Most of its pilots rated it as a pretty good plane for the time. (Most. Thach, famously, not so much).

I'd also nominate the Italian Macchi C205 and the French Dewoitine D.520. Both quite good for their times, and both mostly overlooked on account of having not saved their nations from the big hurt coming at them.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

Spitfire I

most underrated aircraft


360mph speed
120kg/m2 wing loading

...in 1940

revision history in 2010 says ~

"Sptifire was just a little better than the Bf-109E"
"Britain would have done okay to build hurricanes and didn't need the spitfire"
"sptifire couldn't dive because of it wasn't fuel injected"

this is utterly nonsensical

no. no fighter in the world had both speed AND maneouverability (Bf-109E was 170kg/m2, that is a MASSIVE difference)
if it was armed with 20mm guns instead of the 7.7mm, the Bob would have been over much sooner

the spitfire was the best dogfighter at any time throughout the war, any results to the contrary are due to pilots,
numbers, or a myriad of other factors that are not related to the aircraft itself

it is not meant to escort 4E in daylight, not meant to strike tanks with rockets,

the Spitfire I (and other marks later) are meant to do one thing: engage the enemy fighters and shoot them down

Agree. The best plane ever, especially the MkIXe.
However it was a point-defence fighter with no legs at all...and in a very complex air war its lack of legs really lowered its amazing qualities.
Anyway...i'd fly a 190A4 all life long instead of a spit[8D]

Yep, my two favorites are the 109 and spit. But you can't win a war if you can't project air power deep into enemy air space. Neither of these could. Most underrated could be the C47. Theater commanders never stopped screaming for more....

[Commander Stormwolf]

C-47 was in demand by commanders from USAAF, Japan, and Soviets too [:)]
probably the best design of its type ever

[UniformYankee]

Well we could have a good ole "B17 versus B24" debate. In this case we would have to start from the premise that the B24 is under-rated. This because most comparisons seem to decide that the B17 was the better plane.

My father flew in both and felt the B24 was the better. Two cousins (brothers) flew in B17s and B24s. One died in a B17(Mairzy Doats) the other flew B24s and lived. So, at least in MY family, the B24 is the winner. Heavier bomb load is the primary reason cited.

[pharmy]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I'd also nominate the Italian Macchi C205 and the French Dewoitine D.520. Both quite good for their times, and both mostly overlooked on account of having not saved their nations from the big hurt coming at them.

I kept on finding the results of a German test commission http://xoomer.virgilio.it/g55/G55his.htm#his3 where they evaluated the C205, the Re2005, and the G55 and brought out the G55 on top but couldn't find any source to verify if this was just a Fiat legend. Oddly enough I did find the original German report, on a bf109 performance website If the chaps at Rechlin said that the G55 was the best axis fighter, against their own 109 and 190, I'd say it probably was.

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109 ... ia_de.html
http://kurfurst.org/

[Commander Stormwolf]

Fiat G55 had a lower wing loading and could be up-engined with the DB-603, so it was a good design

the high man hours for production was a problem, Bf-109 was really easy to make


what's amazing is that a BF-109E took 4,000 man hours to produce, a Spitfire took 15,000 and a Hurricane 10,000

just for a comparison, a piece of junk like a Hayabusa (Ki-43) took 25,000 hours to make
so .. i make the point again, the ac production is out of whack

(my idea is to limit the japanese ac expansion to 100 engines per month)

[pharmy]

I think the Fiat would have been preferred for its high altitude performance. The testing was done in february of 43 when they already had the fw190A5 which at low level was the best fighter in the European theater (this was in between the Spit V and IX) The BF109 was already stretching its design limits (its small wings were always its weakpoint), and while with sufficient engines, it could climb high, performance was sluggish. But with the armistice and the impracticality of potential man hours they had nowhere to go they gradually started trying to make up this deficiency with the fw190, first with the D version, and then culminating with the Ta152. They actually instructed the retreating forces to blow up the jigs at Fiat, which they did not do by the way (and the G55 flew, sometimes with Merlin engines with the Syrian and Egyptian air forces).

By the way looking for performance comparative tests I found one that I thought would have existed only in theoretical discussions. The Corsair and Hellcat vs the FW190, conducted by the US Navy. http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/index1.html

I think the Spitfire production rate is from Beaverbrook times probably, or due to the high variety of different types of Spitfire being produced. I couldn't find an extensive comparison anywhere though. I think the man hours for the Hayabusa could be accurate as during 46-48 months of production only 5900 were produced. The Ki 84 Hayate took only 15000 by comparison it seems http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviati ... -3311.html. Shows the difference of a plane that was designed in wartime with shortages and urgency in need and plane like the Hayabusa, where no thought was given to streamlining. I think even though the Japanese never achieved the scale of production of a/c compared to the Germans, their airframe production was OK, you are right that the best way to limit out of scale production historically would be to limit them to their historically woeful engine production expansion. Frankly though the low durability/lack of armor in their early fighters and their slow pilot training process more then halves the later planes combat effectiveness. Plus factor in a lack of supply. Like the Germans, the Japanese surrendered with many intact aircraft that simply had no fuel to take off.

By the way Grigsby's Bombing of the Reich does this by making Italian fighters take two engines (slow production of licence built DBs), and for example in the case of low engine life (Me262) by having 4 jet engines per a/f Edit attached BTR allied fighter table values