Most Overrated aircraft of WWII?

I think that the above is being a bit unfair to the P-51.

The Fw 190D could probably best be said to be roughly equal to the P-51 at least so long as the MW50 holds out. The 109K? Nah. The 109 peaked with the F variant in aerodynamic performance. It was down hill from there. The K model's only real advantage lies in having a faster sustained climb rate. At high speed the K still suffers extremely heavy alierons that give it a slow roll rate. In tight turns the automatic slats tend to snatch and grab (open and close) as the inside wing approaches stall. This leads to bucking of the aircraft ruining its firing aim. Visibility was bad on the 109 too. The heavy use of wood in many areas has also led to a more vulnerable aircraft and one that is heavier in construction weight.
The F4U-4 is again about equal with the Mustang but certainly not excessively better.
The He 162 was a dangerous airplane to put it mildly. Several of the few that flew came apart in the air without much stress being put on the airframe. The roll rate was too high and if rolled at the maximum rate was likely to cause a tail seperation. Basically, the 162 was more deadly to its pilots and not a plane that an amateur should be flying at any time.
The Me 262 had little more than speed going for it. Maneuverability was bad. Reliablity was horrifically bad. Making radical maneuvers in it could lead to a flameout and loss of engine. The engines were prone to surging and required a very gentle touch on the throttle.
One not on the list that should be is the Ki 84 Hayate. This was an aircraft that even the US post war in testing rated better than a Mustang, F4U and, Hellcat. I would also say it would have proved superior except in top speed to most late war German fighters too. The Japanese turned out some good designs but simply could never produce anywhere near enough to make a difference.

 

Hey T.A.Gardner, was that the Japanese fighter called the Oscar? If so what were its stats, I've never found a reliable source for them really.

 

Nakajima Ki43 (Oscar)



Stats for this plane you can find here

Nakajima Ki43 (Oscar) - Japan

 

Specifications (Ki-43-II)

General characteristics

• Crew: One
• Length: 8.92 m (29 ft 3 in)
• Wingspan: 10.84 m (35 ft 7 in)
• Height: 3.27 m (10 ft 8in)
• Wing area: 21.40 m² (230.35 ft²)
• Empty weight: 1,975 kg (4,355 lb)
• Loaded weight: 2,590 kg (5,710 lb)
• Powerplant: 1× Nakajima Ha-115 radial engine, 890 kW (1,130 hp)

Performance

• Maximum speed: 530 km/h (329 mph) at 4,000 m (13,125 ft)
• Range: 1,610 km (1,000 mi) combat, 2,575 km (1,600 mi) ferry ()
• Service ceiling: 11,200 m (36,750 ft)
• Rate of climb: 19.8 m/s (3,900 ft/min)
• Wing loading: 121 kgf/m² (1.1 kN/m²)

Armament

• Guns: 2 × fixed, forward-firing 12.7 mm (.50 in) Ho-103 machine guns in the cowl with 250 rpg (400 rpm rate each) or 1 × 12.7 mm (.50 in) and 1 × 7.7 mm (.303 in) Type 89 machine gun.
• Bombs: 2 × 250 kg (551 lb) bombs

 

The Ki-84 is the Frank if that if you are referring to T.A.'s reference to the Ki-84 Hayate.

 

Then I suppose that you just gave us the answer to your "Picture Quiz" here too! If it isn't the Oscar it must be the Frank!

 

Haha I did. Here are the basic stats for the Frank if you want them:

Max Speed: 392 mph at 20,079 ft
Climb rate 847 m (2,780 ft) per minute
Service ceiling: 10500m (34,449 ft)
Range: 1695 m (1,053 miles)
Armament: two nose-mounted 12.7 mm Ho-103 machine-guns and two wing-mounted 20-mm Ho-5 cannon, plus provisions for two 250 kg (551 lb) bombs under wings

courtesy of Weapons of World War II by Chris Bishop

If you want some more info, I would be please to give it

 

The MW50 could be engaged for 10min at a time while the P-51 could only run on WEP for 5min at a time, so I'd say that the Fw-190D has the advantage most of the time.

Problem was however that by 1944 the LuftWaffe was desperately lacking trained pilots and ofcourse fuel.

Not quite. The K-4 had a top speed of 719 km/h and a climb rate of 4,880 ft/min. In short the same performance as the Spitfire XIV.

The K-4 featured flettner tabs to eleviate just that problem, so again you're incorrect. The F & G did suffer from heavy ailerons at high speed though.

Incorrect once more, this was a problem only present in the Emil series which sometimes also suffered from one slat jamming and sending the a/c into an irrecoverable spin. The problem was eliminated with the new slat design introduced with the Friedrich series.

Dave Southwood, modern Bf-109 pilot (Here directly commenting on the snatching & bucking the British experienced in the Emil):
"One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this."

Mark Hanna, modern Bf-109 pilot (Now deceased):
"As the stall is reached, the leading-edge slats deploy-together, if the ball is in the middle; slightly asymmetrically, if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard maneuvering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out, you feel a slight "notching" on the stick, and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally.

I like the airplane, and with familiarity, I think it will give most of the Allied fighters I have flown a hard time-particularly in a close, hard-turning, low-speed dogfight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of fight."

As you can see there was no snatching or bucking going on in the F, G or K series. The problem was however so serious in the Emil that in the period of 1940 many pilots hesitated to get into tight turning fights because they believed the a/c was stalling as soon as the slats engaged, in reality however they were a long way away from stalling. (British test pilots hit the same wall as they tested the a/c, resulting in the poor results they recorded) The problem was however recognized by the experienced pilots in the LW at that point, and an effort was later made to instruct new pilots not to back down in the turn once the slats engaged. The problem was however soon to be gone altogether when the new Friedrich arrived with a revised slat mechanism.

Two German aces and their take on the matter:

Erwin Leykauf, LuftWaffe ace with 33 victories:
"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it."

Walter Wolfrum, LuftWaffe ace with 137 victories:
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf-109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."

It was about the same as in the Spitfire, and better when equipped with the Erla hood.

Again not so. The increase in weight that the Bf-109 experienced as it evolved was less than for example that experienced by the Spitfire. Both were first class fighters and very competitive till the end.

The F4U-4 was faster, climbed faster, rolled faster & turned better. I'd say that puts it well ahead.

The tail was the problem in some of the prototypes because of glue failure, but the issue was solved.

Not so. The tail would only come off if too much rudder was applied at high speed. The rudder was too effective and pretty sensitive. But if this was taken into consideration then you could safely fly the a/c to the limits.

Again you're wrong. The Me-262's maneuverability was infact very good, esp. at high speed where it was the most controllable a/c in the sky. And turn performance at high speed was the highest of any a/c in service thanks to its clean design and full span slats.

Opinion of Allied test pilots after testing at the Wright Field testing area (From USAF POH Dated January 10th 1946 and put together by US & UK pilot experience ):
"(2) The airplane holds its speed in tight turns much longer than conventional types"

Hans Fey, Luftwaffe test pilot:
"The Me-262 will turn much better at high than at low speeds, and due to its clean design, will keep its speed in tight turns much longer than the conventional type aircraft"

Again not so. Flame outs occured when you were too aggressive with the throttle. You could maneuver as crazily as you wished without fearing anything from the engines.

That was true initially, but an automatic throttle system introduced in Dec 44 solved that issue.

Maybe, it was certainly a great design, only problem was the lack of pilot protection and selfsealing fuel tanks. This made it highly vulnerable even if only exposed to a split second burst from an enemy fighter.

 

tried arguing that already... doesn't work...

I still think late model hellcats were better...

 

The Dora versus Mustang debate also occured on another forum. Now if the Dora is roughly equal only when engaging it's MW50 then being able to use for 10 minutes as compared to the Mustang's 5 minutes of WEP you still have the situation where it is only equal for 10 minutes while for 5 of those minutes the P-51 is upping the antie and superior.

Beware False Aircraft Comparisons - The Great Planes and warbirds Community

On comparing the Spitfire XIV to the P-51 Eric Brown states that the P-51 is faster ,the XIV climbs better BUT the P-51 is far better at "zoom climb" , the XIV turns better but the P-51 rolls much better, and in diving the Mustang is better. On range ,well it's a force multiplier since it means you can concentrate more of your force at any certain point to overwhelm say your enemies interceptors in that area and it means being able to stage out of far more airbases for any given operation. The question being is it superior numbers perse or is it the greater range that means greater numbers?
You mentioned the 109K climing at 4880 FPM and a speed of 719 kilos per hour but following the link I provided to Spitfireperformance website the P-51A-D was capable of upwards of 4500+ FPM and speeds probably greater then 450+ MPH.
Your also being a bit unfair to the P-51B-D comparing it to designs a year or 2 older then it was,a year during WW2 was an eternity in aircraft design . The first P-51B's entered production in mid 1943 ,arrived in the UK in (9/43 and went into squdron service in October,also remember the US had to ship it's fighters across an ocean,setup maintenenace facilties thereof amongst other things as compared to say the UK/Germany just practically rolling them from their factories right onto the airfields. Now if I'm not wrong the Spitfire XIV only made up about 4-5 squadrons as late as 4/1944 and 109K ??/ enetered service in mid-1944? The Dora ame into service in late 1944? The F4U-4 in late 1944? The TA-152 in late 1944? Why not compare those fighters you say are superior(when it actually seems the P-51B-D's is still equal to them) to the Mustangs to it's H version or even the experimental F-G versions (which were tested in earlier '44)? Or let's drop the wieght of the Mustang down by decreasing it's ammo loadout to the same number of firing seconds of it's contemporaries along with less fuel but still matching those other aircraft's ranges?

 

When comparing fighters also remember things like the short noses of the F4F, F6F, and the Zero enabled them to use high angle deflection shooting to a larger degree then a fighter with a long nose. The USN especially trained it's pilots extensively in this. It's(short noses) one of those things that isn't really pilot nor really aircraft but it can show up in combat.

 

Incorrect icky. The Fw-190D & P-51 would be about equal in speed for about 5 min, then the P-51's WEP had to be disengaged and the Fw-190D would be greatly superior for another 5 min before things would level out again.

The only P-51 to have a climb rate of 4,500 ft/min was a boosted Mk.III & B (75" Hg WEP), the heavier P-51D had a climb rate of 3,600 - 3,800 ft/min at 70" Hg (WEP). The Dora had a climb rate of 4,400 ft/min (22.5 m/s) and top speed of 703 km/h with MW50 engaged.

 

Where's this idea the Hurricane had greater range than the Spitfire come from? Both were designed to the same Air Ministry range specifications. The Spitfire I carried 85 gallons of fuel, the larger, heavier, draggier Hurricane carried 75 gallons normally, with a maximum of 94 gallons.

The range of the early versions of both aircraft was almost identical. Later marks got drop tanks etc, but the Hurricane never had a long range version like the Spitfire VIII.

Whilst the Hurricane got more kills in 1940, the Spitfire surpassed it later in the war. The fact that fighter command phased out the Hurricane as soon as they could replace them with Spitfires should say something about which was the better aircraft.

I'd be surprised if Brown said the Mustang rolled "much better", the A&AEE said the "advantage tends to be with the Spitfire". Brown is certainly on record saying he'd prefer to fight in the Spitfire, and he ranks the tops 3 fighters from WW2 as Spitfire XIV, 190D, Mustang, in that order.

The Spitfire XIV went in to production in September 1943. Production was low because the need was for more bombers, not fighters. The Vampire didn't get a production order for the same reason, the government wanted de Havilland building Mosquitoes, not fighters.

 

If you want to do a reasonable job of rating aircraft one good way is to look at the various missions that type of aircraft could be expected to perform and rate them in that then sum up the scores. If you do that you will find that the Me-262 is a bit better than say the F-4U in some areas but is completely incapable of performing some of the mission that the Corsair could when you start averaging in the zeros it pretty much destroys in argument for it being "superior to anything else in the sky". Then you start looking at things like expected engine life and how often they lost engines in flight and it looks even worse. If the western allies had been building the Me-262 they wouldn't have considered it as ready for service for at least another year and more likely two or three.

 

COMMENT: Well actually The P-51D achieved those speed & ROC on 67",i.e. 444 MPH with I'm thinking 439 MPH on Military Power . The climb rate was as you said around 3600-3800 FPS BUT if boosted what do you think the P-51D would do? Furthermore i was talking about P-51's in general which includes the B,c, and D models . For the heck of it let's throw in the P-51H.

 

COMMENT: Good info, Thanks!!!! However it's also true the US could have built interceptor versions of both the P-51 & P-47(and actually developed them) with searing performance but the USAAF wanted long range fighters instead.

 

The best speed for 190D-9 using MW50 is around 435-438 MPH from the Spitfire Performance website . The P-51D meanwhile I found could hit 439 MPH on MILITARY POWER(Not WEP) and definately be faster using 44-1 fuel,i.e. over-boost. The Dora also lost alot of it's high turn rate along with the incredible roll rate of it's radial engined preecessor.

 

On the P-51 vs. the Fw 190A:

A March 1944 report by the RAF's Air Fighting Development Unit made brief comparisons between the Mustang III (P-51 B-1) and the Fw 190A powered by the BMW 801D. It stated that the latter was almost 50mph slower at all height, increasing to 70mph above 28,000ft.

There appeared to be little to choose in the mazimum rate of climb. It was anticipated that the Mustang III would have a better maximum climb than the Fw 190. The Mustang was considerably faster at all heights in a zoom climb, and it could always out-dive the Fw 190. When it came to the turning circle, the report stated that there was not much to choose. The Mustang was 'slightly better when evading an enemy aircraft initially because of the difference in speeds. The pilot will always out-turn the attacking aircraft initially because of the difference in speeds. It is therefore still a worthwile maneuver with the Mustang III when attacked.'

P-51D/K
Max Speed: 437 mph at 25,000 ft.
Range: 950 miles
Climb: 3,475 ft. per minute
Service Ceiling: 41,9000 ft.
Armament: six 0.50in Brownings

Fw 190A-8
Max Speed: 402 mph at 20,700 ft
Range: 658 miles
Climb: 1,826 ft. per minute
Service Ceiling: 32,700 ft.
Armament: four MG 151 20mm cannon and two MG 12.7mm machine guns

Fw 190D-9
Max Speed: 426 mph at 6600 m
Range: 519 miles
Climb: 2,776 ft. per minute
Service Ceiling: 39,370 ft.
Armament: four MG 151 20mm cannon and two MG 12.7mm machine guns


The P-51 beats the Fw 190 in every category (the armament is up for debate I suppose)

P-51 Mustang vs Fw190 by Martin Bowman

Weapons of World War II by Chris Bishop

 

On the issue of rolling involving the P-51 & Spitfire XIV one has to remember that tests involved stock aircraft however USAAF pilots frequently removed the stops on their airelons so they could roll faster . They risked damaging their aircraft it's true but it's something that might get you out of trouble. I don't know about the RAF but I don't think Luftwaffe personnel tinkered like that. This was brought up on the mustangmustang.com board one time.

JagdTiger,
In fairness I think the climb rate figures you have for both the 190A & 190D are just a tad bit low.

 

Ok well I provided sources, do you have different numbers?