Most Overrated aircraft of WWII?

Well I used the Spitfire Performance website which has alot of primary documents. I will try & post them later.
Ok from...
Spitfire Performance website...I posted earlier the 190D-9 figures. For the 190A it has an initial climb rate of 3200-3300 FPM and top speed of 410 MPH.

From William Green's "Warplanes of the Third Riech" the 190A-3 ,418 MPH at 21K ,2830 FPM initial climg ,12 min to 26,250'.
For the 190D-9...speed: 426 MPH at 21,650' , climb: 2.1 min to 6,560', 4.5 min to 13,120' , 7.1 min to 19,685'
For the TA-152H-1 ...472 MPH at 41K ,465 MPH at 29,530' ,initial climb with MW-50 is 3445' per minute.

From "German Aircraft of World War Two" by J R Smith & Antony L Kay...
For the 190A...408 MPH 2363 FPM climb.
For the 190D-9 426 MPH
For the TA152H-1 466 MPH with MW-50 at 29,529' though it also states 472 MPH at 41K.

 

Well at least this pilot isn't overrated.
YouTube - Bf109 Ace Günther Rall Interview

 

My vote goes to the Mitsubishi Zero as the most overrated aircraft of WWII. It was the scourge of the Pacific early in the war, but soon after it was surpassed by several Navy fighters.
Fast early on, but with no armour and not having self sealing tanks put them at a Big disadvantage against the faster armored Navy planes later on.

 

yeah but it still had the measure of even Spitfire V's and Hurricanes.

 

Bit misleading, that. Once they got their tactics sorted out, the Zero wasn't a threat.

 

Well the Hurricane never did get the measure of the Zero while the Spitfire V's over Darwin in early to mid 1943 were still getting beat. Of course there were other issues involved like maintenance,logistical and otherwise but one major issue in the Zero's favor is that it was able to escort the IJN bombers all the way from Timor to Darwin while the Spitfire wasn't able to do so in reverse. It also seemed that even when the Spitfires over Darwin changed their tatics they still got beat. Of course the 202nd Kentai was a crack unit.
Now I'm not necessarily saying the Zero is all that great BUT the combination of the Zero & IJNAF was pretty potent. Furthermore what happened over Darwin proves that not all the good IJN pilots died at Midway & Guadalcanal.

 

Interest post from the poster robert from the History Channel forum on this point;


"As for the Spitfire and the Zero, a lot of disinformation has been put out over the years. The Spitfire’s record against the Zero is clouded in misconceptions and distortions, and the negative stereotypes that have surrounded it are supported only by the inconsistent performance of the Spitfire Mk.Vs (fitted with Volkes filters) of No. 1 Wing that opposed the A6M3s during the Darwin raids of 1943.

To start with, much of the myth of the Zero’s superiority over the Spitfire is based on erroneous Japanese identification. Typical of this is Jiro Horikoshi’s Eagles of Mitsubishi: The Story of the Zero Fighter (generally an excellent book, BTW). Horikoshi’s account of the fighting over Ceylon in 1942 states, "...in the skies over Colombo, thirty-six Zeros fought against scores of Hurricanes and Spitfires and downed seventeen Spitfires and twenty-one Hurricanes with a loss of just one Zero."

The problem with this is that there were no Spitfires there at all. In the second edition of the book, the publishers added a correction that read, "After publication of the English edition of this book in 1981, we were alerted to a factual error in the description of the air battles during the Indian Ocean campaign. On page 131, we describe the Zero fighting against the Supermarine Spitfire over Colombo in 1942. Apparently Japanese pilots confused the Fairey Fulmar for the Spitfire, since the Fulmar, which somewhat resembled the Spitfire, participated in this battle; the Spitfire was not operational in the Pacific until 1943."

Unfortunately, the damage to the Spitfire’s reputation had been done.

The Spitfire's first action against the Zero came in 1943, when two RAF and one RAAF Spitfire Mk.V squadrons were assigned to the defense of Darwin, in Australia. These battles between the Spitfire Mk.V and A6M3 over North Australia in are also clouded by misconceptions. The Spitfire Mk.V certainly did have a tough time dealing with the A6M, partially because of poor tactics, but also because the A6M3 was, at the time, an equal match for the Spitfire Mk.V, which was obsolescent in Europe and had already been replaced there by the Mk.IX. But the Spitfire’s performance against the Zero wasn’t anywhere near as bad as is commonly suggested. Here’s an excerpt from Famous Fighter Squadrons of the RAF, Volume One, by Francis K. Mason:

"On 2 May [1943], a radar station on Bathurst Island located an enemy force 160 miles from Darwin, whose controller then ordered all three squadrons into the air. Led by Caldwell, the wing assembled 33 Spitfires but failed to gain a height advantage until the raiders were over Darwin. No. 54 [Squadron, RAF] was again directed against the fighter escort while the Australian squadrons closed with the retiring bombers. Squadron Leader Gibbs led the RAF Spitfires in an almost vertical dive on the ‘Zekes’ and saw his first target burst into flames. Taken by surprise, the Japanese fighters broke formation and the sky was filled with diving and turning aircraft. Flying Officer Farries (in BR 239) accounted for a second ‘Zeke’ but, in turn, was shot down and took to his rubber dinghy. He was rescued after 5-1/2 hours by a Supermarine Walrus amphibian.

"The Australian squadrons were simultaneously attacking the bombers which were defended by even more enemy fighters. Thus, when the action was broken off due to fuel shortage, enemy losses totalled eight destroyed, four probables, and eight damaged. Five Spitfires had gone down and three of their pilots were in dinghies awaiting rescue. Sixteen minutes after the attack began, Caldwell recalled his scattered fighters and headed for home, now a long way off. Though within the normal capacity of Spitfires, the chase had resulted in abnormal consumption of fuel and an extreme adverse wind did nothing to help. Five aircraft ran out of fuel and force landed, one in the sea, and three more suffered engine failure causing a fatal crash. This brought the total number lost during the day to eight, with six more force-landed and awaiting recovery.

"At this point, an astonishing series of events left the squadron baffled. General MacArthur – who had been appointed Supreme Commander in the South-West Pacific after his defeat in the Philippines – had been criticized for the optimistic communiqués issuing from his headquarters. Presumably because no U.S. forces were involved and Darwin was remote from his main preoccupations, a communiqué was issued to redress the balance, It announced baldly that Spitfires defending Darwin had engaged a Japanese bomber force and suffered heavy casualties. The squadrons involved were staggered, newspapers throughout the world reported that Spitfires were ‘outclassed’, and RAAF headquarters was enraged.

"An amending press release mentioned ‘bad weather’ as contributing to the losses, another obvious untruth, and the men of the Spitfire squadrons suspected that it was a plot to boost the morale of the U.S. fighter squadrons in New Guinea who were having to cope with Japanese fighters while flying obsolescent Bell p-39s (Airacobras) and P-40s, neither of which were a match for the ‘Zeke’.

"The Japanese reacted predictably, claiming 21 Spitfires shot down without loss to themselves!"

Unfortunately, this distortion has been perpetuated to this day – for example, when AeroMaster Decals released their Eagles of the Rising Sun set of decals for model aircraft in 1995, they repeated the fiction that Zeros had destroyed 21 Spitfires for no loss on their instruction sheet.

The Darwin air raids were the only time that Spitfire Mk.Vs and A6Ms met head to head, but the Mk.V did very well against other Japanese fighters. For example, in January 1944, Burma-based Spitfires Mk.Vs destroyed 20 Ki-43s for the loss of four Spitfires. Bryan Philpott’s RAF Combat Units SEAC 1941-45 gives the Spitfire’s kill ratio in the CBI as 8-1 in favor of the Spit.

Once the Spitfire Mk.VIII was introduced into the region in early 1944, the game was up for the Japanese fighters. As Chaz Bowyer in Supermarine Spitfire notes of the first CBI Spitfire kill in November 1943, "It was the start of the long road back to Allied air superiority over Burma; an ascendancy directly attributable to the impact of Spitfires on the aerial war. If the Mark Vc was only marginally better than its best opponents, the arrival of the Mark VIIIs by March 1944, which by then equipped a total of eight squadrons, offered an unqualified advantage in all sections of the performance envelope."

The Official History eloquently states, "...the advent of the Spitfire squadrons brought promise of victory as the arrival of the swallow that of summer."

Back to the Spitfire against the Zero. Although the later model Spitfires never had a chance to meet the later model Zeros, we do have a way of being able to judge them. The Seafire Mk.III did have a chance to fight against the Zero, and from its record against the A6M, we can get a clear idea of how they would have fared against each other. David Brown’s The Seafire: The Spitfire That Went to Sea looks in detail at the Seafire’s combat career. Versus the A6M, the Seafire had a kill ratio of 16-1, which pretty much contradicts any assertion that the Spitfire never mastered the Zero. The later Spitfires/Seafires could basically eat it for lunch.

Eric Brown, in Duels in the Sky, sizes up the outcome of a hypothetical fight between the Spitfire Mk.XIV and the A6M5 with the following:

"The Zeke would find itself facing a fighter par excellence, with no weakness to exploit and huge advantages in performance, view, and firepower. Even its legendary maneuverability would be matched for once. The Zeke would be overwhelmed swiftly and surely by a fighter outclassing it in virtually every department."

With thanks to robert

 

The History Channel as a source ?? Well I used mainly Alfred Price's "Spitfire Mark V Aces 1941-1945" and Ikuhiko Hata & Yasuho Izawa's " Japanese Naval Aces & Fighter Units in World War Two" . Price's book clearly used both sides post war accounts to confirm that 32 Spitfire V's were shot down in actual air to air combat over several months over Darwin compared to 3 Zero's and 1 Ki-43. Nor were the RAAF Spitfires always outnumbered furthermore as far as having to attack bombers too F4F's over Guadalcanal managed to attack Japanese bombers knocking down quite a few along with holding their own against the Zero's.
I agree that the Spitfire V was obsolete by European Standards however by timeline just what are the Zero's European contemporaries? . Where did you get info on Seafire's versus Zero's? The only encounter I know of was on 8/14-15/1945. Now in Norman Frank's "Air Battle for Imphal" the RAF fighters shot down 33 CLAIMED & 22 PROBABLE IJAAF aircraft but there is no breakdown of types. The book does state that 7 Spitfires & 5 Hurricane's were shot down by IJAAF fighters.

 

You seem very fond of quoting the info in Chris Bishop's books, sadly they're often incorrect.

The actual performance German & Allied equipment can be found in original documents from the time period as-well as by using abit of logic when you see the specs of the equipment.

Anyway here's the actual performance of the Dora-9 fighter:

 

Ok, I can't exactly read those...

 

I think those charts say the following:
Top speed of fw190 D9 using MW50= 440 mph
rate of climb with MW50= 4.300 fpm....give or take.

Other good qualities are zoom climb, the highest tactical mach number, a roll rate of of 3.8 sec at 5000 ft flying 400 mph which is better than the fw 190.

 

COMMENT: Maybe but also the Meteor,Vampire and P-80 are probably superior. the Me-262's climb isn't nothing to write home about.

 

Incorrect on all accounts. The sole problem plagueing the Me-262's engines was the substitute metals they had to be made from because of an acute lack of the proper metals. Had the proper metals been available and used for production of the the Jumo 004B engine then it would've been a very reliable engine, as demonstrated by Jumo with a single engine built from the initially intended materials which ran at full throttle for over 10 hours without any signs of stress or tear & wear.

Furthermore the Me-262 could perform many of the duties expected of a fighter aircraft far better than any other fighter of the time period could, and that esp. includes fighter vs fighter combat. At the usual combat load out, 6000 to 6400 kg, the Me-262 featured unrivalled speed & climb rate and excellent high speed maneuverability. To put it simply: Once airborne with an experienced pilot at the stick, the Me-262 was the best fighter to hit the skies during WW2, nothing the Allies had even came close to it.

Performance at a maximum weight of 7000 kg was (extra 600 liters of fuel):
Speed = 900 km/h
Climb rate = 3,925 ft/min

At the typical combat weight of 6000 to 6400 kg where the 600 liter aft auxiliary tank used to provide extra range was kept empty, the performance was much better:

Speed = 900 + km/h
Climb rate = 5,000+ ft/min

The only job that the Me-262 was never going to fullfill was that of dive & regular bombing, it was quite simply too fast for this role. And because of its very low drag the Me262 accelerated way too quickly in dives for it to ever be safely used as a dive bomber, it would much too quickly reach a speed of 1100 km/h after which time it became uncontrollable.

 

nonsense....The P-80A actually arrived in Europe in January of 1945 . It was faster at all altitudes,had a 8,000' higher cieling, better drag co-efficent, higher critical mach number, better to power ratio , better wing loading ,better range, better roll rate, better manuverability, .Anything else? Now this is not to say the P-80A is completely superior BUT saying the Me. 262 had no competitive counterpart in the Allied arsenal is a bit of a stretch.
A comparison published after the war showing the Me. 262 besting the P-80 actually involved a stripped down recon version of the '262 while the USAAF a/c was the P-80 instead of the P-80A which arrived in Europe in 1/1945.
Then we also have the Vampire & Meteor F-4 . If the Germans ever actually started deploying jets whereupon they were a real problem the Allies certainly would have upped the antie and introduced their own versions & rather quickly.

 

Well put, the P-80A was the match if not the master of the Me-262A in nearly every respect. If the war had lasted longer, it, the Vampire, and Meteors would have not been all that hard put.

Methinks we have a Nazi "gee-whiz" fan here in the "Proeliator", who considers every weapon produced by the Germans to have had no equal.

 

Well just maybe one might be able to state the Me.262 was most overrated in regards to it's reputation on being able change the course of the war if only it had been deployed earlier..

 

Good point, the OT was "most overrated aircraft" afterall. Maybe that is the point actuallly!

 

(((The USAAF compared the P-80 Shooting Star and Me 262 concluding, "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 907 kg (2,000 lb), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter)))


(((The tests, conducted by Albert Boyd (the head of flight test for the USAAF) and a soon-to-be-legendary Chuck Yeager, determined that the performance of the Me 262 was essentially equal to the P-80A. The Me 262 had a slightly higher critical Mach number)))


The p80s sent to Europe were pre production YP-80As.

The Me 262 that was tested against the P80 was fitted with the nose of a fighter and given a gloss paint job, this was done to get the most accurate results. the test were conducted between may and august of 1946.

Testing of the production P-80A showed that the top speed of the average production P-80A was 525 mph at 5000ft (un painted) and 520 mph at 20000(painted)

The fastest P-80 tested achieved a top speed of 548 mph at 5000, this particular P-80 won the 1946 Thompson Trophy Race.

The average p-80 climbed at 3800 fpm at 5000ft, the best was 4400 fpm at 5000 ft.

 

The Best Jet? - The Great Planes and warbirds Community
No this very thing was discussed over on the Great Planes webiste where up above I have posted a link furthermore Bill Norton's book on US EXperimental aircraft doesn't quite agree with your figures nor does the Spitfire performance website. My whole point is it was stated earlier that no Allied plane could come close to the Me.262 which is absolute nonsense . I have several sources that state the P-80 hit 558 MPH in service and could climb much more like 4600-4900 FPM. Surfing the web it seems there's alot of conflict over this issue But I do know the gentlemen over on Great Planes and they seem to know their stuff but that's not the only source where I've seen that the Me.262 in the test was a recon version with armor & armament installed whereas the P-80 was involved was fully conbat equipped.

 

Ok in the test of 44-85123 it hit 562 MPH it was considered about 15 MPH at lower altitudes & about 4 MPH faster at higher altitudes then the average production P-80 . It's top speed of 562 MPH means that a standard production model hit around 547 MPH which is still as fast or faster then the Me.262 .
Of course if anybody can find the original test it would be nice.