Most Overrated aircraft of WWII?

Both B17 and Me-262 were good enough that it's difficult to overrate them. Of course they were not perfect but their reputation is well deserved.
The problem with this thread is that by now there so much information available that there is a general consensus and match between a plane's reputation and actual performance.
My candidates are Zero and IL-2. The Zero had enormous reputation but I suspected a lot of it was due to pilot quality rather than the plane itself. It's low wing loading made a plane that was ideal for turning dogfights but much less so for the "hit and run" tactics that were much more common in it's bomber escort and CAP intended roles.
But in it's favour we must remember that a lot of "zeros" reported, especially in Malaya/China actually were the Army's less capable Ki-43 Hayabusa.
The Il 2 has both good and bad press, in it's case I think numbers had a lot to do with it's effectiveness and reputation. My impression of the IL-2 has always been "a Fairey Battle done better", but a Fw 190F or a P 47 seems a much better investment to me.

 

Just found this forum and am excited to join. The zero is not overated, it was the best carrier fighter in the world in 41 and 42. One on one it was a match for a wildcat and had a range twice as much as any other carrier fighter. The flying tigers never fought against it in china, they had been witdrawn by the time the tigers started combat on 12/22/41. It did have better pilots but it also swept the opisition away in the first 6 months of the war including british spitfires over Malaysia. Thw me262 was new technology and was as efective as the british meteor and was a superb weapon, even test pilot Eric Brown has said that and the he162 was too unstable to be a good fighter. Jet engines were new and even the first american p-59 and p-80 engines had low time between changes. As for he B-17, it could fly higher than the B-24 and was able to take more battle damge though the 24 had more range and load capibility, but which would u rather be in? I do believe the corsair was better than a p-51, but the 51 was the right plane at the right time and was not overated.

 

Welcome aboard, Barry. Your ability to step on a hornets nest has been noted

 

The turbine blades life for the US and British jet fighters were certainly longer the ones for the ME-262. The German ones suffered from being substandard while the others were not. Jet engines had been around for years.

 

On the Zero: As a pure fighter, you may be right. As part of an integrated fleet defense system, no it wasn't. Unfortunately for the Japanese and fortunately for the US the latter was what was really important not having the "best" fighter.
You might note that through December 1942 fighter on fighter losses between the F4F and the A6M were a dead heat. Zeros held no advantage in kills whatsoever over the Wildcat.
The British had no Spitfires in Malaysia in 1941 / early 42. They were equipping squadrons in the CBI with variously US manufactured F3B Buffalos, ex-French Curtiss Hawk 75s and, Hurricanes. The first Spitfires the Japanese encountered were over Australia.

The US engines in the P 59 (GE J31-GE-5) and P 80 (GE J33-GE-9) or, even the FD-1 (WE 19-XBX-2) all had service run times measured in hundreds of hours. Some of these engines continued in reliable service well into the 1950's. By contrast, the Jumo 004 used on the Me 262 had a service life measured in hours. In fact it was not uncommon to have to change an engine after a single sorte. Junkers rated the service life as 25 hours. Most were lucky to make 10.
The He 162 used the more reliable BMW 003 engine that could make as much as 100 hours operating time. So, while the 162's airframe was structurially questionable its engine was much better than the Me 262's.
The P 59 was a victim of a conservative airframe. The US wanted a reliable flying test bed for proofing jet fighters and learning their pecularities. They got exactly that in the P 59. It was a stable reliable aircraft; perfect for its role. You might also note that it flew with a month or so of Germany's first real prototype jet the He 280.
But, unlike the German Henkel, the Bell product flew reliably right from the start. The Henkel suffered structurial problems (weak tail assembly), had very poor reliability engines (jet fuel leaked from all over causing engine fires for example) and, suffered from its inability to accept later model engines. All-in-all, the Henkel proved of very marginal worth and did little to advance jet fighters for Germany.
At the same time, the US and Britain were moving ahead with more conservative designs that allowed them to gain valuable knowledge on jet aircraft and their production. This would have proved more valuable in the long run than the German rush to get something flying no matter how bad it was.

The P51 was a fortitutious design for the US. They stumbled on the perfect long range offensive fighter at a time when they needed just such a plane. The P 51 proved to be everything the Me 109 or Fw 190 wasn't. Having the range to carry the war to the enemy is a winning strategic combination for aerial warfare.
Defensive interceptors that sacrifice everything for speed and climb rate like the 109 did were a mistake, much like the later MiG 21 or F 104 was.
The Corsair might be a better aircraft as a pure fighter than the Mustang. But, it was also a niche aircraft that found its place as a carrier plane. By 1945 the technology in the Corsair was largely obsolete. It soldiered on mainly as an attack aircraft; a role that suited it well too.

Well, just a few notes clearing things up a bit.

 

The main roles for the Zero as carrier fighter were escorting the bombers, as Vals, Kates, Nells and Bettys were not very good at self defence, and intercepting enemy strikes.
While I agree that the other "components" of the system handicapped it compared to allied planes, it did not perform any better than the Wildcat in this role.
When you look at strikes that were stopped by fighters and those that got trough because the escort was able to owerwhelm the CAP in the 1942 naval battles the results show no marked superiority for the A6M.
In strikes vs land based installations the A6M record is better, it did achieve air superiority ove the Dutch west Indies but I still think the reason was more bad training and tactics on the allied side than Japanese technical superiority.
The combats around Guadalcanal clearly show the Zero if far from an ideal carrier fighter, in many instances it suffered equal losses when engaging unescorted TBDs and SBDs due to it's low capability to absorb damage. Range is important in a fighter but it's main characteristic is being able to shoot down enemy planes without losses.

 

Since you guys a talking about the German jets,They the Jets did have speical new technolgy but if i can remember correctly they the Spitfire always out run the Jets on turning corners and could not keep up with the Spitfire and most times if i remember correctly they the jets lost more than the Spitfire.

If the English had jets way before the Germans did, why the British did not deploy them into battle.
I thought England did not have jet power planes until after ww2.
Warm Cheers.

 

The wildcat pilots used better tactics and were able to combat the zeros on even terms, but if you go one on one with equal pilots no way is a wildcat going to get the advantage over the zero. I may be wrong but i have read that the british rushed a squadron of spitfires to combat the zeros and they were no match. I do agree its lightweight and no armour hurt it, but it was better than all the early allied fighters at the time unless they used tactics to suite there planes. Also i dont see how engine life matters how a plane fights, and the fact that the 262 could control when he wanted to fight and leave the area is a dominating fact. Im not saying it was the best jet of the war, but it was hardly overated. It was a first generation jet and a good one with a lot of advanced features form a country that was being bombed everyday and using questionable materials.

 

If an aircraft is on the ground for maintainence or lack of fuel then it is useless.
Jet engines were not as aviable as piston engines so a short engine life does matter how a plane fights. It also has an effect on the pilot. If he knows the engine already has some hours on it then that will be in the back of his mind on what to do when he loses that engine in combat or away from base. An Me-262 with one engine would be difficult to fly since the engines are so far apart from each other.

 

But, unlike medieval knights, modern air forces don't fight "one on one" so judging aircraft that way is largely irrelevant. Tactics and strategy count far more than individual fighting ability.

As for the Me 262; the engine life matters. Junkers at their height of output was building about 600 Jumo 004 jet engines a month. If you assume one engine per Me 262 per sortie, which is about historically correct, needed replacing then a unit of just 50 Me 262 would eat up 1500 engines per month (30 days) if all were flying every day. At the rate of production above the Germans could have managed to keep maybe 40 to 60 Me 262 flying intermittently and sustained production of the necessary replacements.
Worse yet, each Me 262 takes two tons of J2 fuel for each flight (full fuel tanks). 50 Me 262 flying just one day eat 100 tons of fuel. If these aircraft flew every day for a month this becomes 3000 tons of fuel or about one half of one percent of the entire German production by mid 1944. Again, the Me 262 even in tiny numbers is literally sapping the German supply system dry.
What matters here is that the Me 262 cannot be sustained in any appreciable or really useful numbers where it might make a difference. Basically, the Me 262 isn't a threat to the Allies simply because the Germans cannot sustain it in combat. It is sort of like the Tiger II. On the most local tactical level it might make a difference once in a while. In the grand scheme of things it is irrelevant. It is like a rock in the middle of a large stream. The water flows around and over it.
On its best day the Me 262 in combat was irrelevant. Without bothering to look it up the best mission flown had something like 25 or 30 Me 262 attack a US bomber formation. They shot down something like 15 bombers and several escorts for the loss of like 4 or 5 of their own number. This is irrelevant when the US formation had nearly 1000 bombers in it and another 1000 figher escorts.
The Me 262 was grossly overrated.

 

We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland

 

Barry-You are certainly right about they the Jets out classing Spitfire in a main battle.
I just want to bring something up about the turnning abilty for both aircrafts.

They the jets was to hard to handle when turning a corner or a sharp corner ,while the spitfire had a much better turnning abilty, therefore spitfire had something over the Jets.

I read you're post and i believe 100%.
Iwas just bringing up the turning abilty.

Warm Cheers

 

Ahem. Well except for a spate of airframes being cut in half mid-flight by poorly manufactured turbine blades...

I've attached a document on the Jumo 004 that's definitely worth a read...to clear things up a bit
I think it's noteworthy the Me-262 was conceived at a time where the war was somewhat undecided, had things gone differently one would have a far different result in terms of support infrastructure and available resources. Consider the success of the Yak-15 and MiG-9, both using rebuilt or in some cases (typically for the Yak) simply captured German engines (003 and 004B). The MiG, using improved quality materials but otherwise unaltered engines was particularly noted for its reliability, ease of maintenance and serviceability (its main issue was sucking gun exhaust into the air intake when the NS-37 was being fired).
Finally, at most aeronautical/aerospace sources the Me-262 is commonly celebrated for two things: advanced enough to be revolutionary regardless of international competition, and completely outclassing all other fighters in ww2 in terms of performance and firepower.

How exactly is it overrated? Well of course it's not capable of spaceflight, perhaps the suggestion is related to those whom hold an unreasonable and uneducated impression of "Nazi war technology."
It isn't as good as a Sabrejet, which has more than a few passing similarities. I think it's better in design terms than an F-80 or an F-84 and it just kicks butt on a Meteor. But this is an opinion.

As for the Zero, I don't think its impact could be overrated, but its performance certainly was. It was unthinkable apparently, at the time that a Navy plane with a long endurance would have a lightened, short range construction with few if any safety features. But then, Japanese pilots often flew without parachutes too..
This would give a presumption its Sakae engine put out a good couple of hundred horsepower more than it did. Manoeuvrability was another serious issue, it appeared a dogfight simply couldn't be won. Above Port Moresby Zero pilots from Lae used to perform aerobatics right over the field, taunting USAAC and RAF pilots stationed there.
It didn't take too long for this to change however. Severe, disproportionate losses were suffered, but along the way the Zero's glaring weaknesses were discovered, effective veteran tactics had been developed and then one was finally captured and test flown. It did remain dangerous to the end of the war, but was probably just as dangerous to its own pilots.
I think, definitely overrated as a standalone fighter. It cheated, and the cheat worked for a bit. That's strategy, not superiority. Another opinion.
Don't get me wrong, war aside it was an excellent and contemporary bird. Engine reliability was quite literally amazing for its time, serviceability was another virtually faultless achievement. It had excellent instrumentation and was a real pilot's plane. Just...for airshows and endurance competitions, not combat. I can barely believe the condition US pilots brought some of their Wildcats home in. Let's face it, if you were a pilot you'd want the best chance of coming home again, even if it meant shooting down one less enemy per engagement. At least you get more engagements overall.

 

Gardner Reply

Would you elaborate on Zero's defects as a part of an intergrated fleet defense system? I assume you are speaking of operational charateristics. What were those problems other than its light firepower and fragility?

 

The 262 is overrated because its operational performance is so abyssimally low. It may be a technical tour de force much like the Me 163. But, like the rocket plane the Me 262 was not an operationally sound technology. That is why it is overrated. Had it been reliable and the Germans had the fuel available to fly it regularly yes, it wouldn't have been overrated at all. But, that isn't historically how it was.

As a contrasting example, take Britain's CH (Chain Home) radar system. This system was crude at best when put into operation. But, the system in which it was operating was soundly thought out and put into place in a systematic manner. The result was Britain had the world's first intergrated air defense system.
Just because you have a cutting edge technology does not automatically translate into a superior application of that technology. That is why the Me 262 was overrated.

The same is true for the Zero. It was intended as not just an offensive escort but as a fleet defense fighter. One design characteristic that was demanded of it was a high rate of climb. This feature was felt necessary for the Zero to be able to launch from a carrier and get to altitude quickly and intercept incoming raids.
Where Japan failed was in integrating the Zero into a system of air defense within their fleet. Many Zeros lacked radios in operational use. Low reliability and many pilot's feeling that it just added unnecessary weight got many radios removed from these fighters. The Japanese CAP system for carrier defense was to rely on Zeros spotting raids largely on their own and then intercepting them.
At Midway this system broke down. What happened was the US by chance strung small raids of torpedo planes into the Japanese carriers. The Zero CAP was pulled down to low altitude in its entirety to deal with the US planes. Low cannon ammunition capacity meant that the CAP was rotating frequently forcing the Japanese to keep their flight decks clear for CAP operations.
At the same time the lack of radar or an integrated warning system of some sort allowed the US dive bombers to arrive unopposed over the Japanese. The rest is history.
By comparison, the US had an integrated air defense system on their carriers. Their CAP was directed by fighter controllers using radio and radar to intercept each raid. At Midway the Hyryu's strikes on the Yorktown suffered nearly 80% casualties among the strike aircraft. Their Zero escort proved uneffective at stopping the US CAP that struck from optimal positions usually above and to the side or rear of the Japanese formation.
The US fighters also tended to intercept at 40 to 60 miles out from the carriers whereas the Japanese CAP usually made interceptions at under 20 miles. The difference was the amount of time the CAP could "work over" the strike. At 40 to 60 miles a strike was pretty much doomed. At 20 there would almost certainly be enough survivors to cripple or sink the target.

In modern warfare it is the system that counts more than the equipment in it.

 

ME-109 most overrated, due to the huge number produced and its failure to be retired from service when it was clearly obsolete. The ME 109 was one of the best fighters in the world until 1943, when the FW 190 came in service and improved models of the Spitfire and other new american aircraft came into use. The ME 109 was easier to build than its competitor, the heinkel 100 fighter, (and Erhard Milch personally disliked Heinkel which was an underrated factor). The Me 109's faults are well known, poor visibility in all directions, very cramped cockpit. Only had 85 gallon fuel capacity and the Germans did not think to fit it with drop tanks until after the crucial Battle of Britain. Worst of all was the narrow landing gear, a design which was necessitated due to the thin wings. With the narrow landing gear it was not easy for even a veteran pilot to land the aircraft, let alone the "greenhorns" put in the cockpit in the latter stages ofthe war. In fact almost as many ME 109's were destroyed in landing accidents in this aircraft as were lost to the enemy!

 

Wow calling the Bf109 an overrated aircraft?
I don't think that's very wrong. The Germans late in war didn't think that the Bf109 was the best plane around. They simply lacked the choice to build anything better. This fighter reached it's peak with the F model which was a remarkable aircraft for it's time. And it was a 1933 or something design which served in all theatres throughout the war and was always seen as a viable threat.




Cheers...

 

I'd disagree strongly here. As a defensive interceptor-type aircraft the Me 109 was an excellent design for the period. Even the early models were relatively fast and had high rates of climb. Maneuverability was sufficent and the aircraft had good airborne handling qualities.
Yes, landings and take offs could be a bit tricky but so too could be doing the same in an early Spitfire among other planes.
The He 100D was actually an easier aircraft to manufacture having about a third less parts and assemblies than the 109. But, politics and short sighted industrial polices killed it. Had it been put into production it would have been like the US switching from say, the P39 and 40 to the P 51.
As for drop tanks, the Germans had one developed prior to the invasion of France. But, it was made of non-strategic materials (primarily lacquered paper) so it leaked like a sieve, deteriorated in storage or out in the weather quickly, and basically was ignored operationally. The Luftwaffe did little or nothing to fix these problems or find a new design until it became apparent that there was a real need for such an item. By then it was too late to design and put into production a useful model tank and retrofit 109s to use it in time for the BoB.
On the whole, as a defensive interceptor the Me 109 proved reasonably capable all the way to the end of the war.

 

Amazing...

..abyssimally low...

I never heard that one before...

Thanks to the Old Chief T.A. and other members, you learn something every day on this forum..

Thanx for the update!

RAM

 

That's a superlative superlative. Look it up in Webster's, it's there somewhere