Most Overrated aircraft of WWII?

It seems my info is wrong about the speed of the mustang.

the P51 would have a hard time out climbing a Hellcat with the Hellcats being about 3600 ft/m and the Mustangs being about 3200..

The Bearcat could definitely outturn the Mustang so could the later model spitfires.

the Corsair had a service ceiling very close to the mustang


I also retract my statement about the bf109s, I think my info was wrong...

like I said before the Mustang can do all of these things fairly well and the others just do great one job. the Hellcat being an interceptor has an excellent rate of climb. the Spitfire and Bearcat had amazing turning ability. The corsair was not just a great fighter but also ground attack plane.

 

Hellcat,

The F6F-5 Hellcat could climb at the rate of 2,980 ft. per min and the P-51D/K could climb at the rate of 3,475 ft per minute.

The Bearcat never actually saw service in WWII so it should not be considered. As for later spitfires, possibly but the P-51 will always initially out-turn the attacking aircraft initially because of the difference in speeds.

The F4U-1 Corsair's service ceiling was 36,900 ft. the P-51D/K's service ceiling was 41,900 ft.

 

Once again I'll say that the mustang was an outstanding fighter it was just not great at everything IMHO

 

Sorry double post. A lot of the plane has to do with the pilot who is at the controls also.

I personally think that PTO especially navy pilots were better. I'm biased though

 

What is your source for this? I am citing Weapons of World War II by Chris Bishop and P-51 Mustang vs Fw 190 by Martin Bowman

 

From Memory mostly but those performance statistics come from wiki...i know . but there are more than just wiki that cites the Hellcats climb at 3500ft per min

The Hellcat CAN climb and 3500 ft per min or more when under WEP.


http://www.airpages.ru/eng/us/f6f.shtml

http://www.chuckhawks.com/mustang_P-51.htm

here is where I get some of my info

also the Spitfite MkXIV has a better climb rate by a lot

 

Hellcat,

Wiki is a good place to start, but if you are going to post up info it is better for it to come from a solid source. If you want to cite wiki its ok if you let people know its from wiki.

In this case, Wiki's numbers are off in a few places.

Sure maybe, and the P-51 could climb faster using WEP. However, as you would imagine, using war emergency power adds stress to the engine and results in shorter engine life for the planes.

 

True, how bout we call this.


you win. I was wrong I still think the P51 was overrated though

 

Hellcat,

No winning or losing here, just a friendly discussion

I can understand where you are coming from when you say that the P-51 was overrated, it certainly receives a lot of "hype" today. And you are right, it of course wasn't the best at everything.

 

Tactical comparison of the Spitfire Mk XIV with other late war fighters in the European theater
Spitfire Mk XIV Testing

 

Understandable. Like I said I think it's an extremely overrated plane. in the hands of a good pilot lots of different planes can beat it. especially in a turning fight and low level.

 

IL-2
Zero

 

P-51, eventhough it was a great aircraft, it just wasn't the best there was, simple as that.

 

You know, I will take a lot of flak for this, but i'm sticking with the Spitfire simply because not as many (it seems) give credit to the Hurricane for the defense of Britain. With a limited range and less kills in the air than the Hurricane, it was probably the most overrated aircraft, at least in the RAF.

 

Btw proeliator, I will eat your face for that post :3

 

Not to argue against you just yet, but what was?


....let me guess the me 262...

 

I'll just go on record and say take the Spitfire,Tempest , FW 190, Me 109, the Lavochins, the Yaks, F4U's, F6F's, P-51's, P-38's, P-47's,Ki-84's, George's, (and I'm sure there are others) were all essentially equal .
Somebody stated that the Zero was overrated but I really don't think so. IMHO some types like the F4F/FM-2 surprisingly stayed competitive till the end.

 

While the Spitfire had less kills during the Battle of Britain it stayed a front-line fighter until the end of the war (the Mk XIV is a credible candidate for best Allied fighter in 1945), unlike the Hurricane which was past its best by 1941. Even in the BOB while the Spit and Hurricane shot down enemy aircraft at an equal rate it was far safer for a pilot to fly a Spitfire than a Hurricane.

 

I personally think that the the Corsairs, Hellcats, Wildcats, Thunderbolts, Mustangs, and spitfire were all on a fairly level playing field as far as performance and ability goes. if you put a Spit against a mustang at high altitude the mustang will probably win in the hands of a good pilot. if you put a Spit against a Hellcat or Corsair at Medium altitudes the Spit will probably win. if we bring it up a ways the Hellcat will win because of it's energy advantage.

You see what I'm saying?


also, my Vote goes to the late war F4F Wildcats and Hurricanes for most underrated Fighter.

 

Why yes ofcourse the Me-262 is one of them, that a/c was superior to anything else in the sky, it was some 100 mph faster than anything the Allies possessed.

But that's far from the only fighter which was superior to the P-51, that list includes the Fw-190D, Spitfire XIV, Bf-109K, Ta-152, F4U-4 & He-162 (Although this one hardly saw any service)

The only area where the P-51 really held a real edge compared to other a/c was in its long range, and to some extent its great high alt performance.