Most 'Underrated' Aircraft of WW2?

[Lucky13]

How about the Henschel Hs 129? Ask people to think about a Luftwaffe tankbuster and 9/10 they'll think about the Ju-87... I know that it was produced in smaller number (879) than the Stuka....
But, what was its effectiveness compared to the Stuka?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Hs 129 I think was a marvelous design but it was extremely underpowered with its 2 Gnome-Rhône 14M radials rated at 700hp. That was the biggest mistake and I dont undestand what they were thinking. If they powered her with DB 601s or BMW 801s she would have been the ultimate anti tank aircraft.

[Parmigiano]

I think that the Russian designs in general are underrated, maybe because in our group there are very few 'experts' (including myself as non expert) of Russian aircrafts, or maybe because USSR is not at the top of the preferences for most of the people here.

La5, 5FN and 7 were very good fighters, YAK 9 and 3 are claimed to be even better, IL2 and IL10 was one of the best designs of attack aircraft, the Petlyakov Pe2 was an extremely good twin

Their air-to-air and air-to-ground armament was at top, at least looking at Tony Williams tables.

Also historically the Russian 'school' is remarkable, Russian was the first 'modern' fighter (Polikarpov I 16)

So I would add to the list:

Pe2
Yak 3
Yak 9
IL2/10

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

The Hs 129 I think was a marvelous design but it was extremely underpowered with its 2 Gnome-Rhône 14M radials rated at 700hp.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. Its power-weight ratio was ok: 5000 kg for 1400 HP. Before it flew with the French engines it was powered by 2 Argus As 410 engines which provided 2 x 460 HP and this resulted in the Hs 129A being 8% underpowered.
Another argument is this: the Hs 129B carried a small bombload or guns for a weight of 300 or so kilograms. Yet the Hs 129B-3 carried a 75mm gun which weight over a ton! Now surely those were underpowered but it also indicates that the Hs 129B-2 wasn't.

Now what is true is that the Hs 129B could have used some more power for letting it carry a bigger payload. Even the Hs 123 could carry its payload.

That was the biggest mistake and I dont undestand what they were thinking. If they powered her with DB 601s or BMW 801s she would have been the ultimate anti tank aircraft.

I used to wonder about that too. I was especially thinking about the cheap BMW 132 (as the Hs 129 was only allowed to carry non-strategic engines) which would have provided 2 times 900 HP. But the guys down at luftwaffe-experten told me that this would not have worked as these engines were heavier. They would have required new wings changing the CoG which would have resulted in changes along the fuselage or tail thus building a new aircraft all together.
I went deeper into that a couple of months ago on this forum. I think it was about the best ground attack aircraft...

Kris

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Civettone

That's a bit of an exaggeration. Its power-weight ratio was ok: 5000 kg for 1400 HP. Before it flew with the French engines it was powered by 2 Argus As 410 engines which provided 2 x 460 HP and this resulted in the Hs 129A being 8% underpowered.
Another argument is this: the Hs 129B carried a small bombload or guns for a weight of 300 or so kilograms. Yet the Hs 129B-3 carried a 75mm gun which weight over a ton! Now surely those were underpowered but it also indicates that the Hs 129B-2 wasn't.

I agree that it was better than with the 410 engines but if it had more power it would certainly have been a better aircraft. The design and the capabilities were there. It was a great aircraft, I just think it needed better engines in my opinion.

[Lucky13]

Which engines could it possibly take without too much stress to the airframe OR the war effort do you think Adler?

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Well, I wasn't aware that the Do 217 is considered a bad aircraft. It's a damn good bomber with good armament, speed and bomb load. It could also carry Hs 293s and Fritz-Xs.
So I wouldn't consider it underrated. But perhaps it depends on what you've read about it.

I know that the Do 17 is considered a rather bad bomber although it performed very well until taken out of service.
Kris

I guess its how you view the question. I was looking at an underated plane, as one that did a good job but didn't get the credit for it, not how good a plane is.

For that reason I went for the A20 and Do217, both excellent aircraft but not ones that most people think of.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Which engines could it possibly take without too much stress to the airframe OR the war effort do you think Adler?

Well naturally with all aircraft if you are going to install larger, heavier and more powerful engines some kinds of modifications and strengthening is going to be required.

I think DB-601s would have been fine and there were plenty of them. The only problem they would have posed would be damage to the liquid cooling system from ground fire since it would be flying so low.

[Civettone]

I guess its how you view the question. I was looking at an underated plane, as one that did a good job but didn't get the credit for it, not how good a plane is.

For that reason I went for the A20 and Do217, both excellent aircraft but not ones that most people think of.

David, I completely agree. It seems more interpret the questions as how people look at the aircraft NOW, while others see the question as how contemporaries looked at the aircraft.

The Vengeance is definitely an aircraft which was underrated during WW2 though nowadays it has a better reputation.
The Bf 109 was considered a worthy adversary from 39 to 45 though it has gotten a bad reputation after the war.

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Well naturally with all aircraft if you are going to install larger, heavier and more powerful engines some kinds of modifications and strengthening is going to be required.

The Germans were indeed looking for other engines but couldn't find suitables engines. In 1944 they went for the Italian Isotta Frasschini although it didn't have a higher power output than the Gnome Rhones.

The only problem they would have posed would be damage to the liquid cooling system from ground fire since it would be flying so low.

As much overrated problem, especially for short-range aircraft. Just look at the succesful Il-2 Sturmovik and Typhoon which had inline engines.

Kris

[renrich]

Seeing the other a/c on the list I would want to include the various models of the F4F on the underrated list. The F4F4 was not highly thought of at all when the Navy first received it. Even Thach disrespected it. Once the pilots learned to exploit it's strong points it gave pretty good service and the Martlets and FMs did good work in Europe. In fact it would be interesting to know about the results of all the ACM the Grummans engaged in Europe and N. Africa.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Civettone

As much overrated problem, especially for short-range aircraft. Just look at the succesful Il-2 Sturmovik and Typhoon which had inline engines.

Kris

I agree that is why I said the DB 601 would have been a fine engine for the aircraft. The cooling system still could have been a problem but look at all the other inline engine aircraft, they still did fine.

[Juha]

Hello Parmigiano
I must disagree with You. Il-2 was a good ground attack plane but most text I have read IMHO tended to overrate rather than underrate it. So I would not say that it was the most underrated a/c. On Yak-9, it seems that during summer 44 Finnish AF Bf 109G-2s/-6s got something like 10:1 kill ratio against them when Finnish Bf 109Gs kill ratio against La-5F/La-5FNs was c. 6:1. These kill rations are based on current research not on wartime claims. So it seems that at least against Finns the SU La-5 units were more effective than Yak-9 units.

Juha

[glennasher]

The C-46 had several outstanding qualities, dual troop doors for parachute drops, heavier lift capacity than a C-47, etc, but it was easy to flame, too, and caught fire way too often. They were only used on one combat drop, over the Rhine, IIRC, where they got torn up pretty badly.
I think they were at their best flying the Hump.........

[ToughOmbre]

Two American fighters that "held the line" until more advanced types became available...

The F4F Wildcat and the P-40 Warhawk...

Especially against the Japanese.

[Cub Driver]

Here's another viewer who thinks the Curtiss P-40 was wildly underrated. Almost every account of the AVG Flying Tigers claims that their planes were "obsolete" or "worn-out" or generally inferior (most often to the Zero, which the AVG never met and their 14th Air Force successors rarely did).

Obsolescent they might have been, but they weren't worn-out when the AVG entered combat in December 1941, and they whupped the Nakajima Ki-27 and Ki-43 almost every time they met. This was true both of the original P-40B types and even more of the replacement P-40Es that came in the spring of 1942.

Like the Buffalo, the P-40 got a bad rap because most of the Allied pilots who flew the plane in its early combats were outmatched by their opponents, who were generally better fliers and combat-experienced to boot. That the AVGs (in the case of the P-40) and the Finns (in the case of the Buffalo) were able to work wonders with these planes shows that they weren't as bad or outmoded as generally assumed.