Most 'Underrated' Aircraft of WW2?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-07-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgondog

Being biased toward Allied aircraft doesn't automatically award the mantle of 'expert'.

I have review virtually ALL the 355th FG encounter REports and Marcs. More were lost to 109s (FAR and away) than Fw190 or Fw190D's. I would say most 355 aces found the Fw190 to be easier prey above 15,000 feet - all relative because of pilot quality.

You dont need to tell me this. Tell that to the people that I am talking about.

ToughOmbre · 07-07-2007, 01:13 PM

Best argument for the 109...

Was the preferred mount of many of the Luftwaffe's best pilots (Hartmann, Galland, etc.)

MP-Willow · 07-07-2007, 02:55 PM

The 109 may have been so loved because it was the ride most pilots knew the best. I agree that after the 109F the airframe was getting old and over taxed, the Ks tried to fix this and in my mind were nice.

The Fw190s seem more suited to the Eastern Frount with more space, and ground targets.

What about the B-26? After the trainning and flight quirks were understood she was the best for safty, if you get past the name

The Basket · 07-07-2007, 08:16 PM

The Petlyakov Pe-2 was a total unknown to the RAF hurricane pilots who were training Soviet pilots to fly the hurricane.

They organised a escort mission with the Pe-2 and they were slower than the bomber they were trying to escort!

Soviet pilots would fly full throttle which must have done engine life no good.

FLYBOYJ · 07-07-2007, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Basket

Soviet pilots would fly full throttle which must have done engine life no good.

Actually flying full throttle with a proper mixture setting will enhance engine life.

drgondog · 07-10-2007, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Actually flying full throttle with a proper mixture setting will enhance engine life.

jes have yer EGT/CHT sensors handy.. grin

FLYBOYJ · 07-11-2007, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgondog

jes have yer EGT/CHT sensors handy.. grin

Yep!

lastwarrior · 07-11-2007, 02:33 AM

Nice one Amrit. I also agree regarding the Mohawk.

Watanbe · 07-13-2007, 08:42 AM

I also think that the Beaufighter was a highly underated plane. A lot of pilots had great success with the P40. While I dont think it is a very good plane, it was a good stop gap fighter and in the hands of a good pilot good pack a punch. A lot of people seem to hate it which is probably unfair (even though I dont think much of it).

Whoever said the IL-2 was underated should be shot (well maybe not quite). They made 45,00 odd of them and thats why they had great success its a pretty simple formula they had:

massive numbers
heavy armour (underneath)
heavy armourment

no wonder they raped tanks, surely the Yak9 is more underated as surely it stopped many Il2's from getting massacred.

I think that the Hawker Tempest was also underated in the fighter role, many people seem to view in the same light as the Typhoon an effective ground attack plane.

MP-Willow · 07-13-2007, 02:59 PM

Beaufighters! I can agree. Not much to look at, but they did provide a lot of work and could take a good amout of damage.

Negative Creep · 07-13-2007, 05:24 PM

Initially I would've said the Hurricane, but whilst its role in the Battle of Britain is under valued, it is still regarded as a very good aircraft. So I'#d have to go for the Beaufighter as well. Planned and produced very quickly, worked almost from the word go, packed a fearsome punch, could carry radar without sacrifices, tough, dependable and multi skilled.

If they were sisters then whilst they were both smart and skilled, but whilst the Beau was a bit plain and go on with the job without complaints, the Mosquito would be the better looking one in designer gear who gets all the blokes

Watanbe · 07-13-2007, 09:48 PM

I agree with negative creep, while the hurricane my have played second fiddle to the spitfire I dont think it is necessarily underated. Most people would know what the Hurricane is and the important role that it played.

I think its underated compared to the spitfire but overall I dont really think so.

outremerknight · 07-14-2007, 10:07 AM

I think the Westland Whirlwind never got a fair chance. With better engines it could have been a very good bomber interceptor/killer with its 4x 20mm cannon in the nose and whatever else that it may have been given as the war went on.

Marcel · 07-14-2007, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outremerknight

I think the Westland Whirlwind never got a fair chance. With better engines it could have been a very good bomber interceptor/killer with its 4x 20mm cannon in the nose and whatever else that it may have been given as the war went on.

So would the Fokker G.I. A heavy twin engined fighter that could turn with the Fokker D.XXI, a very nimble fighter itself. Fokker wanted to equip it with RR merlin engines, which would probably have brought it on par with the mosquito(a later design), being as versatile and maybe as fast. We'll never know 'cause the dutch government choose low powered Mercury engines, ordered way to few planes and they were overrun by the germans in '40. That's how things go...

Watanbe · 07-14-2007, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outremerknight

I think the Westland Whirlwind never got a fair chance. With better engines it could have been a very good bomber interceptor/killer with its 4x 20mm cannon in the nose and whatever else that it may have been given as the war went on.

the Whirlwind was by all accounts an exceptional aircraft except for its engines. I suppose that after these had diminished interest in the plane, the beaufighter and mossie were already fulfilling similar roles?