When you talk overrated, you are saying the hype was more than the facts. The Wildcat was a aircraft that did much more than it was designed for. The Me-262 was a plane that by virtue of its high speed and abilities when working, was very scary to its opponents. But once the initial fear was faced, they found tactics and realized that the few planes they had to deal with were not immune to group attacks. And with the level of pilots, the maintenance headaches and other problems.

The Spitfire was a good interceptor, but the reality is that the Hurricane did more yeoman work. The Spit was the pretty boy that the girls and media swoon over.

__________________
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.

Since you mentioned it, I have to agree. The Swordfish is among the very few biplanes that continued to soldier on despite the advent of the streamlined single wing aircraft. In fact, its slow speed was one of its chief advantages when the aircraft went against the anti-air guns of the Bismarck.

i can't understand how the zero could be overrated during its period of dominance when its technical superiorities have been acknowledged, reverse-engineered and capitalized upon so that better planes were developed precisely to defeat it. i smell revisionism here.

in a different manner, i can't understand how the me-262 can be overrated when it hardly had the time and numbers to really count.

I think most WWII aircraft were found wanting outside their specialised tasks. Some, like the Hawker Hurricane, left behind in the development race as fighters, became very effective ground-attack planes. The Hawker Typhoon was another example of this trend later in the war. The Spitfire finished the war with technical specs & capabilities almost double those of the Mk1 - but never overcame its original specialisation as a short-range, rapid-response interceptor (a role which was virtually obsolete by 1944). Many Australian MkVIII Spits flying from Darwin, more than matched the Zeros in the air - only to crash after running out of fuel. A decidedly under-rated plane (mentioned in other posts above) was the RN's Fairey Swordfish torpedo-bomber. The gunners on German & Italian ships couldn't get a bead on it when it was so low to the sea - at times only 40ft above sea-level. And attempts to replace it failed because the replacements couldn't package all its capabilities and characteristics together. As an anti-submarine & ground-attack plane, it carried rockets, depth-charges and bombs. When they nicknamed it the "Stringbag", it wasn't a derisory nickname for a biplane design. It was meant to refer to the traditional British housewife's shopping bag - expandable & versatile. The B-17 I'd pick as one US plane with less ability than its rep implied. Bombload was less than half that of the Lancaster. What was not over-rated was the courage of their crews: flying in daylight against FW190s was immensely brave.

Klive

A good book I remember on the Swordfish was called "To War on a Stringbag" by Bantam Books.

For the Me-262, it was a revolutionary aircraft whose reputation was exaggerated. This is my personal view. It's fast, that's true but that's all it can ever really be, fast. Its engines have to be replaced every so often and its combat range is minimal, compared to the prop-driven aircraft it faced.
The 262, for me, is a beautiful plane to look at but it never lived up to the expectation that it would be a terror in the sky against Allied bombers and fighters.

As for the Zero. I feel it is an over-rated plane. Many writers and books have touted it to look like as lording it over the skies of Asia and the Pacific. In reality, it barely had any armor, didn't pack enough punch against Allied fighters. Its edge was in how the Zero was used by naval aviators early in the war. Over China, Army pilots faced the Flying Tigers, and the Flying Tigers using the P40 were able to go toe to toe against the Japanese Zero.

I think the B17 is also an overated plane! The B24 doesnt seem to get anywhere near the respect deserves. It was a better bomber than the B17. As said the lancaster could carry twice the payloaid. The Mossie could carry the same payload as the B17 believe it or not!

Not to mention that other aircraft resources had to be used to protect it when landing and taking off. A waste that could have been used somewhere else.

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

finally we come to one's specific usage of the phrase. if 'overrated' means 'thought superior in every aspect,' then yes, the zero would be considered as such. but be that as it may, it's superiority with regard to maneuverability, climb, range, and even level flight from 1940 to middle of 1942 was unquestioned, by both allies and axis countries. design intentionally sacrificed diving speed and armor because that's what happens when you make an airplane with an engine much more powerful than a p-40's but with an overall weight 2,000 pounds less.

and a diving f-4, or p-39, or p-40 isn't assured of victory against a zero. there are ways to counter such a move and japanese pilots used them.

works both ways. if you're going detach p-51 mustangs from bomber escort duty just to trap a few jets on take-off and landing, you're leaving your b-17s more vulnerable. and the germans posted ta-152s around the me-262 fields. the mustangs were less-than-enthusiastic about facing the long-nosed focke wulfs.

By 1944 the above statement is both irrelevant and incorrect. Typically by early 1944 it is not uncommon on a large daylight raid for the US to put up 500 to 700 bombers and an equal quantity of fighter escort. As Allied pilots now generally had several hundred more hours of operational flying time and even more before that in training compared to the paltry few Luftwaffe pilots were getting most Allied fighter jocks were not only enthusiastic about but hungry to engage the Luftwaffe regardless of what the later was flying. By that late in the war an Allied pilot had only to worry about running into one of a handful of dwindling experten that could give them a run for their money. The other 95% of the Luftwaffe was basically aerial target practice.
The Ta 152 was a serious non-stater. Without looking up exact numbers far less than 100 actually became operational and even then saw service with just a squadron or two and had virtually no flying time by the end of the war. So, for all of its vaulted "superiority" it too accomplished nothing.
For the Allies detaching a few hundred escorts to roam across Europe looking for things German to shoot up made perfect sense. This is even moreso true as escort fighters generally operated in waves one relieving the next of escort to and from targets.
Basically, a German pilot needed to be looking over his shoulder from the moment his wheels came up until he taxied off the runway. Allied aircraft dominated the entire sky over Western Europe and that is hardly an exaggeration.

absolutely spot on! I love the Ta 152 and it was probably the best piston fighter of the war, but essentially it achieved absolutely nothing. The Allies (not just US) by 1944 had better pilots and far greater numbers...the Germans never stood a chance!

This was a hot fighter! The USAAF decided not to produce it as they no longer needed interceptors.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/xp72.html

This plane could practically run down an Me 262 and outclimb it handily.

While I agree that the B-17 was overrated, let's make a few points clear. Its virtue and value was not the amount of bombs it could carry. What made it valuable, was the amount of punishment it could take and return its crew home. It was a beautiful aircraft and solidly built. It moved Boeing up to a new level as an aircraft builder. It was a first rate aircraft for the start of the war, and made great improvements over the duration of the war. IMHO, it was the better aircraft over the B-24, but it depends on what criteria you choose to follow.

__________________
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.

The Swordfish was overrated. The myth that German and Italian ships couldn't hit it with their AA fire is just that. Myth. Attacking at night or a single ship virtually any aircraft could drive home an attack successfully with little or no loss. Look at the Prince of Wales and Repulse. The Japanese attacked with far more capable aircraft and sank both for small loss.
As far as it goes, many aircraft could fulfill the role of the Swordfish just as well or better. In ASW work the Avenger would be a better choice. Much more range and carrying capacity, better loiter times. All critical to ASW aircraft.
If the Swordfish were used in the Pacific war during its early days its reputation would have been tarnished beyond repair. I doubt anyone could imagine it trying to make a run on the Japanese carriers at Midway in the face of Zero fighter opposition. Unopposed in the Atlantic and Mediterrainian it was successful. If it had to face enemy fighters it was little more than target practice.
The major reason it wasn't replaced was the low priority on design work given carrier aircraft by Britain. Outside of the lash up Seafire and SeaHurricane British designers really didn't put much forward that actually reached service. The Firefly managed to just make it. The Blackburn Firebrand never did. The Albatross proved a failure.
In the end, the FAA had to turn to US designs for successful aircraft to replace their own marginal designs.

LOL Sorry I have to laugh at this. The P-51s were not detached from bomber escort duty to attack the fields. They targeted the airfields and Me-262s intentionally knowing that when the bomber streams were approaching or leaving it was a good time to attack when they were vulnerable.

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

different words for the same meaning. it doesn't take much to make you laugh, eh?

so again, how did the me-262 get to be overrated? because it was vulnerable on take-off and landing, or because the american pilots were scared to death of it at the start?

Totally agree. In fact, I really can't figure out why the Navy didn't just leave the Italian Fleet and the Bismark to the US to sort out while those over-rated Swordfish crews just put their feet up.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

The question remains - by whom was the Swordfish over-rated in WWII ?

' When the Royal Navy took over the Fleet Air Arm from the RAF in 1938, it inherited obsolete aircraft. It was apparent...to the Naval aircrew that they could expect no replacements from the British aircraft industry because its resources were...concentrated on producing Hurricanes and Spitfires. When war was declared in 1939, the FAA was required in their obsolete aircraft...to support the RAF in the face of the very modern aircraft of the Luftwaffe. If some FAA aircrew did not rate their chances of survival as high, they were right....' ( Vice Admiral Sir Charles Evans, in 'War In A Stringbag', 1977 ).

I can find no reference to the Swordfish being highly-rated by anyone in 1939/40, not the Admiralty, certainly not FAA crews, and definitely not the Kriegsmarine or Regia Marina Italiana.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson