Actually, by mid 1943 the Germans should most likely have scrapped the whole program and stopped production completely. Building an aircraft that is incapable of being used operationally due to lack of fuel is simply insane. A single He 177 guzzled between 7 and 10 metric tons of fuel per flight. A single gruppe would literally drain German aircraft fuel reserves in nothing flat.

Did you say 8 produced??? Tch, such a pretty and exciting airplane! Well, as bombers couldn't be towed by horses as the army's artillery pieces, then they had a problem

__________________

my bad. will putting a time context, battle of britain, make it up to you?

I read that the Swordfish had canvas for armor, and it could be destroyed easily. I would not want to fly one . I think if I remember right they were used in torpedo runs, I bet they were shot down easily. I feel bad for pilots who flew them.

Yea, the whole aircraft was canvased covered and the plane was very slow and maneuverability sucked for a biplane. It was a tough little plane that was a torpedo bomber. It was one of these planes that dropped the torpedo that struck the Bismark and disabled her rudder which eventually lead to her demise at the hands of the British fleet.

Perhaps you should read up a little more. It was for sure not an overrated aircraft as is the subject of the thread.

"By far the most succesful and famous biplane fighting aircraft of WWII. Its naval nickname was "Stringbag".
Little different from the biplanes of World War I and totally obsolete by World War II, the Fairey Swordfish remarkably remained operational until after 1945. Slow and almost defenceless, it was a successful torpedo bomber against light opposition. Swordfish crippled the italian fleet at Tarente and helped to sink the German Bismarck. Its main advantage was strength, ease of maintenance, and viceless flying qualities. Swordfish could be flown from aircraft carriers, even in rough seas. By the end of 1941, the wartime Swordfish was confined mainly to anti-submarine operations.
In Canada, Swordfish operated from the Naval Gunnery School in Yarmouth and the Royal Navy Station at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. In 1946, Fleet Requirement Unit 743 (RCN) was equipped with Swordfish."

Fairey Swordfish - en


Fairey Swordfish aircraft profile. Aircraft Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945
uboat.net - Fighting the U-boats - Aircraft - Fairey Swordfish

__________________


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.

I read that the Swordfish was not a good biplane in wwII, I also looked it up on the internet they say the same thing. Do not get upset this is my opinion.

I doubt if the Italian Fleet and the crew of the Bismarck held quite the same opinion as 'the internet'....

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

Hey what do they know?




Cheers...

In at least two books in my collection "Complete book of World War II Combat Aircraft" ,Enzo Angelucci,Paulo Matricardi and Pieruigi Pinto,page 89 and "The Encyclopedia of Aircraft of WWII", pgs 158-63 there is no mention of it being "not a good biplane". In addition to the sites quoted and linked above.And so far the sites I have also gone to do not state as such.What are your written sources and which sites did you go to on the Internet? Most people try to back up thier opinions with info and facts rather then just saying "I read". And once again though, what does this have to do with the subject of the thread? The Swordfish was NOT overrated. BTW And this is my opinion and Im not upset LOL.

__________________


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.

I can't think of a biplane that did more in WWII. In at least some senses of the word it was the best biplane of WWII.

Opinions not backed by at least some amount of reason and data are a waste of bandwidth.

It would seam to me that in order to be a candidate for the most overrated title the plane must have been rated quite highly for some length of time. My candidate is the B-17. Certainly a very good plane but it didn't live up to it's early rational of being effective vs naval targets and the B-24s and Lancasters could and I believe did deliver more bombs.

Please read about the the b17 it was a very good plane here are some reasons, good armor, plenty of protection with its guns, it did not need too be a good naval bomber it was meant for ground targets , such as factories, the main amount of bombing was ground targets, .The pacific was mostly about naval targets not the European theater.

Please read what I read and the title to this thread. It doesn't say anything about the plane being bad. As such your response has absolutely nothing to do with my proposition or the title of this thread for that matter. Indeed I don't think a bad plane could be "most overrated". Another I'd nominate would be the Me-262 for instance. Both were good planes but their reputation especially post war has grown out of proportion. If you have a junk plane there's little chance it will get overrated.

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.

__________________


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.

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.