Most Overrated aircraft of WWII?

I think of the radial engine being like a diesal engine and the inline is like a petrol engine,the 190 was much heavier than the 109g and the 109g had a slightly better climb.
The 190 had excellent roll and speed controls wether to engage or break off,the 190 was tougher and was probably a steadier gun platform but all german wwii fighter achievements were 109 achievements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190#Specifications_.28Fw_190_D-9.29
comparison

 

I remember hearing Douglas Bader calling the FW190 "the Butcher Bird" it outclassed the Spitfire when it first appeared. If DB thought that of it of it then it was a first class fighter.

 

The first version of the FW outperformed the Spit Mk V. It was way better than the Bf. there was a thread over here that had a link to a site that compared both (some british study) and the conclusion was that the FW was a better bird all around than the Bf. Which is expected. It's of a newer design with better aerodynamic characteristics. It was a sturdy weapon platform and a tough bird to bring down.




Cheers...

 

Deducing from what I have read here and elsewhere, I take it that the FW-190 was an advanced energy fighter to the nimble but less powerful BF-109, and was also better armed and armored than the latter?

 

The Fw 190 single-seat fighter and attack aircraft was in service 1941-1945. The Fw 190 was first met in action by Spitfires of the RAF in spring 1941. Though it had flown three months before World War II. It was unknown to British intelligence, and the only Luftwaffe fighters with a radial engine were thought to be something else- it was in almost every way superior even to the RAFs latest Spitfire, the Mk VB. Powered by a beautifully installed BMW 801Dg two-row radial, rated at 1,600hp or 1,700 hp, it was smaller than any British fighter, yet carried heavier armament, the usual arrangement being four 20mm cannons and two machine-guns. It had unsurpassed maneuverability, was well protected, and had a widetrack landing gear unlike the Bf109 and most other fighters of 1941. By the end of 1942 about 2,000 of these fighters had been delivered. Most went to command the skies on the Russian front and in North Africa, or to drop bombs on hostile armies. A few stayed in France and dropped large bombs on British coastal towns.

New versions appeared, including types with even heavier armament, as well as torpedo bombers, dual-controlled trainers, and night fighters. The Fw 190G had fewer guns and could carry a fantastic bomb, rocket or torpedo load up to 3,970lb. It had strenghtened landing gear, and like the 190F often carried rockets for use against Allied ground forces or bombers.

Fastest of all versions was the Fw 190D, or long-nosed 190, series with a Jumo 213A liquid-cooled engine normally rated at 1,776hp but capable of being boosted to 2,240hp for short spurts at speeds up to 426mph. Towards the end of the war, when total Fw 190 production amounted to 20,051 aircraft, designer Kurt Tank had his own name applied to the final development, the Ta 152. This was a refined Fw 190D of even higher performance. Both had an inverted V-12 engine, the 190D's Jumo being used by some Ta 152 sub-types including the long-span 152H used for high alititude combat, while the Ta 152C had the 2,300hp DB 603L.

Typical armament comprised of one 30mm MK 108 or 103 (alone enough to blow the wing off any aircraft struck by its shells) and four 20mm MG 151 cannons. Tank himself was testing a Ta 152 when he was 'bounced' by Mustangs, the fastest Allied fighters. He opened the throttle and they were unable to get near him. Fortunatly for the Allies, only a handful of these machines entered operational units, and then they were often unable to fly because of a lack of fuel or lack of trained pilots.

Bf 109E-3

Max Speed 348mph at 15,000ft
Range 410 miles
Climb 2,580 ft per minute
Service Ceiling 34,450 ft
Armament two 20-mm MG FF cannons and two 7.92 MG 17 machine guns.

Fw 190A-8

Max Speed 402 mph at 20,700 ft
Range 658 miles
Climb 1,826 ft per minute
Service Ceiling 32,700 ft
Armament four MG 151 20-mm cannons and two MG 12.7 machine guns

Bf 109G-6

Max Speed 385mph at 22,640 ft
Range 447 miles (without drop tanks)
Climb 3,116 ft per minute
Service Ceiling 37,890 ft
Armament two 13-mm MG 131 cannons and one 20-mm MG 151 cannon

John Keegan Martin Bowman Tony Holmes

 

It was certainly overrated in the Battle of Britain, but it was extremely effective in the Blitzkrieg in Poland, where Goering thought it would be effective, but was quickly outclassed by single engined British fighters. Another overrated plane (not by anyone who knows a thing or two about WW2) is the Gladiator. It is oversentimentalized but is simply an outclassed biplane. But moreover is the Zeke all the way.

 

Ok the 190 is better than the 109 but its a donkey in the climb,plus the max speed of 426 is only available with emergency power.
Handy in a dogfight but questionable if you want to break off the engagement.I still prefer the 109.

Also the bf110 went on to be a great nightfighter.I disagree that the zero was overrated

 

Did it? I seam to recall it haveing a very hard time taking out one decrepit bridge.

 

Who overrates it?

 

p-38. second's the me-109G. third's the corsair.

 

To be fair, the Bridge was heavily covered by self propelled US anti-aircraft batteries (including quad 50 cal. mounted on armored halftracks). These scattered the German aircraft.

 

On the other hand it was a no fly zone for allied fighters.

 

The normal speed was higher than the Bf speed anyway and the D-9 has an improved climbing rate. It was less maneuvrable than the A-8 but it surpasses it in every other aspect. Particularly at altitudes higher than 20,000ft.

The Bf 110 was good at his intended role. Goering's (and the rest of the Luftwaffe command chain) propblem was that he didn't take into account the developments of radar. The bf110 was supposed to catch enemies off guard and destroy their planes on the ground before giving them a chance to take off. It's easy to see how radars bundled this strategy. It was a fighter fit for the 30s not the 40s. They all knew that one on one against a spitfire or hurricane was a lost plane.
The Zero was overrated especially late in the war when it was totally outclassed. And I don't think that a plane which lacks the most basic thing of all (a good engine) can be other thing than an overrated aircraft.




Cheers...

 

I would be interested in seeing your reasons for choosing the Corsair. it has always impressed me . As the saying goes " Love makes one blind ".

cheers....rhs.

 

I was wondering the same, I also wonder if somehow the topic became confused? Those three would seem to be to fall into the best, not the most Overrated.

They all served long and distinguished careers, before, during and in the case of the Corsair after WW2, since it was operational well into the fifties! The Corsair (in many opinions) is ranked as one of the best fighters of the period, right up there with the Spit, the Mustang, and the Hellcat.

 

Well it's hard for the "most overrated" not to be among the best. If something is a piece of garbage no one's going to over rate it by much.

 

That is an interesting point, but I am not sure if it always holds up. If you take the king tiger for example (now I realize this is not a plane but bear with me). In my opinion and the opinion of many others here, the king tiger would not be among the top tanks of the war, but it is probably the most common answer for best tank of the war by those with not as much knowledge; it is extremely overated. So I would tweak you statement just a little to say "no one with reasonable knowledge is going to over rate it by much."

 

That isn't how I see the query at all, the Stuka was not a piece of garbage by any stretch of the imagination, but well before they were obsolete/outdated, they were being overrated by both their opponents and their own Luftwaffe upper command.

The Bf-110 "Destroyer" was overrated in its original role, but underrated in its role as a night-fighter.

The performance of an aircraft is the benchmark of whether it was over or under rated, by either side. The P-38 "Lightning" was respected by the enemy in both the PTO and the ETO, and in all of its roles with the possible exception of the non-supercharged versions origianlly sold to the RAF. Those were crap, but they were the exception not the norm. The Gustav version of the 109 performed up to if not beyond expectations of its producers, and its adversaries. Don't see how that can be called "overrated" either. It might have been a little "long in the tooth" by war's end, but was still doing yeoman's work with the Luftwaffe. It not being flown by experienced "old hands" by then surely cut down its effectiveness as much as its age of design.

I just don't see the Corsair being overrated by either its owners or its adversaries. Its performance pretty much makes that a non-starter. It may have had "teething troubles" in the beginning, but once those were ironed out it was stellar in performance.

 

Sorry guy's but after having read through this thread I have to admit to myself that I don't get the point/meaning out of it.

Overrated by who?

The pilots who flew it?
The producer?
By the enemy?
By Goering?
By Forum members?

If a ZERO would have encountered a Gladiator - probably the ZERO pilot would have gotten the kill - on the other hand a skillfull pilot with e.g. 400 flying hours in the Gladiator might even stand a chance against the ZERO piloted by a guy who just arrived from flying school the day before.

Now I also do not believe that the Japanese leadership overrated the ZERO as such. They were aware in 1940 that the ZERO could outfight most of its adversaries.
That the Japanese industry was not able to upkeep developments to counter new aircrafts such as the magnificent Corsair is understood.

But IMO it would be wrong to forward that the ZERO was overrated - since it got the sh..t blown out by Corsairs, P-38's, Hellcats , etc. etc.

Even if a P-40 could have matched a ZERO (maybe it did) it would still not imply that the Japanese overrated the ZERO = they didn't have anything else did they?

No if someone can prove that for example, Goering forwarded "the Bf-110 is going to defeat the RAF decisivly" - then I could follow up on someone stating:

Goering overrated the Bf-110.

Regards
Kruska

 

Excellent points. The highest scoring RAF pilot in the first years was a South African fellow flying biplanes in North Africa against Italian and German fighers (Prattle?), he didn't even get a Hurricane until he had racked up numerous air to air kills. Was that plane he flew over or under rated. In his hands it was surely "underrated" by others, much to their dismay.

In USN/USMC service in the Pacific, the F6F "Hellcat" destroyed 5,163 enemy aircraft for the cost of 270 lost to enemy aircraft, a kill ratio of 19.1 to 1.

The F4U/FG "Corsair" destroyed 2,140 enemy aircraft for the loss of 189 to enemy aircraft, a kill ratio of 11.3 to 1.

Something to keep in mind though is that not ALL of these kills are "air to air" victories. A great many were the result of ground strafing of parked aircraft.

Another thing which is sometimes lost in the debate over the superiority of the "Zero", the "Hellcat" and "Corsair" in the PTO is that even the LOWLY F4 "Wildcat" had a winning ratio over the Japanese fighters as well (better than 4 to 1)... yet some people still think that it was an inferior aircraft to the A6M.

They forget that the "Wildcat" fought the "Zero" when it was piloted by Japan’s most experienced aviators. Which aircraft is being over or under rated? Looks to me like the "Wildcat" is being underrated, and the "Zeke" overrated.