PDA

View Full Version : The most underrated plane of WW2



ImpStarDuece
05-01-2004, 03:47 AM
drum roll please, pass the sealed envelope. Thank you.

Ahem

and the winner is.......


My vote goes with the Vickers Wellington. Particularly the Hercules powered marks.

Simple, well constructed and easy to make it was the mainstay of Raf bomber command untill the 4 engine heavies came along and event then shouldered a huge burden. Good range, reasonable bombload and defensive armamnent and it could be converted to other duties easily. Used in the Atlantic, Med, Nth Africa, Balkans/Greece and over Germany and the home isles it was finally retired from service in 1959 as atrainer, a testament to a design laid down in 1936!

Any other contenders? My other vote goes to the Halifax the forgotten brother of the Lancaster

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

ImpStarDuece
05-01-2004, 03:47 AM
drum roll please, pass the sealed envelope. Thank you.

Ahem

and the winner is.......


My vote goes with the Vickers Wellington. Particularly the Hercules powered marks.

Simple, well constructed and easy to make it was the mainstay of Raf bomber command untill the 4 engine heavies came along and event then shouldered a huge burden. Good range, reasonable bombload and defensive armamnent and it could be converted to other duties easily. Used in the Atlantic, Med, Nth Africa, Balkans/Greece and over Germany and the home isles it was finally retired from service in 1959 as atrainer, a testament to a design laid down in 1936!

Any other contenders? My other vote goes to the Halifax the forgotten brother of the Lancaster

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

DuxCorvan
05-01-2004, 04:42 AM
My vote is for Blohm und Voss Bv 141. It was an excellent recon plane, reliable, sturdy, fast, with superb all-round vision and handling.

It's only fault being TOO UGLY and bizarre. It was completely asimetric, with its cockpit on a wing, aside the one-engined fuselage... No pilot nor comision trusted on so a strange looking plane, and it was discarded in favour of Fw 189, that resulted also to be good.

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

clint-ruin
05-01-2004, 04:46 AM
As always, depends whose estimate it's underrated in :>

I'd go for a split vote between the B-239 and Hurricane.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

missiveus
05-01-2004, 06:26 AM
I agree with DuxCorvan. The BV-141 was a fine aircraft and terribly underrated. However, my vote goes to the FW-189, which was a better recon aircraft and more versatile than the 141. While underpowered, the 189 was rugged and manuverable. It was even employed as a dive bomber on the Eastern Front.

LtBen
05-01-2004, 08:02 AM
My vote goes to the Mosquito. It never got the attention it deserved, and it was an incredibly innovative and powerful bomber, despite being made out of wood. ***** Goering was so obsessed with copying it he eventually named his copy of it the Mosquito.

LEXX_Luthor
05-01-2004, 09:37 AM
Hs~123 Biplane Ground attack.

German Army liked it better than Stuka and Hs~129 put together.

Hs~123 protected the German Army while Hs~129 waited for good flying weather lol.

While Stuka was being phased out of production they tried to put Hs~123 biplane back into production, but the German bueracrats had long before ordered all production tooling to be Destroyed (thinking Stuka would be more useful lol haha).

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ImpStarDuece
05-01-2004, 09:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Hs~123 Biplane Ground attack.

German Army liked it better than Stuka and Hs~129 put together.

Hs~123 protected the German Army while Hs~129 waited for good flying weather lol.

While Stuka was being phased out of production they tried to put Hs~123 biplane back into production, but the German bueracrats had long before ordered all production tooling to be Destroyed (thinking Stuka would be more useful lol _haha_).

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish _"Gladiator"_ listed as _J8A_ _...in Aces Expansion Pack_


_"You will still have FB , you will lose _nothing"__ ~WUAF_Badsight
_"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..."_ ~Bearcat99
_"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age"_ ~ElAurens
:
_"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore_!_"_ ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Hs-123 was an awesome plane! Totally deserves a MUCH better reputation. The Luftwaff flew it till they literally had no-more left. Constant calls for its reintroduction to full production by the army were ignored and it was slowly attrited into non existence.

Beautiful looking even span bi-plane but was regarded by the luftwaff as an interim type, and only about 600 were made.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

Eagle_361st
05-01-2004, 10:13 AM
Can you say P-47. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Constantly overshadowed by it's little brother the P-51, and it's cousin the P-38. Many people like to think that the P-47 was nothing more than a bomber or a failed fighter which is the furthest thing from the truth.

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1079.jpg

Stalker58
05-01-2004, 10:22 AM
Swordfish

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!

noshens
05-01-2004, 10:29 AM
All soviet planes

Bewolf
05-01-2004, 10:56 AM
Late war 109s. Always stood back to the FW190.

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

FI-Aflak
05-01-2004, 10:58 AM
P-40. It is such a great fighter, but got a bad rap because early in the war US pilots attempted to turn with zeroes and got trounced. P-40 is one of the best fighters of WWII, but because it was not a tight turner, people didn't think it was spectacular

KGr.HH-Sunburst
05-01-2004, 11:05 AM
i agree with Bewolf
ive always seen and been told that late war 109s were infirior to P51s and late spits as well as the 190s

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sig97th.jpg

Rebel_Yell_21
05-01-2004, 11:10 AM
Not glamorous, but far beyond anything mentioned here, or any combat aircraft, the C-47 was the most underrated, and important, aircraft of WWII.

http://www.303rdbga.com/art-ferris-fortress-S.jpg

LeadSpitter_
05-01-2004, 11:17 AM
p40b

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg

JG7_Rall
05-01-2004, 11:48 AM
C-47

"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

PraetorHonoris
05-01-2004, 12:02 PM
Ju52, C47, Hurricane

"Everyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the
battlefield will think hard before starting a war." - Reichskanzler von Bismarck

http://www.rkwetterau.de/assets/images/verdun_franz_helfen.jpg
Humanity

Dmitri9mm
05-01-2004, 12:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yay1:
All soviet planes<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I absolutely agree, but the Soviet Union is always underrated when it comes to WWII history.
I once owned a CD-ROM version of what was claimed to be an "encyclopedia" of WWII.
The introductory video lasted for 20 minutes, and was supposed to cover the basic events of the war. The war between USSR and Geramny was mentioned in ONE sentence that simply said that "Hitler decided to invade Russia" (Mind you it says "Russia")after that nothing is mentioned about the theatre of combat that was without doubt the most important of WWII!
On the other hand this 20 min. movie spent more than 4 minutes on the attack on Pearl Harbor alone!
I really want to read more Soviet history books to get their view of the war.
Oh and BTW I think the I-16 is definately the most underrated since it was perhaps the most progressive design to come out of the thirties.

http://barella.mat.ehime-u.ac.jp/kumac/P51/pics/079s1.gif
The n00b, the n00b, the n00b is on fire.
We don't need no Ponys let the ************ burn. Burn ************! BURN!

SkyChimp
05-01-2004, 12:10 PM
P-36/Hawk 75.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

SECUDUS
05-01-2004, 12:55 PM
"Any other contenders? My other vote goes to the Halifax the forgotten brother of the Lancaster"

http://img61.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/HalifaxParis.bmp

The Halifax over shadowed by the Lanc, but still her equal, Strong and well built survived change of engines, change of design, change of role...fitted with the Hercules engines in the end she was superb and stood second to none.
She was given only a footnote and forgotten while others were rewarded with a chapter in the history books for all time... Fate is so unjust.

Regards

Sec.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

TgD Thunderbolt56
05-01-2004, 01:12 PM
AT6-Texan/SNJ

It made pilots out of many nOObs. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

Aaron_GT
05-01-2004, 03:09 PM
My vote goes to the Avro Anson. A surprisingly
large number were built from the 1930s to
the 1950s. It served as light transport,
training (pilot and gunnery), coastal command,
etc.

Aaron_GT
05-01-2004, 03:14 PM
Second choices:

C-54 (transported huge amounts, but people
only remember the C-47).

Ju-90 series - excellent transport also
pressed into service in later series as a
heavily armed bomber (could be heavy or
recon configs). Lacked high alt performance,
but that wasn't a problem for a transport.

Stirling - could have been brilliant with
bigger wings, but was astoundinly maneoverable.
Some Hurricane pilots reported it's turn
radius was almost that of their own plane
(although I am a bit sceptical!)

Chuck_Older
05-01-2004, 04:18 PM
Hurricane

1936 design that saw front line service in all roles through the whole war in all theatres without major redesign, while friend and foe alike had to incorporate change after change in contemporary designs to stay competitive

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

lil_labbit
05-01-2004, 04:27 PM
Fokker g1

http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/g1a.jpg
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1072.gif In case ya need a reminder:
http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/remarkable.jpg

http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/lilseesya.jpg
Night is better than Day

huggy87
05-01-2004, 04:39 PM
B-24,

Not as sexy as it's cousins, the B-17 and B-29. Yet 18,000 of them were more built. Much more than the B-17. It was not as tough as the 17, nor did it perform as well, but its payload was larger.

Slick75
05-01-2004, 04:42 PM
Avenger

Red_Storm
05-01-2004, 04:47 PM
Undoubtedly the Dutch Fokker G.I. It was said that it could manouevre with a Spitfire Mk.I and that it was the best early war fighter. Almost no one knows of it, probably because it only saw combat for about five days. If it had had the time to prove itself, I bet a lot of you here would have been amazed. It had eight 7.9mm machine-guns in the nose and was therefore nicknamed "Lawnmower" and "Reaper".

The Luftwaffe certainly saw its potential and used all the Fokker G.I's they could get their hands on and even had more produced by Fokker. It was the first twin-boom design and was the big crowd pleaser of the paris saloon of 1937 (I think it was 1937?). Somehow this plane was lost in time and has never since made a re-appearance. Not in games nor in films. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Wasp powered Fokker G.I's (http://www.fokkerg-1.nl/galerij/wasp/lvawasp-e.htm)

Mercury powered Fokker G.I's (http://www.fokkerg-1.nl/galerij/merc/lvamerc-e.htm)

Fokker G.I's in Luftwaffe service (http://www.fokkerg-1.nl/galerij/luftwaffe/g-1luftwaffe.htm)

I've also had the oppertunity to stand next to a 1:1 replica and I can tell you, it is big (http://home.kabelfoon.nl/~esmith/g1_1.jpg). The Fokker G.I dwarfed the Fokker D.XXI, P-51D and Spitfire Mk.XI fighters, which were stood in the same hall.

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/RedStorm-FokkerG1.jpg

---
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/RedStorm-sig.JPG

[This message was edited by Red_Storm on Sun May 02 2004 at 05:42 AM.]

horseback
05-01-2004, 04:50 PM
The Wildcat, particularly in its late war FM-2 version. Grossly underrated. Surviving Japanese fighter pilots shot down by one would swear they'd been downed by a Corsair or Hellcat, much like their LuftWaffe brethren would credit Spitfires over Hurris.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

chris455
05-01-2004, 06:20 PM
The P-47.

She wasn't a bomber, yet no fighter did the job of a bomber better.

She wasn't sleek, yet she was the fastest piston fighter of them all (P-47M)

She wasn't beautiful, yet to the soldiers on the ground, she was an angel sent from heaven.

She wasn't nimble, yet hundreds, no- thousands-
of nimbler fighters fell prey to her 8 .50 caliber teeth.

Her sisters and cousins had all the glamour, the good press, the flashy names. She was just "the Jug".

But in a real sense, she was America in the air during WWII.

In terms of the damage she inflicted on the axis, nothing else even came close

Underated? Yeah. Kinda.

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

KGr.HH-Sunburst
05-01-2004, 06:36 PM
oooh a fokker G1 hhmm i must agree on that one too
it was for its time one of the best aircraft of the world if not the best twin fighter.
And yes it has been totally forgotten.

it would be so nice to see a homeland design in the game but one can only dream http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

now where would they get that P-38 design from http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sig97th.jpg

EPP-Gibbs
05-01-2004, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Hurricane

1936 design that saw front line service in all roles through the whole war in all theatres without major redesign, while friend and foe alike had to incorporate change after change in contemporary designs to stay competitive

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correction: 1935 design, as was the Spitfire.

The Hurricane could only be developed so far, that's why there was no major redesign. It was inter-war technology and obsolete as a pure fighter by 1941. At that point it was switched primarily to ground attack roles. The Spit was far more advanced, and the airframe was far more capable of progressive development. When the major redesign of the Hurricane eventually came..it was named 'Typhoon'.

Under-rated aircraft, how about almost unknown, like the Heinkel He112 fighter....pretty good, but antipathy between Lufwaffe planners and Heinkel ensured it was a non-starter.

The Whirlwind would have been pretty useful if it had had RR Merlin engines.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve.djurovich/Sig4.jpg
"If I had all the money I'd spent on drink..I'd spend it on drink!"

tttiger
05-01-2004, 08:04 PM
I have to go with Huggy (life is strange, isn't it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) on this one.

The B-24 lived its entire career in the shadow of the B-17. Talk about being an ugly step-sister...

Yet it carried many more bombs, had much greater range and even had tricycle landing gear.

It was the primary land-based bomber in the Pacific, after we took Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands, because of its enormous range.

I have to say some of the choices in here are a bit odd. The Mosquito is generally acknowledged as the most versatile plane of the war (the JU-88 would be a close runner-up). The DC-3/C-47/Dakota was the most-over-engineered airplane in the history of flight. They're still flying in great numbers. I'd say both of those planes are anything but under-acknowledged.

Anyway, I have to go with the Liberator. Too bad it was so ugly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ttt

"I want the one that kills the best with the least amount of risk to me"

-- Chuck Yeager describing "The Best Airplane."

PBNA-Boosher
05-01-2004, 08:14 PM
I vote for the Ju-52, C-47, P-40, and CW-21B in Dutch Service in CBI theater

CooperF4E
05-01-2004, 09:51 PM
This is the easiest question to answer in aviation history.

The Curtiss P-40 Warhawk is by far and away the single most underrated airplane of World War II.

It served in every theater of the war, when it's pilot's used the right tactics it was incredibly lethal.

Japan's most famous ace, Saburo Sakai, is quoted as saying that that he considered a well-flown P-40 one of the most dangerous Allied fighters that he and his comrades had to face.

Japanese pilots as a whole considered the Warhawk their most dangerous foe at low altitudes (P-38 was the most dangerous to them at high altitudes, and they considered the Corsair the most dangerous overall).

The P-40 earned a very good combat record, and despite common belief, it was not the inferior fighter that many "historians" would have you believe.

The largest misconception about the P-40 is that it wasn't very manuverable. It was the most manuverable U.S. fighter of the war, even beating out the very tight turning P-51 and P-39.

The only problem is that it is compared against the Zero in terms of its turning capability, and that's not fair because the Zero could turn inside any Allied fighter, not just the P-40.

Yellow14150
05-02-2004, 02:19 AM
Has anyone heard of the Short Sterling? That was one ugly duck, not to mention forgotten. It would have you get my pick in this catigory. The RAF flew it as a night bomber from 41 to 44, then it was switched over to a glider tug and transport. The strange thing is that it wasn't rare in the war, there where almost 2000 produced for the RAF. They were slow had a small bomb load and took alot of casualties over Germany, maybe thats why no one remembers them?

wayno7777
05-02-2004, 02:36 AM
Most of these are good choices. Can I throw in my pet? How about the He-219 UhU (owl) A private undertaking by Heinkle because of the loggerheads in the RLM.

"Wir greifen an!"
("We attack!")
Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/wayno77-bluesclues3a.JPG

Any landing you can walk away from is a good one!

Giganoni
05-02-2004, 02:49 AM
Ki-51 good sturdy plane that could do its job well if it had an escort, I think we'll be seeing it in PF, so maybe not so underrated.

Maico_249th
05-02-2004, 04:05 AM
The undisputed King of Under rated was the Brewster Buffalo. It was short, ugly, slow. The marines who fought the Japanese flew it in 10 to one odds and still managed a 2 to 1 kill ratio. Hummm. But then the ones to bring the Buffalo to the forefront were the Finns. Flying against the I-153s and the I-16s at the time, the Finns racked ratios of 20 to one. Not bad for a company who built horse drawn carriges before landing a Navy contract. The factory was so inadequate that the fighters were assembled on the roof then lowered by crane to the street. Then men pushed the planes six blocks to the airfield. Its really an amazing story.
Once I was in love with the ugly underdog Brewster. I flew it in QMB against the Zero. I managed to kill four aces flying alone. I did this more than once. I can say now that without a doubt the Brewster is one of the most underated aircraft in FB/AEP.

nixon-fiend.
05-02-2004, 04:38 AM
2 offerings..

dewoitine D.520 - very nice french fighter, production only reaching few... it was unable to show it's potential before Germany overran France.

Secondly, agree with wayno - He219 was a devastatingly effective nightfighter - first LW a/c to use tri-cycle landing gear and ejector seats (in 1942!!!) it also used radar.

Not produced in very high numbers at all as the LW blindly swiched all their attention to jets.

Ugly_Kid
05-02-2004, 05:14 AM
FW-187, the Germans had a very good twin already at 1940. Better than Bf-110, it could have worked better as a "Zerstörer", they were just too rectal about rear-gunner concept the surface cooling, wing-loading and other nonsense.

Maybe He112 but I think it wasn't really as good as Bf-109.

Maybe Me-209 or 309 I'd personally favour 209 but again the Germans were too muddled up with their concepts. 209 would have had large compability with 109 tooling and production could have started quite rapidly in big series...

CaptainGelo
05-02-2004, 05:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maico_249th:
But then the ones to bring the Buffalo to the forefront were the Finns. Flying against the I-153s and the I-16s at the time, the Finns racked ratios of 20 to one. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

right, then I'm santa..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/oleg86.jpg
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''


plane is 2slow, guns are 2weak and DM suck?...Then click here (http://www.hmp16.com/hotstuff/downloads/Justin%20Timberlake%20-%20Cry%20Me%20A%20River.mp3) | Fear british army. (http://216.144.230.195/Videos/Medium_WMP8/British_Attack.wmv)

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
"Big Bills suck, small Bills don't"&lt;----WRONG!!!! all Bills suck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
05-02-2004, 05:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
FW-187, the Germans had a very good twin already
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed Falke was faster than 109 at this time!

Kurfurst__
05-02-2004, 05:51 AM
Just about any Soviet design... most people think the USSR couldn`t built anything that works. True they had to do under great restriction, lacking a good engine all the time, but gee, just look at the Yak-3... a laughable 1240 HP engine, and the plane still equals or beats others with many many hundred HPs more, or just how many smart ideas this design had, how clean the airframe was..

Bf 109 also goes into that line of underrated planes, it`s just plain ridiculus if one looks at the performance of this plane, or it`s achievements, compared to how utterly bad press it has in those older books and the common ones that are based on them, ie. William Green`s etc, claiming things like it was obsolate in `42 etc. I think it really takes the most underrated cup, I can`t find any example with such an extreme contrast for any other plane.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

DIRTY-MAC
05-02-2004, 05:55 AM
The P-40 is obvius
but you forget the P-39
both these fighters has got to be the
most underrated fighters of WWII
they are always underrated in almost every book
about WWII fighters,

my wote P-40 and P-39

DaBallz
05-02-2004, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
The P-40 is obvius
but you forget the P-39
both these fighters has got to be the
most underrated fighters of WWII
they are always underrated in almost every book
about WWII fighters,

my wote P-40 and P-39<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, the P-39, the "iron dog", makes the list
of the worlds worst airplanes.
In America it is looked on on as a perfectly
horrible machine, with no redeaming vitrues.
The P-39D and P-400 versions gave this fighter
the image of being more lethal to it's pilots
than to the enemy, or, the enemy to it.

The Brewster F2A-1 or B-239 is worthy of similar
praise.

The Russians did well with the P-39 and the
Finns did well with the Brewster.

Under rated? In contrast to their success, both
were under rated.

Some aircraft were deemed a success, but others
stole the spotlight.
For example...

Hurricane Spit stole the lime light...
B-24 B-17 was a whole lot better looking

Others that get little press...
Douglas A-20,
Martin Baltimore and Maryland, Douglass A-20,
Lockheed Hudson, Vickers Wellington, the Halifax
Anyone ever hear of a P-63 before this sim came out?
Add to this the Polish, French and Itialian
aircraft that get no press.

Reading the mass of garbage that was printed after WWII
you would think the only Japanese fighter was the A6M...
But the Ki43 got as much or more action.

Tough decision, but I will hang with the P-39.

Da...

Red_Storm
05-02-2004, 06:24 AM
Come on, saying the P-47, P-40 or P-39 are underrated is like saying the Spitfire is underrated. They're one of the most famous planes of the second world war.

---
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/RedStorm-sig.JPG

tomwilliams007
05-02-2004, 09:52 AM
hi, the He100 fighter designed in 1939 but succumed to Messerschmits me109 because of plitical reasons has to be the most underated only 24 production models. Its maximum speed was 416mph and only weighed about 3900 pounds compared to the 109 E's maximum speed about 350mph and a weight of 5500+. This plane if hitler decided to use could have turned the tide of the battle of britain (thank god hitler did not choose to use it)

DIRTY-MAC
05-02-2004, 02:05 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Red_Storm:
Come on, saying the P-47, P-40 or P-39 are underrated is like saying the Spitfire is underrated. They're one of the most famous planes of the second world war.

we are not talking about what plane is most famous, because the fighters you mentioned above are all famous.
But they are famous for different reasons,
spitfire=is known in history as a great plane with a lot success.
the same with the P-47
"the great fighterbomber"
but what you will read and hear from most
history sources regarding the P-40 and P-39 is
that they were mediokre and inferior and not successeful against the enemy fighters they met.
wich is not true.

WereSnowleopard
05-02-2004, 03:15 PM
too many planes in my mind for example...Fw-187 much better than me-110. Me-262 if Hilter hadn't demand it to carry bomb, A7M if no engine problem, P39 if have supercharger add to engine to fly high alt, He-100 (big cut on landing accident), Me323 if use BMW 800. Also same with Hs-129 if re-engine with BMW 800 even can try "Hs-229" slight bigger variant with powerful armored engines to replace Hs-129. Oh Yes I agree with Hs-123 that will be useful fly in bad weather as too bad that factory destroy jig tools that use to build Hs-123. Should we rally bigger on Hs-123/Hs-129 to be model to be flyable in Il2?

eddie_slovik
05-02-2004, 03:59 PM
what about the me 108 taifun,256 hollywood films cant be wrong !

kondor999
05-02-2004, 05:22 PM
Re: the whole "Me-262 failed because Hitler delayed it to try to make it into a Jabo" thing: read "The Last Year of the Luftwaffe", which does a great job of debunking that popular misconception. The Schwalbe couldn't have gone into action one day sooner than it did, because its engines were too unreliable (a problem which never was really sorted out).

WereSnowleopard
05-02-2004, 06:19 PM
If had fly Me-262 as often as much soon in 1943 and noticed problem on engines, they will repeat fix it until it get better with some upgrade. they may do better in 1944 if fly often in 1943. Same with Fw-190A-1's engine problem as keep going on A-2 the A-3 then as go on until better one like A-8/9 even Dora. They may have Me-262D or Me-262E with better engines and other thing changes in 1944/45

DIRTY-MAC
05-02-2004, 06:49 PM
are we really talking underrated planes here
or just "forgotten fighters"?
because many planes mentioned here had a great reputation but are just less know to peoplehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ob.Emann
05-02-2004, 08:15 PM
IL-2 Sturmovik: Underrated Battles. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Der Oberst von schlechten Piloten

DIRTY-MAC
05-03-2004, 04:43 AM
IIIIIIII dont think so http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

gates123
05-03-2004, 12:16 PM
I would say the p-40. Also I saw a yak-3m fly at a ww2 airshow this weekend and talking to the pilot who says it'll wax a p-51 upto 15,000 ft. This stigma that the p-51 won the war is just bs and after talking to this yak pilot its hard to disagree with him. The plane up close looks unbeatable and this sim reflects that.

http://www.flightjournal.com/images/index_photos/gunslinging.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

LilHorse
05-03-2004, 12:58 PM
I'm surprised nobody here has stood up for the Stuka yet. Regarded as "obsolete" early in the war, especially after Goering used it in a role it was not suited for in the BoB, it went on to tremendous success in the Med and Eastern fronts. It became the champion tank killer a/c of all time. And it did do a good job of CAS, even if the Hs-123 might have done it somewhat better. But the Stuka always gets a bad rap that it doesn't deserve.

BaldieJr
05-03-2004, 01:10 PM
Chalk up another vote for the P40. Its a damned fine plane.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Specs:
More expensive than the dining set.
Less expensive than the couch.
Smaller than the dishwasher.
Just as noisy as the refridgerator.
Faster than the cars' computer.
Less practical than the car.
Face it, people who put thier computer specs in thier signature are pretty ****ing wierd.

</pre>

SECUDUS
05-03-2004, 03:45 PM
What about the Saunders-Roe S.R./A/1 Lol...Oleg would have a fit!

http://img61.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/Saunders-Roe01.bmp


http://img61.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/Saunders-Roe02.bmp


http://img61.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/Saunders-Roe03.bmp

Info: http://www.britishaircraft.co.uk/aircraftpage.php?ID=133

http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v1/v1n3/saro.html


Regards

Sec.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

ImpStarDuece
05-03-2004, 06:20 PM
WOW! Never come across on of these before.

Looks like a flying whale, or even a basking shark with wings attached.

LOL http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Almost did a double take when i saw it.

Still, it HAs got those classic British lines to it, and i'm sure i've seen wierder planes airborne, just none that come to mind.

SECUDUS: when did that thing actually fly, any stats or prodn numbers for it?

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

p1ngu666
05-03-2004, 06:39 PM
yeah russian stuff. real clever designs really. to make planes that good, with wood, stalin and cronies around, and that u cant stop production for anything too

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

RIPelliottsmith
05-03-2004, 08:47 PM
The Ki-100

Japan built other solid fighters that tend to get a bad rap too, like the N1K1/2-J and the the J2M5.

Also any soviet plane is underrated still in the west. How many times have you read "Primitive sight, bare cockpit..." about the Yak?

HangerQueen
05-03-2004, 09:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RIPelliottsmith:

Also any soviet plane is underrated still in the west. How many times have you read "Primitive sight, bare cockpit..." about the Yak?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've added a table lamp, some chintz for the seat and a picture of Blackpool Tower to my Yak cockpit - brightened it up no end.

"Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom." Isaiah 40:28

Red_Storm
05-04-2004, 02:42 AM
This game more or less is proof the Russian planes aren't underrated... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

---
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/RedStorm-sig.JPG

fluke39
05-04-2004, 04:01 AM
russian planes are underrated by anyone who hasn't played IL2/FB !

http://mysite.freeserve.com/angels_one_five/flukelogo.jpg

Prof.Wizard
05-04-2004, 05:34 AM
Is there a chance to see Bv141 and Hs123 in this simulation? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-----------------------------
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/WizardSig.gif
Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

FiNaZZi
05-04-2004, 08:04 AM
The most underrated aircraft IMO is the IL-2 Sturmovik. The greatest attack aircraft/fighter bomber off all times. It inflicted much more damage to Germany than the "greatest fighter-bomber", the P-47.
And the MiG-3 was also terribly underrated, despite being incredibly fast

WOLFMondo
05-04-2004, 10:20 AM
The Vickers Wellington or the Short Sunderland. Both planes made huge contributions but sadly get left behind in sims and the like.

Does anyone have the story of the Sunderland that took on something like 5 Ju88's and won?

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

Prof.Wizard
05-04-2004, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FiNaZZi:
The most underrated aircraft IMO is the IL-2 Sturmovik. The greatest attack aircraft/fighter bomber off all times. It inflicted much more damage to Germany than the "greatest fighter-bomber", the P-47.
And the MiG-3 was also terribly underrated, despite being incredibly fast<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What he said.

Thank God Oleg came and presented it at its best to us Westerners.

-----------------------------
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/WizardSig.gif
Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

BP_caocao
05-04-2004, 02:01 PM
The Fw-189. It served on every front where the Luftwaffle flew (particulary the East Front) Imho it was one of the best purpose bulit planes ever (recon /spotter). It also performed well in jobs in it was not designed for. (nightfighter / ground attack)

LEBillfish
05-04-2004, 02:26 PM
Piper Cub........

"ln 1938 Piper introduced the improved J-3 Cub. Powered by 40-hp
Continental, Lycoming or Franklin engines, the J-3 sold for $1,3OO.
Engine horsepower was soon raised to fifty and reached sixty-five
by 194O. Piper also standardized a color scheme; just as Henry
Fords Model T's were all black so Wiliiam Piper's Cubs were all
bright yellow with black trim.

Immediately before the entry of the United States into World War
II. Sales of the Cub were spurred by the organization of the
Civilian Pilot Training (CPT) Program. ln 194O, 3,016 Cubs were
built and at the wartime peak a new J-3 emerged from the factory
every twenty minutes. Seventy-five percent of all pilots in the
CPT Program were trained on Cubs, many going on to more advanced
training in the military.

Cubs were also flown during the war as observation, liaison, and
ambulance planes. Known variously as the L-4, O-59 and NE-1, these
planes rendered valuable service and were nicknamed "Grasshoppers."
The L-4A liaison aircraft, originally designated the O-59, was the military
version of the famous Piper J3 "Cub." The Army ordered the first O-59s in 1941
for tests in conjunction with its growing interest in the use of light aircraft for
liaison and observation duties in direct support of ground forces. Between 1941
and 1945, the Army procured almost 6,000 Piper Aircraft.

During WW II, "Grasshoppers" performed a wide variety of functions
throughout the world such as for artillery fire direction, pilot training, glider
pilot instruction, courier service and front-line liaison."

Taken from http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/4515/cub.htm

http://www.geocities.com/k2kellyirie/IL2/starnew.txt

Patosentao
01-05-2009, 12:05 PM
All soviet fighters in general and La-5 and I-16 in particular.
I-16 showed so superior to the early Me109 in Spain that it ******ed the design of new fighters in the USSR. Just ask Republican pilots...
La-5 is for my point of view, the best fighter plane of WWII, only lacking autonomy. It is fast as a Tempest, maneuverable as a I-16, agile in vertical as a Zero, well armed with cannons very difficult to stall and easy to land... Perfect!!!
But normally in TV shows or books is not even mentioned.
the Yak 1 to 9 family is comparable to Mustangs and Spitfires and are the Allied planes that really won the war against the Luftwaffe, but the Spitfire is far more famous...

About the Sunderland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Does anyone have the story of the Sunderland that took on something like 5 Ju88's and won? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Search the book "Flying West" by Ivan Southall, Australian writer and Coastal command WWII veteran.
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/5e/2b/19029833e7a01c18ef601110.L.jpg

DD_crash
01-05-2009, 12:33 PM
Talk about a back from the dead thread!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Daiichidoku
01-05-2009, 12:49 PM
all of them except yak3, la7, spitfire, p51,lancaster, b17, and p40

general_kalle
01-05-2009, 01:25 PM
Hurricane..completly overshodowed by the spitfires even tough it did most of the fighting in battle of britain.

Xiolablu3
01-05-2009, 03:59 PM
p40

ElAurens
01-05-2009, 04:21 PM
See my sig pic.

K_Freddie
01-05-2009, 05:00 PM
Well .. the noobs go for the 'great war winners'...Spitfire, P51, La7, Yak 3..., and when they discover they're not 'winning the war', they ask why not/or complain blitchly.

Thus they discover the 'war winning' underdogs..
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Daiichidoku
01-05-2009, 05:43 PM
sorry El,

you know full well P40s are overrated by far

the AVG (and to a lesser extent, the iconic shark mouth) created a myth that endures to this day, "mainstream" media lumps P40s in with the other more high profile types (read: P 51), they're all the same to them..two wings, a tail, a cockpit and a pointy nose...witness "Pearl Harbour" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

stugumby
01-05-2009, 06:02 PM
lockheed hudson/ventura

pby coranado

mars

budd conestoga

R_Target
01-05-2009, 06:08 PM
P-51A

stalkervision
01-05-2009, 06:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
p40b

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

for sure the p-40's

ElAurens
01-05-2009, 07:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
P-51A </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well played.

No one remembers the Allison engined P 51s.

I'd love to have one for the Med and for 14th AF in China.

K_Freddie
01-05-2009, 07:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
sorry El,

you know full well P40s are overrated by far

the AVG (and to a lesser extent, the iconic shark mouth) created a myth that endures to this day, "mainstream" media lumps P40s in with the other more high profile types (read: P 51), they're all the same to them..two wings, a tail, a cockpit and a pointy nose...witness "Pearl Harbour" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You obviously missed the 'pre-Pearl Harbour' telegram of Chinnaults Tigers method of beating the Zero...

Tut Tut... Till this day (68 years on) they're still deaf...
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

biggs222
01-05-2009, 07:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
P-51A </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well played.

No one remembers the Allison engined P 51s.

I'd love to have one for the Med and for 14th AF in China. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah like the A-36 Apache

a mustang with dive-breaks!

K_Freddie
01-05-2009, 07:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
sorry El,
you know full well P40s are overrated by far
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
To continue....
If you did your research... you'd find that the P40 accounted for a high % of axis aircraft in all theatres.... Off you go now..

ElAurens
01-05-2009, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
sorry El,

you know full well P40s are overrated by far

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Utter nonsense son. The most under rated aircraft of the war. Don't let it's glass jaw DM, or poor dive ability in the game shape your opinions.

CUJO_1970
01-05-2009, 07:42 PM
Without a doubt, Bf110. _Extremely_ useful as a weapon of war. Served from the beginning to the end of the war in an insane number of different roles.

Superb ground attack machine, and arguably the most successful nightfighter of the war.

jarink
01-05-2009, 09:14 PM
C-54 Skymaster (aka DC-4)

The C-47 gets all the press for the cargo types, but the C-54 was the one that really carried the goods all over the world. Most recognized for operations during the Berlin Airlift, they served the USAAF, USAF and even the USN from 1942 to 1975. Must have been good for something, eh?

Badsight-
01-05-2009, 09:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DD_crash:
Talk about a back from the dead thread!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>from a newbie as well

mortoma
01-05-2009, 10:53 PM
You're all wrong!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif The Brewster Buffalo and family is by FAR the most under-rated aircraft. Look what the Finns did with it. And the Dutch did OK considering. And Pappy Boyington was quoted as saying it could have been a great aircraft if it had not been bloated and overweight in the case of the later U.S. versions. Or something to that effect. He seemed to think it was pretty good. While it's largely remembered as an inferior type by historians.

JimmyBlonde
01-06-2009, 12:27 AM
The Bf-109 playedf second fiddle to every type from it's very beginnings and yet it had made a profound contribution during the war.

During it's design process it was underdog to Heinkel's contender. It shone briefly in spain and until the Battle of Britain and from then on lived in the shadow of such aircraft as the Spitfire, P-51, La-5 and Fw-190.

Despite this it remained in service throughout the war and was loved but it's pilots, some even refused to replace their 109's with the new 190.
The only close contender for most underrated would be the P-40.

A don't agree with the Allison engined P-51 argument either sorry. It wasn't made in very big numbers compared to the P-40. Basically it was was a rubbish aircraft as a fighter above 10,000 feet and of limited used in a strike role due to it's liquid cooled engine. It had a bad name and deserved it because it was tricky to fly and a poor performer.

JtD
01-06-2009, 01:39 PM
I don't think that any fighter or bomber is underrated. Go to transport, recon, communications, you'll find a lot of planes that were just as important as the ones that did the fighting, but hardly anyone has every heard of them.

mortoma
01-06-2009, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JimmyBlonde:
The Bf-109 playedf second fiddle to every type from it's very beginnings and yet it had made a profound contribution during the war.

During it's design process it was underdog to Heinkel's contender. It shone briefly in spain and until the Battle of Britain and from then on lived in the shadow of such aircraft as the Spitfire, P-51, La-5 and Fw-190.

Despite this it remained in service throughout the war and was loved but it's pilots, some even refused to replace their 109's with the new 190.
The only close contender for most underrated would be the P-40.

A don't agree with the Allison engined P-51 argument either sorry. It wasn't made in very big numbers compared to the P-40. Basically it was was a rubbish aircraft as a fighter above 10,000 feet and of limited used in a strike role due to it's liquid cooled engine. It had a bad name and deserved it because it was tricky to fly and a poor performer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Are you nuts? the 109?? Nobody underrated it. And this is coming from a person who has a murderer/butcher as his avatar!! I celebrate the fact that Che was shot in the legs and arms first when the Bolivian Heroes finally got him. What a criminal madman....

JimmyBlonde
01-06-2009, 03:51 PM
Hey Mortoma,

I used to have ceiling cat for my avatar but he fries people with his eye lasers.

Do you have an underrated plane for us or do you want to whine about my signature too?

Xiolablu3
01-06-2009, 04:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Without a doubt, Bf110. _Extremely_ useful as a weapon of war. Served from the beginning to the end of the war in an insane number of different roles.

Superb ground attack machine, and arguably the most successful nightfighter of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually nearly went for the BF110 too.

Its poor performance in the Battle of Britian seems to have stuck hard in the West. It actually was very useful in many other roles and even as a day fighter in the East.

However I think the P40 just shades it, the RAF in the desert used them to great effect however it is always remembered as the American Hurricane, when in truth I think it was actually a better aircraft than the Hurricane. POssibly the Hurricane with its Merlin XX was the better fighter at high level however as it had a high alt supercharger..

The RAF loved the P40's.

Xiolablu3
01-06-2009, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JimmyBlonde:
The Bf-109 playedf second fiddle to every type from it's very beginnings and yet it had made a profound contribution during the war.

During it's design process it was underdog to Heinkel's contender. It shone briefly in spain and until the Battle of Britain and from then on lived in the shadow of such aircraft as the Spitfire, P-51, La-5 and Fw-190.

Despite this it remained in service throughout the war and was loved but it's pilots, some even refused to replace their 109's with the new 190.
The only close contender for most underrated would be the P-40.

A don't agree with the Allison engined P-51 argument either sorry. It wasn't made in very big numbers compared to the P-40. Basically it was was a rubbish aircraft as a fighter above 10,000 feet and of limited used in a strike role due to it's liquid cooled engine. It had a bad name and deserved it because it was tricky to fly and a poor performer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Are you nuts? the 109?? Nobody underrated it. And this is coming from a person who has a murderer/butcher as his avatar!! I celebrate the fact that Che was shot in the legs and arms first when the Bolivian Heroes finally got him. What a criminal madman.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I have to agree, the Bf109 was never really underated, it was always feared and respected.

Possibly pilots sheer amount love for the SPitfire often gives the 'impression' that they are underating the Bf109?? When in truth they will always say how dangerous it was. SUre it had some bad points, particularly the bad landing characteristics, but in the air it was a formidable opponent... Maybe in the US its seen differently, but here in the UK ask any wartime RAF pilot and he will state how damn dangerous the Bf109 was, and how the Luftwaffe got the best out of the aircraft..

eindecker
01-06-2009, 06:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
P-51A </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well played.

No one remembers the Allison engined P 51s.

I'd love to have one for the Med and for 14th AF in China. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-51A was faster and had a better climb than all of the Merlin engined P-51s except the H model
up to 15,000 feet altitude. The A model had a different
version of the V-1710 and propeller than the Mustang I or XP51.
Clean a P-51A was rated at 407mph @ 15,000 feet.

My pick for the most underated plane of WWII (byt the popular press) is the Handly Page Halifax.
The Halifax may have been the second best 4 engined bomber behind the B-29.
The HP Halifax was certainly more survivable than the Lancaster especially if you were shot down.

Eindecker

JimmyBlonde
01-06-2009, 07:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Possibly pilots sheer amount love for the SPitfire often gives the 'impression' that they are underating the Bf109?? When in truth they will always say how dangerous it was. SUre it had some bad points, particularly the bad landing characteristics, but in the air it was a formidable opponent... Maybe in the US its seen differently, but here in the UK ask any wartime RAF pilot and he will state how damn dangerous the Bf109 was, and how the Luftwaffe got the best out of the aircraft.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you totally, it is a respected aircraft and deservedly so.

I would rather fly a 109 than a 190 in a dogfight anyday.

I just think it seems to get left out in the company of more prestigious, especially allied aircraft. I wonder how many people would put the 109 in their top five. Probably not many.

If that is not what this thread defines as meaning underrated then I would say the P-40 without hesitation.

...

So far as the Bf-110 goes it could be said that night-fighters in general are underrated.

The Ju-88 was a much more usefull aircraft which isn't very well known outside of communities like ours, the French even continued to build them after the war.

I would be interested in a more detailed definition of "underrated" in the context of this thread if anyone cares to put one forward.

Ba5tard5word
01-06-2009, 07:29 PM
I might agree with the Buffalo, its use by the Finns was outstanding, nobody else bothered to unlock its potential and gave it a bad rap instead.

Gadje
01-07-2009, 04:02 AM
PBY-1 Catalina

dirkpit7
01-07-2009, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gadje:
PBY-1 Catalina </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good suggestion.

I don't know which plane is the most underrated but it's not a fighter. Fighters get all the attention today and bombers, recon and transport are often almost forgotten.

How large percentage of WW2 aviators were fighter pilots?

R_Target
01-07-2009, 06:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
I might agree with the Buffalo, its use by the Finns was outstanding, nobody else bothered to unlock its potential and gave it a bad rap instead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bear in mind that the F2A-3 was about 1,000 lbs. heavier than the B-239, with the same power. Chronically collapsing landing gear doomed it for USN use in any case.

Blizzardjunkie
01-15-2009, 12:39 PM
Definitely the He-219!

Underrated as in "Neglected by Politics". Heinkel continued it's development at own risk after it had been officially cancelled. Faster,more agile, more heavily armed even without "Rüstsätze". Wonder what the losses of British Night Bombing Raids would have been had this plane played the major role in nightfighting. Not to mention the possibility to outclass any other 2-engined Bomber Interceptor in use at that time.

eindecker
01-15-2009, 06:11 PM
Failure of the Brewster F2A or B239 was mostly tactical. The Buffalo was not ever going to be a world class fighter.
In the hands of a desperate air force willing to try anything, the Buffalo was allowed to shine. The US Navy tactics
of the day were the weak link. As Target expressed the weight of the F2A-3 was excessive. I will bet the Finns
stripped their planes of excess equipment.

The failure of the P-39 was simply bad press originating from the P-39D and P-400. Those early P-39s were under powered.
Also the USAAF pilots tried to dog fight with the P-39s against the Japanese... Fact is that P-39s did very good
after the USAAC pilots learned that they had a much faster plane than the Japanese at the time, even faster than the P-40s.
There were a number of P-39 aces in the USAAF. The Russians did not have a monopoly on P-39 success. Partly to blame with the P-39s lack of good press was the smashing success of the AVG flying Tigers with their P-40s. Similar to the B-17 out shining the B-24
despite the B-24 being a better more adaptable weapon.

Eindecker

Woke_Up_Dead
01-15-2009, 11:01 PM
She has an interesting opinion on this topic: http://www.viruscomix.com/page429.html

huggy87
01-16-2009, 07:51 PM
Well, since we are resurecting a 5 year old thread I'll say it again (page 2):

B-24,

Not as sexy as it's cousins, the B-17 and B-29. Yet 18,000 of them were more built. Much more than the B-17. It was not as tough as the 17, nor did it perform as well, but its payload was larger.

HerrGraf
01-16-2009, 08:24 PM
B24 had better range too! Also it was used in more roles than just a bomber and coastal patrol.

doogerie
01-17-2009, 03:55 AM
I have to say that the most overated aircrat is the spit (much as i love it) so that take a lot of the lime light but i was always a fan of the tempest used to be my singiture aircraf back in CFS3 days

horseback
01-17-2009, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JimmyBlonde:

the only close contender for most underrated would be the P-40.

A don't agree with the Allison engined P-51 argument either sorry. It wasn't made in very big numbers compared to the P-40. Basically it was was a rubbish aircraft as a fighter above 10,000 feet and of limited used in a strike role due to it's liquid cooled engine. It had a bad name and deserved it because it was tricky to fly and a poor performer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Wow. If ignorance is bliss, you must be in a state of constant ecstasy.

The Allison Mustang was far more refined and capable than the P-40 in almost every way except low speed turning. It had similar deterioration at higher altitude as the P-40 which used the same engines, just like the P-39 did.

The big difference between the Mustang and these earlier types is that it was far easier to fly, requiring much less fiddling with trim than the Warhawk or Airacobra. It was the P-40 that had the nasty rep for constant trim and rudder adjustments. America's Hundred Thousand goes into this in detail, as will any pilot who has flown both types. The P-40, in all its incarnations was a beast to fly, and much harder to master than any version of the Mustang, even the Merlin powered ponies.

Add to that the fact that the Mustang was designed for mass production instead of the prewar small lots, and it was a clear winner over any other low to medium alt fighter of the midwar period.

The reason it wasn't produced in large numbers is that North American was not a big company at the start of the war, and shortly after the first P-51As were introduced, word got out that Rolls Royce and NAA had installed 60 series Merlins in the airframe with outstanding results at high alts.

All of NAA's production capacity was dedicated to the P-51B/C immediately, and the P-51A production was ended before it really got off the ground.

Without the Merlin installation, the Allison Mustang would probably have replaced the P-40 by the end of 1943, barring political interference (Curtiss was well connected, and I seem to recall some political scandals involving them near the end of the war).

Oh, and by the way, the Wildcat was the tightest turning US built fighter of WWII, although the Hawk 75/P-36 was a close second, by all accounts.

cheers

horseback

JtD
01-17-2009, 03:35 PM
Having been thinking and ended up with Japanese ship based recon float planes. Good and important aircraft, hardly anyone ever heard of them. Who of you could name the two most important types from the top of your head?

ElAurens
01-17-2009, 04:24 PM
Well said Horseback.

When the RAF took delivery of it's first Mustang Is, it was the fastest aircraft in Europe below 15,000 ft. And with the exception of bomber interception/escort, that's where all the fighting was. And even though it di dnot have the long range rear fuel tank, it was still the longest legged single seater in the RAF. In it's A-36 version it did yeoman service in the Med with the USAAF, and as a P51A had a very good record in China with the 14th. Air Force. It would be a welcome addition to the sim IMHO.


As to the IJN floatplanes, Pete, and Glen

JtD
01-18-2009, 02:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:

As to the IJN floatplanes, Pete, and Glen </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it were the

Mitsubishi F1M "Type 0 Observation Seaplane" and
Aichi E13A "Type Zero Recon Seaplane".

2500 of them were built. You've got a clue about them, which I think is by far above average. Some folks probably didn't even know these types existed, or, at best, considered them a rare oddity of WW2. Allied codenames were "Pete" and "Jake".

An early model was the Nakajima E8N "Type 95 Recon Seaplane", which was shipped with almost all capital IJN ships early in the war. 750 built. Allied codename "Dave".

Antischa16
01-18-2009, 05:13 AM
I vote for the Heinkel He 177 Greif
It was a German strategic bomber and the only thing wrong on him was that its engines would be caught on fire frequently.

Bremspropeller
01-18-2009, 05:56 AM
IL-2 and C-47, hands down.

CUJO_1970
01-18-2009, 07:03 AM
Another aircraft that should be mentioned is the Russian Pe-2/3 and Tupolev series twin engine attack aircraft.

Also, the Martin Maryland is a good twin you never hear about.


But overall, the Bf-110 is the winner in this category. No aircraft mentioned in this thread served longer or in a wider variety of roles successfully as the Bf-110 did, from 1939 to 1945 and yet is judged only on the basis of planes lost on escort duty to enemy single-seaters during the BoB.

ElAurens
01-18-2009, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
"Pete" and "Jake".
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I chose the Glen (Kugisho Navy Type 0 Small Reconnaissance Seaplane, E14Y) because it was the only Axis aircraft to actually bomb the Continental United States.

BTW the "Jake" had an endurance of over 15 hours.

Another very overlooked/under rated aircraft is the Curtiss SOC "Seagull" biplane. It was the standard shipboard catapult observation aircraft for many years. It was supposed to be replaced by the Kingfisher, but in many ways the Seagull was a better aircraft, and it continued in service till the end of the war

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/9085/soc1curtiss71939xt4.jpg .

Aaron_GT
01-18-2009, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When the RAF took delivery of it's first Mustang Is, it was the fastest aircraft in Europe below 15,000 ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It tied with the Typhoon to about 6000 ft. The Mustang I was excellent for armed recon work at low level as it was as fast as the Typhoon down low but had far superior range. It replaced the Spitfire in this role on a combination of speed and range. It continued in this role to the war's end and is largely forgotten in this role.

Aaron_GT
01-18-2009, 10:14 AM
how about a vote for training aircraft?

JtD
01-18-2009, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:

I chose the Glen (Kugisho Navy Type 0 Small Reconnaissance Seaplane, E14Y) because it was the only Axis aircraft to actually bomb the Continental United States. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alright then, maybe I should have said "4 types" instead of 2. I didn't know it bombed the US. Figure if you'd ask that in a quiz "which ac type was the only one to do that", you'd end up with no answers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pretty much speaks volumes about prestige and importance of these types.

"Which aircraft spotted the IJN at Midway" - "Catalina"
"Which aircarft spotted the USN at Midway" - "IJN had aircraft?"

Aaron_GT
01-18-2009, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I chose the Glen (Kugisho Navy Type 0 Small Reconnaissance Seaplane, E14Y) because it was the only Axis aircraft to actually bomb the Continental United States. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do tell more!

DKoor
01-18-2009, 11:55 AM
B.239, no much contest there in my opinion.
It had an outrage win/loss ratio on Eastern Front vs Soviet air force.
The players of this game and very few avio enthusiasts aside, I really doubt that anyone ever heard of Buffaloes.

ElAurens
01-18-2009, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I chose the Glen (Kugisho Navy Type 0 Small Reconnaissance Seaplane, E14Y) because it was the only Axis aircraft to actually bomb the Continental United States. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do tell more! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the pre dawn hours of Sept. 9, 1942 a Glen seaplane, piloted by Warrant Officer Nobuo Fujita and his navigator/gunner Petty officer Soji Okuda, was launched from the IJN submarine I-25 off the Oregon coast near the Cape Blanco lighthouse. It flew over the Oregon coast near the small town of Brookings, and dropped 2 60kg. incendiary bombs in an effort to start a major forest fire. However, as it was September it was far to wet for the Glen's small bomb load to have the desired effect. Some civilians actually saw and heard the aircraft.

While it was not a successful mission on the face of it, it did create a near panic among American military officials charged with the defense of the coast, and forced the USAAF to deploy aircraft in the area that were more badly needed in the Pacific.

Mr. Fujita survived the war and passed away in Tokyo in 1997 at age 85.

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/7874/glenre8.jpg
The Kugisho E14Y "Glen"

WTE_Galway
01-18-2009, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:

"Which aircraft spotted the IJN at Midway" - "Catalina"

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently a RAAF Catalina spotted the IJN task force steaming for Pearl Harbor a day or two before the attack on Pearl as well.

The Aussies officially notified the Americans of the sighting and expressed concern but it seems the information was never passed on to the people who actually needed to know about it.

Xiolablu3
01-18-2009, 05:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When the RAF took delivery of it's first Mustang Is, it was the fastest aircraft in Europe below 15,000 ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It tied with the Typhoon to about 6000 ft. The Mustang I was excellent for armed recon work at low level as it was as fast as the Typhoon down low but had far superior range. It replaced the Spitfire in this role on a combination of speed and range. It continued in this role to the war's end and is largely forgotten in this role. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, it must be remembered that the Mustang 1 was purposefully designed to be a better aircraft than the P40.

When the RAF went to NAA and asked them to produce P40's, NAA replied with the answer that they could build them a better aircraft instead. The RAF said 'Yes please'.

So it would be a real surprise if the Mustang 1 had turned out worse than the P40.

JimmyBlonde
01-18-2009, 07:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Wow. If ignorance is bliss, you must be in a state of constant ecstasy.

The Allison Mustang was far more refined and capable than the P-40 in almost every way except low speed turning. It had similar deterioration at higher altitude as the P-40 which used the same engines, just like the P-39 did.

The big difference between the Mustang and these earlier types is that it was far easier to fly, requiring much less fiddling with trim than the Warhawk or Airacobra. It was the P-40 that had the nasty rep for constant trim and rudder adjustments. America's Hundred Thousand goes into this in detail, as will any pilot who has flown both types. The P-40, in all its incarnations was a beast to fly, and much harder to master than any version of the Mustang, even the Merlin powered ponies.

Add to that the fact that the Mustang was designed for mass production instead of the prewar small lots, and it was a clear winner over any other low to medium alt fighter of the midwar period.

The reason it wasn't produced in large numbers is that North American was not a big company at the start of the war, and shortly after the first P-51As were introduced, word got out that Rolls Royce and NAA had installed 60 series Merlins in the airframe with outstanding results at high alts.

All of NAA's production capacity was dedicated to the P-51B/C immediately, and the P-51A production was ended before it really got off the ground.

Without the Merlin installation, the Allison Mustang would probably have replaced the P-40 by the end of 1943, barring political interference (Curtiss was well connected, and I seem to recall some political scandals involving them near the end of the war).

Oh, and by the way, the Wildcat was the tightest turning US built fighter of WWII, although the Hawk 75/P-36 was a close second, by all accounts.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I have to hand it to you, you certainly know your Mustangs.

I guess I just get a bit peeved because it's such a pretty aeroplane and I have a really hard time flying it...

You were certainly correct about the trim problems with the P-40, it is a well known fact that P-40 pilots were incapable of walking in a straight line due to an overdeveloped right (or is that left?) leg due to keeping the P-40 in line during a dive.

Thanks for an enlightening and interesting read horseback.

horseback
01-18-2009, 09:54 PM
That was a very gracious reply Jimmy. Now I feel like a horse's patoot about that ecstasy comment.

The Mustang in-game is a bit oversensitive, IMHO. It is certainly more trim hungry than the P-40 in the game (the opposite of the real thing). The Mustang seems to overreact to trim inputs (particularly button trim as opposed to trim on a controller axis) and I 've found it hard to get it to fly straight and level since the 4.01 patch.

However, if you spend a few weeks flying a P-39 campaign, the Mustang suddenly seems a lot more responsive and easier to control, especially if you keep it at 50% fuel or less. Remember, the Mustang either burned off most of the fuel in the fuselage tank before reaching the likely combat zone, or it wasn't filled at all, since the fuel capacity in the wingroot tanks was already quite respectable.

cheers

horseback

PS-Left leg

JimmyBlonde
01-18-2009, 10:41 PM
Actually that rings a bell horseback. I remeber reading that long range Mustang escorts often had to drop their drop tanks which still contained fuel due to the fact that they had to drain the fuselage tank first due to a CofG issue with the fuselage tank. Something about the CofG being too far back and causing pitch stability problems or something...?

Not an issue in most of the maps we have availabe at present however.

There might be hope for me in the mighty 'Stang yet!

Aaron_GT
01-19-2009, 02:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Something about the CofG being too far back and causing pitch stability problems or something...? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly that and it affected the Spitfire IXs and XVIs (and early recon models) that had rear fuselage tanks in the same way. IL-2 46 models fuel as a point mass so doesn't model this change over time but SoW should.