Author Topic: What was the most over rated plane of WW2, and the most underated? (Read 1673 times)

-tronski- · « **Reply #30 on:** April 05, 2005, 11:17:06 PM »

Overrated: Ju-87 Stuka
Underrated: P-40 or Beaufighter

Tronsky

Masherbrum · « **Reply #31 on:** April 05, 2005, 11:23:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
If you can list another fighter that had the range and performance of a p-51, then maybe you could say it was over rated........ but it is not over rated.

38 was better at both Nuke, IMO.

Overrated - P-51 - (Hellcat or Jug did twice the work of this plane, but yet the Mustang takes all of the credit)

Underrated - P-38L

Karaya

Shuckins · « **Reply #32 on:** April 05, 2005, 11:47:14 PM »

G2, no specific page available...just looked up P-51 Mustang and searched the sites until I found one that listed its wartime kill record.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #33 on:** April 06, 2005, 12:02:56 AM »

Thanks Shuc!

wetrat · « **Reply #34 on:** April 06, 2005, 12:52:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Slurpee
Overated: P51
Underated:Me-109 series

An old design that was able to be updated fairly well and defend Germany againt great odds, even competeing with 51s in combat and allied fighters. If you look, alot of Germanys top aces perferred the 109 to the 190 and were very succesful with it. I still love 190s alot though, 109s just hold a special place.

It's not that they preferred it, it's that by the time the FW's were available, they'd logged so many hours in their 109's and knew them so well, they didn't want to learn a new fighter. A fear that the unknown will get them killed, I guess

Most of the 109 aces I've read speak of the 109 vs. 190 debate readily admit that the 190 was the better fighter.

Quote

Originally posted by -tronski-
Overrated: Ju-87 Stuka
Underrated: P-40 or Beaufighter

Tronsky

Galland has a rather low opinion of the stuka when taken out of the ground support role. That man seems to speak with some authority on the LW (ie. "From First to Last"), so I'll take him by his word

Slurpee · « **Reply #35 on:** April 06, 2005, 01:16:42 AM »

Very true, i stillll think the 109 wasnt given as much credit as it deserved being put in the conditions it was at the time.

mechanic · « **Reply #36 on:** April 06, 2005, 01:22:41 AM »

P51 was only good for bombing tanks untill they put a spitfire engine in it.

just remember that.

overrated: P51

underated: everything else

NUKE · « **Reply #37 on:** April 06, 2005, 01:25:21 AM »

I just wonder what people are going by when they say a plane was either over or under rated. It's all relative.

Think about it. How can anyone say a plane was over rated or under rated? Its all opinion unless you want to site facts and statistics....and if you go by stats, there is no opinion involved.

NUKE · « **Reply #38 on:** April 06, 2005, 01:30:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by mechanic
P51 was only good for bombing tanks untill they put a spitfire engine in it.

just remember that.

overrated: P51

underated: everything else

That's not true. It had low alt performance, kinda like the LA7. It just couldn't get up high and fight until the Merlin was installed.

And remember this.... The Spit was only able to fight near Britain, had the same motor as the P-51, yet was slower and could not fly to Germany and back.

So the P-51 was able to do what no other plane could do.......escort the bombers to Berlin and back while outclassing the defenders.

Nashwan · « **Reply #39 on:** April 06, 2005, 02:11:49 AM »

Quote

And remember this.... The Spit was only able to fight near Britain,

Just how close are Egypt, Australia and Burma to Britain? What about Tunisia, Italy, the Balkans, Soviet Union and Indonesia? Are they close too?

NUKE · « **Reply #40 on:** April 06, 2005, 02:17:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan
Just how close are Egypt, Australia and Burma to Britain? What about Tunisia, Italy, the Balkans, Soviet Union and Indonesia? Are they close too?

lol. you know what I meant. The spit was a defensive fighter.....very short range.

The P-51 had the same motor, yet was faster and had the range to fly from Britain to Berlin and back. The spit could not perform that role.

Nashwan · « **Reply #41 on:** April 06, 2005, 02:40:52 AM »

Well, the fact that it was used in so many theatres shows something. It also shows that the long range escort of bombers operating out of Britain was just one tiny part of the air war.

And the Spitfire did not have such a short range. Not once they started equipping them with drop tanks and extra internal tankage.

Most of the Spitfire range figures are for high speed cruise, not maximum range cruise.

Here are Australian tests of a Spitfire VIII, fitted with a 90 gallon drop tank, carrying a total of 213 gallons of fuel:

(Whilst it says "ferry condition", it's with full armament and ammunition)

Use 20 gallons warming up and climbing, 30 gallons in combat, and at 283 mph cruise you've still got a radius of 500 miles, with 170 miles in reserve.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #42 on:** April 06, 2005, 02:53:38 AM »

Oh lord its become another 109 vs spit thread.... With charts....

Nashwan · « **Reply #43 on:** April 06, 2005, 03:27:43 AM »

Sorry, but I had to respond to Nuke.

I won't continue it here though, it doesn't really belong in the O' Club.

NUKE · « **Reply #44 on:** April 06, 2005, 03:28:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan
Sorry, but I had to respond to Nuke.
I won't continue it here though, it doesn't really belong in the O' Club.

The P-51 did a job that the spit could never do.