Funny thing about the P-38. It was hyped as super-fast, but featured a massive aerodynamic gaffe that meant it would never go much faster no matter how much more thrust could be developed from the engines. Because of the hype it was never officially acknowledged, just worked around with fairings and flaps to avoid the worst of the pitch-down and vibration. However, a careful reading of the NACA reports of full scale wind tunnel tests shows up the error. I think the problem here was a designer was overrated.. (takes cover)

Excellent.. well done for looking it up, Merlin2.

Oops, sorry. Just did.

Depends on what you mean by underrated (or overrated, in the other thread) – by whom and when , and as a fighting machine or in terms of recognition of the work done?

P40 is a case in point. Not underrated or overrated as an aeroplane – it never was expected to compete in performance terms with fighters only a few years younger in basic design, and sure enough, it didn’t. No-one has argued that it did. But the absolute most was wrung out of it, because it had to be, and the work of many allied air force units overseas has been relatively unrecognised (underrated) by the wider public.

Whirlwind is interesting. Pilots absolutely loved it, felt relatively safe in it, and it was fast and heavily armed. But it was relatively uneconomical to produce, and because of its props (yes, I said props, not engines – http://whirlwindfighter.blogspot.co.uk/ – Scroll down to December) had trouble at altitude. Underrated as an aircraft? Probably not, at least not any more (though it got a bizarrely bad press among those who hadn’t flown it at the time, and because it was unusually ‘secret’ those who had couldn’t counter the false rumours). So the answer here depends both on your timeframe and who’s doing the ‘rating’.

However, in terms of the work of the two squadrons who did operate the type for several years, seriously underrated. There are ‘experts’ out there who still state that the aircraft was never fully operational, when in fact 137 and 263 were sinking shipping and destroying transport and instillations on a frequent basis for two years.

Spitfire was never overrated by anyone who knew what they were talking about (merlin2), but there has been a lot of hyperbole among the uninformed.

In broad public terms:
Properly overrated? B-17. In terms of ordnance delivered per US dollar (including the necessary heavy escort), never mind human lives, very poor indeed.
Underrated? Beaufighter – the first effective AI equipped nightfighter, and a potent and widely-used anti-shipping and ground attack platform to boot – but never really impinged on public consciousness.

PS, just realised that the thread was about fighters. But I’ll keep the B-17 bit in, just to be controversial 😉

Merlin2. Where on earth are you getting your information? Not sure where to start, but.. the Hurricane / Spitfire kill ratio – can you provide the source, please? When doing so please bear in mind relative numbers of Hurricanes/Spitfires available. The ‘German Luftwaffe’ didn’t have any viable concept to win the war? So much wrong with that.. an air force is a tool, it is not for them to have war-winning strategies. The fact that the German high command, ultimately guided by the chap with the funny moustache, did not win the war using whatever strategies they used is an historical one. One of the factors was the failure to gain air superiority over the UK early on. All allied aircraft and personnel engaged contributed to preventing the achievement of this strategic aim, and the potentially poor decision to shift to an aerial bombardment strategy then made it an historically decisive defensive action. Where does the Spitfire being over-rated fit in to this? It doesn’t.

There is also a logical fallacy in your argument. If the aircraft used made no difference then how does that reflect at all on the relative merits of those aircraft? By your own argument it doesn’t – and ‘The Nazis didn’t have a strategy to win the war so the Spitfire was overrated’ is a curious assertion, to say the least, whatever the merits of the aircraft or strategy.

The Me 109 just had to climb to escape a Spitfire? Really? I’d check your computer game’s accuracy, if I were you ( I am guessing this is your source here). A negative-G manoeuvre might do it, before Miss Shilling’s Orifice. Look it up.

I am not defending the Spitfire out of hand, but those that were there say it was a pretty good flying machine (look, I haven’t flown one, but no matter how many x-box hours logged, neither have you) and it did the job of fighting when it needed to be done. The facts speak for themselves, acquaint yourself with them.

Try starting with http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I.html
– the last couple of reports might be of particular interest.

John, Tonk. The point is not one of opinion or personal flying/non flying preference. It is one of fact. If this aircraft was used to make a flying machine, the machine that people will see flying will not be this aircraft. So what is the point of destroying it? That is the bit that some of us are trying to get across

Diluted by whom?

John, you’re confused again. Not condemning whole sections of society out of hand because the Daily Mail told you to is not the same as not taking responsibility for oneself. Two different things.

John, I cannot see that it could be a ‘return to flight’. Whatever the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ effect maintained by those who put value on dataplate reconstructions (and as some are wonderful things, long may that continue) I suspect that it would be practically and legally impossible to actually return that airframe as a whole to flight. (Though in the US things might be different -they surely can’t be that different?) An already flying P-40 in the markings of Copping’s aircraft would be a memorial, taking the real aircraft apart to use some bits in a reconstruction would in my view be the opposite.