[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

Finally we agree on something.

No we don't.

FVD

[Hornchurch]

Originally Posted by Epapazian

According to various reports the C-46 was requested by commanders of the India-China airlift in preference to the C-47 and its post WW II exploits also speak to its often unsung effectiveness. Used extensively in the Korean War, the C-46 hauled supplies from Japan to Korea and also was used in paratrooper drops when the UN forces moved into North Korea. The CIA used C-46s for many risky assignments in Indochina and other Asian hot spots and hundreds of these aircraft were in use by many air forces many years after they came off the production lines. I'm not suggesting that the C-46 was better than the C-47 in all aspects, however we are talking about underrated planes of WW II and in this regard, the C-46 is a prime candidate while the much lauded C-47 isn't.

Correct me if I'm missing something fundamental here.....

The thread is.... "Most Underrated Aircraft Of W.W.II " , Right ? ( Not Korea, or Vietnam)

The Curtiss C.46's performance during Operation Varsity, on 24th March '45, was nothing

short of poor & embarrassing !

Lack of Self-sealing tanks, combined with an apparent fuel venting problem (with the wing

structure) that WASN'T addressed, until AFTER W.W.II, means that it's only major showing

on one of the most important events in the E.T.O. (late-on).....

exposed it to be a 'frontline', "Turkey" or "Lemon".

The 313th T.C.G. (alone) lost 19

(as in Nineteen) x C.46's = ALL shot down by German Anti-Aircraft fire

Shaun 507 was right to comment & sharp to pick up the plane's shortcoming = on a day WHEN

IT MATTERED !

Me, I think it looks great = especially Hauling stinking, rotting beef round Bolivia, in the '60's

Given my second sentence of this post, I think some guys have a misguided view -

there are a MILLION (figuratively) more worthy contenders than the 'Lame' C-46

[Epapazian]

Originally Posted by Hornchurch

Correct me if I'm missing something fundamental here.....

The thread is.... "Most Underrated Aircraft Of W.W.II " , Right ? ( Not Korea, or Vietnam)

The Curtiss C.46's performance during Operation Varsity, on 24th March '45, was nothing

short of poor & embarrassing !

Lack of Self-sealing tanks, combined with an apparent fuel venting problem (with the wing

structure) that WASN'T addressed, until AFTER W.W.II, means that it's only major showing

on one of the most important events in the E.T.O. (late-on).....

exposed it to be a 'frontline', "Turkey" or "Lemon".

The 313th T.C.G. (alone) lost 19

(as in Nineteen) x C.46's = ALL shot down by German Anti-Aircraft fire

Shaun 507 was right to comment & sharp to pick up the plane's shortcoming = on a day WHEN

IT MATTERED !

Me, I think it looks great = especially Hauling stinking, rotting beef round Bolivia, in the '60's

Given my second sentence of this post, I think some guys have a misguided view -

there are a MILLION (figuratively) more worthy contenders than the 'Lame' C-46

If we go by how many planes the German AA shot down there are a lot of American planes- the B-17 and B-24, for example- that "performed" worse than the C-46. As for self-sealing fuel tanks, these are important for combat planes, but is this also true for transports? My contention that the C-46 was one of several underrated aircraft of WW II was not to suggest that it was a fantastic plane. However if one is looking for candidates in the unsung category, I believe that it deserves consideration. The only reason that I mentioned the C-46's post war service is that this plane wasn't' as useless as some of its critics claim. Otherwise why weren't all of the remaining C-46s scrapped after V-J day? Just for the record, I would never select the C-46 as the most underrated plane of WW II. As you noted, there are plenty of more worthy candidates, especially Italy's SM-79 and Russia's PE-2, to name only a few. Still, the C-46 did a very good job for us flying "the Hump", didn't it? And that was an important wartime contribution. Don't you agree?

[Hornchurch]

Originally Posted by Epapazian

1, Otherwise why weren't all of the remaining C-46s scrapped after V-J day?

2, Just for the record, I would never select the C-46 as the most underrated plane of WW II.

3, Still, the C-46 did a very good job for us flying "the Hump", didn't it?
And that was an important wartime contribution. Don't you agree?

1, Good load carrying performance, with a GREAT engine (Pratt & Whitney R.2800 - as in P.47 & B.26)

2, good, I'd agree there.

3, yes it did, & yes it certainly was

Just that when the 'Effluent hit the fan' on 24th March '45 it failed miserably, (thankfully) never to be used in that capacity again

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by Hornchurch

Shaun 507 was right to comment & sharp to pick up the plane's shortcoming = on a day WHEN IT MATTERED!

Um its S-H-A-W-N. The 507 comes from my days as a Instructor at the US Army Basic Airborne School, the 1/507th PIR. Which by the way participated in that miserable jump in March of '45 with the 17th Airborne Division. As I said its a slick looking bird. However as a Paratrooper, its performance for Operation Varsity does stand out in my mind.
As a side note, Op. Varsity did have the most successful use of gliders in the war. The daylight op allowed the gliders that survived to be used as immediate casevac platforms. Is it the worst of WW2? No, not really. But when it was needed it failed the troop transport command and the airborne forces using them. So many died so close to the end of the war that may have lived if they had used C-47s.
- Shawn

[planenutsfrog]

Originally Posted by Epapazian

To be fair about it, both the P-39D and the P-40E, the major early war production versions, had similar Allison engines, and the P-40E wasn't terribly quick at rising to altitude, either. The main difference between the two was what happened when they got to 20,000 feet. Because of the U.S. Army's ill-advised decision to omit a turbo supercharger for the P-39 while allowing it for the P-40, the former was next to useless at altitudes over 15,000 feet. It couldn't generate enough power to chase enemy planes, let alone engage them in combat. Fortunately, the P-40E did not have this limitation, which made it a more effective weapon. The P-40E could take on enemy planes at any height with some chance of success, but the P-39 could only perform well at low altitude. This proved to be so serious a flaw that the RAF, which ordered 600-700 of these planes , based on rosy performance claims made by the manufacturer, quickly gave up on the plane after testing a few in action. The U.S. Army Air Force soon came to the same conclusion. Even though P-39Ds were rushed into action in New Guinea and the Solomon Island theater, and also in North Africa, they were used mainly in ground attack roles. One way to evaluate the P-39's effectiveness, relative to the P-40 and F-4F is the number of pilots who made their mark in them. The P-40 and F-4F produced many aces, but the P-39 didn't-despite thousands of missions flown in this aircraft. That said, I still like the P-39. It had a sleek, modern design and it's tricycle nose wheel was a great novelty for its time as was the rear mounted engine.

Makes sense now. I believed the P40 and P39 shared the same powering handicap...

[skysurfer808]

I've got to say I agree that the P-39 would be a strong contender for the top underrated aircraft for its Soviet service. Ironically it was George Welch's mount when he scored his fifth victory on Dec 7 1942...exactly a year after he got his first 4. According to Osprey's Aerocobra Aces Book, the Soviets appreciated the Aerocobra for its clear plexiglass canopy (compared to shoddy Soviet made transperancies) and reliable radio transmitter, which enabled the Soviets to coordinate their aerial activities for the first time. Pokryshkin was an experienced aviator, and the formation tactics the Aerocobra made possible allowed for more effective operations against the Luftwaffe. Other contributors are right when they say the Eastern Front was a mostly low level affair, at which the Aerocobra excelled. As for victory claim numbers, another factor may be at work. According to the Soviet record Kozhedub was their top scorer, but if the additional Pokryshkin victories are counted, then the Aerocobra driver may have come out on top. However, does anyone believe a flier of an Imperialist AMERICAN aircraft would be allowed to be top ace of Stalin's USSR...when the other flew a Soviet made machine. Not to belittle Kozhedub, who was an excellent aviator...just an observation. The Aerocobra was a dog in the Pacific however. In action at Port Moresby, Buzz Wagner used it to down 3 zeros, but most American Aerocobra drivers served as Zero bait, according to Saburo Sakai's Samurai. The mid mounted engine of the Aerocobra meant that the Japanese tactic of aiming for a fighter's wing roots would immediately knock out the Aerocobra's engine. In Guadalcanal the P-400s of the 67th FS were used predominantly for ground attack, while in New Guinea the Aerocobra's short range....something like only 3 hours aloft...meant that it stayed home as the battle ranged further afield.

Other contenders would be the P-40E and F4F Wildcat, which both held the line in the Pacific as necessary. Though I don't have experience flying any WW-2 aircraft, the makers of the IL-2 Shturmovik simulator have made some excellent flight models of the various types. I have IL-2 and Pacific Fighters, and when flying the Aerocobra in either have done pretty well in quick mission dogfights against Bombers and Fighters. However, the Aerocobra does suffer from a nasty stall characteristic mentioned by WW2 pilots of the type, it will tumble into an end over end spin that is virtually impossible to recover from....unless one has several thousand meters of altitude. Note, despite this, the P-39 does have more forgiving handling characteristics than most Soviet types, with the exception of the La 5. My favorite aircraft in Pacific Fighters is the Corsair, Hellcat, and P-40E, as first two make great Zero Killers, while the P-40E is tough, fast, and a decent Zero killer itself. As far as landing, the Aerocobra is nice to land from a modern pilot's perspective as its Tricycle gear makes touchdown much easier than the other taildragger types. Another interesting aircraft is the P-63, which did see action against the Japanese in Soviet Service during the invasion of Manchuria. It has almost the speed of the Mustang down low, and is another fine Zero killer with fewer of the faults of the Aerocobra. The Mustang is another fine aircraft, but against the more manuverable Japanese does have its hands full...especially if fighting Franks or Georges.

Note, this is a simple sim report but anyone who has flown either Sturmovik and Pacific Fighters can attest that the Germans in Sturmovik are much tougher to knock out than the Japanese in Pacific Fighters, points of historical accuracy I find especially relevant to the game's experience. The Japanese flame after a short burst...whereas the toughest opponent seems to be the Fw-190, which takes hits to the wing or tail to knock down....something tough in Soviet aircraft with a cannon armament with only a limited amount of ammo. This is where the 37mm cannon of the Aerocobra makes a decisive impact, use it well, and you can blast an FW out of the sky. This heavy firepower is likely a reason why the Soviets loved the Kobra.

Skysurfer808