Worst aircraft of WW2?

[Flyboy2]

Originally Posted by Flightcommander

here is a pic of the worst aircraft of ww2.

Um, is that a jeep with a rotary wing and a tail section?

[kool kitty89]

Are those RNZAF markings?

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Flightcommander

here is a pic of the worst aircraft of ww2.

...or yet another use found for the most ubiquitous vehicle ever invented!

Put the words "Flying Jeep" in any search engine and you'll find at least some reference to this experiment.

Odd thing is....I think it actually flew!






Elvis

[kool kitty89]

This thing flew too, sort of... The SimCopter:

See: Wings of History Museum - SimCopter
and Simcopter

[Elvis]

You know, there was a guy down in Longwiew (Washington) named Moult Taylor who made a rather famous version of the Simcopter you aluded to.
It was called The Aero-Car.
He tried very hard for a number of years to get the company going, but it never really..."took off" ( )
The company was resurrected a couple of times, and as of 2002, there were still plans to produce the vehicle.
For those of us here, old enough to remember Bob Cummings TV show, may remember him having a flying car on that show.
That's a Moult Taylor Aero-Car.



Elvis

[Arnold Rothstein]

keep in mind at midway 6 avengers took part and only 1 came back, without fighter cover you're done

[parsifal]

Hi everyone

I am going to try something a little off centre. You are assuming that the "worst" is equivalent to the "poorest performer" But this is not necessarily a valid test to apply.

Consider this....the stringbag was a worse performer than the TBD, and yet it is considered a success, whereas the poor old TBD, with a somewhat better performance was considered an abject failure. The battle, which everyone rails against has a performance similar to the stuka, or better still, the IL2. yet these latter aircraft were generally considered successful, whereas the Battle was dropped like a hot stone.

Moreover, there is a whole sub-class of aircraft with performance arcs far worse than the models you are toting around. I am not suggesting they are failures, quite the contrary, but on the basis of performance arcs, they are far worse than the ones you are suggesting. An example, the Tiger Moth had no performance to speak of, yet nobody that is sane would suggest that the Moth was a failure. infact it was an outstanding success

I think the criteria for "worst" needs to be tightened up and re-defined, before you can go too far with this debate. For what its worth, I think the "worst" should be defined as those that led to some sort of strategic failure. But even this is dangerous. Consider this, on the basis of strategic failure, a good example might be the Zero Fighter, or, for the Allies, the lancaster bomber. The early success of the zero led to an over-confidence by the Japanese, believing that their A6M was invincible. They did not feel the need to introduce a more defensively oriented fighter, until it was too late. The result was a horrific loss rate as the newer, better, US types overtook the lightly protected zeroes in terms of performance.

In the case of the Lancaster, this otherwise excellent airacraft, along with the slightly less impressive Halibags and Stirlings, were bombers in the old school mold. Big, slow, heavy, lots of crew, bristling with defensive armament. In the bomber offensive these types were shot down in droves. The alternative, more modern (in fact the same philosophy exists in modern, post war bombers) can be found in the mosquito, fast, unarmed, capable of hitting precision targets. it is said that a Mosquito could bomb Berlin, return to England, and bomb the target again, in the same time as it took a stirling to go their just once. And the Mosquito would do it, with a fraction of the lossesand with greater accuracy, for the same weight of bombs. The old style heavies reduced the bomber offensive to an aerial version of trench warfare, un-inspired, and exrtremely costly. Should not these otherwise technical marvels therefore be considered amongst the "worst" aircraft of the war?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Should not these otherwise technical marvels therefore be considered amongst the "worst" aircraft of the war?

No and I'll tell you why - they were designed to a specification and in many cases met or exceeded that basic specification. When you have an aircraft that not only can't perform it's mission but can't meet its design specification, well that's when you start looking at "bad to worse," and with that said I think the Breda BA.88 takes it.

[parsifal]

But a difficulty remains, and this gets back to my salient point, ie, that the original question is ill defined .....compare the harm the Ba88 did to Italy, versus the harm the lancaster did to the RAF. Who suffered more from the design failures of theserespective designs. Dont misunderstand me, I am not saying the Lanc was a failure as such. But the Lanc, along with the other heavies did not deliver what they were supposed to do, and failed in a spectacular fashion. I believe that if the British had adopted something like the Mosquito as their Bomber Command mainstay, there would have been measurably greater success than adopting the Lancs.

Similarly, the zero is acknowledged a agood design by most, but it had its limits, and because it was misused, and misunderstood by its owners, it ended up being a strategic disaster, contributing measurably to the ultimate Japanese defeat.

I am trying to get back to my original criticism....that the question is too nebulous to be answered properly

Let me finish on one last point, from the point of view of technical failure for an operational type, i agree one is hard pressed not to select the Breda. But the Me 210 is not so flash either (although, the hungarians, who produced them under licence, thought they were good aircraft, just shows how your attitude can change when you are desperate).

[ccheese]

For a pre-production aircraft that took the speed record away from France,
the production models were pure "junque". In all respect they were unable to
do the job they were designed for. I agree with Joe....

Charles

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by parsifal

But a difficulty remains, and this gets back to my salient point, ie, that the original question is ill defined .....compare the harm the Ba88 did to Italy, versus the harm the lancaster did to the RAF. Who suffered more from the design failures of theserespective designs. Dont misunderstand me, I am not saying the Lanc was a failure as such. But the Lanc, along with the other heavies did not deliver what they were supposed to do, and failed in a spectacular fashion. I believe that if the British had adopted something like the Mosquito as their Bomber Command mainstay, there would have been measurably greater success than adopting the Lancs.

I don't know - Despite being shot down by the dozens I wouldn't call the Lancaster's deployment a failure by any means, especially by the technology of that day. The Mossie could not saturate a city the way the Lancaster could, perhaps only if they were built ten times their original production number - the call of the day was to put as many bombs as possible over a target and the Lancaster did that better than any other heavy bomber in the ETO.

As far as the success or failure of the strategic bomber - in "The Best Bomber of WW2" thread that was discussed in depth. IMO Stategic Bombing in its day did work, could it been carried out more effectively? Yes, no doubt about it. Could an aircraft like the Mossie had replaced the stategic bomber? I doubt it....

Originally Posted by parsifal

Similarly, the zero is acknowledged a agood design by most, but it had its limits, and because it was misused, and misunderstood by its owners, it ended up being a strategic disaster, contributing measurably to the ultimate Japanese defeat.

The Zero had limitations that were never fully addressed thorough out its career and it suffered for it. 1941 - Mid 1942 it was supreme in its environment, after that it was downhill.

Originally Posted by parsifal

I am trying to get back to my original criticism....that the question is too nebulous to be answered properly

Let me finish on one last point, from the point of view of technical failure for an operational type, I agree one is hard pressed not to select the Breda. But the Me 210 is not so flash either (although, the hungarians, who produced them under licence, thought they were good aircraft, just shows how your attitude can change when you are desperate).

True about the Me 210 and how a desperate situation may dictate - at least the aircraft was able to fulfill a role - on at least one mission the Breda couldn't even remain airborne with it's designed payload - to me it doesn't get any worse than that!

[parsifal]

I have one to add for consideration, the Loire 210. The french are an excellent ground to look for the wars worst....The Loire was a new design, introduced into servce in August 1939, and withdrawn from service in October 1939, after 5 of the 20 delivered had fallen out of the sky with catastrophic wing failures. It must surely be one of the shortest service histories of any aircraft in any air force

Loire 210 - float-equipped fighter

[bf109 Emil]

Mustangs with Allison engines to use as bomber escort...

bf109 E between 24,000 and 25,000 feet where the auto trans would switch pitches, leaving a nice puff of black smoke for enemy aircraft to spot..

shorty stirling...lost a lot of crews

[drgondog]

[QUOTE=bf109 Emil;344070]Mustangs with Allison engines to use as bomber escort...

bf109 E between 24,000 and 25,000 feet where the auto trans would switch pitches, leaving a nice puff of black smoke for enemy aircraft to spot..

Wouldn't matter much if the enemy aircraft was in front of the 109E when this occurred and it would seem that the size of the 109E would be as much a give away as puffs of black smoke. One of the greatest aircraft of all time

shorty stirling...lost a lot of crews

So did the B-17, B-24, B-26, Lancaster, Ju 88, He 111 He 177 and just about every 'superior' bomnber pressed into service in a hostile environment. Was the Short Sterling less survivable than the Betty?[/QUOTE]

The P-51A or even A-36 would have been excellent excorts at medium and low altitudes - it was only 30-40 kts slower at 20,000 feet than the Merlin 51B/C and lighter and more manueverable in the horizontal. The 20mm equipped variants had a lot more firepower.

You could only find 95% of all aircraft built during WWII that were 'worse' than a 51A

The RAF used the Mustang I for low level Recce up to the end of the war and scored quite well against 109s and 190s on the deck

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

and with that said I think the Breda BA.88 takes it.

Fitted with sand filters, the engines overheated and could not put out the promised power rating. An attack on Sidi Barani in 9/40 had to be cancelled when the Ba.88s could not make altitude, as the engines could not generate the power necessary to gain sufficient altitude. By mid 11/40, most surviving Ba.88s had been stripped of useable equipment and were left as decoy targets around airfields.

It's funny to know that the first war flight of this plane had a tragicomic end. Immediately after the take off (with a small load of bombs) it was unable to climb and turn (!) due to the ridicolous power installed and high wing load. So the pilot was able to land only because the nearest airstrip was exactly disposed on the same line of the take-off airport!

Comando Supremo: Breda BA.88

Breda Ba.88 Lince - ground attack aircraft

Very nice looking plane though!!

,