Worst aircraft of WW2?

[Vincenzo]

for history of Gladiator in Malta
Hkans Aviation page - Gloster Gladiators and Fiat CR.42s over Malta 1940-42

[Condora]

Originally Posted by Waynos

The gladiator was far newer than the P-7. It entered service only in 1937, same year as the Bf 109 and Hurricane

Both were early-30s warplanes, and already outdated when they were developed.

We have to remember that in those days, without Internet, no worldwide fast network of comunication system being used, concepts took a lot of time to travel around the globe.
Now, we have airplanes taking 10 years (sometimes longer) to be developed and introduced. Back in the first half of the XXth century, a plane could be created in just a few months (see P.51). It could be lucky enough to use the latest discoveries, or it could be hindered by it's design team not having heard of the latest concepts.

Poland sure could get no aircraft design updates from Germany or Russia, maybe that's why they were a bit stuck with small developments on the same design. And there's also the political aspect, a nation's whose military leaders still use horse-mounted troops, does not seem very open to change.

I think the Gladiator case was more a case of political influence: "there will be no war", and "let's bet on all horses, one is sure to win!"

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by Condora

Both were early-30s warplanes, and already outdated when they were developed.

We have to remember that in those days, without Internet, no worldwide fast network of comunication system being used, concepts took a lot of time to travel around the globe.
Now, we have airplanes taking 10 years (sometimes longer) to be developed and introduced. Back in the first half of the XXth century, a plane could be created in just a few months (see P.51). It could be lucky enough to use the latest discoveries, or it could be hindered by it's design team not having heard of the latest concepts.

Pardon? The successes enjoyed by the Gladiator can not be used to castigate the PZL P-7 on the grounds of obsolescence. The P-7 entered service FIVE YEARS before the Gladiator, this is a fact. The P-7 was NOT outdated when it was developed. it was one of the most advanced fighters in existence, a very different story to the Gladiator and the botch job that was F.7/30 (an advanced and far sighted requirement that was badly mismanaged in the execution). What the hell has the internet got to do with any of it????

Polands problem was not that it did not have modern technology, it was as modern as anybody. Below are pictures of the P.37 bomber and P.50 fighter which show Polands capability by 1939.





The problem was one shared also by France in that they had modernised and expanded their air force a tad too early. This left them from 1937 onwards with hundreds of aircraft that were approaching obsolescence thanks to the rapid advanced made in aviation over the previous two short years. Having made the effort to expand and modernise previously, the further effort to then replace it all was just too much. Fortunately for Britain our own expansion coincided almost exactly with this time frame so most aircraft acquired by the RAF were still fairly modern when war broke out with even more even more advanced types like the Beaufort/Beaufighter, Mosquito, Halifax etc just round the corner.

[Condora]

Originally Posted by Waynos

Pardon? The successes enjoyed by the Gladiator can not be used to castigate the PZL P-7 on the grounds of obsolescence. The P-7 entered service FIVE YEARS before the Gladiator, this is a fact. The P-7 was NOT outdated when it was developed. it was one of the most advanced fighters in existence, a very different story to the Gladiator and the botch job that was F.7/30 (an advanced and far sighted requirement that was badly mismanaged in the execution). What the hell has the internet got to do with any of it????

Polands problem was not that it did not have modern technology, it was as modern as anybody. Below are pictures of the P.37 bomber and P.50 fighter which show Polands capability by 1939.

The problem was one shared also by France in that they had modernised and expanded their air force a tad too early. This left them from 1937 onwards with hundreds of aircraft that were approaching obsolescence thanks to the rapid advanced made in aviation over the previous two short years. Having made the effort to expand and modernise previously, the further effort to then replace it all was just too much. Fortunately for Britain our own expansion coincided almost exactly with this time frame so most aircraft acquired by the RAF were still fairly modern when war broke out with even more even more advanced types like the Beaufort/Beaufighter, Mosquito, Halifax etc just round the corner.

As I recall, the only fault I pointed out to the P.7, was about range. And that, because it ahd to fight the germans planes still with range to spare. If you read what I said, I mention that the Gladiators had their adversaries short on fuel, as did the Hurricanes/Spitfires during the Battle of Britain, or more recently the Harriers in the Falklands.
That allowed them to get some leverage against faster, or more modern, aircraft.

On "Internet", I did not get the point through, and you say *EXACTLY* what I mean:
You have two airplanes developed during a 5 year period, which are BOTH obsolete by the time the war starts. And yet, with just half a dozen years they are BOTH brand new. The F.16 has been flying for what, three DECADES? And still a valid piece of hardware.
Airplanes got developed much faster, and were bought in greater quantities than today. They also got "old" much faster, and that's why the Gladiator was already outdated when it got into service.

Where does that leave Poland? With a single - talented - aircraft manufacturer, which already had a P.50 prototype... too little, too late (it still had bad range, and it was not very fast).

The french, I disagree that they "had just" gotten new aircraft - they got careless, and only started working on it seriously AFTER the war started. And then had the bad luck that a few of the new models were not very good.

The british had some airplanes that were not any good, BUT the main difference is that you have a lot of manufacturers, all delivering aircraft with difference concepts, engines, since the 20s. Poland had PZL, I think I could cite all french manufacturers by heart, but I'm sure I would forget some british ones if I tried to.
Besides, they did some things very right: when they had a winner, they stuck to it! The engine that was going to be THE one to replace the Kestrel, was the Peregrine. The Merlin was just an after-thought.
But as soon as they saw the Merlin's advantages, they bet on it instead.

So, at the time you have a lot of different british models, being replaced gradually, and you have the french with outdated aircraft, and the new ones either do no fly, are not easy to build, or are just refused because they want a couple of mph more.
Both countries could have benefited from the experience of the Schneider Trophy and Spanish Civil War, but the french didn't. I think the main reason was they had a lot of political trouble at home, and a conservative command.

Poland had some nice airplanes, from a nice - and only - aircraft manufacturer.
"Nice guys finish last"

I don't make the rules, just take notice of them...

[Elvis]

Just read something on the Gladiator the other day...wish I could remember where I saw it.
Anyway, according to that quip, it pre-dates the more modern designs by at least two years and at that time, the more modern designs were still basically "ideas" floating around in their inventors heads.
So at the time the Gladiator had been pretty much worked out on paper, that was the most modern fighter the Brits had yet to come up with.
Of course, by the time the Gladiator was ready for service, those more modern designs were already in the R&D stage, so the Glad ends up being accepted as a stop-gap measure until the modern designs could be formally inducted.
Hopefully, this gives you an indication of just how rapidly aircraft technology was moving at that time (they don't call it the "Golden Age" for nothing).
Remember, modern monoplane designs were actually still fairly "cutting edge", even as late as 1939.
Look at the P-26.
Boeing originally presented the Army with an all-metal monoplane design that featured a one-piece wing and retractable landing gear (and this was in 1932!), however the "brass" didn't like the idea of a front-line fighter exhibiting such "experimental" qualities and only accepted the design if it were altered to a two-piece wing and fixed landing gear, since those designs had been proven reliable back in WWI, and how a "proper" airplane should look.

Anyway, if I'm not mistaken, hadn't the P.7 already morphed into the P.24 by the time the Gladiator came into service?


Elvis

[Waynos]

I don't mean to take your post apart or anything but you wrote so much it just makes more sense if I reply to chunks of it in turn, se here I go with my take

Originally Posted by Condora

As I recall, the only fault I pointed out to the P.7, was about range. And that, because it ahd to fight the germans planes still with range to spare. If you read what I said, I mention that the Gladiators had their adversaries short on fuel, as did the Hurricanes/Spitfires during the Battle of Britain, or more recently the Harriers in the Falklands.
That allowed them to get some leverage against faster, or more modern, aircraft.

I agree about the range issue, in fact every interceptor acquired by the RAF suffered from short range until we swapped the F-4 Phantom to that role, from strike, in the 1970's (lend lease P-51's excepted).It was almost 'traditional' for us. I was replying to you making the point that both the Gladiator and the P-7 were out of date when they entered service, the Glad was, the P-7 was not, having debuted in 1932.

On "Internet", I did not get the point through, and you say *EXACTLY* what I mean:
You have two airplanes developed during a 5 year period, which are BOTH obsolete by the time the war starts. And yet, with just half a dozen years they are BOTH brand new. The F.16 has been flying for what, three DECADES? And still a valid piece of hardware.
Airplanes got developed much faster, and were bought in greater quantities than today. They also got "old" much faster, and that's why the Gladiator was already outdated when it got into service.

OK, but isn't that all as obvious as saying that planes fly, or fighters should carry guns? It was surely a superfluous point to make?

The french, I disagree that they "had just" gotten new aircraft - they got careless, and only started working on it seriously AFTER the war started. And then had the bad luck that a few of the new models were not very good.

France began its programme in 1932, aircraft deliveries under this began in 1934, hence the French industry was committed to producing types desiged then. Switching production to more modern types is not an easy thing to do when you have orders to meet. This simply meant that the more modern types were delayed, unfortunately until it was too late. The French had some turkeys, I grant you, as did everyone, but they also had some excellent types that really could have done with appearing 12 months earlier than they did. This is not the military reason for the Fall of France of course, but just a problem their industry faced. another one was that it was nationalised which made it much harder for the French to have anyone designing a Spitfire or Mossie in the background, for example. It was not carelessness, it was the inflexibility in the industry and the commitments made previously that stopped the more modern types appearing sooner.

I have tried to think of a particular example to illustrate the point I'm making, and while it may not be ideal, I think this will do it;

in 1933 you have two broadly comparable designs, the Hawker Fury monplane and the Dewoitine D.500.
They are almost identical in most important respects. The French order the D.500 into production, the UK, with a minimal air force and no interest in changing things do not. So, in 1934 Hawker, with nothing else to do, have refined the FM into the IM (later the Hurricane) so when the Govt wakes up and requests fighters urgently Hawker are ready to build hundreds of Hurricanes, over in France Dewoitine has to finish its production order before moving on to the latest D.520, which delays the switch.

I know that is an over simplification of the real situation, its just an illustration of what I'm saying wa the general situation.

The british had some airplanes that were not any good, BUT the main difference is that you have a lot of manufacturers, all delivering aircraft with difference concepts, engines, since the 20s.

I agree that the number of manufacturers was also a great help, as it meant more factory space, but the concepts being delivered were no more advanced at any given time than equivalent French ones. The main benefit to British rearmament was that, unlike France, very few of them ever got a production order and those that did were very small in number, ie LOTS of vacant factory space exactly when it was needed most.

Look at a bomber in widespread service in 1939 like say the Amiot 143, compared with the BP Overstrand or Fairey Hendon. A bomber command committed to hundreds of them would have been seriously in the **** come 1939 (much moreso than it actually was).

Poland had PZL,

I agree their industry was nowhere near big enough. I was just pointing out the levelof modernity reached.

Besides, they did some things very right: when they had a winner, they stuck to it! The engine that was going to be THE one to replace the Kestrel, was the Peregrine. The Merlin was just an after-thought.
But as soon as they saw the Merlin's advantages, they bet on it instead.

That was FAR from the case, but belongs in a different discussion.

So, at the time you have a lot of different british models, being replaced gradually, and you have the french with outdated aircraft,

Yes. You have a starved industry suddenly given new life and across the channel a nationalised one with new desigs in the wings, but production commitments to old models getting in the way.

I don't make the rules, just take notice of them...

Er.....ok, if you like.

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Just read something on the Gladiator the other day...wish I could remember where I saw it.
Anyway, according to that quip, it pre-dates the more modern designs by at least two years and at that time, the more modern designs were still basically "ideas" floating around in their inventors heads.
So at the time the Gladiator had been pretty much worked out on paper, that was the most modern fighter the Brits had yet to come up with.
Of course, by the time the Gladiator was ready for service, those more modern designs were already in the R&D stage, so the Glad ends up being accepted as a stop-gap measure until the modern designs could be formally inducted.
Hopefully, this gives you an indication of just how rapidly aircraft technology was moving at that time (they don't call it the "Golden Age" for nothing).
Remember, modern monoplane designs were actually still fairly "cutting edge", even as late as 1939.
Look at the P-26.
Boeing originally presented the Army with an all-metal monoplane design that featured a one-piece wing and retractable landing gear (and this was in 1932!), however the "brass" didn't like the idea of a front-line fighter exhibiting such "experimental" qualities and only accepted the design if it were altered to a two-piece wing and fixed landing gear, since those designs had been proven reliable back in WWI, and how a "proper" airplane should look.

Anyway, if I'm not mistaken, hadn't the P.7 already morphed into the P.24 by the time the Gladiator came into service?


Elvis

Hi Elvis. Theres a fascinating story behind the Gladiator and its creation if you look into it. It was designed as a private venture to meet F.7/30 (meaning 1930!) after about SIX different other protoypes, including the first Supermarine Spitfire, had all spectularly failed to meet the requirement. For 1930 it was a very good requirement, requesting as it did 4 guns, 250mph and night fighter capability amongst other things, its just that by the time the govt had decided to ask Gloster to build the Gladiator in any numbers, in 1935, its time had already passed, with the first ones not reaching the squadrons until 1937, which was ridiculous.

A knock on effect of this (and a tie in with my previous post regarding the French experience) is that production of the Gladiator so delayed the appearance of Glosters own 8 gun monoplane, the F.5/34 (which ended up flying in 1938 - 2 years late) , that it never stood a chance of being produced itself, when maybe the govt should have gone with that one in the first place?

[Degs]

What about this pile.
Apart from a couple of days when the luftwaffe thought they were chasing hurricanes it was a washout & who wants to get stuck in the back with a hydraulic powered turret to get out of on the way down !

[Condora]

Same system here, I just cut out the longer text.

Originally Posted by Waynos

OK, but isn't that all as obvious as saying that planes fly, or fighters should carry guns? It was surely a superfluous point to make?

Uh... nope, I think we have to remember present-day "rules" do not apply.
For instance, now we are only mentioning "guns", period ("yeah, 20mm guns!").
In those days, people were arguing over using 2, 4, 6 or 8 machine-guns. Half a decade later, cannons were being added to the machine-guns.
Evolution was very fast from the late 20s until the late 40s: some young pilot could have started his carreer by flying the "brand-new" Hawker Fury biplane, change to a Hurricane or Spitfire, then a P.51, and be flying a Meteor or Vampire after the war.
Sometimes, current-day pilots get to fly aircaft older than themselves.

Originally Posted by Waynos

France began its programme in 1932, aircraft deliveries under this began in 1934, ( loong paragraph...) over in France Dewoitine has to finish its production order before moving on to the latest D.520, which delays the switch.

Well, we agree on the french government and military politics getting in the way.
Where I disagree from you, is on the importance it had (finishing previous contracts before starting new orderes): France WANTED to make new orders, but as they were being finicky over details, they delayed the modernisation process.

Yes, nationalisation of the industry played it's part, but... just an example: between Dewoitine's D.500 and D.520, there were OTHER prototypes presented, which were valid airplanes, but refused by the French Air Force, always on some minor detail.
Almost as someone wanted to show his power to refuse, for personal dislike, or just "because he could".

Just another thing: the range problem I was mentioning was more on the PZL airplanes - the P.50 looked good, but had the same range the P.7 or P.11 did.
But yes, british planes also had that problem.

[ozona39]

what was one of the worst but could have been one of the best P-39:

in april 1939 during aircorps trials the 39 prototype did 398 mph & could reach 20k ft. in 5 minutes which was 1 minute faster than the p-38 undergoing trials @ the same time. early in 39 spits & 109's were performing in the 300 - 355mph range. shortly after the trials the 39 went over 400 mph, then the idiots @ naca (nasa's preedecessor) fixed the plane & turned it into the dog it became. by the time of u.s. entry into the war it would have been even better. it's a shame merlin engines were wasted on the p-40 it would have been most interesting to see what a merlin would have done for the 39 especially @ high altitude.

[parsifal]

The P-39 was much liked by the Russians, and they did quite impressive things with it. A very high percentage of their aces gained their ace status in the aircobra.

It is not one of my favourites either, but I dont think it is anywhere near the worst. It performed a lot of good things at a time when other fdesigns were just a bunch of protoypes.

[Civettone]

I read over and over and over again that the P-39 was ruined because it didn't have a (two-stage) supercharger. Though it's true that this meant its performance dropped considerably at altitude, it honestly doesn't meant anything at lower altitudes. There were several aircraft which had single-stage and -speed superchargers and turned out ok. I mean, have you ever heard anyone complain about the Zero not having one??

The British didn't like them because they were unable to intercept bombers at high altitude... But in most cases: Mediterranean and definitely Eastern Front and the Pacific air combat took place at low altitude! And even in the West, most happened at low altitude.

So let's keep that in perspective when discussing the P-39. The claim that it sucked because of its lack of a (two-stage) supercharger is just about the most overstated claim on the internet!

Kris

[Civettone]

My vote would perhaps go for the Fairey Fulmar ... but surprisingly, it was rather succesful in the Mediterranean. Damn!


Kris

[Civettone]

As a side note, has anyone ever looked at those last biplanes and compared them with the first low-wing fighter aircraft?
Just think away those wings and you'll see that they were in fact more modern than you might think.

Just see how Gloster went from Gladiator to F.5/34. They differed just a couple of years.



Or take a look at the PZL P.24 versus IAR.80


Note with this last comparison: the images give a distorted view: the IAR.80 was much longer because of the longer engine. In fact the fuselage and entire back section was identical in size.

Kris

[Tzaw1]

In fact the fuselage and entire back section was identical in size.

Because back section and tail of IAR 80 was from PZL P.24E builded in Rumania