Worst aircraft of WW2?

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by Condora

Uh... nope, I think we have to remember present-day "rules" do not apply.

I agree, I just meant that it didn't need saying, or at least I was surprised that you felt it did. No-one with any interest in our subject with more than a couple of years reading at most would make that error, would they? Maybe I just took it personally (in a 'why would you think you need to tell me that?' sort of way), lets forget that part, agreed?

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.

Not disputing any of that, politics always makes a mess of engineering, nevertheless, I feel that an idle factory is much more likely to produce a new type more quickly than one which has aircraft in various stages of construction lying all over the place. The French also failed to build up a momentum of production as quickly as the British, truth be told, all the reasons we have both given will have played a significant part as there is rarely a single reason for anything.

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.

Agreed, but as a defending fighter against a neighbouring country range would not have been that crucial unless the Poles actually managed to turn the fight back on Germany, which of course they never did. Likewise, the short range of the Hurricane and Spitfire was not an issue at all during the Battle of Britain (the range of the Spitfire was deliberately reduced during initial development when smaller fuel tanks were requested than those which R J Mitchell had included) so the short range (of any fighter) would not come as a shock, but would be what was requested. If the ministry then gets the request wrong (and how often has that happened!) its not the plane or the designers fault, wouldn't you say?

[Waynos]

Despite its outward appearance as a sort of 'Gladiator Monoplane', the F.5/34 was a completely different aeroplane and was Glosters first foray into stressed skin metal airframes (and was much more modern than the Hurricane). I think its a great shame that Gloster was sidelined between the Glad and the Meteor as both the F.5/34 and the twin engined F.9/37 would have been very useful aircraft. I am actually struck by the similarity of the Gloster with the PZL P.50, they are different aircraft, but the concept would seem identical.

Last thought before closing, take the radial off the front of the F.5/34, remove the cone from the rear fuselage and leave it open, fit a whittle engine, though you will have to make the fuselage slightly fatter, and what does it remind you of now?

[Elvis]

You know, there's something about that F.5/34 that looks strangely familiar.

Let's take a look at that plane again...



...yeah, definately something very familiar about it...if only I could remember where I've seen one of those before....






































...Ooooohhh Yeeeeaaaaaahhhh


( )






Elvis

[Condora]

Originally Posted by Waynos

I agree, I just meant that it didn't need saying, or at least I was surprised that you felt it did. No-one with any interest in our subject with more than a couple of years reading at most would make that error, would they? Maybe I just took it personally (in a 'why would you think you need to tell me that?' sort of way), lets forget that part, agreed?

OK by me. I just say it because sometimes it sounds like although everybody knows that, but does not... I lack the word... *grok* it?
If someone told me when I was a kid that a lot of people would have, not one TV set, but one per room, and a car for each person in the house, I would not bellieve him and think he was crazy. I was normal not having a telephone. You "know" that, but for someone who did not live it, it will be hard to REALLY understand the difference.
Maybe it is just a feeling I get, and it is not right... never mind.

Originally Posted by Waynos

Agreed, but as a defending fighter against a neighbouring country range would not have been that crucial unless the Poles actually managed to turn the fight back on Germany, which of course they never did. Likewise, the short range of the Hurricane and Spitfire was not an issue at all during the Battle of Britain (the range of the Spitfire was deliberately reduced during initial development when smaller fuel tanks were requested than those which R J Mitchell had included) so the short range (of any fighter) would not come as a shock, but would be what was requested. If the ministry then gets the request wrong (and how often has that happened!) its not the plane or the designers fault, wouldn't you say?

Yes for the most, but I still believe a defending fighter shouldn't be as short on fuel as the attacking planes.
Radar was not a common piece of hardware those days, neither was radio, so the defending fighters had to rely on "looking for them bogies" the hard way. Even with eyeball-phone line help before they'd scamble, they still would have to search a lot, and lose some advantage they could have against the enemy.
Th brits had RADAR and radio-equiped aircraft, they could use their limited range much better.

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by Waynos

Despite its outward appearance as a sort of 'Gladiator Monoplane', the F.5/34 was a completely different aeroplane and was Glosters first foray into stressed skin metal airframes (and was much more modern than the Hurricane). I think its a great shame that Gloster was sidelined between the Glad and the Meteor as both the F.5/34 and the twin engined F.9/37 would have been very useful aircraft. I am actually struck by the similarity of the Gloster with the PZL P.50, they are different aircraft, but the concept would seem identical.

Last thought before closing, take the radial off the front of the F.5/34, remove the cone from the rear fuselage and leave it open, fit a whittle engine, though you will have to make the fuselage slightly fatter, and what does it remind you of now?

Good post, I didn't think about the fuselage being stressed skin.

Perhaps it wasn't the best example for my point I wanted to make, it was just the first which popped up. My point was simply that we need to look beyond the traditional biplane vs single-wing planes. Aircraft development happened gradually and changing wings was just one example of evolution. I-153 vs I-16 is also a good example.

Kris

[Waynos]

I agree there. The older Grumman Helldiver also shared features like an enclosed canopy and retractable u/cart with monoplanes whilst itself being a biplane, while on the other hand the Dewoitine D.500 monoplane fighter had an open cockpit and fixed gear. Yes, the dividing line between the Fury and Hurricane generation is a very blurry and squiggly one.

[Civettone]

Yeah.


The Grumman F-3F and F-4F also come to mind.

Kris

[Clay_Allison]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Yeah.


The Grumman F-3F and F-4F also come to mind.

Kris

The F4F does NOT deserve that. I hate the plane in a lot of ways but the Japanese Zero still could not achieve total air superiority against it. Was the Zero one of the worst planes of the war? We won some air battles with the Wildcat, it was tough enough to let us use the Thach Weave, which is a pretty scary maneuver since one guy has to have a Zero on his ass.

[GrauGeist]

There is no way the F4F falls under the worst category. It performance against the Zero and other adversaries proves it was quite capable of holding it's own.

The kill ratio the Wildcat achieved overall confirms that.

[Waynos]

I think, GG and Clay, you have misinterpreted civettones posts. If you read back over the preceding few posts we were discussing the evolution from biplane to monoplane, one of those digressions from the main topic that always happens in long threads. Examples used were Gladiator to F.5/34 and Fury to Hurricane, F3F to F4F is another example of that evolutionary changeover, it was not offered as an example of the worst of anything.

[Condora]

That kind of "small evolutions on a basic design" has been kept only by Dassault and the russians, most of the other manufacturers change their products a lot, since the 50s.
The designer's touch has almost vanished, in them old days one could tell which manufacturer had designed some aircraft. Now, sometimes you cannot even tell the country of origin...

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by Waynos

I think, GG and Clay, you have misinterpreted civettones posts. If you read back over the preceding few posts we were discussing the evolution from biplane to monoplane, one of those digressions from the main topic that always happens in long threads. Examples used were Gladiator to F.5/34 and Fury to Hurricane, F3F to F4F is another example of that evolutionary changeover, it was not offered as an example of the worst of anything.

exactly! thanks wayons for clarifying that. appreciate it!


Kris

[GrauGeist]

OOps..my bad, didn't see the comparison going on...

The thread has changed a little since I was last in here

Thanks for the headsup, Waynos!

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Waynos

I think, GG and Clay, you have misinterpreted civettones posts. If you read back over the preceding few posts we were discussing the evolution from biplane to monoplane, one of those digressions from the main topic that always happens in long threads. Examples used were Gladiator to F.5/34 and Fury to Hurricane, F3F to F4F is another example of that evolutionary changeover, it was not offered as an example of the worst of anything.

Yeah, that's how I read it, too.
However, the F4F was also a biplane.
It was the F4F-2, and all succeeding versions of that model, that were the monoplanes.


Elvis

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Yeah, that's how I read it, too.
However, the F4F was also a biplane.
It was the F4F-2, and all succeeding versions of that model, that were the monoplanes.


Elvis

That was a subtlety that had completely passed me by, thanks for that Elivis.