Worst aircraft of WW2? (Continued)

[Parmigiano]

Well, actually the BA88 was NOT good even against an ant nest.
When flown (???) operationally it could not fly without 5° flap, and was always on the limit of stall.
It happened that when they tried a sortie with 3 aircrafts the luckiest one could not even take off, the second barely made a 180 to land immediately and the third could not even manage to make a 180: they had to fly straight until the next airfield and land there!

I believe that the whole plane was a big fake, the record-setting prototype could not possibly be a relative of the production plane, maybe was built with a 'racing' safety factor to reduce weight or had 'racing' engines not suitable for normal service,. Probably both!

[cheddar cheese]

Agreed, it was a truly terrible plane.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

which makes the question what did the italians learn from the Ba-88 all the more interesting

[cheddar cheese]

They learned that Breda should stick to making 12.7mm SAFAT MG's for the planes

[SM79Sparviero]

I believe that the whole plane was a big fake, the record-setting prototype could not possibly be a relative of the production plane, maybe was built with a 'racing' safety factor to reduce weight or had 'racing' engines not suitable for normal service,. Probably both!

Ba-88 prototype , piloted by captain Furio Niclot Doglio , an excellent pilot, could fly over 200 and over 1000 ( !) km without any problems, and it got a speed record with 1000 kg on board. It was not exactly in a " super light" configuration.

It is not possible that such an aircraft was a global failure even if it can't be considered a success at all.
It was not really as heavy as it is commonly considered, neither so wind-charged.I don't remember an heavy fighter that was as stream-lined as Ba-88 in 1939.
We should remember that the prototype had a single rudder and not the twin tail of the serial aircrafts ( Furio niclot himself had serious troubles with the twin rudder configuration) , moreover it had the very reliable Gnome & Rhone 900 HP engines , the serial aircrafts had the first Piaggio PXI 1000 HP "autarchic " engines with the same head as Gnome-Rhone and a longer stroke for an higher displacement, the easiest way to boost power without adding expensive superchargers and without withdrawing the most critical component of the original engine, the head .

It would be too easy. A longer stroke means an higher linear speed of the pistons,an higher energy over rods and other components and an higher risk of failures.
Autarchic components of the engines could not be as efficient as the originals.It means waste of gas from the cylinders and other troubles that can explain the bad performances of the first Piaggio engines and, consequently, of Ba-88.

[cheddar cheese]

Interesting, I've trouble with information about the Ba-88's record prior to this, thanks!

[CurzonDax]

I have noticed that, the Ba-88 included, that the original prototype was always much more of an awesome plane but when you start sticking things like, um, guns, radios, armour, self sealing tanks, etc, etc, etc, you know all those nice extra options that a pilot needs to survive in combat, sometimes will make the plane go from awesome to useless becuase the original designers never took into consideration the wieght of all of these gizmos and options.

:{)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I will be honest I dont know much about Italian aircraft so this is all good info to me.

[V-1710]

That other rocket-powered German aircraft (not the Komet). I think it was called the 'Natter'. Supposedly killed every pilot that tried to fly it. Launched vertically on a rail. Then there was the Heinkel 177.

[Gnomey]

The Natter only flew one pilotted flight which killed the test pilot Lothar Sieber was killed (1st March 1943) after this only unmanned flughts were undertaking and the projected was shelved at the end of March 1943. With only a range of 20km the Natter was correctly designated as a 'manned anti-aircraft rocket'.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I would not place the He-177 Greif into the worst aircraft catagory. She had some problems but overall she was not a bad aircraft. They just needed to get off there ass's and replace the engines with more reliable ones.

[V-1710]

Didn't they try replacing the paired Daimler's with 4 separate engines (HE-277?)?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes that they did but Goering and Hitler order development of it to stop. There was also another development of it called the He-274. The 274 was actually first flown by the French after they captured it in 1945.

Here are some stats on it:

He-274

Type: High Altitude Heavy Bomber
Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG (later assigned to SAUF, Suresnes, France)
Models: V1 and V2
Production: Two prototypes
First Flight: December 1945 by the French
Engine:

Daimler-Benz DB 603A-2 inverted turbocharged V12
Horsepower: 1,850hp
Number: 4

Dimensions:
Wing span: 44.20m (145 ft. 2¼ in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Length: 23.80m (78 ft. 1¼ in.)
Height: 2.10m (6 ft. 10½ in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A

Weights:
Empty: 21,300kg (46,964 lb.)
Loaded: 38,000kg (83,786 lb.)
Performance:
Maximum Speed (Sea Level): 267 mph
Maximum Speed (11,000m): 360 mph (580 kph)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range: 4250km (2,640 miles)
Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: 46,915 ft (14,300m)

Armament:
N/A

Avionics:
N/A

He-277

Type: Heavy Bomber, Recce and Anti-Shipping Aircraft
Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG
Models: V1 to V3, B-5, B-6 and B-7 Series
Production: N/A
First Flight: Late 1943
Engine:
B-5:
Daimler-Benz DB 603A inverted V12
Horsepower: 1,850hp
Number: 4

B-6:
Jumo 213F
Horsepower: 2,060hp
Number: 4

Dimensions:
Wing span (B-5): 31.44m (103 ft. 1¾ in.)
Wing span (B-6): 40.00m (131 ft. 2¾ in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Length: 22.15m (72 ft. 8 in.)
Height: 6.66m (21 ft. 10½ in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A

Weights:
Empty (B-5): 21,800kg (48,067 lb.)
Loaded (B-5): 44,490kg (98,096 lb.)
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 354 mph (570 kph)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range (B-5): 6000km (3,728 miles)
Range (B-6): 7200km (4,474 miles)
Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: N/A

Armament:
N/A

Avionics:
N/A

[Kuna]

Originally Posted by cheddar cheese

Thats like saying the Breda 88 was a good aircraft except for the fact it couldnt fly. Hell, maybe if a church could fly it would be a good aircraft!

Ditto.

[Parmigiano]

Another contender : General Motors (Fisher Body Division) XP 75 'Eagle'

More a fraud than a bad aircraft, it was put together using parts of other planes (Frankenstein-like) only to spare GM from the committment to build parts of B29

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p75.htm