Worst aircraft of WW2? (Continued)

Graeme · 06-02-2007, 08:22 PM

Quote from earlier..

"the 1st of the British 4-engined heavies it was designed with a short wingspan to fit into existing hangers, and carried all the shortcomings of that decision with it for its like".

Mason in 'The British Bomber since 1914', amazingly points out that...

"A thorough search among design drawings of all Service hangers in use during the 1930s has disclosed none in which the door width was 100 ft."

Most hangers were a "Type C".. with a "door aperture width of 126 feet".

Yet the Stirling specification imposed a wing span limitation of 100 feet..'to fit in existing hangers'.
At the time of its conception it was confidently expected to win the war. (Gunston)

Trautloft · 06-04-2007, 07:16 PM

this wespe guy forgot the meteors great role in destroying v1's

Graeme · 06-05-2007, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trautloft

this wespe guy forgot the meteors great role in destroying v1's

If the total V-I kills by the Meteor of 13 is "great", how would you describe the Tempest's 638 kills?

Trautloft · 06-06-2007, 08:01 PM

its role weren't important bcs of the numbers,which are,compared to the tempest's low indeed,but because the RAF had the source, he could allow himself this 'luxury act' to have a jet-engined squad only to pick the lame attempt of v1's.
also,the possibility to use them against the Me-262 (in case the best piston-engined fail,this worry wasnt necessary tho). to be honest,i think the messer would be victorious on a 1on1.
still,my point been defending the meteor,and refuse it as 'worst'. i told already,il2,explained aswell on page 43 here

Graeme · 06-06-2007, 11:44 PM

[quote=Trautloft;253709]its role weren't important bcs of the numbers,which are,compared to the tempest's low indeed,but because the RAF had the source, he could allow himself this 'luxury act' to have a jet-engined squad only to pick the lame attempt of v1's.

It wasn't just numbers that impeded the total of V-1's destroyed by Meteors.
"Great things were expected from the Meteors, but during their first week of operations they had no success against the flying bombs...something always went wrong. A common cause of failure was the Hispano armament.. Apart from the lack of engine power..restricted maneuverability,..the cockpit visibility was poor".
The Meteor III had a.."tendency to 'snake' at high speeds and this, combined with the heaviness of the ailerons, made it a poor gun platform".
From 'World War II Fighting Jets' by Ethell and Price.
During testing at Boscombe Down in 1944 the Meteor I .."exhibited a natural high frequency oscillation which spoilt aim (the Spitfire IX was 2.3 times as accurate); it was thought possible that this phenomenon was a characteristic of jet aircraft." 'THE SECRET YEARS' by Tim Mason.

Trautloft · 06-09-2007, 08:05 PM

ok.so? i just mean ,the meteor can't be considered as 'worst', you have to check out all factors. and that why i took il2

Graeme · 06-10-2007, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trautloft

ok.so? i just mean ,the meteor can't be considered as 'worst', you have to check out all factors. and that why i took il2

Agreed

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 06-10-2007, 12:04 PM

The Meteor was certainly not the worst aircraft. The only one who thought that was Wespe.

Negative Creep · 06-10-2007, 06:40 PM

When we have aircraft posted that couldn't even take off, I can't really see how you can site the IL-2. Yes it suffered heavy losses, but when you consider small arms fire and German fighters ready to pounce, is it really that surprising? If it hadn't been for that plane, the Soviet Unions would have had a much harder time in turning the course of the war, given the German's usage of tanks and armoured vehicles

witman · 06-11-2007, 06:50 AM

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 06-11-2007, 11:12 AM

Please use the Basic thread for you welcoming. Just saying Hi (especially when it is your first post) is just spamming up a thread.

sturmer · 06-13-2007, 05:20 AM

hi there,
in my opinion the Tupolev TB-3 was the worst plane, it was quickly outdated and underpowered. i even think its a wonder that such a plane even returned to base lol

FLYBOYJ · 06-14-2007, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sturmer

hi there,
in my opinion the Tupolev TB-3 was the worst plane, it was quickly outdated and underpowered. i even think its a wonder that such a plane even returned to base lol

It was used as a transport by the time WW2 started and was just obsolete. In it's day it was the most advanced bomber in the world.

mosquitoman · 06-14-2007, 07:20 PM

Sounds like it had the same problem as the Blenheim- better and faster than any fighter of it's day but stayed in service too long.
I would go for a plane so bad it got entered into service and then was quickly withdrawn because of how bad it was i.e. the Blackburn Botha

Graeme · 06-14-2007, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mosquitoman

Sounds like it had the same problem as the Blenheim- better and faster than any fighter of it's day but stayed in service too long.
I would go for a plane so bad it got entered into service and then was quickly withdrawn because of how bad it was i.e. the Blackburn Botha

Regarding the Botha.
From Bill Gunston's 'Back to the Drawing Board'-(Aircraft that flew but never took off), pp99..
"Service pilots..hated it, perhaps because it was said that when fully laden with crew and warlike stores it could lift only enough fuel for 50 miles flying. I was nearly lynched when I delivered one to an aerodrome whose CO had that very morning grounded a whole squadron, as being too dangerous to operate".