Worst aircraft of WW2? (Continued)

[mosquitoman]

good info!
Thanks for proving my point

[Graeme]

Bill Gunston's book lists and describes the following aircraft, around the 1939-1945 period, that "should never have happened". Note that some had no military purpose. A man with a sense of humour, he points out at an early stage in his analyses that "Blackburn Aircraft appear in this book with distressing frequency".

Handley Page Hereford
Brewster SB2A Buccaneer/Bermuda
Breda Ba 88 Lince
Bloch 150
De Havilland DH.91 Albatross
De Havilland DH.93 Don
Airspeed AS.45 Cambridge
LWS Zubr
Romano R.110
Saro Lerwick
Blackburn Roc
Blackburn Botha
Silvanskii's IS
Avro Manchester
Heinkel He 177
Messerschmitt Me 210
Curtiss SO3C Seamew
De Havilland TK.5
Caproni-Campini N.1
Junkers Ju 322 Mammut
Blackburn Firebrand
Bristol Buckingham
Blohm und Voss BV40
General Aircraft GAL.56
Kokusai Ku-105
and......Avro Tudor

[Cub Driver]

Originally Posted by R Pope

The Battle, and even the Roc, were pretty good AIRPLANES, they just weren't very good WARPLANES...

Good point, and not unique to them. The Brewster Buffalo was widely and usually praised as a sweet airplane to fly. In combat, only the Finns had anything good to say about it. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

[renrich]

The Brewster factory had some major problems because even when they were given a good design to build they could not get it built correctly, namely the Corsair.

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

By the way here is a picture of the remains of a Natter at the Sinsheim Museum about 2 hours from where I live. I went there for like the 100th time a few months ago when I too this picture.

This is going WAY back in this thread. The Natter photo puzzles me. It looks to be made of metal with numerous glass portals and a cooling grill. The nose is very long and thin. The Natter was wood construction-"non strategic materials."

Any more details on this Adler?

[Graeme]

Adler, I believe the photo you posted, believing it to be a Bachem Natter, is the remains of a Republic RF-84F Thunderflash.

We are looking at the underside. Half a fuselage, tipped up, with the outer wings missing. The 'wing' remaining is the wing root with jet intake. This root has the wing drop tank outlined in green.

I apologise in advance, if this has already been pointed out to you.

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by Wespe

You sure that it is a myth ?

"Gabby" Grabewski - Americas leading Europe WWII ace? And his bubble gum story in Korea ?

Quote: In July, 1951, now-Colonel Gabreski downed his first MiG, flying an F-86 Sabre jet, despite its unfamiliar new gunsight which he replaced with a piece of chewing gum stuck on the windscreen

Still digging up the past.

My understanding of the 'chewing gum' incident is as follows.

'Kelly' Johnson (Lockheed) visited Korea and discussed with pilots what they wanted in the next generation of fighters. At this point in time, "they were tired of being out-flown by the unexpected MIG-15, and had to some extent tried to rectify things by throwing out all they could from their F-80s, F-84s, F-86s, and F9Fs to get more performance".
Colonel 'Gabby' Gabreski, said 'We're burdened by complicated and heavy devices in big, heavy airplanes. I'd rather sight with a piece of chewing gum stuck on the windscreen.'
Johnson sympathised, and determined to give the USAF more speed and height than it had ever dreamed of. The F-104.

Fighters of the Fifties-Bill Gunston, 1981.

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by Cub Driver

Good point, and not unique to them. The Brewster Buffalo was widely and usually praised as a sweet airplane to fly. In combat, only the Finns had anything good to say about it. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

James Gilbert's book 'The Worlds Worst Aircraft' (1975) mentions the Finnish situation, but points out that the Finnish version was;

"...an early model, a whole ton lighter than later machines; and they had an improved 'export' version of the Wright Cyclone engine, which in any case would have been less prone to its worst fault-overheating-in Finland's climate...Perhaps in truth it was because the Finnish fighter pilots were very good, and highly motivated, whereas the Red Air Force wasn't too hot".

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Graeme

Adler, I believe the photo you posted, believing it to be a Bachem Natter, is the remains of a Republic RF-84F Thunderflash.

We are looking at the underside. Half a fuselage, tipped up, with the outer wings missing. The 'wing' remaining is the wing root with jet intake. This root has the wing drop tank outlined in green.

I apologise in advance, if this has already been pointed out to you.

Hmmm It seems you are correct. At the museum it is listed as a Natter.

[harp]

Me 163 fuselage/production might have been down to Messerschmidt AG, but the powerplant was Walter's. Hindsight says that the use of Z stoff and T stoff might have made the pilots P stoff somewhat, but that's progress. The Walter rocket motor weighed a fraction of a normal fighter engine and propelled the aircraft to 30,000 ft in about 3 mins to make combat with the bombers - which was the main objective.

The further development of advanced weapon systems to fire 50mm shells into the wings of B17s from below at high speed (and it was proven to work too!) suggests that this might have been a development warplane with hazards, but it certainly was not a failure! Its contribution to aviation was immense - albeit at the cost of some poor pilots lives.

Anyway, that's my opinion

Brilliant wit!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What?

There is no need for that second post so therefore I am going to combine them and make them into one post, okay harp.

There is an edit button...

[Seawitch]

Hi All
Well, deciding which is the worst...or the best is obviously highly debatable! If the least successful comes into equation, then I might put my money on Australia's 'Boomerang'...I gather it's the only Fighter in WW2 that never shot down an opponent?
I appreciate there might be none technical reasons why, but those could be interesting too.

[FLYBOYJ]

I think the Boomerang did shoot down one Zero but the Boomerang was a close support aircraft as its limitations as an air to air fighter was realized early in its career.

[Seawitch]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I think the Boomerang did shoot down one Zero

Well there you go, they scored a Zero!!

[flojo]

AFAIK the He162 never shot down an enemy fighter or other type of plane. The only claim, a Tempest, was credited to anti-aircraft-guns by the LW