Worst aircraft of WW2? (Continued) - Page 51 - Aircraft of World War II

mosquitoman · 06-14-2007, 10:38 PM

good info!
Thanks for proving my point

Graeme · 06-15-2007, 07:37 AM

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 · 06-25-2007, 12:41 PM

Quote:

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 · 07-07-2007, 04:52 PM

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 · 07-07-2007, 08:54 PM

Quote:

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 · 07-07-2007, 10:54 PM

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 · 07-08-2007, 02:44 AM

Quote:

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 · 07-08-2007, 03:00 AM

Quote:

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 · 07-08-2007, 07:51 AM

Quote:

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 · 07-13-2007, 07:50 AM

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 · 07-13-2007, 09:56 AM

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 · 07-14-2007, 04:07 PM

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 · 07-14-2007, 04:24 PM

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 · 07-14-2007, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I think the Boomerang did shoot down one Zero

Well there you go, they scored a Zero!!

flojo · 07-14-2007, 05:13 PM

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

06-14-2007, 10:38 PM	#751
mosquitoman Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Saffron Walden/Sheffield Posts: 2,991	good info! Thanks for proving my point __________________ When you realise that the light at the end of the tunnel is actually an oncoming train, you know it's time to run for your life

07-07-2007, 10:54 PM	#756
Graeme Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,956	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. Last edited by Graeme; 07-08-2007 at 06:24 AM. Reason: add another image

07-13-2007, 07:50 AM	#760
harp Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wiltshire UK Posts: 1	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! Last edited by DerAdlerIstGelandet; 07-13-2007 at 09:57 AM. Reason: Only needed to be one post. There is an edit function.

07-13-2007, 09:56 AM	#761
DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crewchief Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany Posts: 31,700	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... __________________ fly boy said: "isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" syscom3 said: "In fact, UAVs are probably far safer than manned aircraft because they are always aware of whats going on and not distracted by things like coffee being spilled on a lap or "whys this light off, is the light bulb burned out?" Last edited by DerAdlerIstGelandet; 07-13-2007 at 09:59 AM.

07-14-2007, 04:07 PM	#762
Seawitch Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: London Posts: 107	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. __________________ Probably the world's best aircraft... www.seawitchartist.com

06-15-2007, 07:37 AM	#752
Graeme Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,956	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

07-07-2007, 04:52 PM	#754
renrich Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Montrose, Colorado Posts: 3,046	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.

07-14-2007, 04:24 PM	#763
FLYBOYJ IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 15,294	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. __________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"

07-14-2007, 05:13 PM	#765
flojo Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 20	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

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode