Worst aircraft of WW2? (Continued)

rhit81 · 08-06-2007, 06:45 PM

I have read the whole thread and found it very informative. I am somewhat surprised that more French aircraft have been nominated. I would be inclined to think that the Moraine-Saulnier 406 would have to be the worst aircraft, or at least the most disappointing aircraft, of the war.

It was a design contemporary of the P-36, the Me-109, the F2A Buffalo and Hurricane yet was nowhere near as effective as any of these. It was slaughtered in the Battle of France and disappeared thereafter. The M.S-406 did not even have the excuse of being a "pre-war design" available as it was slaughtered by another pre-war design (admittedly a good one in the ME-109) but a pre-war design nonetheless. No air arm, Allied or Axis, knew anything other than defeat while flying the MS-406. Its poor performance was one of the main reasons the French lost in 1940.

Trautloft · 08-06-2007, 07:59 PM

i have to disagree with you mentioning the MS-406.It claimed a considerable number of german ac, around 200,more then the Hawks or Dewoitines.
They been inferior to the the Bf-109 at that time,the real slaughter happened as Bulgaria tried to fight with them Lightnings and Mustangs in 44'

Vitamin J · 08-09-2007, 09:59 AM

I'd have to say the Primary British Fighter that was used in Japan along with the P-40 Tomahawk,The Brewster Buffalo. They were useless agaist the Japanese. cause it was just like the Japanese planes, no armor.... 5 shots with .30 Calibur and PLOP! Fallin like a lead brick....I pray I don't get reincarnated in the past as a British pilot in Japan.

I would never man one of those flying piece of sh**s

I've seen pictures of P-40's still flying with 70-80 bullet holes.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-09-2007, 10:52 AM

If you think the P-40 was the worst aircraft you need to ask the Flying Tigers who racked up some impressive kills against the Japanese.

FLYBOYJ · 08-09-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vitamin J

I've seen pictures of P-40's still flying with 70-80 bullet holes.

That says it right there - had it been a Zero with that damage it would of been in 70 or 80 pieces.

I suggest some remedial aviation history - start off with some history channel re-runs and work your way up from there...

ToughOmbre · 08-09-2007, 03:49 PM

Any aircraft built by Brewster. If I'm not mistaken the license-built Brewster Corsairs (thank God not many came off the assembly line) were of poor quality and were never flown in combat.

FLYBOYJ · 08-09-2007, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToughOmbre

Any aircraft built by Brewster. If I'm not mistaken the license-built Brewster Corsairs (thank God not many came off the assembly line) were of poor quality and were never flown in combat.

735 Corsairs were built by Brewster and there is NO evidence that I could find to show that these aircraft DIDN'T see combat.

Brewster's quality varied between the late 30s and its ultimate demise in 1946. The company was severely mis-managed, had labor problems and even had some of its corporate officers sued by the Federal Government. The US Navy actually seized the company in 1943...

ToughOmbre · 08-09-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

735 Corsairs were built by Brewster and there is NO evidence that I could find to show that these aircraft DIDN'T see combat.

Stating that they were never flown in combat was a slight exaggeration on my part. Some probably did. My feeling is that most didn't. My source is a Michael O'Leary article in the May 2002 issue of Air Classics, Bent Wing Warrior. O'Leary stated...

"Goodyear proved to be a model of efficiency, delivering Corsairs to combat units at a prodigious rate but Brewster production was disastrous and was terminated after 735 F3As. Pilots considered the F3A to be structurally deficient and to be avoided at all costs. Many of the Brewster-built machines were assigned to training units or shipped to the Royal Navy under Lend-Lease."

FLYBOYJ · 08-09-2007, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToughOmbre

Stating that they were never flown in combat was a slight exaggeration on my part. Some probably did. My feeling is that most didn't. My source is a Michael O'Leary article in the May 2002 issue of Air Classics, Bent Wing Warrior. O'Leary stated...

"Goodyear proved to be a model of efficiency, delivering Corsairs to combat units at a prodigious rate but Brewster production was disastrous and was terminated after 735 F3As. Pilots considered the F3A to be structurally deficient and to be avoided at all costs. Many of the Brewster-built machines were assigned to training units or shipped to the Royal Navy under Lend-Lease."

I've seen the article and know of O'Leary. Take what he writes with a grain of salt. A pilot flying a Brewster, Vought or Goodyear built Corsair wouldn't be able to tell them apart and I cannot see how any WW2 pilot could determine that his aircraft was structurally deficient unless he had strong aircraft maintenance background and really knew what he was looking at (and I could tell you the vast majority didn't).

If the aircraft was structurally deficient, they (Navy and Marine Pilots) wouldn't be allowed to fly them. Now that's not to say that Brewster didn't build some real crap, but eventually those deficiencies had to be corrected for the aircraft to be used operationally at any squadron level....

Knowing what went on at Brewster I doubt the RN would of accepted deficient aircraft, even if they were part of lend lease...

ToughOmbre · 08-09-2007, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I've seen the article and know of O'Leary. Take what he writes with a grain of salt. A pilot flying a Brewster, Vought or Goodyear built Corsair wouldn't be able to tell them apart and I cannot see how any WW2 pilot could determine that his aircraft was structurally deficient unless he had strong aircraft maintenance background and really knew what he was looking at (and I could tell you the vast majority didn't).

If the aircraft was structurally deficient, they (Navy and Marine Pilots) wouldn't be allowed to fly them. Now that's not to say that Brewster didn't build some real crap, but eventually those deficiencies had to be corrected for the aircraft to be used operationally at any squadron level....

Knowing what went on at Brewster I doubt the RN would of accepted deficient aircraft, even if they were part of lend lease...

Your points are well taken. I'll leave it that Brewster built junk, compared to the other manufacturers.

FLYBOYJ · 08-09-2007, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToughOmbre

Your points are well taken. I'll leave it that Brewster built junk, compared to the other manufacturers.

Agree...

BTW I had an uncle who worked for them, he left when labor disputes started then went in the Army.

ToughOmbre · 08-09-2007, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Agree...

BTW I had an uncle who worked for them, he left when labor disputes started then went in the Army.

My dad worked for Curtiss-Wright. After three years in the Navy ('37-'40), he figured he was working on the assembly line for the duration. Got drafted in 1942, got to visit France in 1944...2nd wave Utah Beach.

comiso90 · 08-09-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vitamin J

I've seen pictures of P-40's still flying with 70-80 bullet holes.

How many Zeros have you seen with 70 or 80 holes?

The P-40s had weaknesses thats why P-40 tactics centered and slashing attacks. As long as the didn't get into a turning fight, they stood a good chance against the Japanese.

Crumpp · 08-10-2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:

I'll leave it that Brewster built junk, compared to the other manufacturers.

I think all contractors that sub-contracted had that one company which built the lowest quality product.

For Focke Wulf it seems that Focke Wulf Soren was noted as the top quality manufacturer and was charged with building the "example" aircraft which toured the sub-contractor assembly points. This gave the sub-contractor the quality control standard.

That standard was met with varying degrees of success by sub-contractors. NDW (Dornier) was the quite frankly the worst sub-contractor and was noted for poor quality control. Problems with excessive fuel consumption, excessive vibration of the engine, and airframes not able to meet minimum performance standards are some of the investigations Focke Wulf launched into NDW. IMHO this most likely had to do with NDW’s practice of further subcontracting out to manufacturers located in Neutral countries such as Sweden and Switzerland.

Supermarine also had their problems with subcontractors and the RAF notes "rouge" airframes. This is just a by product of producing a complex piece of mass manufactured machinery.

Just like any aircraft manufacturer, the Contractor has to deliver products which meet the contracted requirements. It is standard for aircraft to be inspected upon delivery and they must meet certain performance minimums before and during ferry to the accepting service. NDW had the highest number of rejected airframe from all the subcontractors. Our Focke Wulf is an NDW airframe, btw!

AFAIK, NDW FW-190's never developed a "bad reputation" with the Luftwaffe fighter force. They certainly did develop one with Focke Wulf, GmbH however.

This brings up another point on production figures. It is highly unlikely all airframes produced will see service. From any given monthly production figure, on average 50% will be rejected outright. These airframes just do not meet quality control standards and are not accepted for delivery. That is one reason initial production figures are so much lower than preceding months. That does not mean they are scrapped, just that they require additional work or refinement to bring them up to acceptance standards. The airframes then go on to be accepted and enter the accounting policies of the company. From that pool of accepted aircraft many will be tied up in maintenance stock by the gaining service. This can be as high as 75% of the airframes accepted but can vary and tends to be lower with entire assembled airframes.

This can be easily seen in the T3 production figures for the BMW801TS engine. Over 4,000 engines were delivered to the Luftwaffe from Feb. 1944 until Dec. 1944. However 75% of these engines were maintenance stock. Some 900 FW-190A9's were produced by Focke Wulf and sub-contractors and a handful of engine upgrades of older airframes to FW-190A9 standards.

So out of 735 Brewster Corsair accepted airframes with a 75% maintenance stock, we are looking at about 180 airframes in the force. Considering the sheer size of the just the USN and not counting exports, the chances of encountering a wealth of experience on "Brewster Corsairs" alone is pretty low just from the end user pool.

Just to break things down so there is not confusion on my point.

Focke Wulf and sub-contractors delivered ~340 FW190A9 airframes to the Luftwaffe by Sep. 1944. The total SE engine fighter strength of the LW is reported to be ~1810 airframes of all types in Sep 1944. Of these about 1/3 are FW-190A fighters or ~ 600 aircraft. Of the 340 FW-190A9's about 85 will be flying in the force during Sep 1944 at any given time or 14% of the total FW190A's. The rest are either down for maintenance or awaiting issue as a replacement airframe. With the engine exchange program began in July 1944 the percentage is probably a tad bit higher but our SWAG is close.

Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen, Jagdverbände

Just some food for thought.

All the best,

Crumpp

FLYBOYJ · 08-10-2007, 11:35 PM

Interesting points Crump, but I'd like to know where you substantiate your rejection rates. Brewster did deliver 735 airframes, signed sealed delivered. Any company operating at a 50% rejection rate won't be in business long and well before that the production management would of been history, unless this was the case in Germany. I worked for Lockheed for a number of years and I was told during WW2, the rejection rate was never above 5%.