Worst aircraft of WW2? (Continued)

[magnocain]

i dont know.... but i think it is the Potez 25. it was and old french biplane that didnt have a propose. the

All single-engined light bombers failed during WW2.

. what about the Mosquito? it was 2 person, but could have easily been 1 person. nice picture cosimo90

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by magnocain

what about the Mosquito? it was 2 person, but could have easily been 1 person. nice picture cosimo90

I think you mis-read him, He said single engined light bombers, not crewed by a single man.

[Neto]

the p 39 may be. the low power of alison singel engine and very weight airframe gives then bad mobility and poor dogfight capability. If he is a Bomber no problem but the main rolle of p 38 is fighter bomber.. he needs power and manover

[magnocain]

Ok, ya that is right.

All single-engined light bombers failed during WW2

Not to be argumentative, but the TBF Avenger, SBD Dauntless, Swordfish, SB2C Helldiver, and D3A Val were all single engined (mostly light) bombers,(if carrier baised) and were all relatively successful.
That isn't counting the A-1 Skyraider, which was too late for ww2

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by mosquitoman

The Battle, the Roc or the Botha were worse, they were underpowered, slow and had no useful defensive armament

On the ROC's account that's wrong. It only had a useful defensive armament. That was the problem, like the Defiant, a good rear turret but no offensive/foreward-firing gins. A FIGHTER with NO offensive armament!!!

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by Glider

Re the Defiant it should have been possible to make a decent GA aircraft, after all it did go 300mph with a heavy turret and an early Merlin.
Take the turret out put in a rear gunner, couple of 20mm in the wings and you should be able to have a decent bombload. May not be the greatest GA in the world but a lot better than nothiing which is what we had GA wise at the time.
Said before but relavent here

They had the Whirlwind and the Beaufighter didn't they? and the Whirlwind was a good fighter below 20,000 ft. So it could do both roles.

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by Wespe

No I wont, because it was not a prototype, the Meteor and Me-262 never started in 1939, but the development of jetfighters. In the second stage the Germans came out with the "Unstoppable King of the Sky)" and the British with a plane just as good as a Mossie. The MK III was loaded and armed less than 700km fast and was obiously not god enough,otherwise why didn't the RAF use them,like the USAAF who shot down (helpless 262's ) Instead they come up with this frase: Unfortunatly the Meteor did not see combat because the Germans had no more planes. BULLSH...... .
Wespe

Wrong, the Meteor III did serve in the active combat role in early 1945 performing recon and ground attack over germany. Though it never encountered airborne resistance, the closet it came to Jet vs Jet was an attack on a Ar 234 airfield. The meteor's engines may have been draggy but they (derwent I) were more powereful than the 004 and the Derwent IV engine put out 2400 lbf. Along with the Derwent IV and the long chord nacelles (the nacelles not only reduced compressibillity but also speed by 120 kph !) of the last Meteor III's it should have been capable of well over 500 mph. And it wasn't only the materials that made Brit engines more reliable, it was also the simpler and more reliable centrifugal flow compressor that contributed.

The main factor limiting the meteor's development was lack of engine development, since the prototype airframes were ready long before the engines. From the start the RAF had been slugish to fund Whittle's and Power-Jet's development. Even after interest was taken and things seemed to be coming along Power-Jets then got teamed up with Rover in 1941 to develop a production version. Rover was a horrible partner, perferring to work on their own developments of the engine rather than converting the prototype to production. After some time of stagnation Rolls-Royce finally stepped in and offered to take Rover's place and the work was transfered in early '43, the agreement between Rover and Rolls taking place on January 1 1943. This Rover mess delayed production and development by nearly 2 years! Had Rolls initially taken the contract, who knows, the Meteor could have flowd before the Me-262. So this 2 year lag effectively delayed the Meteor's development by 2 years as well as verry little testing could be done without them.

If such development had occured sooner, the US would have kicked into gear sooner too. As it was the Brit buracratic problems resulted in the engines not entering production until the US's version the GE I-16 (J31) was ready for production. The XP-59A flying several months before the first meteor took to the air.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Kool Kitty look at the date of his post. He wrote that a long time ago and we all explained to him he was wrong. The guy no longer posts here either...

[kool kitty89]

Well I read through the whole thread and these were the main things (albeit a little late) that I thought should be noted that haven't been specifically, though granted it might have . (I assume you are talking about Wespe, though the other 2 were old too, I just wanted to refrence them since they seemed to still be interested in the topic...)

And you may have banned Wespe's proxy ( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/members/jabo.html ), but though Wespe doesn't seem to have posted since February, he is not shown as banned...

I'm surprise no one mentioned the Airacomet as the worst, it was certainly behind the Meteor in development. Though I wouldn't considder it the worst there have been so many "bad" planes thrown around you'd think it would have come up. To be honest if the Meteor had had the same development restrictions placed on it and Gloster had had the same problems Bell was going through, the Meteor might have had the same fate.

As I've said before a major problem with the P-59 was a lack of streamlining, wind-tunnel access, and cockpit redesign (though a cockpit redesign wasn't too hard). Even if the thick wings were retained, they would have still been better if they were smaller (lower span and area) and used laminar flow (ie like the P-63's wings) and overall streamlining of the airframe would have helped markedly. Granted, the engine placement had aerodynamic problems, but if one went out no appreciable asymmetric forces were exerted. It would also have been prudent to max out fuel capacity once service quality performance was acheived. Another problem was, due to the secrecy of the project verry few Bell engeneers knew about it so only its design team could develop it using the devlopments on the P-63 which shared many characteristics. Good examples of Bell's aerodynamic capibillities are seen in the P-63, and just look what the managed to get out of a design like the XP-83. (though its performance wasn't great the bulky craft, with all its inherent disadvantages, manage to get up to 522 mph with less than 8000 lbf of thrust for its 27,000 lbs weight)

As it turned out, the P-59 still served well as a testbed and conversion trainer and the single engine XP-59B design was developed by Lockheed into the XP-80.

With streamlining, a cockpit redesign, nacelle critique, better wings, control surfaces and added airbrakes, and increased fuel capacity (same sort of changes the Meteor went through from Mk-I to F. III and Mk 4) the P-59 would have made decent jetfighter.

I also thought someone would have said the Whirlwind (due to initial impressions of this craft, similar to the F2A), though that choice would be quicly explaned away.


As for rocket planes, the Me 163 was only really bad because of its unstable fuel, the airframe was excelent. The Bereznyak / Isaiev BI-1/BI-6
on the other hand had the opposite problem. It never was lost due to engine problems, the engine using realitively stable (and cheaper compared to peroxide and hydrazine) nitric acid and kerosene as fuel. The airframe however was badly flawed, with poor maneuverabillity, and worse horrible high-speed characteristics. If a speed of 750 kph was exceded the a/c would begin an uncontrollable nose-down dive, it would then continue to accelerate even with the power off. (similar to the P-38's problem but worse) BI-6

The M.K.Tikhonravov 302 ( 302 ) was a similar concept, but much better design. The airframe was perfected but the engines failed to materialize.

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

On the ROC's account that's wrong. It only had a useful defensive armament. That was the problem, like the Defiant, a good rear turret but no offensive/foreward-firing gins. A FIGHTER with NO offensive armament!!!

A fighter using a four gun turret, surely this equates as both offensive and defensive armament?

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

They had the Whirlwind and the Beaufighter didn't they? and the Whirlwind was a good fighter below 20,000 ft. So it could do both roles.

Gliders point (IMO) is one concerning timing...

The Defiant was ordered into production in 1937. The Whirlwind in January 1939 and the Beaufighter in mid 1940.

[Trautloft]

the Whirlwind is one of my fav a/c, but it definately wasnt a great design..the peregrine engines been unreliable,thats why it saw limited combat .
the mossie and the beau been far superior

[pbfoot]

As stated earlier I qouted a pilot who had flown 33 different Whirlwinds also Spits and Hurricanes and 2 tours on Mossies which was the start of his 50 year flying career and he states the Whirlwind was his favourite aircraft to fly of all time it was fully aerobatic and unbeatable below 15000 feet , the Peregrine wasn't developed further because RR was fully commited to the Merlin and the designer Petter didn't do it any favours either as he kept pissing of the Air Ministry . Petter later was the major designer of the fabulous Canberra and Lightning

[kool kitty89]

Totaly agree pbfoot, as in the other thread (though that whole discussion has taught me alot too)

At its introduction, the Whirlwind was faster than anithing out there, and it was not just the unreliabillity of the engines, but also general lack of them as the Perigrine was canceled. It was very small and light for a twin (only slightly larger than the Hurricane or Spit) and was quite maneuverable, but the engines resulted in poor altitude performance.(like the P-40 or P-39) It actually served for 3 years, mostly as a fighter-bomber. It was also said to be able to outclimb almost anything out there. The low fuel capacity (135 gal) and lack of drop-tank plumbing likited iths range to 800 miles, making a medeocre escort. And I'd bet it could outfly the Mossie or Beaufighter easily.(below 20,000 ft) Careful streamlining mace for a very clean a/c which is one of the problems of searching for alternative engines as the Peregrines were a key part of the streamlining.

Trautloft, if you want to continue on this discussion see: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...er-8053-5.html (Best Twin-engined fighter)

If you want to continue the

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by Graeme

A fighter using a four gun turret, surely this equates as both offensive and defensive armament?



Gliders point (IMO) is one concerning timing...

The Defiant was ordered into production in 1937. The Whirlwind in January 1939 and the Beaufighter in mid 1940.

Yeah, my bad, but still foreward firing guns would have helped markedly, say 4x .303 guns.

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

The low fuel capacity (135 gal) and lack of drop-tank plumbing likited iths range to 800 miles, making a medeocre escort.

It wasn't designed to be an escort.

The Whirlwind was designed to specification F.37/35. The specification called for a maximum speed of at least 286kts at 25,000ft and the fighter was to carry a sufficient number of forward firing 20mm cannon to “effect a decisive result in a short space of time”. The requirement was for a home defence interceptor, with a good climbing performance and sufficient speed to enable it to bring the battery of cannon to bear on enemy bombers.

No matter how the RAF used the Whirlwind, it’s important to remember that the original specification…

Did not ask for an aircraft that could take on enemy fighters.
Did not call for a particularly long range or endurance.
And it certainly did not ask for an ability to attack ground targets.

You only get what you asked for.