# What was the worst Aircraft of WWII?



## Hot Space (Jan 23, 2004)

Ok, Feller's  

Here's one for ya......

What was the worst?

For me it was the Avro Manchester with those 2 awful Rolls-Royce Vulture Engines    ..........but at some point they put 4 Merlins on it and called it the "Lancaster" 8) 

What's your's?

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 23, 2004)

oooooo i know someone who wont be too pleased with that..... me for one. i like the lancaster, but ive always thought highly of the bf-109


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 23, 2004)

No, no. The Lancaster was the BEST Bomber of the War, but I was just saying that it came from the "Failed" Manchester, M8 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 23, 2004)

oh right, i dont know much about planes i just like em, sorry


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 23, 2004)

That's alright. 

Don't worry about it, M8 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## I./JG53_lud13 (Jan 23, 2004)

Germany: Me 163 Komet ( Killed more German pilots at a modest cost to 10 allied aircraft it shoot down. )

USA: P-40 decimated by Germans in Afica but at my houmble opinion way overmodeld in IL-2 FB especialy after 1.22 patch ( Also could be P-39 but Russians put it at good use so....)

GB : Westland Whirlwind ( no comment hehehe )

Japan: Great enigma for me


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 23, 2004)

All good choices, M8 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 24, 2004)

the whirlwind kicked ass!!!!!!!!! but the engines sucked ass i mean if it had twin merlins it could go 422mph but nooooo (we cant spare merlins for best twin engine fighter but we can spare merlins for crappy two seater fulmar fighter)


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 24, 2004)

A very good point there, M8 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 25, 2004)

let's see hear, i'm glad you think the lanc. is the best bomber of the war, it's better than the B-17 *cough* crap *cough*, but the worst, the blackburn b-25 roc, the predecesser to the boulton paul defiant, it was designed the reak havoc in german bomber formations, but it had no chance of catching them with a top speed of 199mph! that or the fairey battle, i mean it was one of the RAF's first monoplanes, but it was only armed with 1, yes 1 .303 machine gun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 25, 2004)

The Fairy Battle I admit, was as bad as the Manchester, but in a different way.

The Manchester was just a flying coffin because of the engines bursting into flames for no reason, while the Battle was just too SLOW and like you say 1 Gun for defence   

The Boulton-Paul Defiant had a top speed of 304 mph at 15,000ft, M8  

Crap in the daytime and just workable as a Nightfighter, but with all the Radar etc..........is was much slower at night  

About 280 mph.

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 25, 2004)

I know the defiant was to put it lightly, not great, but i'm saying the Roc was a hell of allot worse


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 25, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> I know the defiant was to put it lightly, not great, but i'm saying the Roc was a hell of allot worse



A good point (I won't tell him that I didn't read the post properly.......puts head down in embrassment     ), M8

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2004)

ok, i forgive you, i'm feelin generous


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 26, 2004)

8) 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Crazy (Jan 26, 2004)

The Manchester, Komet, and Battle were several of the worst, as you guys said. I'll try to think of more. 8) 

Suprising, isn't it? The best bomber of the war came from the failed Manchester?


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 26, 2004)

Do you know Crazy, that's the 1st time I've heard an American say that the Lancaster was the best bomber of the war 8) 

Cool 8) 8) 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Huckebein (Jan 27, 2004)

Anonymous said:


> the whirlwind kicked ass!!!!!!!!! but the engines sucked ass i mean if it had twin merlins it could go 422mph but nooooo (we cant spare merlins for best twin engine fighter but we can spare merlins for crappy two seater fulmar fighter)



Hmmm, actually they decided that due to the massive power difference between the Peregrine and Merlin engines the Whirlwind's airframe would need considerable redesign for it to be strong enough to use Merlins. I agree it would have been nice to see though - I always thought the same about the P-38...  

My vote for worst aircraft of the war goes to the Vultee Vengeance - so crap that... well, just CRAP! (I forgot the "amazingly crap" reason there - sorry.)  

And Crazy a lot of good aircraft started out as mediocre, or worse, projects - look at the P-51 and Ki-100 (strapping a radial engine onto the indifferent Ki-61)


----------



## Crazy (Jan 27, 2004)

Good point Hucke,


And HS, the B-17 ties the Lanc in the best bomber category 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2004)

still think it's the battle......


----------



## Huckebein (Jan 27, 2004)

heh, but the Vengeance never even made it into combat it was so bad - The RAF received a load, flew one, and concluded immediately that they were totally useless in Europe _and_ the pacific. At least they saw fit to give the Battle a shot...


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 28, 2004)

Crazy said:


> Good point Hucke,
> 
> 
> And HS, the B-17 ties the Lanc in the best bomber category 8)



The Lanc will win...........it's got Merlins 8) 8) 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 28, 2004)

lanc. easily, i mean, it could actually carry more than a matchstick, unlike the b-17


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 28, 2004)

seems to me like the lanc. has resorted to extreme exaggeration  but it seems to me like this crazy guy knows his stuff, and if he says its as good as a lancaster then i believe him


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2004)

thanks..


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 29, 2004)

Could a B-17 carry this:







A 12,000lb Tallboy  

Hot Space


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 29, 2004)

............or this 22,000lb "Grand Slam" Bomb:






Hot Space


----------



## Andrew (Jan 30, 2004)

Don't forget the Fairey Baracuda , which had to be one of the worst war planes ever . 


Andrew
1st Post


----------



## nutter (Jan 30, 2004)

the brewster buffalo what a pile of crap

as for the defiant if they'd have put some guns on the front it could have been half desceent a bit like an il-2


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2004)

hey, the IL-2 was a good plane.............................


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 30, 2004)

As these Pics didn't come out, I'll post them again:

A 12,000lb "Tallboy" Bomb.






And a Lanc dropping a 22,000lb "Grand Slam" Bomb.






Hot Space


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 30, 2004)

HOLY SHIT THOSE BOMBS ARE BIG!!!!!!!!! but plz lets get back to the original topic of shitty planes


----------



## Crazy (Feb 2, 2004)

I've seperated these topics to keep this one on the subject of aircraft. The IL-2 topic is now in the CS forum


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 2, 2004)

ok sry for posting that here in the first place its just i thought there would be more replies here (logically)


----------



## Crazy (Feb 2, 2004)

rgrt, it's ok.  

I'm just trying to keep things organized. It's more likely that people with FB would find it in the CS forum, though. Not everyone that comes here for my forums reads these topics


----------



## nutter (Feb 5, 2004)

i do


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2004)

good for you...............


----------



## Crazy (Feb 5, 2004)

now Lanc, where are your manners? tut tut. nutter is a high-standing Hells Gazelle


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 5, 2004)

And I'm the Captain of the Hells Gazelles so be careful I don't shoot your butt off  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2004)

sorry


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

8) 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## trackend (Feb 7, 2004)

OK guys. Worst aircraft Horsa Glider.
More a flying brick than a plane.
Normal landing procedure.
1. link arms to avoid all ending up in the cockpit.
2. lift feet to avoid removal when the floor is ripped out
3. always carry trenching tools to bury the pilot who exit the aircraft via the front windscreen.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 7, 2004)

hahaha    i hope you arent being serious about that


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 8, 2004)

no way, the horsa wasn't that bad


----------



## trackend (Feb 8, 2004)

Oh yes it was Kicks. 
My old man was a matlot in L.C.A,s and on D-Day he saw at least 10 in his sector alone (Arromanche) loose the C47 tugs due to ack ack and the poor sods came down right into enemy lines like sacks of sxxx cos the was no where to land and the 88's peppered them with air burst's.
Once you are cut loose there's only one way you are going to head and that ain't up! 
One other thing, (Cheddar) it was normal procedure to link arms and lift feet as the Germans liked to erect little obsticals like danet wire between post's or low walls just for the benifit of glider borne troops. 
ps if you dont think that thats the worst howbout the AVRO ROTA


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 8, 2004)

still think it was the battle 1 count 'em 1 machine gun for armourment


----------



## Plum (Feb 9, 2004)

smile you got frenchies


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 9, 2004)

what?


----------



## Crazy (Feb 9, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 9, 2004)

still don't get it?


----------



## Crazy (Feb 9, 2004)

I don't either, but hell, it was funny anyway


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 9, 2004)

stop taking the mik


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 9, 2004)

[this is a german condor in spanish colours


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2004)

yeah, that was ment to be a crying face, dunno why i put up a car


----------



## Viper (Feb 10, 2004)

thats sweet

Reactions: Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Viper (Feb 10, 2004)

Viper said:


> thats sweet


it put it in the wrong place it was sopesed to go at the grand slam bomb picture,that was awsome


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 11, 2004)

you see, you're taking the mik again


----------



## Viper (Feb 11, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you see, you're taking the mik again


suck it up princess


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 11, 2004)

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 11, 2004)

wut?


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 11, 2004)

What does "Suck it up princess" mean?

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 11, 2004)

lol.....it means pretty much to not whine about it


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 11, 2004)

I see   

Hot Space


----------



## Andrew (Feb 12, 2004)

Huckebein said:


> heh, but the Vengeance never even made it into combat it was so bad - The RAF received a load, flew one, and concluded immediately that they were totally useless in Europe _and_ the pacific. At least they saw fit to give the Battle a shot...



The Vultee Vengeance was used by the IAF/RAF, in the campaign againt the Japs in Burmah , where it apparently performed quite well .

Andrew


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 12, 2004)

It wasn't that bad a Dive Bomber, really 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 12, 2004)

Hot Space said:


> I see
> 
> Hot Space


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 13, 2004)

the wings were strange....


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 13, 2004)

Anyway, back on topic, the Whitley and the Battle were both easy meat for the Germans, so they get my vote.


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 13, 2004)

The Whitley wasn't really that bad, just too slow, but the Battle was a Death Trap.

Hot Space


----------



## Andrew (Feb 13, 2004)

I am stiill convinced that the worst Aircraft of WW2 , was the Fairey Barracuda 1 , it use to fall out of the sky without any assitance from the Germans . The Barracuda had a structual weakness in it's tailplane , which caused it to fall off occaisonally , and not only that it was very slow , and not very manoeuvrable , this is despite the fact that it was powered by a Rolls Royce Merlin. The Barrcuda 2 was a slightly better aircraft .

Andrew


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 13, 2004)

In a way, you could say that about the Seafire: Fine in the Air, but landing and Take Off 

Hot Space


----------



## Andrew (Feb 13, 2004)

The problem with the Seafire's landing gear , was a design flaw not really a structual weakness , the landing gear was designed to land on grass airfirlds , not the pitching deck of an Aircraft Carrier doing 30Knots . The design of the landing gear of the last mark of Seafire was changed , and it was much stonger . 

The Seafire could not operate from Escort Carriers , as they had a maximum speed of 17knts , and so you would need quite a head wind to operate Seafire's effectively , which is where the problem with Landing Seafire's arose , as they were expected to operate off the beaches of Salerno , from Escort Carriers with no head wind , and they repeatedly crashed into the barrier , or bounced heavily and broke their landing gear .

Whereas it was found with proper training and the right conditions , that the Seafire could operate effectively from Fleet Carriers , as they had a much Larger Flightdeck , and a much higher speed .

Seafire's in high wind conditions did not need much of a takeoff run .

Andrew


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 13, 2004)

speking about falling out of the air without help, what about the Manchester?


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 13, 2004)

The Manchester couldn't even get into the Air    

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 13, 2004)

hey,i had an uncle who completed 50 missions in a manchester and got to go home,lol


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 14, 2004)

nice... 8) isnt that two tours?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 14, 2004)

i think a tour is 30 raids


----------



## Archer (Feb 14, 2004)

I think the length of tours depended on what you were doing. Fighter pilots in the Pacific had to do three six week tours before going home, and I've heard both 30 and 50 I think for bombers in Europe.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 14, 2004)

i suppose it depends on which country you were for bombing in europe....


----------



## Viper (Feb 16, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i think a tour is 30 raids


i dont know but i asked my family and i have a original picture of his bomber and it has 50 mission stars on the side.ill try and scan it if i fix my scanner


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 16, 2004)

It could also mean that the Bomber did 50 Missions as well, M8  

But in the U.S.A.A.F it started off at 25 Missions then 30, sometimes more near the end of the War with Bomber Crew's, but in the beginning, if they Bombed France for example they would only get a Half Mission Credit.

Hot Space


----------



## Archer (Feb 16, 2004)

That just illustrates how important France is...


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 16, 2004)

Hot Space


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 16, 2004)

A typical RAF Bomber Command 'tour' was 30 operations. Afterwards you'd typically get 6 months 'rest' at an Operation Training Unit or suchlike then you could volunteer for another tour, this one comprising 20 operations. The second tour usually was not with the original crew (maybe one or two members if it could be 'swung') or even in the original airplane type. Many Lanc pilots and Navigators flew a second tour on Mosquitos for example. If one was masochistic (or patriotic enough, depending on your definition) to do a 3rd tour that would comprise 30 'ops', then 20 etc. An aircraft bearing 50 'mission marks' on the fuselage indicates the airplane has completed 50 'ops' and bears no real reflection on the crew's experience although often crews would have a 'regular' plane they shared with other crews.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2004)

thanks for that


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 19, 2004)

Going back to the original subject of the worse plane?

I think the Boulton Paul Defiant had to rate pretty high on the top ten 'crap' planes of WW2 i mean it was essentially a Hawker Hurricane with a revolving turret with 4 .303 machine guns - it had a crap top-speed (cos the turret weighed it down) no forward firing weapons (except in the turret) and the turret was slow to turn meaning a quick figter like an ME 109 could pepper it full of bullets and get away before the turret even turned to face it -the only reason why the Defiant had a little sucess when it first came out was because German pilots thought it was a Hurricane and snuck up behind them and got shot up but the turret - as soon as the Germans realised that it was a new type of fighter they shot them down in droves!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2004)

the B-25 Roc was worse, it was the paul defaints predecessor


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 22, 2004)

Not nessasarily - the Skua was even older than the Roc and it had quite alot of success - it depends what role it had and who it flew against but having said that - the Roc was a crappy plane


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)

yeah, it's just that i get really anoyed when people diss the paul defaint, cos the Roc was allot worse


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 24, 2004)

Are you a big fan of the Paul Defiant then? I must admit i used to get irritated when people said it was crap...it wasn't really that crap, i mean it was actually quite a good night fighter i was told  just really not suited to the role it was first given thats all but having said that they DID stop building them quite early in the war...


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 24, 2004)

the german 162 salamander the thing was made of wood and had a jet engine straped on the top!


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 24, 2004)

The 162 Salamander was one of the aircrafts with jet propulsion.
It was about 100 miles faster than any other aircraft of the Allies.
It was made of wood because all other resources like steel were used for things like Tanks or what ever.
And wood is light.
And do you the mosquito ?
It was build of wood, too!


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 25, 2004)

HE 162 was an amazing aircraft, 6 WEEKS from initial plans to production, got to be some kind of record!

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 25, 2004)

Yeah, it must be some sort of record cos the quickest kind of design and production effort that i heard of was in Australia with the Commonwealth Boomerang which took about 5 months to design and build. It was done in a big rush because the Australians only had a handful of Brewster Buffalos to protect themselves from the Japanese (lets face it, wouldn't that scare anyone into designing their own fighter??!) - mind you the He162 was a jet and the Boomerang was a good old-fashioned propeller aircraft (I'm not a big fan of Jets and my knowledge about them is lacking - which i'm sure is more than evident on my 'best jet' poll  )


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2004)

i aint a fan of jets either, modern combat planes are all so boring  give me an old propeller plane rather than a modern jet fighter anyday 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 25, 2004)

Yep, thats exactly how i feel, modern planes all look the same and totally lack any kind of interesting background or character. you can look at any WW2 aircraft (even the terrible ones) and they all have an interesting past


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2004)

yup, they sure do 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 25, 2004)

So how did you get interested in planes then? over-enthusiastic parent or off your own back?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2004)

im afraid the lanc is responsible  he draws planes and i started asking about them and then he showed this site and now i love em 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 25, 2004)

Oh cool - assuming you live in the UK...have you ever been to places like Duxford or Hendon? they both have amazing collections - if you haven't you don't know what you've missed!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 25, 2004)

yeah, i got him interested, and i'm thinking of planning a trip to the fleet air arm museum, it's the closest one to us


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 25, 2004)

The Fleet air arm place in Yeovil? yeah i've been there, no Lancasters though - they have full sized lancs at Duxford and Hendon though - you really don't get a true impression of how big those planes are til you stand next to one - forget the B-17, Lancs are HUGE


----------



## Viper (Feb 25, 2004)

yep,im looking at it right now,50 stars,thats wiered


----------



## aussie jim (Feb 26, 2004)

No mention of the Hallibag  ..not that it was the worst mind you but the guys sure where hanging out for the Lancs when they heard they were getting them ...also regards missions (just a footnote really) when they did a mission to Italy early in the war they used to paint an ice cream cone on the plane instead of a bomb as it was considered a "milkrun" lol. 

But back on topic- i think the battle is fairly well up there on my list of planes never to fly near any axis planes if i ever drop into a timewarp


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2004)

> Oh cool - assuming you live in the UK...have you ever been to places like Duxford or Hendon? they both have amazing collections - if you haven't you don't know what you've missed!



nope i havent been anywhere like that, yet....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2004)

ohhhhhhhhh, yet, i'm thinking this would make a good reality show- agroup of men take on the M5, to reach their life long dream of visiting, a museum- what do you say?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 26, 2004)

I say you're a sarky G**!


----------



## aussie jim (Feb 26, 2004)

Well- someone needs to foot my bill from Oz 8) ..and if its a reality show they might as well take us for a trip over the Ruhr in the Lanc to make it worthwhile


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 27, 2004)

Yeah, I'd be a goer for that Aussie. I'd certainly like to visit Hendon et al and the Ruhr should be nice in the Spring.

Just think a mere few thousand Euro and you can have the blessing of Aussie and I in your homes!

Kiwimac


----------



## aussie jim (Feb 27, 2004)

You bring the ice and ill get the beer Kiwi 8)


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 27, 2004)

Gotta have *iced* beer, drinking it warm is HIDEOUS!

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2004)

> ohhhhhhhhh, yet, i'm thinking this would make a good reality show- agroup of men take on the M5, to reach their life long dream of visiting, a museum- what do you say?



oooooo the M5, youre an ambitious one


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2004)

hey, it's so cheap, ITV might take it on? hell, they took pop idol, and this is well better


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2004)

true 8) but it would probably go to channel 5


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2004)

or channel 4?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2004)

yeah probably, or some channel that you can only get in west slovakia


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2004)

the slovakains would like that i bet


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2004)

probably 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2004)

that's stereotyping C.C................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 29, 2004)

you said it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 29, 2004)

no, you did.................


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 29, 2004)

He's behind you   

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 1, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 1, 2004)

IIIIIIIIII..................don't get it?


----------



## Viper (Mar 1, 2004)

i looked to see how much it is to have a ride in a 17,its 1200$american for each person for half an hour....a bit pricey


----------



## Viper (Mar 1, 2004)

thats in sentimental journey


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 1, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> IIIIIIIIII..................don't get it?



Panto  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 2, 2004)

Hot Space said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > IIIIIIIIII..................don't get it?
> ...



Irealise it's panto, i just didn't get why he said "he's behind you"?


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 2, 2004)

That's what they say when the Villan is behind the Good Guy  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 2, 2004)

i know that!!!!!!!!!!!, i just wanna know why he said it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 3, 2004)

The Poles had a fighter called a PZL P.11 with a gull-wing design that they used against the Germans during the invasion - it was a pretty crappy fighter so the poles designed another fighter but because it was a 'secret' operation the only prototype was shot down by Polish AA guns cos they'd never seen one before and assumed it must have been a kraut - that has to rate among the silliest things to happen during wartime! 

My point being the P.11 has to be one of the worst planes as with the Russian I-153 biplane (early design leading to Polikarpov I-16 a much better fighter!)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2004)

> that has to rate among the silliest things to happen during wartime!



that's nothing, i was reading an account about a HE 111 that was forced to land in a brittish airfield (don't know why) and before the ground crew could shoot at it, they had to radio in for permission, however by the time they had got permission, the HE 111 had turned around and had taken off again!!!!!!!!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 3, 2004)

That IS weird! i suppose if they had just shot at it they could've killed airmen with vital information that they could have 'interrogated' them for - plus if they shot up a big plane like that on the runway and blew it up - it would block the runway off and so emergency fighter scrambling would've been impossible...i would guess thats the reason..anyone else with any ideas?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2004)

maybe the bloke in charge of the airfield was a close friend of the he-111 pilot and let hm go 8)


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 3, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> The Poles had a fighter called a PZL P.11 with a gull-wing design that they used against the Germans during the invasion - it was a pretty crappy fighter so the poles designed another fighter but because it was a 'secret' operation the only prototype was shot down by Polish AA guns cos they'd never seen one before and assumed it must have been a kraut - that has to rate among the silliest things to happen during wartime!
> 
> My point being the P.11 has to be one of the worst planes as with the Russian I-153 biplane (early design leading to Polikarpov I-16 a much better fighter!)



The I-153 was built after the I-16 and a more advanced aircraft. If FM are anything close in IL-2FB Sim, then I can tell you I-153 can do circles around the I-16 Rata.


----------



## Crazy (Mar 3, 2004)

The I-153 can do circles around a lot of the early planes 8) (Early=1939)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 4, 2004)

Its true Biplanes are more manouvarable than monoplanes but that doesn't mean they are better - i'm sure an I-16 could make short work of the I-153


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 4, 2004)

I-153







Technical details

Constructed by: Nikolai N Polikarpov.

Type: Single-seat fighter (15bis and 153 fighter-bomber).

Powerplant: (I-15) one 700 hp Svetsov M-25 (Wright "Cyclone"), (I-15bis) 750 hp M-25B, (I-153) 1 000 hp M-63, all nine-cylinder radial piston engines.

Dimensions: Span 9,13 m, (I-15bis) 10,21 m, (I-153) 10 m; length 6,29 m, (I-15bis) 6,33 m, (I-153) 6,17 m; height 2,92 m, (I-15bis) 3,0 m, (I-153) 2,82 m.

Weights: Empty 1 180 kg, (I-15bis) 1 305 kg, (I-153) 1 440 kg; maximum loaded 1 370-1 422 kg, (I-15bis) 1 900 kg, (I-153) 2 010 kg.

Performance: Maximum speed 360 km/h, (I-15bis) 370 km/h, (I-153) 430 km/h; 
rate of climb some 765 m/min; 
service ceiling 10 000 m, (I-15bis) 8 000 m, (I-153) 10 700 m; 
range 720 km, (I-15bis) 450 km, (I-153) 480 km.

Armament: (I-15) four (sometimes two) 7,62 mm DA or SjKAS machine-guns in the fuselage; (I-15bis) same as the I-15 plus two 50 kg bombs or six RS-82 rocket projectiles; (I-153) same as the I-15 but with 75 kg bombs.

History: First flight (TsKB) October 1933, entered service in 1934, (I-15bis) entered service in 1937, (I-153) entered service in 1939.
Used by: Finland (captured Soviet aircraft), China, Soviet Union, Spain (both sides).

I-16






Technical details

Specifications (I-16 Type 24):
Engine: One 1,000-hp M-62 radial piston engine 

Weight: Empty 1,475. kilos., 
Max Takeoff 2,060. kilos.

Wing Span: 8.9 ms.
Length: 6.088 ms.
Height: 2.17 ms.

Performance:

Maximum Speed at 3,048 ms: 490 Kph
Ceiling: 9,470 ms
Range: 600 kilometres

Armament:
Four 7.62-mm (0.3-inch) Sh KAS machine guns (Two in forward fuselage; two in wings)

Up to 200 kilos of bombs or six RS-82 rockets on underwing racks

Although the I-16 was faster, it was both less manouevrable and more unstable in flight. The I-153 seems to have carried the heavier armament so all things being equal perhaps the I-153 would have come out on top.

my 0.23c

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 4, 2004)

cool 8)


----------



## SINKA (Mar 4, 2004)




----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 5, 2004)

The I-16 Unstable? is it true that it had a habit of stalling in flight but....i bet the I-153 wasn't stable enough to physically ram enemy aircraft out of the sky and remain airbourne itself...the I-16 could and did it was incredibly tough and stable


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 5, 2004)

that's very true.................


----------



## Archer (Mar 5, 2004)

Stability for aircraft doesn't mean how structurally sound/strong the airframe is. Its got to do with aerodynamic force acting on the plane and the likes and _not_ being able to fly into another plane and continue flying.

Examples:
The SB2C Helldiver had unsatisfactory low-speed stability, it was unstable in high-speed dives, and 


> Each of the twelve Helldivers would carry a 1,000 pound bomb in the internal bomb bay, a 260 pound fragmentation bomb under one wing and a droppable wing tank under the other wing. The drop tank weighed substantially more than the 260 pounder so it was anticipated that the Helldivers might be a bit unstable on takeoff.



The P-51D had pretty bad directional stability when the spin was taken off of the B/C versions and a bubble canopy was added due to the lost keel area, so they put on a dorsal fin to provide for better directional stability.

And specific to the I-16:


> The aircraft soon proved to be rather difficult to fly - it was almost unstable under all three axes, and had to be flown with ceaseless attention.


From http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/aircraft/i16.htm



> In actual fact, the I-16 became quite unstable and required more attention from the pilot since it reacted to the slightest handling. Nevertheless, the I-16 boasted an excellent airspeed.


http://www.flugzeugwerk.net/I-16.htm



> First some comments on planes involved in this conflict. The main Soviet fighters in Mongolia were Polikarpov I-152 biplane (I-15bis in Russian parlance) and Polikarpov I-16 Type 10 monoplane (better known as the Rata). According to "mutual support" doctrine the more agile biplanes had to engage enemy fighters so that monoplanes could simultaneously bust the bombers. You certainly wonder why it wasn't the other way round. The cause was in unstable flying characteristics of I-16--it simply could not hit anything smaller than a decent two-engined bomber. I'd like to quote the book Fighters of WW II edited by David Donald (Grange Books 1998, p 132): "Trying to bring guns to bear on another aircraft needed great skill and concentration... Any prolonged air combat, or tight turns, needed great skill and experience if the aircraft (I-16) was not to flick and spin." Such teamwork between mono- and biplanes had functioned in Spain and (not so well) in China, where biplane losses were already higher.


http://www.danford.net/nomon2.htm

Without knowing anything about the I-16, I would assume it was unstable if Google found many sites when the search words are "I-16 unstable", or else there's a very large misunderstanding.


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 5, 2004)

Woman:







36-26-36

I'm in a silly mood today   

Hot Space


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 6, 2004)

yes i can tell...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 6, 2004)

i think we all can........................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 6, 2004)

Archer i don't know enough about the I-16 to argue any further points, i'll bow to your superior knowledge on this one - i must admit i had heard the I-16 was a bitch to fly but i didn't know the extent of the problems it encountered - i shall sit corrected  


cheers


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 6, 2004)

Just as a general point of interest - is it true that the reason the Americans so stubbornly insisted on daylight bombing raids was because they said that you could bomb better in daylight cos you could see the target? if thats true wouldn't the Norden bombsight have iradicated that problem? i heard it knew exacly where the target was gonna be as it took the aircrafts speed etc etc to calculate when they'd be over a target - and does anyone know where the expression "drop the bomb right in the pickle barrel" did they actually manage that or is it just a daft expression? Please don't tease me too harshly if i got it stupidly wrong! i don't know much about the subject


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 6, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> yes i can tell...



    

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 7, 2004)

are you questioning the integeraty of that statement HS?


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 7, 2004)

Nah, I'm too thick to question anybody   

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 7, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 7, 2004)

8)


----------



## SINKA (Mar 8, 2004)

hmmmm


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 8, 2004)

You people are seriously worrying at times

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2004)

at times? damn i aint being worrying enough, it should be all the time


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 8, 2004)

yeah, and Amy worries about you more than she does me *sniff*


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2004)

thats more due to the reason that everyone loves me 8) is it too late to question if my statement is genuine or not?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 9, 2004)

amy? i thought it was helen.... o well just  old me getting myself confused in things and im just wondering, but how come u europeans prefer msn messenger over AIM? aim is so much simpler....


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 9, 2004)

perhaps that is the reason. no-one likes to be thought simple.



Kiwimac


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 9, 2004)

but ppl are lazy so isnt simplicity a good thing? (on a random note, i got new shoes! i can run now without my feet hurting! yay!) (11½ size at 13 btw heheheheheh or 44-45 or something like that in europe hehehehhehe)


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 9, 2004)

11.5 eh, I take a twelve!

Big feet means LAND TAXES!

kiwimac


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 9, 2004)

??? land taxes ??? but ur like 43 or something, im 13 and i meant something else whilst boatsing my shoe size (hehehehhehe)


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 9, 2004)

HAHAH! O very funny, I am splitting my sides with laughter, how witty and original! 

Kiwimac


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 9, 2004)

i know 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2004)

> amy? i thought it was helen.... o well just old me getting myself confused in things and im just wondering, but how come u europeans prefer msn messenger over AIM? aim is so much simpler....
> _________________



yup it is helen, i was joking about the fact that everyone loves me 8) and msn is just better, i have both however and i think msn has better features


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2004)

well me dad's got size 13 feet so there.................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 9, 2004)

ur dad is prolly like 45 or somehting of the sort im 13!!! with size 11½ nikes and i guess msn is better but AIM is easier im wert4580 btw


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 9, 2004)

I'm Size 12  

Hot Space


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 10, 2004)

hahahahah ah yes i want to know hs are you part of the coming Fourth Reich? me and kiwi are the main leaders... join us! join us! you will have to sooner or later anyway...

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 10, 2004)

I'll join as I can bring Goverments down from within  

Hot Space


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 10, 2004)

ah but not this one... youll see, youll ALL see!

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 10, 2004)

im size 12 too, but remember im only 14 8) and if you wanna know how tall i am, then tough


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 10, 2004)

ohoh, if you really wanna know how tall he is, ask me


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 10, 2004)

No,!

We will have no sizeism in the Fourth and a Half Reich! All people will be the same height! Und we have the Axes and racks to make sure of that!!!!!

FVS Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 10, 2004)

well, atleast give as prefered height?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 10, 2004)

ill end ths bickering, im 6 foot 3 8) happy now?


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 10, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> ill end ths bickering, im 6 foot 3 8) happy now?



And you're 14..................WOW  

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Mar 10, 2004)

most of us are 13 and 14,im 14


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 10, 2004)

I'm shocked at the Height and Shoe Size of you young 'un's  

Hot Space


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 10, 2004)

HOLY SHIT-A-JONES! (pronounced hones like cajones) that is tall! but too tall unfortunately as the height will be 5'8 so get ready to lose 7 inches! but u will have time to shrink as i will only attack Britain in 2006 while i am in Germany for world cup if im drunk u guys get more time to assassinate me but if not... get ready to lose height! (and crooked teeth as everyone will get braces of some sort to detract the famed british ugliness down a notch)

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 10, 2004)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT ONLY ARE THERE ADS THERES A CENSOR BOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY IS THE SITE WORSENING?!?!??!!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 10, 2004)

It is mine, little Reichmarschall, it raises the frustration level nicely and makes our eventual take over much more likely.

FVS Kiwimac


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 10, 2004)

i am quite confused my Fuhrer... please explain...

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 11, 2004)

i never thought id see the day someone would be more obsessed with taking over the world than me  however, my ambition is to make communism rule all and for the soviet union to dominate 8) thats why my flag has been ussr since i joined the site 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 12, 2004)

HEY! i just noticed that! wow i feel stupid now! just like today i was playing capture the flag and this guy was standing on his side acroos from me and he said "hey! look at that seagull!" and he pointed in a different direction and i was stupid enough to look, and taking advantage of my stupidity he ran to get the flag! great job c.c! make me look like an idiot! (or should it be feel like an idiot?)

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 12, 2004)

hey chedder
i'm with you on that one....I intend to become a local mp under the pretence of labour....get in to power....then when the people vote me pm....thats it...i'll dictate the country....show the world how great communism is and we shall rule the world!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2004)

> make me look like an idiot



make you look like one? im just reinforcing the fact that you are one 8) COMMUNISM RULES


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 12, 2004)

no, rulers rule and geogology rocks....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2004)

thats rather a cliché


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 12, 2004)

AH! As Fuhrer of the Fourth and a Half reich I promise to be both as efficient as the Communists and much more humourous!

FVS Kiwimac


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 12, 2004)

You lot are all mad   

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2004)

> and much more humourous!



are you implying that we're not funny?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2004)

communism is the height of humour 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2004)

yeah, what he said..........................


----------



## Sudden_strike (Mar 13, 2004)

I./JG53_lud13 said:


> Germany: Me 163 Komet ( Killed more German pilots at a modest cost to 10 allied aircraft it shoot down. )



Hello, my first post on this forum.
I`m a big Luftwaffe fan, and I just have to correct you here:
though the Komet was a failure as an intercepror statistically, it set a number of records wich involved the fastest interception of a Mustang P-51 at about 10 Km altitude for under 5 minutes, an unofficial speed record of 1004 km\h (later the me262 went supersonic with Mutke as the pilot, beating even that), and a great deal of knownledge abou near-sonic flight for the Germans.


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 13, 2004)

It nice to see new folks shooting down other because they know that they are right 8) 

Hot Space

BTW Welcome to the Site, M8


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 13, 2004)

Ah Joy and Happiness!

Welcome, Welcome, Thrice welcome Sudden_Strike.

I too am a great fan of German WW2 ( WW1 FTM) aircraft.

FVS Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2004)

erm, in keepin with the theme, welcome


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 14, 2004)

Did the Serbs build any planes during WW2


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2004)

or the Irish?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 14, 2004)

The Irish just flew ours (Hurricanes,Gladiators, Spitfires etc)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2004)

yeah, there's a book advertised in Flypast celebrating the 100th aniversary of "the irish flying corps" me and C.C. were kinda baffled by it.........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2004)

we sure were


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2004)

before now i never realised how much stuff you can get on ebay (that wasn't a free plug for the site.......)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 21, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yeah, there's a book advertised in Flypast celebrating the 100th aniversary of "the irish flying corps" me and C.C. were kinda baffled by it.........................



Have you heard the one about the Irish Kamikaze Pilot?


Flew 28 missions


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2004)




----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

Bronze.....i seem to recollect recieving a message from you advising me to lay off the americans....now it appears that you have completly gone against what you mentioned to me and insulted Americans, french, cornish, welsh and now the irish! And you have the cheek to accuse me of being nationalist/racist?? Sort it out mate!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 22, 2004)

Theres no cheek involved mate...i don't recall ever having a pop at the Welsh...i make glancing blows at the French and the Yanks cos lets face it - they're very easy targets and theres only one frenchman on this site and hes my mate so we don't worry..
besides my abuse is very subtle and lighthearted...you wouldn't know subtle if you were hit by a huge train with the word 'subtle' painted on it with big red letters

 

difference between me and you? you go over the top, i stay under it


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

i shall to choose to ignore your insults! I Shall Resist (well for at least a minute or two)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 22, 2004)

Oh you mean give yourself a few hours to think up a good comeback?  ...don't worry mate...i'll wait patiently...hope its a good one


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

uh oh, i knew i shouldnt have left you 2 bickering.....


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

Back to the subject in hand......

I am unsure about how to justify the worst aircraft but one that does come to mind is the Manchester. I understand it to be a good enough aircraft, but the engines were rather unstable...to the point of just randomly catching fire. I cant really add much more as my knowledge doesnt stretch much further and i reallyt cant be arsed at the moment to go look it up...I am sure there are many bad aircraft...it just depends on how you catogerise them....Is it a bad aircraft because it has no speed, or because it is unreliable, or because it cant carry much arms, it may not have much distance. I really dont know!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 22, 2004)

The Avro Manchester WAS the Avro Lancaster (technically)- the only real difference was the Engines! once they got rid of the Crappy twin Vulture setup and put four decent rolls royce engines on it it became one of the best bombers in the war - not really fair to call it the crappiest...i don't even really consider it a bomber in its own right - it never saw much service (if any at all - not sure) and once its engines where changed it was a fantastic plane and called the Lancaster...i just refer to the Manchester as the prototype for the Lancaster! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

i like to think that avro were just experimenting with external combustion engines on the manchester - it wasnt that bad, not worst aircraft of the war anyway 8) the stuka gets my vote for that


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

i'm not saying it wasn't. We all know i think and can acknowledge that the lanc was a good plane.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

yes it was good. ugly, but good 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 22, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> i'm not saying it wasn't. We all know i think and can acknowledge that the lanc was a good plane.



'Good' is an understatement - it was groundbreaking...literally!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

bit weak in the armour department, but great everywhere else 8) (cept looks)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 22, 2004)

There is no doubt in my mind that the Italians made the best looking planes! the Fiat G.50, P-108, Cr.42, SM.79 and Mc.202 were some of the best looking planes of WW2

8)


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

> uh oh, i knew i shouldnt have left you 2 bickering.....



Well I dont think that we are bickering, simply putting our points across in a rather childish way as one does when one can acknowledge one is pissed off but not too pissed off to say it outright! Comprende?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

nope not at all 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

> There is no doubt in my mind that the Italians made the best looking planes! the Fiat G.50, P-108, Cr.42, SM.79 and Mc.202 were some of the best looking planes of WW2



thanks, i agree entirely, though i think the best looking plane was the hurricane 8)


----------



## corpcasselbury (Mar 22, 2004)

My pick for worst aircraft of WW2 goes to the Douglas TBD Devastator, one of the most mis-named aircraft of the entire war! This dog of a torpedo bomber was decimated at the Battle of Midway, with 36 of 41 planes being shot down by Japanese Zeroes.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 22, 2004)

I agree the Devastator wasn't a very hot aircraft BUT it was pitted against one of the top airforces during the entire war with truly first class fighters and good pilots - Alot of American Navy aircraft suffered (the Dauntless and the Avenger had their fair share of defeats) because of what they had to face - the Devastator did have some sucess in the battle of Coral Sea in 1942 - I think it was a pretty crap aircraft but i don't think it rates as the worse...


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

were the engines in the manchester (Twin vultures) not made by RR?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 22, 2004)

> because it has no speed


the stuka survived the whole war although it was slow


> or because it is unreliable


typhoon engines usually only lasted 20 hours but it was the greatest allied tankbuster


> because it cant carry much arms


the ju-88 wasnt the greatest bomber but it was still the most versatile aircraft of the war


> it may not have much distance


Bf-109:an essence of how untrue that is in itself and how it can be worked around

so what im getting at here is that there is no ONE reason a plane sucks(usually). there are usually a lot or one killing deficiency that is unfixable but hey they worked around the one-o-nine's range and other problems in other planes so its pretty much a HUGE problem or many small to medium sized ones that ruin a plane

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

well said and the clarity was like a shining beacon of light!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 23, 2004)

ill second that 8)


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

well you would!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 23, 2004)

true 8) what with the sudden love of the ju-88?


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

I just reckon its a great aircraft. although it is a german plane i think that the aircraft and the crews deserve some recognistion!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 23, 2004)

me too, the 88 is one of my faves 8)


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

i liked the nightfighters!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 23, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> I just reckon its a great aircraft. although it is a german plane i think that the aircraft and the crews deserve some recognistion!



What so suddenly convinced you its such a bloody marvellous aircraft?? it wasn't THAT good...and i tell you another thing anyone who thinks the JU88 is better looking than a DH Mosquito needs their eyes testing!


----------



## Huckebein (Mar 23, 2004)

Lol, now _I'll_ second _that_!


----------



## Huckebein (Mar 23, 2004)

PS. Yes the Vulture engines were Rolls-Royce, and my vote for worst aircraft of the war goes to the Vought Vindicator - the last plane I would procure for my airforce if I had to cover all the necessary wartime roles. There is nothing the Vindicator does well that nothing else does better. For the same reason, the Brewster Buffalo is my second vote. It's success in Finland was largely due to the poor Russian training and equipment in the early-war stages, and the plane is hideously over-modelled in FB.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 23, 2004)

> although it is a german plane


wtf do you mean "although"?!?!?!?!?! dont make me fight for the meaning of me name!!!!!!!!!!!! germans had the best planes!! not always for every reason (cough, cough stuka speed) (cough, cough Bf-109 range) (cough, cough Bf-110 vulnerabilty) but they had the best planes and best pilots! how dare you doubt german planes! they arent alwasy the best looking but in longevity and excelling in at least one area above the rest they rightfully deserve to be called the best!

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

lol


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

lol


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 23, 2004)

hey, you know its true!

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

hmmmmmmm<<<<,,looks on in >>>>>>>>>


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> > although it is a german plane
> 
> 
> wtf do you mean "although"?!?!?!?!?! dont make me fight for the meaning of me name!!!!!!!!!!!! germans had the best planes!! not always for every reason (cough, cough stuka speed) (cough, cough Bf-109 range) (cough, cough Bf-110 vulnerabilty) but they had the best planes and best pilots! how dare you doubt german planes! they arent alwasy the best looking but in longevity and excelling in at least one area above the rest they rightfully deserve to be called the best!
> ...



JJ1982....rubbing people up the wrong way again...how do you do it?  

In his defence however Germans....theres no way the Nazis had the best planes - The US and Britain had the best - of that there is no doubt

The Mosquito, Spitfire and Mustang where the finest planes built during that period - the Germans did make some excellent aircraft but to say they were the best is extremely arguable...which is why i'm arguing


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

too right bronze, although i must say i do like the Ju88 nightfighter! (Better than the Mozzie!)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2004)

> The Mosquito, Spitfire and Mustang where the finest planes built during that period



you've forgotten the lancaster..................


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

not hard to do so is it lanc.......


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > The Mosquito, Spitfire and Mustang where the finest planes built during that period
> 
> 
> 
> you've forgotten the lancaster..................



Yeah sorry - i was thinking along the lines of fighters at the time - a job which the Ju88 could only do at night (unless it wanted to get shot down - typical sneaky Germans!)


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)




----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

Don't look too shocked its true the Ju88 wasn't a great fighter unless it could sneak up with radar and shoot enemies down from behind quickly with cannons


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

wow, good to be back 8) looks like you and jj have been posting a lot


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

A hell of alot - he endlessly spouts Spam - like a damn Spam machine!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

well if hes trying to outspam me, hes got no chance....


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

He might not be back for a while - i upset him with my tactless comment in the new 'Spam' thread


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)




----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

The Defiant was an innovative concept that unfortunately did not fair well when engaged in it's designed role. Somewhat effective against heavier fighters like the Bf/Me 110 and bombers, the Defiant proved vulnerable to lighter single engined fighters like the Bf 109E. Large numbers of this type were shot down over France during the initial stages of WWII.
The aircraft itself was clean and pleasant to fly and adapted well to it's new role as a nightfighter in 1940-41. Others were used as target tugs and in the Air-Sea rescue units in Britain, Middle East and Far East.
Perhaps this is a case of an aircraft that looked good on paper but not so good once put together... A big problem was that when the first prototype was flown, the rear guns were not ready to be put on so they were faired over.. Of course this could have a big effect on the way it handled.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

> Large numbers of this type were shot down over France



by the french  

i never really knew too much about the defiant before, ta 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

Hes talking about the British Boulton Paul Defiant fighter - it was designed with a chassis similar to the Hurricane with a large cumbersome turret attached to the rear with 4 .303 browning machine guns - it had no forward firing machine guns and the turret was designed to protect the aircraft when it came under attack -at first it actually shot down quite a few Me109s and suffered no losses but only because the Luftwaffe had never seen this class of aircraft before and mistook it for a Hurricane!   

After they realsied what it was and that it had a nasty turret on the back with four very large guns they either attacked the Defiant Head on or from below and the fighter was defenceless - it was also very slow because of the heavy turret that was designed for use in heavy bombers (like the Lancaster or Halifax) and weighed and absolute tonne No, the french never shot them down! 

It was used as a nightfighter after that (your fav JJ!) and had quite a bit of success - but ony a bit

As bad as it was JJ i still don't think it should be voted the worst aircraft of WW2

I still think that title belongs to the Amiot 143 (  French plane!)


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

well, just look at that....i make a respectful case and it gets shot down


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

I wasn't trying to shoot you down at all - you made some excellent points I just disagree thats all 

Check out the Amiot 143 and you'll see what i mean! 

P.S I like your new signature picture! 

do you know what mine is?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

i like your sig now jj 8) a nice respectful spit


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

great thankyou guys......i dont know what happened there......went on a nazi loving trip....must be cos of all the mini hitler mods in here!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

Spit? .........oh hang on you meant Spitfire!


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

riechfurher hot space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

yah in jj's, your are wildcats ait they?


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

i havent a clue....possibly some obscure plane that only three people in the world happen to know exist!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

See the Amiot 143 yet JJ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2004)

they're boeing P-26 peashooters, it's ironic, i was reading about them in a book this morning


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

You're correct 8) 

I happen to think they're one of the best looking planes in WW2, they weren't bad planes to fly too - the Americans loved them (hence the effectionate nickname "Peashooter") - the Chinese thought they were pretty cool too - the Americans had them at Pearl Harbour and the Chinese used them against the Japanese (so i bet the Japanese didn't think they were lovely!)

I have seen quite a few pictures of them flying in mass formation like this and i think they look beautiful

i must say in the past i said i didn't like American planes and i still stick by that to the most part (not sure why, i think its their looks...  ) but i do love the P-26 peashooter - well done Lanc, that was a scary coincidence wasn't it?! have you been following me??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

cool 8) i wouldnt say they look great, radial engines spoil the look of fighters


----------



## Huckebein (Mar 24, 2004)

Not on the Tempest II/ Sea Fury they don't!


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 24, 2004)

My loyal follower (s) [In case there IS more than one]

I have become conflicted,

On the one hand I still think the Brewster Buffalo was the absolute pits

But

Recently I have been reading about the Fairey Battle <sob> I can't choose which is worse</sob>

Your beloved Leader

FVS Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 25, 2004)

These are an exception 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 25, 2004)

I have a new candidate for worse aircraft (based on what Kiwi said)......drumroll please

Next to the Amiot 143....The fairey Battle!  

An absolute disaster of a plane it was equipped to No 63 sqaudron in 1937 and designed as state-of-the-art at the time it was built...in Sept 1939, Fairey Battles were sent to France and in May 1940 they suffered appauling losses in attempts to bomb enemy columns and bridges. On May 10th of the same year whilst desperately trying to destroy the french bridges before the germans could cross 35 out of 63 Fairey Battles failed to return home - It was hopeless at defending itself from enemy fire and after that fiasco it was quickly relegated to secondline duties  - mainly as trainers in commenwealth countries such as Canada and Australia. 
In fact the only mild usage the Brits found for the Battle was to bomb German invasion barges in night-time raids in occupied ports in France etc.

The Amiot 143

This plane was developed from the design of the Amiot 140 (the 143's predessesor) it was first put into service in the French airforce in 1935

It was big, slow, cumbersome and a very easy target and has been described as 'a luftwaffe pilots dream!' but despite this the French flew many bombing missions against the advancing Germans in broad daylight! and as i'm sure you can imagine by looking at it - the French lost many aircraft - after the invasion the French resistance still had fifty Amiot 143s left and still used them against the Germans! towards the end of the war any remaining Amiots were used as transports - it amuses me somewhat to discover that for defence the Amiot 143 was armed with four .30in machine guns designed in 1934 still based along the lines of WW1 machine guns and had the ammunition fed to the guns through drums fixed to the tops of the weapon (similar to a British Lewis Gun) as opposed to bullet belts - drums didn't hold much ammo so you had to change them regularly and they had a nasty habit of jamming - all in all not really ideal for battling the Luftwaffe....the mind boggles  

However...once the French finally got the idea that daylight raids in old knackered box-bombers like the Amiot 143 was practically suicide  they switched to night raids =D> the Amiot 143 crews flew 197 night raids against the invading Germans and dropped 338,626lbs of bombs and only lost 4 aircraft in total Now despite all those odds thats bloody impressive and certainly more than the Battle could boast...maybe i was too harse on the French airforce...  

So I think the crown has to go to.....isn't it exciting?? 

The Fairey Battle!!  

My reckoning is that at least the Amiot was useful to the French in their desperate resistance struggle against the Germans which i think proves the Amiot may have been crap but it was enduring - however the Battle was supposed to be state-of-the-art and it wasn't - in fact the complete opposite! 

and just to show how boxey the Amiot 143 was...

http://www.aviafrance.com/images/10.jpg


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 25, 2004)

Hmmm,

Looks like a chicken-coop with wings and engines!

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 25, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 25, 2004)

yeah, i've known about the battle for a while and it was BAD, then again so was the Blackburn B-25 Roc


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 26, 2004)

> and just to show how boxey the Amiot 143 was...


i heard a rumor/joke that says that the frogs picked it because it ws the ugliest of the three competing designs!

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 26, 2004)

I must say after Lancs persistance I did a little reasearch on the B-25 'Roc' and yes it was alot worse than i ever thought it was! - it was so god-awful in fact that the Brits only made 136 of them and despite the fact they were designed as carrier-based fighters they never actually took off from a carrier - only coastal bases! they weren't even capable of 200mph and couldn't even adequetly perform the dive-bomber role let alone the fighter role! it suffered from much the same problem as the Boulton Paul Defiant...but the reason i haven't said its the worst (IMO) is because at least it was pulled out of service before hundreds of airmen where killed in it...unlike the Fairey Battle


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 26, 2004)

thank you, that's why i hate people saying the defaint was crap, cos compared to planes like the Roc, it was pretty good....................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 28, 2004)

Typical isn't it though? the two main contenders for worse aircraft of WW2 are both British!!


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 28, 2004)

Yes, when the Brits built an awful plane (a rarity BTW) they built them DAMN awful, no half-measures there.

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 29, 2004)

No, we Brits never do anything in half measures...thats why our women have such high standards! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 29, 2004)




----------



## Hugh Janus (Mar 30, 2004)

you guys are dumb, the b-25 roc was one of the best planes of the war  the mustang was a SHIT plane and im surprised it could even take off, ive seen more aerodynamic breeze blocks


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 30, 2004)

Hmmm,

Can you all say 'Troll", I KNOW you can!

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 30, 2004)

tr- tr- tr- transvestite!  nope cant say it


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 30, 2004)

I was just reading up about our old friend the Blackburn Roc and take a look at this link...

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/blackburn_roc.htm

doesn't seem the old Roc was quite as bad as its critics made it out to be (still not very hot though) interestingly enough though (fans of German bombers brace yourselves!) the only enemy aircraft that the Blackburn Roc reportedly shot down was a Ju88!!  

hard luck guys - told you it wasn't that much cop 8)


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 31, 2004)

Mate,

If you snuck up behind 'em even that bloody gladiator of yours could have shot down a bomber.

Its not what you shoot down, its how!

Kiwimac


----------



## Oleanna (Mar 31, 2004)

In my opinion the Heinkel He113 was possilbly the worst aircraft of the second war war, mainly due to the fact that it didnt actually exist. The Nazi propaganda machine claimed that the He113 was a development of the He112. It was supposed to be powered by a single mercedas benz engine with 1200hp and a max speed of 350mph. It had a cannon in the nose and two machine guns. 
Actually this was just a ruse by the nazi's to trick us into thinking that they whad an excellent nightfighter. The Ju88 was good but they wanted this thing to outshine the lot. In truth however, it was just a He112 or even a He110. 
And what such a lovely site!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 31, 2004)

kiwimac said:


> Mate,
> 
> If you snuck up behind 'em even that bloody gladiator of yours could have shot down a bomber.
> 
> ...



I'll have you know the 'Bloody' Gladiator did shoot down alot of Nazi bombers! and it didn't always sneak up on them!  

How do you suppose a huge, clumsy and incredibly SLOW plane like the Roc managed to 'sneak up' on a Ju88 without being seen by its numerous gunners? Perhaps the Germans wanted to give it a sporting chance...?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 31, 2004)




----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 31, 2004)

Would planes like the Boulton Paul Defiant and the Blackburn Roc have been more sucessful if......

A) They were faster? 
B) They had wing mounted forward firing machine guns? 
C) A ball turret under the plane, like a B-17?

I know its a daft question but i was thinking - both these planes were let down by their speed (especially the Roc) and if they had more speed (a better engine for a start) would they have faired better?

Also the only weapons they had were in the slow turning turret - would mounted wing machine guns have been more use?

Both the fighters were very vulnerable from underneath... could a ball turret under the plane provide the underbelly protection they needed and enable the pilot to be claer to aim his aircraft at the target with the wing mounted guns and fire away assured that his underbelly is protected...?


cheers


----------



## Oleanna (Mar 31, 2004)

IMO, Bronzewhaler, I think that the points that you have made are very valid. The Roc and the defiant were both let down as you say by the speed. But if it is so obvious to us, and I know Hindsight is a good skill to possess...then surely ALL planes would have been fitted with a better engine? It seems absurd that there were planes with as much as a 150moh plus difference in speed, on the same side. So why werent all planes fitted with the best engines. I know for instance that the Mosquito was made from balsa wood so perhaps the weight may have something to do with it. Perhaps the economics played a part as well?


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 31, 2004)

Whaler,

The Germans have always been very sporting! I hold to the opinion that the Roc was successful because as soon as the Germans saw it they began laughing so hard they could not actually point the guns!

Reminds me of the following (possibly apocryphal story)

An Atlantic convoy, passinig through the Artic circle, was being shadowed by a Condor. The plane flew around the convey in great circles, outside the range of the AA guns mounted on the ships, BUT always in just one direction.

Eventually the Captain of the Destroyer leading the convoy told his Aldis operator to "Tell that bloody jerry to go in the opposite direction, as he is making me dizzy!" Which the aldis op proceeded to do.

After a couple of minutes the following reply came via the Aldis mounted in the Condor. "Anything for the Royal Navy, Old Bean" and slowly the Condor began once again to circle the convoy, in the opposite direction.

Remind me to tell you all about the German POW who won the George Medal sometime (or FTM the English POW who won the Iron Cross [civilian catagory])

Kiwimac


----------



## Crazy (Mar 31, 2004)




----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 31, 2004)

Is that a true story Kiwi or are you pulling my leg?  You missed out the part where the Condor turned on the fleet and sank three ships!  

If that story is true its very interesting...and the story about the medals sounds interesting too...do tell... 8) 


Oleanna,

Thanks for not laughing at my post  Thats an interesting question you ask and i'm not sure of the answer myself...sometimes the reason why certain planes in an airforce (lets use the RAF as an example) are considerably slower than others is that they are older and they were fitted with the best engines available at the time and when they became obsolete, they were still useful and kept on - so newer planes with newer engines could outrun them. 
However it is true to say that economics came into the equation....planes were commisioned by the gov after specs were drawn up by independant companies (De Havilland, Supermarine, Hawker, Avro etc...) at the request of the government - for example when the idea for the De Havilland Mosquito was put forward to the British Gov they laughed at the mere suggestion of a wooden aircraft in that day and age - though ironically it turned into the most useful aircraft the RAF posessed during the entire war! (IMO anyway... 8) )
Some campanies had more money and resources than others so they couldn't nessasarily afford the latest engine...but just because an aircraft is slow doesn't mean its no good - the Gloster Gladiator is one of my fav fighters from WW2 and its top speed was only 257mph!  

You're also right in saying that the weight plays a vital role too - in fact the main reason the Roc and Defiant were so slow was the very heavy turret fitted onto the plane (from a Handley Page Halifax bomber  ) it is on record that apparently the Defiant fighter prototype flew and handled extremely well with a respectable top speed - until the bulky turret was fitted and then its performance was less impressive...  

A smaller, more streamlined ball Turret armed with only two .303 machine guns (with a very small, light, bloke sitting inside  ) would weigh considerably less than its predessesor and perhaps a stronger engine would be able to pull it faster - fixed machine guns would add to the overall weight but i can't help but feel perhaps it still would have been more sucessful than the original designs...but as you say hindsight is a wonderful thing and it really doesn't matter now anyway...still, at least it made for an interesting topic 8)


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 2, 2004)

Whaler,

Well I did say apocryphal BUT I have heard it from 4 or 5 different sources all with the same basic details, so I'm willing to consider it true.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

would you look at that, i go away for a week and suddenly all threads are back on topic...........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 3, 2004)

yup 8) cant you handle it?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

no, i was just worried about you, that's all................................


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 3, 2004)

The 162 Salamander was a first rate design. If the Allies had not destroyed their source of the special glue needed to keep the 162 together we might be speaking German today. THe German War machine had some excellent aircraft engineers and if their High command had not made so many bad decisions on the use of the Me-262 and the other jet powered aircraft they had. We might have seen an atomic weapon dropped on New York. But that is another story...


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 3, 2004)

The Fairey Swordfish was the aircraft that dropped the torpedo that jammed the rudder on the Bismark making it a sitting duck. My hat is off to the Fairey Swordfish


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 3, 2004)

The USA had some klinkers also The P-39's preformance was so bad that thy were shipped to Russia under the lend lease act. True it had a 37mm canon but the airplane was underpowered and the landing gear was hard getting used to and more then a few airplanes crashed or ground looped because of the gear.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 4, 2004)

> The Fairey Swordfish was the aircraft that dropped the torpedo that jammed the rudder on the Bismark making it a sitting duck



 brilliant 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 4, 2004)

Drink Beer Straight From A Bottle?! BRILLIANT!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 4, 2004)

oh, and that nuke would have been dropped by the Ho XVIII (18 for simpletons), a long range flying wing bomber powered by six turbojets and no, i did NOT learn that from www.luft46.com (although the info is there), i got it from the History Channel's Secret Luftwaffe Aircraft Of World War II


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2004)

i thought it was gonna be dropped by a He-177?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

it turns out the he-177 waslike the manchester, lanc 8) - external combustion engines 8)


----------



## corpcasselbury (Apr 5, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> it turns out the he-177 waslike the manchester, lanc 8) - external combustion engines 8)



That was because each of the He 177's two propellors was turned by two engines. There was insufficient space between the paired engines, so heat built up and eventually a fire broke out. Losses were heavy, even when no one was actually shooting at them.


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 5, 2004)

Prefer the FW 200 Kondor meself.

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 6, 2004)

Ah but the Condor wasn't strictly a bomber was it?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

> That was because each of the He 177's two propellors was turned by two engines. There was insufficient space between the paired engines, so heat built up and eventually a fire broke out. Losses were heavy, even when no one was actually shooting at them.



yup, and apparently the 177 was so bad hitler prevented them from making the 277. they went ahead anyway though saying it was just an experimental version of the 177 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 7, 2004)

Hey! I thought we were going to get a picture of an IL2!  

Not that Evil Nazi He177 thing


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 8, 2004)

The Me-163 Komet shot down more the 10 aircraft during it's place in history . The technology used to make the Komet fly is amazing. The USAF flight Museum at Dayton Ohio has the motor of a 163 on display and the German engineering has to bee seen to be believed


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 8, 2004)

> Hey! I thought we were going to get a picture of an IL2!



nah, 177


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 8, 2004)

Well, i know which one i prefer


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2004)

i think the HE-177 looked better than the IL-2 anyway.................


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 9, 2004)

As did the P-108!

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2004)

i wouldn't go that far..................................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 12, 2004)

I would 8) 

I think the IL2 was a better plane by far but as far as looks go...the P-108 is better looking than the IL2 (russian planes on the whole are ugly  )


----------



## brad (Apr 13, 2004)

me 163 komet 7mins 23secs in the air then out of fule and then eject worring


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 13, 2004)

after the rocket burnt out, it just acted as a high speed glider for a bit............


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 14, 2004)

brad said:


> me 163 komet 7mins 23secs in the air then out of fule and then eject worring



The Me163 had a ski attached to the bottom that was used for landing...the only time a pilot would eject was if he found himself in trouble


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2004)

which in a 163 was quite often..................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 15, 2004)

I don't think they had much trouble in them - obviously they ran out of fuel very quickly and had to be guided back to earth but i don't think there were too many casualties...i know the fuel mixture was HIGHLY unstable but when they did explode they destroyed the aircraft completely and the pilot would die instantly - they needed more armour really- if a B-17 gunner got one good fluke hit...its goodbye German!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)

> if a B-17 gunner got one good fluke hit



and it would be a fluke hit too 

personally though ive always liked the 163, they tried to rectify its shortcomings though with the 263, but that never actually saw service 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2004)

> I don't think they had much trouble in them



Are you kiddin, they killed more german pilots than they did allied, they only shot down 10 allied planes through the whole war...............


----------



## brad (Apr 15, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > I don't think they had much trouble in them
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kiddin, they killed more german pilots than they did allied, they only shot down 10 allied planes through the whole war...............




i thought it was less


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 15, 2004)

I recently saw a story somewhere where the Germans had a Condor fly nonstop from Germany to New York's airspace and back to Germany. Did anybody else see this article ?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

No but i'd like too - where did you read about that?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 16, 2004)

yes where did you read about it? sounds a bit dodgy to me...


----------



## Piaggio108 (Apr 16, 2004)

Ro 57.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 16, 2004)

eh?  oh the worst aircraft of ww2


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 16, 2004)

IF that condor had completed that trip, it would have had to have been modified with extra drop tanks in some way............

are you sure that actually happend and that wasn't just what they planned to do..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2004)

either the lanc is very good at guessing or he actually could be botherd to look at the previous page for once 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2004)

you got me..................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 18, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> IF that condor had completed that trip, it would have had to have been modified with extra drop tanks in some way............
> 
> are you sure that actually happend and that wasn't just what they planned to do..................



Surely if it had flown into American airspace it would've been detected and shot down...? how would it have gotten all the way across the Atlantic without being seen by something (Radar) or someone? the Atlantic is full of patrolling aircraft and ships that would've seen it surely - especially if it was heading straight for the American coast


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 18, 2004)

i'm guessing it took off from france, thus avoiding brittish radar, and i assume the americans didn't use radar 'cos whet with all their bigheadedness, they thaught no-one could get accross the atlantic, and as for the convoys, aslong as it wasn't bothering you, you left it alone in case it did attack you, but if you didn't hurt them, there's a chance they won't hurt you..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 18, 2004)

valid points 8)


----------



## Oleanna (Apr 18, 2004)

> i'm guessing it took off from france, thus avoiding brittish radar, and i assume the americans didn't use radar 'cos whet with all their bigheadedness, they thaught no-one could get accross the atlantic, and as for the convoys, aslong as it wasn't bothering you, you left it alone in case it did attack you, but if you didn't hurt them, there's a chance they won't hurt you..................
> 
> 
> well, that would be the typical american attitude wouldnt it!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 18, 2004)

yup 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 19, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i'm guessing it took off from france, thus avoiding brittish radar, and i assume the americans didn't use radar 'cos whet with all their bigheadedness, they thaught no-one could get accross the atlantic, and as for the convoys, aslong as it wasn't bothering you, you left it alone in case it did attack you, but if you didn't hurt them, there's a chance they won't hurt you..................



what about fighter patrols around the coastline?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

> well, that would be the typical american attitude wouldnt it!



i'm not american, I'M CORNISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

sinch when was cornwall a country?


----------



## Oleanna (Apr 19, 2004)

it ceased to be independant a few hundred years ago i believe!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

yup 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

not to corish men it didn't....................


----------



## jj1982 (Apr 19, 2004)

Just to clarify the matter.... Cornwall, or Kernow, is a formmaly independant country, conquered by Anthelston, King of West Saxons in 936AD. He missapproriatted all cornish lands east of the tamar and established the boundray for Cornwall from the East bank of the tamar. Until the 14th ccentury, all legal references were made to Anglia et Cornubia", England-Cornwall as cornwall was not incorporated into england despite being conquered in 1351.Cornwall is obviously a region in the southwest area of Great Britian. Technically it is a Duchy and not part of england, althought currently it is primarilly administered as an english county. 
For those that will scoff, i have another argument. To say that Cornwall is a county of England is not the say that it is IN england. Corsica is French, but obviously not in the country of france. Either way, i hope this clears up the debate.

Oh and by the way, i just couldn't stay away!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

i'd wondered where you'd gone.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

yes but to londoners like me its part of england 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2004)

that's 'cos you're from up north......................


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 22, 2004)

The Condor FW 200 flew from Berlin to New York nonstop in 20 hours. But it was in August 1938 and not during the war. So the Germans could have bombed New York if they had wanted to. The Japanese also had a copy of the Condor in their aircraft inventory


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 23, 2004)

> The Japanese also had a copy of the Condor in their aircraft inventory


DEAR GOTT!!! Ich nicht wiss das!!!!! Und die Kondor ist wunderbar to me!!! how did i not know that?!!??! (this isnt sarcasm either!!!) do you hae any pics or info (designation, specs, etc.)?


> So the Germans could have bombed New York if they had wanted to


they were training for it too, but decided it wasnt worth the waste of the plane because they had to ditch and be picked up by submarine crews, and anyway, although i love the old bird, it does have a VERY modest payload....


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 23, 2004)

Cornwall is hardly even a borough these days!

Kiwimac


----------



## plan_D (Apr 23, 2004)

Once the V-2 was in production there was already the A10 (Would become V-3) on the drawing board which was the worlds first ICBM capable of hitting New York, then bombers going to New York would have been pointless.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 23, 2004)

the irony being neither ever "took off" (escuse the pun)..............


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 23, 2004)

Then there were the sub-orbital bombers the Germans were working on.

Kiwimac


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 23, 2004)

> Then there were the sub-orbital bombers the Germans were working on.


ah yes, crazy Dr. Sanger and his wacky ideas (it would have probably worked if the resources were available, however)... 
(more Sanger Amerika Bomber info here: http://www.luft46.com/misc/sanger.html )



> Once the V-2 was in production there was already the A10 (Would become V-3) on the drawing board which was the worlds first ICBM capable of hitting New York, then bombers going to New York would have been pointless


for that post by plan_D regarding the V-3, although i have never heard of that missle, i give it credit and do not doubt its research, but are you sure it wasnt the V-4? because there WAS indeed a V-3, it was even fired once. it was an artillery gun with a 150m long barrel and a 1,524m per second firing speed. more info on that gun here: http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/wunderwaffen/supergun/v-3/v-3.html . one of the unique things and reasons for such a high shell speed of this gun was that there were many firing chambers along the barrel, not just one. so that way, whenever the shell flew by one of the firing chambers, another primer would fire.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 24, 2004)

Germans do not mistake the 'Would become V-3' as it was named the V-3. The official designation was A10, as it never left the drawing board but the idea was written down, and it would have been named the V-3 upon production start. The V-2 was originally the A4 when it was in research and testing stage.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2004)

the germans had allot of great ideas that if they had the time and meterial to develope, would have been terrifiying weapons.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 27, 2004)

yup 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2004)

please try and post something usefull in future, as a helper member that's what you should be doing................


----------



## Hot Space (Apr 27, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> yup 8)



Not that I was told  But well done on becoming one of the Management 8) 

How did it come about, M8?

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

oh, the lanc asked for me a while back, then horse forgot cos of the site going down i reminded him and here i am 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

i only asked cos you were to chicken............


----------



## Hot Space (Apr 28, 2004)

Cool 8) 

Nice to have you on board, M8  

Hot Space


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 28, 2004)

?
?
?
?

hmmm.


Kiwimac


----------



## Hot Space (Apr 28, 2004)

What?

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

ah, the welcome return of spam, i guess it's up to me to get us back on track, worst plane, B-25 Roc...........


----------



## Hot Space (Apr 28, 2004)

Yep, I'm back after being a Month away  

Spam, Spam, Manchester  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

breguet 19 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

perhaps we should redefine what worse plane means, are we on about planes that actually saw allot of service, or more in the way of experimental types.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

a plane that was bad at everything, cant really include experimental types i dont think


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2004)

and why not, experimental types were often pretty crap............


----------



## plan_D (Apr 29, 2004)

If the experimental type was crap, it was dropped and no longer funded, so it never saw service or was even thought of being used, if the government had any clue that is.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 29, 2004)

So, I'm new to this site and I didn't get a chance to read everyones' posts but heres my choice :TBD Devestator. Hard pressed to hit 150 mph with a torp outboard, lousy firepower, no protection, and 37 out of 41 shot down at Midway for no hits! Nothing good came out of this plane.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

You have point, although there were a lot more than Midway, and Devestators are credited with some ship kills.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2004)

i'm still going with either the battle or Roc............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2004)

the fairey battle was a superb plane


----------



## TimT1 (May 1, 2004)

In regards to the Devastator, it can be easily argued that it was a lousy aircraft given it's performance at Midway. For it's time however, it was a good aircraft, but like so many other aircraft of it's day, it became obsolete too fast when WW II broke out. Another point is that the Japanese fighters were brought down to sea level to attack the Devastators, which allowed the SBD Dauntless dive bombers to attack and sink the Japanese carriers virtually unmolested by fighters.


----------



## TimT1 (May 1, 2004)

My choice for worst aircraft would be the Boulton Paul Defiant. Basically, when they designed and built the fighter, they did everything wrong. No forward armament, not manueverable, slow, and short range.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 1, 2004)

Has anybody considered what the Finns did in the Buffalo? Eino Juutilainen scored 34 kills in a Buffalo (one possibly over a Spitfire!) and Hans Wind had 39 kills in a Buffalo. Don't ask me to explain it ('cause I can't) but pretty impressive considering the thumping the Buffalo took everywhere else.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

> My choice for worst aircraft would be the Boulton Paul Defiant. Basically, when they designed and built the fighter, they did everything wrong. No forward armament, not manueverable, slow, and short range.



i've said it before, and it looks like i'm gonna say it again, obviously you don't know about the blackburn B-25 Roc, it was the same concept as the defaint, but allot worse, it was designed to intercept bombers, with a top speed of 198mph, both planes were not manouverable, but the defaint was more manouverable then the Roc, the Roc had a shorter range, and at least the defaint could hit 300mph, so i don't think the defaint was thet bad when compared to a Roc................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

I agree that the Roc was a lousy plane, but it was lousy because it was built to meet a lousy specification. I think it was pretty much recognized as lousy and never really saw service, I may be wrong on that point. 

The Devestator did have some early war success during the early carrier raids and at Coral Sea. The carrier raids, however, were launched against targets where Japanese defenses were minimal and at Coral Sea it had the benefit of fighter escort and dive-bomber support. I just can't get around the Midway debacle.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

you're right, the Roc was identified as a crap plane, and after some early success, so was the defaint, but the defaint was considdered good enough to be used as a night fighter..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

Because it had a crew of two and, while it's performance was nothing to right home about, it was better than the Blenheims that were being used.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

i think the best brittish nightfighter had to be the beaufighter..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

The Beau was the best to see service during the Blitz. But it wasn't in action when the Defiant was switched to nightfighter duty was it?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

i don't know, but the defiant wasn't much cop as a nightfighter either, it was just better than most..................


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

I have to agree with Lanc on the worst aircraft being the Blackburn B-25 Roc...although the P-26 'Peashooter' for me comes in second.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

They were both pretty crummy planes. Did the P-26 see any action? I know a few were still in service but I don't remember if they ever got into combat.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

They fought with the Chinese airforce in 1937, and with the Philippines air force against the Japanese in December 1941 but apparently they got shot down after a few days. I can't find the exact date but apparently it was one of the first, if not the first American stressed skin monoplane to see combat.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

If they saw any service during the war, the Phillipines was probably the place so that makes sense to me.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Yes, I've read in many places the Phillipines air force used it, along with the Chinese. I've never read the squadrons or groups they were assigned to in these countries.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

I would hate to have to fly against Zero's in a peashooter.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Same here, the Guatamalien (Spelling?) air force flew 'peashooters' up until 1957.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

poor them, and thanks for agreeing with me on the Roc, i know how hard it must have been for you ............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Why would it be hard to agree? I saw it, read the stats and I was swayed very, very quickly.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

oh, it's just that normally people don't agree with me easily, especailly on the lancaster issue................


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

The Lancaster was a good bomber, a very good bomber. It saved many lives and surpassed all British heavy bombers but the B-29 was better even if it was a lot later.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

that's just it though, the lanc was designed in the early part of the war, i realise the B-29 was to, but the designed was upgraded throught the war, the lancs wasn't, it's technology was, but not the disign............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Yes, but the B-29s to see service were better than the Lancaster.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

the manchester was the worst plane ever


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

The Manchester was not a great plane, but it was probably better than any other British bomber in service at the time except for the Wimpy and the Machester had several advantages over the Wimpy. And don't forget that the Lancaster was little more than a Manchester with 4 Merlins instead of 2 Vultures.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

well it pointless telling him that, he hates the lancaster, but the Battle or the Roc had to be the worst...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

but the manchester was the first plane ever with external combustion engines


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

Both the Battle and the Roc were worse and so was the TBD Devestator for that matter.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

but i like the fairey battle


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

but for god's sake, the battle had only 1x303, what the hell's that gonna do!!!!!!!!


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

That's all the armament that the B5N Kate carried. 
And there is nothing wrong with liking a sucky plane, just realize that it sucked.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

i never said i liked the battle, and i fell sorry for anyone who does.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

Cheddar said he liked it. That's why I posted that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

didn't read that sorry...........

and why the hell do you like the battle, it was crap, dare i say it, worse than the stuka................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

the fairey battle is a gem of a plane  the name, its so unoriginal


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

That's a bit hard to say. The Stuka had a better weapons load since the Battle was mostly limited to 250lb bombs. But that Battle also never really benefitted from the aircover that the Stuka got.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

bout the same aerodynamics of a gem to............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

depends how the gem is carved


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 7, 2004)

very poorly......

but seriously, would you want to be in a battle whan you saw the enemy coming up behind you.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

heh, i would make sure there was never an enemy behind me 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

I still don't think the Devestator is in the running for worst plane, ok, it had a bad run at Midway but it wasn't too bad in other battles and operations. At least it did its job sometimes.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 7, 2004)

The only other action it saw was Coral Sea and the early carrier raids. The Roc didn't see that much action. And I may be mistaken but I believe the Defiant destroyed 17 109s for no loss in one of its first engagements. Are we to claim that it was a decent fighter because of one success? So why claim the Devestator to be anything but a death trap because it had a decent showing at Coral Sea?


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

Why claim it was poor because it had one bad run?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

Because it was completely devestated. And it's not as if it was a fine plane after Midway, it was completely withdrawn from service because it was a terrible plane.


----------



## kiwimac (May 8, 2004)

The Deastator and the Buffalo were pretty much on a par as was the Skua / Roc.

Kiwimac


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

The Hurricane was basically withdrawn from frontline fighter duties by 1944, is that a poor plane? The Roc was a lot worse than the Devestator, I'm not saying the Devestator was a good plane but it wasn't the worst.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

and i think i'm right in saying the battle was worse than the Roc???


----------



## kiwimac (May 8, 2004)

Battle -- Roc, pretty much of a muchness, I'd have thought!

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

what's a muchness????

but atlest the Roc had more then two guns, they were just in the wrong place.........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

The Hurrican served it's purpose winning the BoB. The Devestator never won anything. The Roc was not so much of a bad plane as it was a bad idea. The RAF specification doomed the plane before Blackburn even began to design it. And the Buffallo wasn't so bad in Finnish hands.


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

It was a bad idea, that created a crap plane.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

I would agree with that. The British quickly realized it was a terrible plan and pulled Roc from service. The Devestator was obsolete when the war started but was still a key component of the US carrier airgroups.


----------



## brad (May 9, 2004)

manchester it was easly the manchester


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

The Manchester? I think you've missed the title, worst aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 9, 2004)

yeah i mean how ban can a plane be if it leads the way for the lancaster...........


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

We didn't see that coming.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

But Lancaster's right. It's not so much that the Manchester was a bad plane as it is that it had bad engines.


----------



## kiwimac (May 10, 2004)

On that basis the Breda was one of the most successful planes of WW2!

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

The Manchester wasn't good, but it definately wasn't the worst aircraft.


----------



## brad (May 10, 2004)

the manchester was horrid


----------



## brad (May 10, 2004)

the lanc was cool but the manchester stunc


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2004)

strangely, i think the manchester is better looking than than the lancaster


----------



## brad (May 10, 2004)

manchester horrid hmmmm im upset now *cry cry cry*


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

The Manchester was considerably better than many of the bombers currently employed by bomber command and can hardly be considered the worst aircraft of the war. The Vulture engines were the weak point of the design. The Manchester's airframe was relatively unchanged in the switch to the Lancaster.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2004)

the engines were the only drwbach, it had good range and good payload, like lighning said, it was jsut the engines....................


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

Well the engines are a big part of a design, normally you design the aircraft around the engines. Countless aircraft have been designed that way, unfortunate for the Manchester it wasn't designed that way.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

But the Lancaster was essentially a Manchester with four Merlins rather than two Vultures (plus other changes demanded by the engine change). Thus the basic design of the Manchester must be considered very good.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

the fusilage was bearly modified atal in the change, just to prove that, a few manchesters were stopped half way through production, and were continued as lancasters...........


----------



## kiwimac (May 11, 2004)

Nope, I'm sorry Lanc the Manchester stunk, the Halifax, however, Ruled!

KIwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

sure did


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

And the Lanc was better than the Halifax.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

yu, i prefer halifax though 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

OK, just so we aren't trying to argue that the Halifax was better.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

nope. i can if you want though, for arguments sake


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2004)

It might make this more interesting, or you'll just walk into a dead end because the Lancaster was better.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

we'll argue the point, C.C, name ways in which the halifax was beter............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

firstly, for the building societies point of view it was fantastic, endorsing their bank like that, must have done wonders for business  and it was good as a glider tug if you wanna be serious


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

The Halifax was used in more roles than the Lanc but that was because the Lanc was too valuable as a bomber to pass along to other roles.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

the halifax was also used for anti-shipping/ maratime patrol...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Because Bomber Command could afford to spare the Halifaxs because it had all the Lancs it needed to fulfill it's bombing missions.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

well, you can nver have to many lancasters....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

I was pointing out that the Halifax could be used for these other roles because the bomber mission was filled so well by the Lanc.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

ah, but i think the halifax was used more in operation overlord................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

So are YOU arguing that the Halifax was better?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

no, because the lancaster was still bombing at night, they couldn't opperate around the clock...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

ok, I guess that makes sense.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

And there's no point in using Lancasters for EVERYTHING. Plus that not all crews were trained in Lancasters. 
Still maybe it would have been more ideal for the Lancaster to be used in Overlord, just before Operation Neptune to bomb those damn bunkers, since the bombers assigned failed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 13, 2004)

but i don't think we had the deep petatration bombs then did we?


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

Honestly, I don't know.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

Tallboy came into service right around the time of the invasion and it was early 45 before any Grand Slams were deployed.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

So, the Tallboy would have been ready by June 6th!?!


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

I'm not sure. I did some checking and I can't find an instance of one being dropped before the invasion. I'm under the impression that it was shortly after that it came into service.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

they would have blown the bunkers to bits........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

i notice we've strayed a little off-topic here chaps


----------



## dinos7 (May 31, 2006)

the ohka


----------

