# Worst plane in its indended role(s)



## Yeomanz (Dec 31, 2004)

that question makes sence right ? 

anyway i'd say Fw-189 , it was made as a reconacence /ground support plane ad even concidered a bit of a night fighter  , 

it was slow(not supriseing with two 465HP engines) , carried on a few bombs , and had two 7.92mm in the wing roots , so how they though it could be a night fighter .......


----------



## Yeomanz (Dec 31, 2004)

it also has two rear gunners , the tail cone gunner can shoot in almost anydirecton , but the top gunner doesn't really need to be there , alot of planes have gunners which arn't really going to do anything except slow the plane down ....


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 31, 2004)

That last one is a cool pic.....


----------



## Yeomanz (Dec 31, 2004)

I wouldn't like to have been in the tail cone though , it must have been very Cold  

here's a pic of what it looks like where the tailcone is (from inside)


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 31, 2004)

I can imagine what a 20mm HEI round would do to that poor little gunner sittin there freezing his nuts off.....

Red Pulp......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2004)

what about the fairey battle................


----------



## NightHawk (Dec 31, 2004)

Poor germen pilots, If they got hit from a flack cannon...........
Why did the germens constructed glass cockpits for theire bombers ?
Yeah its cheap and light wight, But it gives minimum protection for the bomber crew, But gave a large visiual range unlike allied bombers,
Wouldent like to be in thiere shoes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2004)

oh you're back NH, les will be pleased..................


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 31, 2004)

****Yawns....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2004)

so where are you talking to us from this time??


----------



## Yeomanz (Dec 31, 2004)

it alot of planes they seem to have alot of un-nessissairy gunner positions


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 31, 2004)

How was it bad?


Observer planes need to be slow, that way they can OBSERVE accurately for the troops...

That's like saying the Fi-156 Storch was bad, those things were actually a bit hard to shoot down because of their speed which could cause the attacking fighter to stall!


It was also manoverable, a good feature to have...


----------



## Yeomanz (Dec 31, 2004)

why dont they just stick a camera in it then


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 31, 2004)

Not Recce, OBSERVATION! 


They fly at low altitudes to spot troop and basic enemy movements on the front, where there is usually no place to develop and interpret photos...


They're basically sniper scouts that fly...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 1, 2005)

and don't snipe..........

their primary role was to radio back to HQ and let them know troop movemens and suchlike..................


----------



## NightHawk (Jan 1, 2005)

Recon plane needed to fly slow and low, Wich means thet you can tose a rock and bring the plane down,


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 1, 2005)

but the idea is that they see you about to throw the rock, they radio back to HQ telling them, and they send in and they get a rather large gun and blast you to hell..................


----------



## plan_D (Jan 1, 2005)

Or several very big guns and rain hell on the man throwing the rock and his whole division.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 1, 2005)

before you've even had a chance to start throwing..........


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 1, 2005)

or they realise they have a gun and use that instead , maybe a gun that fires rocks


----------



## evangilder (Jan 1, 2005)

One of the benefits of the Fiesler Storch was it's amazing STOL capabilities. I actually saw one take off on the access road between the taxiway and the runway! It's about 3 lengths of the Storch fuselage. The STOL characteristics of the Storch are amazing even by today's standards.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 1, 2005)

I agree...... But damn, it was ugly....


----------



## evangilder (Jan 1, 2005)

No argument there! Ugly, but effective.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 1, 2005)

I agree once again....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 1, 2005)

Form follows function. The Storch did look awkward but it was its strange features that allowed it to preform so well. 

As far as this thread is concerned, I imagine we will get the same selection of aircraft again including the Roc, the Battle, and the TBD.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 1, 2005)

If you can put it this way, I'd say its the first version of the ME-262, because Hitler wanted it to be a bomber role which is not a good thing at all because its way too fast and it just slows the 262 down, and also the 262 can't even carry more than 2000lb payload, so I think that the fighter-bombing 262 is one of the worst in its role.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 2, 2005)

The Me-262A-2a (Fighter-Bomber) wasn't the worst, although it wasn't a bomber as such. It could still rip up ground targets. And no matter what anyone says, the fact that Hitler wanted to put bombs on it didn't delay its production drastically - it was the lack of engines that did.


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 2, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> I agree once again....



it was a loverly plane


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2005)

yes it was rather attractive, it's no lyslander though......


----------



## remoraptor (Jan 2, 2005)

I'd say the Fairey Fulmar was a bad concept for a carrier fighter... Could'nt even stop the stukas from bombing HMS Illustrious...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 2, 2005)

You could say the same thing for practically every home-grown FAA aircraft. The only aircraft they developed that was even roughly comparable to American or Japanese designs was the Firefly and even it was outclassed as a fighter.


----------



## Pertsajakilu (Jan 8, 2005)

Hi to all!

Glad to find out this forum. I have been lurking few days but now registered member.

Fw-189 was not a bad plane. It's place is not here. It was used and it was good and sturdy observation/recce plane.

Pertsajakilu

ps. All what I have written now is under influence of few beers.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 8, 2005)

Alert! We've got another plan_D on the site! Guards, take him away!

Naw, welcome to the site, happy posting! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2005)

and you can't go wrong if you like british aircraft, everyone will love you if you say they're the best in the world, just like they love me..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 9, 2005)

I think you got a bit of a false impression there mate  


Being Finnish I should think he'll like B-239's and Blenheims...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2005)

you...you mean you don't love me


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 9, 2005)

Not anymore I dont, ive heard all about you and Cripps, you filthy cheat!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 10, 2005)

It's ok. Pert will learn the aweful truth about Lanc soon enough. If he comes back that is.


----------



## kiwimac (Jan 10, 2005)

The FW 189 was actually known for its sturdiness.

Nope, absolute worst in its intended role was the Boulton Paul Defiant. 

What a brilliant concept a fighter that could not protect itself from front-on attacks, "Those Ruddy Jerries will never think to attack from the front, By Jove!"

Kiwimac


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

The Blackburn B-25 'Roc' was much worse.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 10, 2005)

Damn you, I was going to say that!

The Defiant wasnt bad as an NF either...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2005)

i was gonna say bout the roc too..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 10, 2005)

Looks like weve all got it in for the Roc


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 10, 2005)

It's true that the Defiant wasn't a bad NF . . . but it wasn't a good one either.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 11, 2005)

better than the roc..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 11, 2005)

Everything was better than the Roc...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 11, 2005)

Well, the Roc was never used as a NF.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 12, 2005)

After the first flight the Roc was never used...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 12, 2005)

I think an open-top ball-pool would have been more effective against the Luftwaffe than the Roc


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 12, 2005)

> I think an open-top ball-pool


What the Hell Kinda English-Crap ass item are u talking about????????


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 12, 2005)

Ah...in theme parks an stuff here there are large pits full of plastic balls that small children play in, and fights always break out in throwing the balls at each other...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 12, 2005)

AAHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhh... Ok...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 12, 2005)

See look...but theyre usually bigger than that...

Do you not have stuff like that in the States?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 12, 2005)

I've seen them at Six Flags parks in the States. We have them at some amusement parks here, too.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 13, 2005)

Mostly we just have them at children-oriented resturants like Chucky Cheese.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Same here...and that's the story for today, kids.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

they can seriously hurt if you get 'em stuck somewhere they weren't designed to go though..........


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

You got one stuck in your ear?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

yes, err.......my ear


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

Mind you, the part he is actually talking about isnt too far from his ears in the lancs case


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Brilliant, CC...!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

Thank god you got there before the lanc - he'd have ruined it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

yes CC, i was actually talking about my mouth, how did you know??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

See what I mean...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

well i can't let you get away with that...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

But I did get away with it...plan_D laughed before you could intervene


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

You can fit those things in your mouth? Boy, you have a big mouth...that's suspicious...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 14, 2005)

plan_D said:


> You can fit those things in your mouth? Boy, you have a big mouth...that's sucpicious...



Big mouth you say? Boy, it all fits into place now, I wondered why i was waking up sore...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

That's just wrong, on so many levels.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 14, 2005)

No smiley can adequately express how I'm feeling at this moment.
Believe me, I've looked!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 14, 2005)

Not possible, this site has a smiley for everything...




> That's just wrong, on so many levels.



Not the top bunk level, I dont have a bunk bed. It only occurs in my own bed, he cant find me when im in another bed which is why i sleep with the dog nowadays.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

Again, wrong on many levels.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2005)

sleeping in what sence..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 14, 2005)

Laying railway sleepers...what else...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 15, 2005)

you lay railway sleepers over your dog??


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 19, 2007)

The He-177 has to qualify as a bad dive bomber, I mean comeon a dive bomber that size. Really bad idea that one...


----------



## Bullockracing (Mar 19, 2007)

The TBD was terrible as used (in the year it was used...) 

Other than that, I think I'm going to throw up all over this thread...


----------



## Bullockracing (Mar 19, 2007)

Oops... Holy dead thread batman...


----------



## Civettone (Mar 19, 2007)

Bristol Botha anyone?




Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> The He-177 has to qualify as a bad dive bomber, I mean comeon a dive bomber that size. Really bad idea that one...



The aircraft was capable of being a dive bomber (which that is just plain stupid I agree) but that was not its main intended role.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 20, 2007)

Actually I thought that was why they designed it with the twined-engines. Basically 6 engines arranged in pairs with no fire-control system. What was the German Ministry smoking when they thought that would work?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2007)

The aircraft was designed as a heavy bomber capable of dive bombing. Hitler wanted all aircraft to be capable of dive bombing.


----------



## Bullockracing (Mar 22, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Actually I thought that was why they designed it with the twined-engines. Basically 6 engines arranged in pairs with no fire-control system. What was the German Ministry smoking when they thought that would work?




You mean four engines arranged in pairs?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2007)

Yes each nacelle had 2 engines paired together driving a single propeller. The He-177 had DB-610s which were paired DB-605s.

Below is a DB-606 which is paired DB-601s. I took this picture at a museum here in Germany a few months ago.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 22, 2007)

What a nightmare!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2007)

The early ones on the He-177 were prone to catching on fire. They wanted the He-177 to be a 4 engined heavy bomber but it could not perform Dive Bombing missions if it had 4 single engines and 4 props so they paired them together and put them in one nacelle.

The later He-274 and He-277 had 4 single engines, but never were produced.

If they had gotten the problems of the engines fixed early eneogh and produced the aircraft in large numbers early eneogh she would have been the answer to Germans Strategic Bomber problem. She could fly at 350mph and had a bomb load of over 14,000lb or two guided missiles.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 22, 2007)

Can't beat the Manchester for being a clunker the props switching from coarse to fine without the pilot knowing has it for me


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 24, 2007)

But the Manchester was just a product of misguided thinking and became the fine Avro Lancaster with a bit of tinkering... Whereas the He-177 Grief never really led anywhere. Also the Me-163 Comet had a habit of exploding on landing which is not good for the pilot.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2007)

I disagree. You call the Manchester a product of misguided thinking. What do you think the He-177 was? They wanted a very heavy bomber to be capable of doing dive bombing... 

Come on now.

The He-177 was actually a very good design, it was just plauged with stupid problems. If they had not wanted the coupled engines the fires would not have been prone. The aircraft would have developed into a very very good Heavy Bomber.

It did not do so because of misguided thinking...


----------



## Civettone (Mar 24, 2007)

And by 1944 the problems with the engines were solved, and it turned out to be a very reliable bomber. But by then crew training was inadequate and the Luftwaffe could never get the most of the few He 177s it had.

Kris


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 25, 2007)

Okay, still as I was saying the divebombing counts as an intended role doesn't it considering how the aircraft was designed? It had problems because of that design and thus it was a bad plane in its intended role which never got out of that role.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 26, 2007)

No not really. Its intended role was as a Heavy Bomber that was capable of dive bombing. All German aircraft were required to be able to do dive bombing. The Me-262 was required to be able to Dive Bomb. Does that make the Me-262 intended main role a dive bomber? No...


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 27, 2007)

But the wording isn't main role, it says intended role/roles and in this case dive-bombing was intended as a potential role. I know all German Aircraft were intended to do it but that doesn't exclude this from the worst plane in its intended role/roles as originally configured...


----------



## Bullockracing (Mar 28, 2007)

The He 177 was not bad in performing its role - it had reliability/maintenance issues. This is a case of a capable performer, and I might add - as the only heavy bomber/dive bomber of the war, it out-performed all Allied heavy bomber/dive bomber aircraft... Oh yeah, the Allies never tied the two together... Hmmm...


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 28, 2007)

Exactly it was unique which meant it didn't have competition for that role. It also had those maintenance and reliability problems led to it being nicknamed the flying coffin. Sound like an aircraft suitable for its role at least initially? I don't think so...


----------



## Bullockracing (Mar 28, 2007)

So it was the best in that role?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2007)

If they had not coupled the engines in the beginning and realized that it was not going to work like that sooner, the He-177 would have been a hell of a bomber and should have been mass mass mass produced. She had a great payload and excellent performance.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 28, 2007)

And she was a beauty.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2007)

That I agree with.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 28, 2007)

Get a load of this one. Supposedly an He-177A-3 towing a aux fuel tank with undercarriage and wings. Never seen this before.

From avia.russian.ee


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2007)

Neither have I. I have heard about them being used for air refueling testing but that I have never seen.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 29, 2007)

Note that it is a rigid "towline" with what appears to be plumbing back the the Greif.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2007)

I think that is stupid. That would certainly effect the performance and maneuverability of the aircraft. Whoever came up with the idea was short a few screws in my opinion. That is if it is what I think it is...


----------



## Parmigiano (Mar 30, 2007)

The Arado234 was tested with the same concept of 'extra fuel tank': a V1 frame w/o engine (..and explosive!) filled with fuel and towed by a semi-rigid pipe that acted as fuel line.

I had a photo of it, I'post if I find it.

Don't believe that went beyond exeriment either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2007)

I would not expect it to go any farther. The idea is rather stupid in my opinion.


----------



## Parmigiano (Mar 30, 2007)

dunno for sure, but I would bet my money that you are right !


----------



## Civettone (Mar 30, 2007)

Tests were succesful but in the end they decided that the conventional drop tanks were still better.

From airvectors.net:
_Another odd development was the "Deichselschlepp", or "air trailer", in which a winged fuel tank with its own undercarriage would be towed behind the Ar-234, with a tube that provided both a linkage to the trailer and a fuel feed back to the Ar-234. Plans were made to similarly tow a Fieseler Fi-103 flying bomb (better known as the V-1 buzz bomb) or a winged SC1400 bomb. In the case of the Fi-103, it was decided instead to mount the flying bomb on a cradle on the back of the Ar-234 that would hydraulically lift the aircraft above the bomber before launch._

First configuration was called "Startwagen", the one with the V 1 on top was called the "Hukepack".

Kris


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 30, 2007)

Interesting.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 30, 2007)

On the He 177:

_During these operations, von Riesen's crews had little trouble from overheating engines. By now the various modifications had greatly reduced the possibility of this happening. Furthermore the root cause of so many of the fires - over-rough use of the throttles and holding high power settings for too long - was now well known; the K.G.I pilots had been advised of the danger and avoided it. When engine fires did occur, it was usually the result of engine mishandling by inexperienced pilots.

On June 23, 1944, the Russians did launch their offensive on the central front. The German forward positions were soon overwhelmed and the tank spearheads began to penetrate deeply into the rear. In desperation the He 177s were sent into battle as ground attack aircraft; but losses were high and in no way commensurate with the meagre success achieved.

THE FUEL FAMINE

By the summer of 1944, the He 177 was at last in operational service in useful numbers, and able to do useful work provided the defences were not overwhelmingly strong. It was then that fate dealt its final blow to the German long-range bomber. Since May the Allied bomber forces had concentrated their efforts against the German oil industry - with dramatic success. In August 1944, the production of aviation fuel was more than 90% down on that in May. Forced to drastically curtail its flying effort, the Luftwaffe immediately grounded its heavy bombers; soon afterwards production of the He 177 ceased, after 565 examples of the A-5 version had been completed. The crews of K.G.I flew their bombers back to rear bases in Germany, where they spent the remainder of the war parked out in the open; together with brand-new Heinkels similarly abandoned. They were to boost the scores of ground-strafing Allied pilots during the closing months of the conflict._

Probably the best He 177 article on the net: Aircraft Profile #234. Heinkel He 177 Greif
Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Tests were succesful but in the end they decided that the conventional drop tanks were still better.
> 
> From airvectors.net:
> _Another odd development was the "Deichselschlepp", or "air trailer", in which a winged fuel tank with its own undercarriage would be towed behind the Ar-234, with a tube that provided both a linkage to the trailer and a fuel feed back to the Ar-234. Plans were made to similarly tow a Fieseler Fi-103 flying bomb (better known as the V-1 buzz bomb) or a winged SC1400 bomb. In the case of the Fi-103, it was decided instead to mount the flying bomb on a cradle on the back of the Ar-234 that would hydraulically lift the aircraft above the bomber before launch._
> ...



Ofcourse traditional drop tanks are better. That big flying tank your hauling behind you will effect performance and maneuverabilty. It is a terrible accident waiting to happen.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 30, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Ofcourse traditional drop tanks are better. That big flying tank your hauling behind you will effect performance and maneuverabilty. It is a terrible accident waiting to happen.


Well... these towed tanks could carry up to 900 litres. I can also imagine them being used in combination with traditional drop tanks or with a bomb load.

Sometimes it's funny how you can talk about two different things and then suddenly they appear to have a connection. I present to you a He 177 with a strange object behind it 





Kris


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 1, 2007)

Still in one of its intended roles the He-177A was a candidate for worst aircraft due to its ability to catch fire. I am not doubting that it became a good aircraft, however most aircraft would be left out if we didn't look at the first versions of aircraft that could have needed work...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Well... these towed tanks could carry up to 900 litres. I can also imagine them being used in combination with traditional drop tanks or with a bomb load.
> 
> Sometimes it's funny how you can talk about two different things and then suddenly they appear to have a connection. I present to you a He 177 with a strange object behind it
> 
> ...



Thats how we got on the discussion. Matt posted the same pic earlier.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 2, 2007)

Where's Lanc the Post Policeman when you need him.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 3, 2007)

Now I really need that rock to crawl under!! 

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 3, 2007)




----------



## Matt308 (Apr 3, 2007)

It's all good!


----------



## TheMustangRider (Jan 7, 2009)

Perhaps the Me-262 would had been one of them (before I start receiving attacks from everybody I'll finish the sentence) if the aircraft would had been emplyed as bomber like Hitler wanted instead of using it in the role is famous for, a deadly interceptor.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2009)

I do not think it would have been too bad as a ground attack bomber. It certainly would have been a waste, since it was needed as an interceptor much much more.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 7, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I disagree. You call the Manchester a product of misguided thinking. What do you think the He-177 was? They wanted a very heavy bomber to be capable of doing dive bombing...
> 
> Come on now.
> 
> ...



I agree, the He 177 and Manchester can be directly compared. The description of a heavy bomber powered by complex coupled engines designed to be capable of dive bombing applies to both of them. They were also both developed into fine aircraft powered by four smaller engines -. It was just that Britain dropped the dive bombing requirement fairly early on and the Lancaster ended up being mass produced.


----------



## Marcel (Jan 8, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I do not think it would have been too bad as a ground attack bomber. It certainly would have been a waste, since it was needed as an interceptor much much more.



I think Bekker in "The luftwaffe war diaries" wrote about the idea of the ME262 as a fighter bomber. He said it was very ill fitted to perform this role. Due to the high speed, the accuracy was not very good and aiming was very difficult IIRC.


----------



## Negative Creep (Jan 8, 2009)

I would like to nominate the Blenheim IF. Intended as a heavy fighter but it was too slow to even catch the Ju 88 and barely quicker than the Do17 and He111. Not to mention it had a mere 5 .303 forward guns, was clumsy and easy prey for fighters. Compared to the Beaufighter or Havoc it looked pretty pathetic to be honest


----------



## Boss Calamari (Jan 8, 2009)

I think the Betty did poor as a torpedo bomber because it couldn't take much damage. In one sortie out of 25 planes only 5 made it back.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2009)

Marcel said:


> I think Bekker in "The luftwaffe war diaries" wrote about the idea of the ME262 as a fighter bomber. He said it was very ill fitted to perform this role. Due to the high speed, the accuracy was not very good and aiming was very difficult IIRC.



The reason I disagree with that is that later in the 50s jet fighter aircraft that were faster turned out to be fine ground attack aircraft.

Like I said, certainly not the best in that role, but not the worst.


----------



## Marcel (Jan 9, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The reason I disagree with that is that later in the 50s jet fighter aircraft that were faster turned out to be fine ground attack aircraft.
> 
> Like I said, certainly not the best in that role, but not the worst.



About the a/c itself, your probably right. I think in the '50ies, designers realised that ground support with jets was a different ballgame than with slower a/c. I'm no expert, but I think these jest probably had better aides for aiming then was available for the ME262. As a bomber howerver, according to mr. Bekker, the ME262 was a failure. It should have adapted much more to fulfill this role. It was designed as a fighter and that what what it could do.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2009)

Marcel said:


> About the a/c itself, your probably right. I think in the '50ies, designers realised that ground support with jets was a different ballgame than with slower a/c. I'm no expert, but I think these jest probably had better aides for aiming then was available for the ME262.



I certainly agree with that. I think the aircraft was a waste in that role, but not the worst.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jan 9, 2009)

I agree that it not only was a waste to use it as a fast-bomber, it was also pretty unsuccessful in that role. Not so much because of the speed but rather because of the poor vision to the front and below and lack of proper targeting equipment. There was a project that would've moved cockpit much further to the front (and eliminate the remaining two MK 108s), which would've very likely fared much better.

However the whole thing was unneccessary as the Ar 234 could do everything the Me 262 could as a bomber and much, much better, too.

Messerschmitt himself has to be blamed to some extent for this, I was going to mention that in the "greates German designer"-poll. He himself assured Hitler that the plane could carry a bombload of up to 1000 kg. Of course he did so to save the project from becoming footnote in the programs of the blindly offensive thinking Hitler, but still: he should've made it absolutely clear what that bird was made for.


----------



## merlin (Jan 12, 2009)

I agree with comments about the Blenheim 1F, a better choice would have been the Gloster twin.
Other British candidates are the Blackburn Botha - underpowered, and overweight. And the Armstrong Whitworth Albermarle - virtually given away to the Russians


----------

