Least favorite WW II aircraft manufacturer?

[pbehn]

(Aside from building the Bismark, Admiral Hipper and several series of U-Boats), Blohm und Voss also made the Bv138 seaplane. The Bv222 flying boat was awesome in it's own right and still holds several distinctions due to it's size.

The asymmetric Bv141 may not have looked "normal", but it performed well.

I would certainly say there's other aircraft manufacturers that deserve the "worst" title besides Blohm und Voss

I was joking of course, I remember making a model of the Bv 141, I had to look up "Asymmetric" in the dictionary. My vote goes to Blackburn, if a plane looks "right" they usually are. Blackburn never made a plane that remotely looked "right" to my eyes.

 

[Just Schmidt]

Might I suggest Breda?

 

[pattern14]

I dont have a least favourite aircraft manufacturer either. Possibly the british air ministry for what they did to the Australian aircraft industry but they arent actually an aircraft manufacturer

No need to supply every last detail, but could you let me know what the British air ministry actually did?

 

[GrauGeist]

I was joking of course, I remember making a model of the Bv 141, I had to look up "Asymmetric" in the dictionary. My vote goes to Blackburn, if a plane looks "right" they usually are. Blackburn never made a plane that remotely looked "right" to my eyes.

I always found it interesting that companies that made ships also made aircraft (Blohm und Voss was not an exception) but then again, Frigidaire, a manufacturer of automotive and residential/commercial refrigeration devices also manufactured weapons (like the M1 .30 carbine) during the war.

My least liked U.S. aircraft maker would happen to be Brewster. Their designs as a whole, weren't any significant contribution to the war effort. This excludes the "Buffalo" that actually did something worthwhile in Finland, but otherwise came up short in other theaters.

 

[bobbysocks]

now see i like Blohm and Voss. they either were very excentric and thought way outside the box or were smoking some really good stuff! "Dude, what if we like put the pilot out on the wing in groovy little greenhouse looking thing?" "Far out, man! And lets only give it half a tail section too!"

 

[GregP]

Is that a quote from "Up in Smoke?" After that design they probably needed pizza and a waterpipe.

 

[parsifal]

No need to supply every last detail, but could you let me know what the British air ministry actually did?

From 1936 to 1941 at every turn the British air ministry obstructed the development of a local aero industry, particularly engine manufacture. when war broke out, the brits placed an embargo on the export of engine technologies that very nearly detroyed the Beaufort program, and certainly curtailed the development of the CA4. We were forced to re-negotiate with the Americans, for the production of the twin wasp, which eventually got underway in late 1941.

If memory serves me, we wanted to set up a shadow factory for the production of Hurricanes, but this went to Canada, and we were effectively blocked from any further similar initiatives.

The British were partiaculalry obstructive when it came to American penetration of the Australian manufacturing sector. They wanted us as a captive market, it had little or nothing to do with aircraft production or wartime needs. the result was that our aircraft output was severely curtailed during the war.

This is an extract from wiki, but it shows the absolutlely frustrating obstinacy of the air ministry and its effect on some of the most innovative people of the time. it is talking about the ordering procedures and its effect on a particular engine project in 1936...

"The ordering procedure used I.T.P. (Intention to Proceed) contract papers; these specified a maximum fixed price, which could (after investigation) be less. But when Lord Nuffield got the I.T.P. contract papers for a Wolseley radial aero engine, which would have required re-orientation of their offices with an army of chartered accountants, he decided to deal only with the War Office and the Admiralty, not the Air Ministry. So the aero engine project was abandoned in 1936, see Airspeed. Nevil Shute Norway wrote that the loss of such a technically advanced engine was a great loss to Britain as well as Airspeed, and blamed the over-cautious high civil servants of the Air Ministry. When he had asked Lord Nuffield to retain the engine, Nuffield said: I tell you, Norway ... I sent that I.T.P. thing back to them, and I told them they could put it where the monkey put the nuts"

 

[parsifal]

This is an extract from the official history:

"Slow progress only was made with the scheme, however, and in Marc h 1940 it became apparent that, of the 33,000 jigs, tools and fixtures, at least 26,000, instead of coming from England (that is the Bristol Company), must be manufactured in Australia (my note...this is diplomatic language....in fact the DAP was promised this number, and then were dumped with no ceremony at a very critcal point) . It was alleged, too, that data , when received, were incorrect, and by the end of April it was necessar y to revise the production programme to : details completed August 1940 , components November 1940, first aircraft February 1941, rising to 24 a month to complete the 180 in January 1942 . Unfortunately the materials which did arrive on schedule represented only part of the requirement s for complete aircraft. 5 The embargo on export of raw materials from Britain in June 1940 ruled out this source of supply 6 and the Australians endeavoured to obtain the necessary raw materials from the United States".

The embargo bit deep into the plans that had been made to that point. Moreover, when the Australians suggested switching to the twin wasp, they were thoroughly discouraged by the Air Mnistry. Later that year the air ministry did change its mind, and was an enthusiastic supporter of the new engine proposal, but only after the Australians worked long and hard to show the engine change could be achieved relatively simply.

 

[beitou]

I was joking of course, I remember making a model of the Bv 141, I had to look up "Asymmetric" in the dictionary. My vote goes to Blackburn, if a plane looks "right" they usually are. Blackburn never made a plane that remotely looked "right" to my eyes.

Untill they got to the Buccaneer. The banana bomber looked wonderful to me and certainly did the business but I agree about Blackburn's war time efforts, well maybe the Firebrand looked sort of ok.

 

[CobberKane]

To be fair, manufacturers did not operate in a vacuum. Curtis never really got beyond the averagely good P-40, but for most of the war everyone was screaming for P-40s. Mitsubishi possibly fell prey to believing the hyperbole about the Zero, but so did everyone else, including the Japanese and Allied air-forces. On the flip side, there were also manufacturers who produced exceptional designs in the face of bureaucratic indifferent or outright hostility. Top prize here would have to go to De Havilland for the ubiquitous Mosquito, Focke-Wulf for the Fw190 and North American for the P-51, though in the latter case the credit is somewhat diluted, given the Mustang reached its zenith in another role and with another engine than the manufacturer had envisioned.

 

[GregP]

Well now let's see.

The radial powered P-36 morphed into the Allison powered P-40. The Atsuta powered Ki-61 morphed into the radial powered Ki-100. The Tempest had both Napier Sabre and Birstol Centaurus variants, and eventually wound up as the radial powered Sea Fury. Even the P-47 wound up with an inline in an experimental P-47. They built a raidal powered Bf 109 using a Wright R-1820. The Hurricane would up with a DB inline in it at one point. The Yolosuka D4Y started off with an inline Atsuta and would up with a radial. The Fw 190 started out with a BMW radial and wound up with a Jumo, and several German twins used a variety of powerplants that went from radial to inline to alternate manufacturers.

So I'd say North American's engien change was comparitively minor in the face of all those major reworks. But I get your point.

 

[CobberKane]

Well now let's see.

The radial powered P-36 morphed into the Allison powered P-40. The Atsuta powered Ki-61 morphed into the radial powered Ki-100. The Tempest had both Napier Sabre and Birstol Centaurus variants, and eventually wound up as the radial powered Sea Fury. Even the P-47 wound up with an inline in an experimental P-47. They built a raidal powered Bf 109 using a Wright R-1820. The Hurricane would up with a DB inline in it at one point. The Yolosuka D4Y started off with an inline Atsuta and would up with a radial. The Fw 190 started out with a BMW radial and wound up with a Jumo, and several German twins used a variety of powerplants that went from radial to inline to alternate manufacturers.

So I'd say North American's engien change was comparitively minor in the face of all those major reworks. But I get your point.

Well, I can't see any of the above that represent an exceptional design pushed through in the face of bureaucratic indifference, excepting perhaps the Fw190, which was one of my picks. You could make the argument that the P-51 was historically the most important of the lot (although the Mosquito could put its hand up for that honour, too), but as it originally came from North American it was a good fighter rather than a great one, I think, and while the USA might have been a bit slow to recognise it's potential I don't think anyone really thought the whole idea of the plane was ridiculous. First prize for producing a winner against all the odds still has to go to De Havilland, to my mind. The Mossie was a largely self-funded effort, designed and built in-house with little interest from the powers that be and it rolled out the door pretty much ready to excel in it's intended role (and quite a few others, as it transpired). Also, unlike the case of the P-51 or pretty much any other aircraft of the war, in producing a high speed, unarmed daylight bomber De Havilland not only invented the aircraft, but the role. A classic team exercise in determination and self-belief.

 

[Glider]

They built a raidal powered Bf 109 using a Wright R-1820.

That is new to me and I do like the sound of it. Does anyone have any information?

 

[Shortround6]

I believe they used a P &W R-1830. There was also one built using a BMW 801.

 

[tomo pauk]

The one with R-1830 was called Bf-109V-21, the other, with BMW-801, was called Bf-109X. link

 

[Glider]

Many thanks, you never stop learning. At first glance I thought it looked a bit like a Ki44.

 

[Procrastintor]

Hey.

New here, don't think this has been posted before. But I've got a rant I've been thinking about for a while. Sure, Curtiss, Brewster, and Blackburn weren't great during WW II, but my least favorite plane maker has to be Hawker.

It's OK Curtiss, he didn't mean it.

 

[GregP]

Here is a pic of the radial Bf 109:

Note the bubble canopy, so let's not say it couldn't be done! And rather easily.

 

[buffnut453]

Interesting...looks more like Me109 wings and tail glued onto an entirely new fuselage. Certainly doesn't have the rather slab-sided appearance I typically associated with the fuselage of the Me109.

 

[GregP]

It was an early experiment in case they had a problem with the DB 601. I think they maybe should have gone with at LEAST the canopy if not the radial theme. Looks pretty good and reportedly flew well, but was not the main focus of Bf 109 development.

Interesting, though, isn't it? This is NOT a photoshop pic, it is real. It just wasn't proceeded with in any form other than this prototype.