Least favorite WW II aircraft manufacturer?

[beitou]

Did the wider fuselage help the ground handling at all?

 

[GregP]

Can't say. Saw something that said it flew well and was liked by the pilots (unreferenced, of course) ... but never DID see an actual flight test report on it and NOTHING on ground handling.

At least it is an interesting experiment ... and shows that a bubble-type canopy CAN be put onto a Bf 109-like aircraft.

If nothing more, this silences the critics on that score ... but other than that, is just a one-off interesting prototype. Wonder what ever happend to it? Maybe it's in a barn in Germany somewhere ...

 

[Aozora]

Wonder what ever happend to it? Maybe it's in a barn in Germany somewhere ...

Story is it was shot down by other 109s that were jealous of its clear-view canopy and rugged good looks.

 

[GrauGeist]

There were two radial engined prototypes:

Bf109V21 (W.Nr 1770) D-IFKQ with the Pratt Whitney SG-C twin Wasp (1939)

Bf109X (W.Nr 5602) D-ITXP/CE+BH with a BMW 801A-0 (1940)

Aparently, the V21 airframe ended up with being rebuilt for Bf109F-0 series pre-production testing, though not alot of details survive about it. No idea what happened to the X (5602) airframe

 

[GregP]

Many seemingly interesting aircraft went off into oblivion. The Reynard R-37 was flown to Germany and then just disappeared. Nobody seems to know what happened to the R-40 either. These aren't the only planes to have mysterious endings.

Perhaps some of them survive today somewhere ready to be discovered. Maybe a PXL P-50 survives somewhere in Poland. I wonder if the Siai-Marchetti S. M. 91 92 survived somewhere.

What ever happened to the Skoda-Kauba SK 257 V2? Or the Sud-Ouest SO 8000 Narval?

Many more ...

 

[pattern14]

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.

Thanks for all of that info. Sounds like old fashioned colonialism at its best.

 

[fastmongrel]

You would think that a country that has just been booted unceremoniously out of Europe leaving behind all its heavy equipment, had a large chunk of its airforce turned into scrap and was desperately short of everything from army boots to frigates would be happy to divert production facilities to a country that was 12,000 miles from the action and in more danger of running out of barbecued shrimp than being invaded by Germany.

Selfish pommie bastards anyone would think they were fighting for there lives and freedom.

 

[Ilyushin IL-2 Sturmovik]

CURTIS

 

[nuuumannn]

Yep, the Aussies do tend to forget that there was a war on. Over 1,000 Ansons, Hudsons that the British Air Ministry - yep, the very same, supported the RAAF's choice in buying, Sunderlands, licence production of the Battle, Beaufort, Beaufighter and Mosquito, supply of Spitfires when Australia desperately needed them, not to forget the Empire Air training Scheme that Australia certainly benefitted from by being a part of - selfish Brits.

It's interesting to note that New Zealand has never thought the same about Britain, despite having a non-existent aircraft industry (apart from Tiger Moths being built at Ronogtai) and a handful of obsolete 1920s and 30s biplanes as its air arm until 1941 with the arrival of modern American aircraft (P-40s and Hudsons), yet was subject to the same threats Australia was from German raiders and then the Japanese. Sure, New Zealand never got bombed, but Japanese submarines operated in New Zealand waters and the country was powerless to do anything about it, yet you don't hear us whinging about how the Brits deserted us. New Zealand wasn't even allowed its own navy until 1941. Mind you, NZ PM Peter Fraser had a good relationship with Roosevelt and brokered trade agreements with the USA prior to Pearl Harbour, which the Brits didn't like but couldn't do anything about, while the Aussies just sat back and blamed the Brits for their alleged misfortune, despite receiving considerable amounts of aircraft and aid from Britain with pre-war expansion of the RAAF and throughout the entire war, despite its physical isolation.

 

[parsifal]

You would think that a country that has just been booted unceremoniously out of Europe leaving behind all its heavy equipment, had a large chunk of its airforce turned into scrap and was desperately short of everything from army boots to frigates would be happy to divert production facilities to a country that was 12,000 miles from the action and in more danger of running out of barbecued shrimp than being invaded by Germany.

Selfish pommie bastards anyone would think they were fighting for there lives and freedom.

The problem is that the decisions i refer to dont have much to do with improving the national defences of britain, and keeping promises they had made regarding the supply of parts and manufacturing jigs and the like would not have hurt the British war effort very much at all, and not lying about it would not have hurt even a bit. These embarges and failures to keep promises had nothing to do with British war situation. Its an excuse often trotted out by overly defensive Brits (and New Zealanders). Facts are, that throughout the prewar period the Britsh made repeated promises to the Australians, and never kept them. And nowhere was that more apparent than in our fledgling aircraft industry.

For the record, the Beafort program was intended to benefit both the RAF and the RAAF, and originally all production was intended to end up in the ETO. That is hardly acting selfishly. What it did do was make us less reliant on Britain for aircraft supply, and that was something the foreign office and the Air ministry were not prepared to accept, even if it meant weakening their own defences to do it.....it was not a cost to British production, it was an addition, but because it was not within the shores of britain, and in fact within the borders of what they considered a ready market and a defence consumer nation, they were prepared to take the risk of foregoing that enhanced defence capability (however small it was)

The reasons for the British behaviour had nothing to do with their national defence priorities. they had everything to do with keeping Australia away from aircraft self sufficiency and retaining them as a ready made defence consumer for the British aircraft industry.

it was part of a much wider malaise with the brits. The basic underlying problem of course was that Britain was by the 1930s a declining world power no longer able to defend the vast territory and oceans of the British empire and commonwealth, and we were like a adolescent son or daughter not quite ready to leave the nest, but extremely unruly nevertheless. These issues with the aircraft industry are but a small part of a much wider betrayal on the part of the British, that ultimately led to a switch of allegiances by Australia from Britain to the US, something we have never rescinded, and never regretted . The ultimate betrayal, of course was the bitter loss of Singapore, and the failure by the British to keep a promise they had been making since 1935, namely that in the event of a war with Japan, Italy and Germany, the British would forego disputing the med and send all available ships and men to the Far East to defend Australia, with the same vigour as their own country. It was a hollow promise, and from a wider strategic perspective, it made no sense to honour the promise. but it was a promise, and one repeated many times, in full knowledge they (the British) had no intention of ever keeping. We believed it, and placed our own country's defence needs in second place because we believed the promises that had been made to us. we had a lot to learn.......

 

[nuuumannn]

they had everything to do with keeping Australia away from aircraft self sufficiency and retaining them as a ready made defence consumer for the British aircraft industry.

Well, why not? Australia was a part of the British Empire and naturally it would want its commonwealth to support its interests. This was the British Empire after all. As for the Beauforts, the British contributed enormously to the establishment of Australia's aircraft industry
and big firms threw their weight behind the decision to build the Beaufort in Australia. As for the decision not to contribute any further hardware to Australia for production of its aircraft - harden up! Britain had just entered into a war footing! Of course they were not going to be able to send stuff to Australia that it desperately needed for the war effort! Do you not see how silly your claim is in light of that?

These issues with the aircraft industry are but a small part of a much wider betrayal on the part of the British, that ultimately led to a switch of allegiances by Australia from Britain to the US, something we have never rescinded, and never regretted.

This doesn't actually match with historic events. Post WW2, Aussie built the Lincoln, instead of the B-24, which was serving with the RAAF during WW2 and was up for suggestion as the post-war RAAF heavy bomber to be built locally, not only that, but Australia also built the Canberra, another British bomber, which, I have to add, was named after the Australian capital, also the RAAF received Gloster Meteors, Vampires, the RAN received Sea Furies, Sea Venoms, Fireflies, Gannets, British aircraft carriers, frigates, destroyers, helicopters etc; need I go on. The switch to US equipment and not just US equipment, like the MB-326, Mirage (the F-104 'lost' the contract to the Mirage) etc was down to what was considered to be the best course of action, not because of some misguided anti-British sentiment.

As for Singapore - really Parsifal? How can you suggest the loss of Singapore was a betrayal to Australia?! Your argument sounds awfully self-centred and whomever orignially came up with that notion was extraordinarily conceited - I suspect it was politically motivated, myself. Again, you don't hear New Zealanders bleating on about the fall of Singapore being a betrayal of British promises to keep NZ safe, and lets face it, New Zealand relied on Britain to a far greater extent than Australia did.

I know we've exchanged words about this subject before, Parsifal, but I cannot accept your notion that Britain 'abandoned' Australia. Regardless of what your emotions on the subject are, Britain had ample justification for doing what it did, in hindsight. If Australia went to war against a local power, would you send badly required resources half way round the world to a country that doesn't really need them as immediately as Australia does? Makes perfect sense.

 

[Glider]

The problem is that the decisions i refer to dont have much to do with improving the national defences of britain, and keeping promises they had made regarding the supply of parts and manufacturing jigs and the like would not have hurt the British war effort very much at all, and not lying about it would not have hurt even a bit. These embarges and failures to keep promises had nothing to do with British war situation. Its an excuse often trotted out by overly defensive Brits (and New Zealanders). Facts are, that throughout the prewar period the Britsh made repeated promises to the Australians, and never kept them. And nowhere was that more apparent than in our fledgling aircraft industry.

While I don't doubt that the UK could have done more for instance in the supply of more modern fighters I don't see what else they could have done. In the Pacific the absolute requirement was for Carriers and the ones we did have were constantly in action.

For the record, the Beafort program was intended to benefit both the RAF and the RAAF, and originally all production was intended to end up in the ETO.

When the contracts were signed for Australian production, Australia wasn't under any threat as Japan hadn't entered the war. So I don't see the issue.

What it did do was make us less reliant on Britain for aircraft supply

Fair enough

, and that was something the foreign office and the Air ministry were not prepared to accept

This bit I don't get at all. Just how stupid do you think the UK authorities were. If you are helping people to build combat aircraft the other side of the world then by default you are accepting that Australia will have a bigger influence than they had originally.

, even if it meant weakening their own defences to do it.....it was not a cost to British production, it was an addition, but because it was not within the shores of britain, and in fact within the borders of what they considered a ready market and a defence consumer nation, they were prepared to take the risk of foregoing that enhanced defence capability (however small it was)

I think you are understating the assistance that Australia gave to the war against Japan.

The reasons for the British behaviour had nothing to do with their national defence priorities. they had everything to do with keeping Australia away from aircraft self sufficiency and retaining them as a ready made defence consumer for the British aircraft industry.

If this had been the case then the UK would not have paid for everything involved in the build up of the RAAF. The UK paid for all the aircraft, equipment, training, uniforms absolutely everything. This applied to all the commonwealth nations with the exception of Canada who agreed to pay for their heavy bomber squadrons, in I think 1943.

it was part of a much wider malaise with the brits. The basic underlying problem of course was that Britain was by the 1930s a declining world power no longer able to defend the vast territory and oceans of the British empire and commonwealth, and we were like a adolescent son or daughter not quite ready to leave the nest, but extremely unruly nevertheless. These issues with the aircraft industry are but a small part of a much wider betrayal on the part of the British, that ultimately led to a switch of allegiances by Australia from Britain to the US, something we have never rescinded, and never regretted . The ultimate betrayal, of course was the bitter loss of Singapore, and the failure by the British to keep a promise they had been making since 1935, namely that in the event of a war with Japan, Italy and Germany, the British would forego disputing the med and send all available ships and men to the Far East to defend Australia, with the same vigour as their own country. It was a hollow promise, and from a wider strategic perspective, it made no sense to honour the promise. but it was a promise, and one repeated many times, in full knowledge they (the British) had no intention of ever keeping. We believed it, and placed our own country's defence needs in second place because we believed the promises that had been made to us. we had a lot to learn.......

Defending Singapore was never a realistic thing to do once the Japanese started the war in the East. If there is any criticism, it is that the UK shouldn't have tried so hard to defend it in the first place. The UK sent as many ships as they could spare to fight the Japanese but they never had the carriers or aircraft that were so critical.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

While I don't believe the B-239 (de-navalized F2A-1) and F2A-2 (not Buffaloes) were the worst aircraft used in WW2, I do think Brewster was the worst manufacturer. From what I've read, their actions were criminal, if not outright treasonous.

Although Curtiss' infamous history is nothing to recommend it. As told to me by CW employees, when I worked for the company after college, that corporate management developed a hostile and confrontative relationship with its government contractors. I was told that CW management told the USAAF "it didn't need to be told how to build a fighter plane." This story is suspect for a number of reasons, but may be a distortion of a more accurate narrative wherein (according to Wikipedia) CW, accused of improprieties in engine inspection and acceptance, became defensive and confrontational in its interaction with government contractors.

When WW2 ends CW was the 2nd biggest US corporation after GM. It's fall from grace seems epic in retrospect, although it limped along into the late 60's by diversifying and overhauling the engines of other manufacturers. Many corporations in the defeated countries fared better then CW and even survive today retaining some aspect of their original aviation roots.

 

[fastmongrel]

When WW2 ends CW was the 2nd biggest US corporation after GM. It's fall from grace seems epic in retrospect, although it limped along into the late 60's by diversifying and overhauling the engines of other manufacturers. Many corporations in the defeated countries fared better then CW and even survive today retaining some aspect of their original aviation roots.

Part of the reason for CW collapsing was hitching their wagon to the Turbo-compound, Bill Lundquist was a good piston engineer but he seems to have blocked work on gas turbines believing the R3350 would run for ever.

 

[GregP]

Curtiss-Wright is alive and well today, but no longer in the business of piston engines. They do electronics, avionics, and industrial control devices.

 

[redcoat]

Blackburn. The Botha and Roc are the two British WW2 aircraft I really dislike.

 

[GregP]

The Fairey Barracuda was ugly beyond belief, but actually performed quite well. Still, the sight of one was enough to make strong pilots want to take up boat racing.

 

[pbehn]

The Fairey Barracuda was ugly beyond belief, but actually performed quite well. Still, the sight of one was enough to make strong pilots want to take up boat racing.

nice to see the barracuda in perspective

 

[Edgar Brooks]

and the failure by the British to keep a promise they had been making since 1935, namely that in the event of a war with Japan, Italy and Germany, the British would forego disputing the med and send all available ships and men to the Far East to defend Australia, with the same vigour as their own country. It was a hollow promise, and from a wider strategic perspective,.......

No, they didn't; what the government promised (and not only have I read the message, but I also have a copy on my computer) was that, in the event of Japan invading the country, we would then drop everything in the Med, and go to Australia's aid. As they didn't invade, there was no need to come.
There is one underlying misapprehension, in this thread; British manufacturers produced what they were asked for, not what they felt like producing. The Air Ministry produced a specification, companies produced plans, and the Ministry ordered what they felt filled the bill.
The Hurricane was never known as the "Fury Monoplane." On the first (abortive) tender, and on the second, it was titled "High Speed Single Seater Monoplane Interceptor."

 

[GregP]

It did good work but was sort of homely ... just my opinion.

Others may find it beautiful. If so, I'll politely decline any blind double dates with them, and wish them happiness.