What was the worst Aircraft of WWII?

[Hot Space]

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]

That just illustrates how important France is...

 

[Hot Space]

Hot Space

 

[Anonymous]

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]

thanks for that

 

[Anonymous]

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]

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[bronzewhaler82]

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]

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

 

[bronzewhaler82]

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]

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

 

[Anonymous]

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]

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

Kiwimac

 

[bronzewhaler82]

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]

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]

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]

yup, they sure do 8)

 

[bronzewhaler82]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

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)