Worst aircraft of WW2? (1 Viewer)

Civettone said:

So the average American recruit which has 250 hours on his belt before training on fighter aircraft, would have no problem with the Bf 109, right?

Click to expand...

Actually many US fighter pilots had a hell of a lot more flight hours before they went into combat. I believe 400 - 600 hours would be closer to the norm. Some of the pilots that were serving prior to the start of the war (I'm speaking about the US's entry) is was not uncommon to find line pilots with several thousand hours flight time.

Civettone said:

Just a question - I am not a pilot like you Flyboy J - don't most WW2 fighters have long noses that keep the pilots from seeing over the nose (exception of course aircraft with tail wheels)?

Kris

Click to expand...

Yes they did and mastering a landing in an aircraft like the P-40 or Bf 109 didn't come overnight. I think Soren posted a while back that it was recommended that the -109 was landed in the full 3 point position. When you go into the flare and let the aircraft settle you have no foward visibility. At this point peripheral vision comes into play and hope if you're landing on a dirt strip hope there are no craters or furrows in your path.

Now imagine a 200 hour pilot having to learn to fly a WW2 fighter and throw in cross winds, adverse weather, bad landing fields and now yo have a very slim "forgiveness margin" for that pilot.

For the low time fighter pilot just taking off and landing was a feat in itself.

When the Luftwaffe units had to frequently change base in the last months of the war, they experienced a 10% accident ratio. So this is just taking off, flying level for 15 minutes and landing, 1 out of 10 aircraft had to be written off due to landing accidents. These pilots couldn't even fly their aircraft, how could they expect them to fight?
Half of the fighters in those days served no other purpose than getting shot down which in effect drew off enemy fighters. What a waste.
That's why I'm saying there was no point in increasing aircraft production or even having enough fuel to fly them if you didn't have pilots who could do something useful with them. But the problem is that well-trained pilots need time. So in 1944 it was already too late, no matter how much fuel and aircraft the Germans had.

Kris

Yep!

Civettone said:

When the Luftwaffe units had to frequently change base in the last months of the war, they experienced a 10% accident ratio. So this is just taking off, flying level for 15 minutes and landing, 1 out of 10 aircraft had to be written off due to landing accidents. These pilots couldn't even fly their aircraft, how could they expect them to fight?
Half of the fighters in those days served no other purpose than getting shot down which in effect drew off enemy fighters. What a waste.
That's why I'm saying there was no point in increasing aircraft production or even having enough fuel to fly them if you didn't have pilots who could do something useful with them. But the problem is that well-trained pilots need time. So in 1944 it was already too late, no matter how much fuel and aircraft the Germans had.

Kris

Click to expand...

Hi Civettone,

so what are you trying to say? that Hitler and his gang lost the war in 44?
Well gues what Stauffenberg and his gang on 20th July 1944 tried to accomplish.
So what was the worst plane in WWII ?
Still the Me-163 or The Gloster Meteor ?
3-4 years of development ending in a plane that had the same datas as a prop that was build 3 years earlier?
Wespe

No Germany lost the war when they invaded the Russians.

The Meteor can hardly be considered the worst aircraft of WW2. It was not finished with development when the war ended. Very soon after the war the Meteor was performing better than the Me-262.

Why did development of the Meteor take so long? Because the British and the rest of the allies had the time to work on there aircraft and work out the bugs.

I guarantee you that if Germany was in the position that the British and the allies were they would have taken just as long as well.

Later variants of the Meteor served well - it was made into an nightfighter in the post war years and was also able to fulfill many roles. I worked for someone who had a civilian one and he said it was a great flyer - today the same aircraft is at the Edwards AFB Museum.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

No Germany lost the war when they invaded the Russians.

Well if you want to go into that depth; Germany lost the war the moment they attacked Poland, and Hitler was not able to convience Churchill that they should be buddies.

The Meteor can hardly be considered the worst aircraft of WW2. It was not finished with development when the war ended. Very soon after the war the Meteor was performing better than the Me-262.

The Me-262,especially it's engines were also not finished developing, also I am refering to "during the war, not after" so during the war the Gloster Meteor did not perform at all.

Why did development of the Meteor take so long? Because the British and the rest of the allies had the time to work on there aircraft and work out the bugs.

No argument to proof that the Gloster performed. Anyway the Germans took the same time - but they came up with the best fighter (or even plane) in WWII (when it worked).

I guarantee you that if Germany was in the position that the British and the allies were they would have taken just as long as well.

Click to expand...

No argument to proof that the Gloster performed.

Wespe

FLYBOYJ said:

Later variants of the Meteor served well - it was made into an nightfighter in the post war years and was also able to fulfill many roles. I worked for someone who had a civilian one and he said it was a great flyer - today the same aircraft is at the Edwards AFB Museum.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Wespe said:

No argument to proof that the Gloster performed.

Wespe

Click to expand...

Since I am unbiased toward aircraft that are not German, yes I would be glad to show you...

Meteor MK.4, 8, and 9

Max Speed: 585-595 mph (940-958 km/h)
Rate of Climb: 7,000-7,600 ft/min (2130-2315 m/min)
Range on internal fuel only: About 1,000 miles at altitude.

Meteor MK.7, 10-14

Max Speed: 579-585 mph (931-940 km/h)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Since I am unbiased toward aircraft that are not German, yes I would be glad to show you...

Meteor MK.4, 8, and 9

Max Speed: 585-595 mph (940-958 km/h)
Rate of Climb: 7,000-7,600 ft/min (2130-2315 m/min)
Range on internal fuel only: About 1,000 miles at altitude.

Meteor MK.7, 10-14

Max Speed: 579-585 mph (931-940 km/h)

Click to expand...

Sorry NOOOO proof,

the F.4, the first example flew on 12 April 1945, F.8 (the major production version, first flown on 12 October 1948, not to mention MK9.
Fact is the Metors build and in action during WWII were just as good as a mossie. The requirement for persuing this jetfighter where never met. And if someone takes 3-4 years to build a plane that performs at a level of a prop build in 1942, then this aircraft is a total failure, no matter how good this plane was to become 5-8 years later. (taking all the German knowledge ).

Even in Korea this "fighter" performed misserably. it shot down 6 and lost 6. So it ended up as a Ground attack plane, for which it was never ment.

Wespe, when was the development of the Meteor started? I know the first plane flew in 1943. The Me 262 flew two years earlier IIRC.



Kris

Hi Civettone,

trying to proof something ??

Well you are wrong, go and check the books. Wait ... I am a nice guy so I will provide you with some proof.

There is a reason, that if the time for the argument seem apropriate,that the English will proudly anounce that they were acctually the first. But when it comes to the "results" of the Meteor MKI-III then suddenly there is no more first but ... a no push....no priority....no ah whatever.

Both countries started of pretty at the same time. Whilst the English were making sure on the engine, Hitler halted the whole project. At the end the English engine was more reliable but had no performance. Just at around the war ending days a better engine came into testing and as such into the Meteor MK4. too late.

So whilst the Meteor MKI-III in 44 was crusing at around 650 - 690 km the Me-262 was roaming the skies with almost 200km plus.

Unfortunatly the Germans did not have the materials to bring reliability to their engines,but after 3-4 years of development they still came up with a multirole fighter that could outfly any allied plane by a 150+ km, whilst the English had a jet fighter that was showing the same performance after 3-4 years of development as a prop build 2-3 years before.

See below for historic datas:

In September 1939, the Air Ministry also ordered that Gloster design an aircraft, the "E.28/39", to test-fly the engine. In the meantime, Whittle was hearing rumors that the Germans were also working on "turbojet" engines, as they came to be known.
Despite the disruption caused by the Battle of Britain, work on turbojet engines and aircraft continued at a low level. In fact, in 1940 the Air Ministry issued a request, designated "F.9/40", for an operational turbojet-powered fighter.

Only eight of the twelve G.41 Meteor prototypes were completed. They featured a confusing variety of engine fits, reflecting the zigs and zags of British engine development. The initial engine fit was specified as Rover W.2B engines, with the first and fourth prototypes completed with such powerplants. However, after performing taxi tests and short hops with the first G.41 prototype in July 1942, Gerry Sayer said the thing was simply too underpowered to fly safely, and as discussed the Rover turbojet engine development effort which was dying of its own bureaucracy.

The first Meteor to actually fly took to the air on 5 March 1943, with Michael Daunt at the controls. It was the fifth in the prototype manufacturing sequence and was fitted with de Havilland Halford H.1 turbojets, the ancestor of the Goblin. This particular engine fit led to the sixth prototype, which flew on 12 July 1945.

So if you take the Australian Boomerang as the worst plane (ugly little guy) it wasn't out classed by a own plane build 2-3 years before (Wirraway).
Neither was a Fw-D12 out classed by a Fw-190A and so on and so on.

So fact is, the Meteor was just as good in May 45 as a 1942 build Mossie, and therefore it is the only WWII plane that was not better than a similar plane build 2-3 years before, which inturn makes it the worst plane in WWII to me.
Imagine The Me-262 would have had the same performance as a Me-410
Probably the Gestapo would have picked up Willi at home.
Wespe

Wespe said:

Sorry NOOOO proof,

the F.4, the first example flew on 12 April 1945, F.8 (the major production version, first flown on 12 October 1948, not to mention MK9.
Fact is the Metors build and in action during WWII were just as good as a mossie. The requirement for persuing this jetfighter where never met. And if someone takes 3-4 years to build a plane that performs at a level of a prop build in 1942, then this aircraft is a total failure, no matter how good this plane was to become 5-8 years later. (taking all the German knowledge ).

Click to expand...

Sorry Wespe I did not want to say this, but you are fool of ****. Get over it. Get off of your Luftwaffe holier than thou self. No where idd

Go back and read my post. I said a few years after the war it was performing better than the Me-262. You asked for proof, I gave it to you.

Again why did the Meteor take longer. 2 reasons:

1. Its development started later than that of the Me-262. The Meteor did not fly until 1943. Not even a year after the war was over a Meteor broke the world speed record with 616mph.

2. The British had time. The Germans did not.

No one is saying the Meteor was better than the Me-262, just that your automatic dismissal (more than likely because it was the British jet fighter) is probably a bit wrong, when there were aircraft much worse than the Meteor.

I would lable the Bf-110 worse than the Meteor! (I am sure that pisses you off because it was a Luftwaffe aircraft)

Wespe said:

Imagine The Me-262 would have had the same performance as a Me-410
Probably the Gestapo would have picked up Willi at home.
Wespe

Click to expand...

Atleast the 410's engines would not flame out on your after 10 hours of flight time.

I will apologize for first post up there. However you are so biassed you are just as bad as syscom3!

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

I will apologize for first post up there. However you are so biassed you are just as bad as syscom3!

Click to expand...

Don't apologize to me Yank FIGHT, PROOF

Go back and read my post. I said a few years after the war it was performing better than the Me-262. You asked for proof, I gave it to you.

We are talking about WWII - not few years after

Again why did the Meteor take longer. 2 reasons:

1. Its development started later than that of the Me-262. The Meteor did not fly until 1943. Not even a year after the war was over a Meteor broke the world speed record with 616mph.

Who cares for the reason? both started up in 1939 and the British came up with a plane that performed as a Mossie build 2-3 years before.
2. The British had time. The Germans did not.

No one is saying the Meteor was better than the Me-262, just that your automatic dismissal (more than likely because it was the British jet fighter) is probably a bit wrong, when there were aircraft much worse than the Meteor.

OFF COURSE nobody is saying that, it would be utter nonsense.
I would lable the Bf-110 worse than the Meteor! (I am sure that pisses you off because it was a Luftwaffe aircraft)[/QUOTE]

Definatly the Me-110 was not up to a Meteor - I dont care about Luftwaffe, or RAF or USAAF or whatever - I only care for facts.
So don't bring in this national thing, just because Iam forwarding a non-German plane as being the worst.
Anyway the English are all gays, and the men in the north wear skirts.

Wespe

It was just a question. And from what you quoted, it seems safe to assume that the Meteor development started a year later than the Me 262. Meteor designing started in 1940, you say? Me 262 in 1939. First flight of the Meteor in 1943? First flight of the Me 262 in 1941 - or if you will in 1942.
The English development of their engines apparently went even slower than that of the German jet engines and so they were still in the prototype stage when the Me 262 was already in production.
I took a quick look at wikipedia ... the Meteor F.1 was only produced in small numbers and mainly used for training (and for V1 hunting). The Meteor F.3 was 120 km/h faster which would mean a maximum speed of 790 km/h. It became operational in December 1944. Though not as fast as the Me 262, I think this is quite allright: at least it was faster than any piston engined fighter... at least no reason to claim it to be the worse fighter of WW2. Just shortly after the war, it beat the world speed record and became a reliable and capable jet fighter until the early 50s.

It just wasn't completely ready when the war ended. If this makes you conclude that it was a bad aircraft, then you can throw in every other prototype of 1944 or 1945 on that heap.

Kris

Wespe said:

Don't apologize to me Yank FIGHT, PROOF

Click to expand...

First of all dont call me a Yank. You may call me an American. You may call me a German, since I am both. Yes I hold both passports.

The problem is I provide proof in 99 percent of my posts. You dismiss them with:

a. It was not a Me-262.
b. It was not engineered by Germans.
c. It was not Luftwaffe.

You want proof then of things then dont be so biased. Because the Me-262 really was not the greatest thing since bread and butter.

It was the best Jet fighter to see WW2 service but it was not the best overall aircraft.

How do you come to the conclusion of what is best. (and not in any particular order)

1. Performance
2. Quality of Construction
3. Maneuverabilty and ease of handling
4. Ease of Maintenance
5. Impact it had on the war (not necessarily to winning but what its impact was)

Wespe said:

Definatly the Me-110 was not up to a Meteor - I dont care about Luftwaffe, or RAF or USAAF or whatever - I only care for facts.
So don't bring in this national thing, just because Iam forwarding a non-German plane as being the worst.
Anyway the English are all gays, and the men in the north wear skirts.

Wespe

Click to expand...

I too am a big Luftwaffe fan. I think the best aircaft built was the Ta-152 during WW2. But in my search for knowlege I am willing to go outside the box. The reason I am picking on you because of this is because in about 75 of your 80 posts you dismiss anything that is not made by a German company and most of the time with sly remarks that just irk me.

With the exception of the Me-262 I most certainly would agree with you on many of your posts.

You say your search for truth, then forget about who made the planes.

Civettone said:

It was just a question. And from what you quoted, it seems safe to assume that the Meteor development started a year later than the Me 262. Meteor designing started in 1940, you say? Me 262 in 1939. First flight of the Meteor in 1943? First flight of the Me 262 in 1941 - or if you will in 1942.
The English development of their engines apparently went even slower than that of the German jet engines and so they were still in the prototype stage when the Me 262 was already in production.
I took a quick look at wikipedia ... the Meteor F.1 was only produced in small numbers and mainly used for training (and for V1 hunting). The Meteor F.3 was 120 km/h faster which would mean a maximum speed of 790 km/h. It became operational in December 1944. Though not as fast as the Me 262, I think this is quite allright: at least it was faster than any piston engined fighter... at least no reason to claim it to be the worse fighter of WW2. Just shortly after the war, it beat the world speed record and became a reliable and capable jet fighter until the early 50s.

It just wasn't completely ready when the war ended. If this makes you conclude that it was a bad aircraft, then you can throw in every other prototype of 1944 or 1945 on that heap.

Kris

Click to expand...

Thankyou Kris. Atleast you understand what I am trying to say and I agree with you fully.

Civettone said:

It was just a question. And from what you quoted, it seems safe to assume that the Meteor development started a year later than the Me 262. Meteor designing started in 1940, you say? Me 262 in 1939. First flight of the Meteor in 1943? First flight of the Me 262 in 1941 - or if you will in 1942.
The English development of their engines apparently went even slower than that of the German jet engines and so they were still in the prototype stage when the Me 262 was already in production.
I took a quick look at wikipedia ... the Meteor F.1 was only produced in small numbers and mainly used for training (and for V1 hunting). The Meteor F.3 was 120 km/h faster which would mean a maximum speed of 790 km/h. It became operational in December 1944. Though not as fast as the Me 262, I think this is quite allright: at least it was faster than any piston engined fighter... at least no reason to claim it to be the worse fighter of WW2. Just shortly after the war, it beat the world speed record and became a reliable and capable jet fighter until the early 50s.

It just wasn't completely ready when the war ended. If this makes you conclude that it was a bad aircraft, then you can throw in every other prototype of 1944 or 1945 on that heap.

Kris

Click to expand...

No I wont, because it was not a prototype, the Meteor and Me-262 never started in 1939, but the development of jetfighters. In the second stage the Germans came out with the "Unstoppable King of the Sky)" and the British with a plane just as good as a Mossie. The MK III was loaded and armed less than 700km fast and was obiously not god enough,otherwise why didn't the RAF use them,like the USAAF who shot down (helpless 262's ) Instead they come up with this frase: Unfortunatly the Meteor did not see combat because the Germans had no more planes. BULLSH...... .
Wespe