Worst aircraft of WW2?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

When we have aircraft posted that couldn't even take off, I can't really see how you can site the IL-2. Yes it suffered heavy losses, but when you consider small arms fire and German fighters ready to pounce, is it really that surprising? If it hadn't been for that plane, the Soviet Unions would have had a much harder time in turning the course of the war, given the German's usage of tanks and armoured vehicles
 
hi there,
in my opinion the Tupolev TB-3 was the worst plane, it was quickly outdated and underpowered. i even think its a wonder that such a plane even returned to base lol
 
sturmer said:
hi there,
in my opinion the Tupolev TB-3 was the worst plane, it was quickly outdated and underpowered. i even think its a wonder that such a plane even returned to base lol
Click to expand...

It was used as a transport by the time WW2 started and was just obsolete. In it's day it was the most advanced bomber in the world.
 
Sounds like it had the same problem as the Blenheim- better and faster than any fighter of it's day but stayed in service too long.
I would go for a plane so bad it got entered into service and then was quickly withdrawn because of how bad it was i.e. the Blackburn Botha
 

Regarding the Botha.
From Bill Gunston's 'Back to the Drawing Board'-(Aircraft that flew but never took off), pp99..
"Service pilots..hated it, perhaps because it was said that when fully laden with crew and warlike stores it could lift only enough fuel for 50 miles flying. I was nearly lynched when I delivered one to an aerodrome whose CO had that very morning grounded a whole squadron, as being too dangerous to operate".
 
Bill Gunston's book lists and describes the following aircraft, around the 1939-1945 period, that "should never have happened". Note that some had no military purpose. A man with a sense of humour, he points out at an early stage in his analyses that "Blackburn Aircraft appear in this book with distressing frequency".

Handley Page Hereford
Brewster SB2A Buccaneer/Bermuda
Breda Ba 88 Lince
Bloch 150
De Havilland DH.91 Albatross
De Havilland DH.93 Don
Airspeed AS.45 Cambridge
LWS Zubr
Romano R.110
Saro Lerwick
Blackburn Roc
Blackburn Botha
Silvanskii's IS
Avro Manchester
Heinkel He 177
Messerschmitt Me 210
Curtiss SO3C Seamew
De Havilland TK.5
Caproni-Campini N.1
Junkers Ju 322 Mammut
Blackburn Firebrand
Bristol Buckingham
Blohm und Voss BV40
General Aircraft GAL.56
Kokusai Ku-105
and......Avro Tudor
 
R Pope said:
The Battle, and even the Roc, were pretty good AIRPLANES, they just weren't very good WARPLANES...
Click to expand...

Good point, and not unique to them. The Brewster Buffalo was widely and usually praised as a sweet airplane to fly. In combat, only the Finns had anything good to say about it. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
 
The Brewster factory had some major problems because even when they were given a good design to build they could not get it built correctly, namely the Corsair.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
By the way here is a picture of the remains of a Natter at the Sinsheim Museum about 2 hours from where I live. I went there for like the 100th time a few months ago when I too this picture.
Click to expand...



This is going WAY back in this thread. The Natter photo puzzles me. It looks to be made of metal with numerous glass portals and a cooling grill. The nose is very long and thin. The Natter was wood construction-"non strategic materials."

Any more details on this Adler?

 
Adler, I believe the photo you posted, believing it to be a Bachem Natter, is the remains of a Republic RF-84F Thunderflash.

We are looking at the underside. Half a fuselage, tipped up, with the outer wings missing. The 'wing' remaining is the wing root with jet intake. This root has the wing drop tank outlined in green.

I apologise in advance, if this has already been pointed out to you.



 

Still digging up the past.

My understanding of the 'chewing gum' incident is as follows.

'Kelly' Johnson (Lockheed) visited Korea and discussed with pilots what they wanted in the next generation of fighters. At this point in time, "they were tired of being out-flown by the unexpected MIG-15, and had to some extent tried to rectify things by throwing out all they could from their F-80s, F-84s, F-86s, and F9Fs to get more performance".
Colonel 'Gabby' Gabreski, said 'We're burdened by complicated and heavy devices in big, heavy airplanes. I'd rather sight with a piece of chewing gum stuck on the windscreen.'
Johnson sympathised, and determined to give the USAF more speed and height than it had ever dreamed of. The F-104.

Fighters of the Fifties-Bill Gunston, 1981.
 
Cub Driver said:
Good point, and not unique to them. The Brewster Buffalo was widely and usually praised as a sweet airplane to fly. In combat, only the Finns had anything good to say about it. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
Click to expand...

James Gilbert's book 'The Worlds Worst Aircraft' (1975) mentions the Finnish situation, but points out that the Finnish version was;

"...an early model, a whole ton lighter than later machines; and they had an improved 'export' version of the Wright Cyclone engine, which in any case would have been less prone to its worst fault-overheating-in Finland's climate...Perhaps in truth it was because the Finnish fighter pilots were very good, and highly motivated, whereas the Red Air Force wasn't too hot".
 


Hmmm It seems you are correct. At the museum it is listed as a Natter.
 
Me 163 fuselage/production might have been down to Messerschmidt AG, but the powerplant was Walter's. Hindsight says that the use of Z stoff and T stoff might have made the pilots P stoff somewhat, but that's progress. The Walter rocket motor weighed a fraction of a normal fighter engine and propelled the aircraft to 30,000 ft in about 3 mins to make combat with the bombers - which was the main objective.

The further development of advanced weapon systems to fire 50mm shells into the wings of B17s from below at high speed (and it was proven to work too!) suggests that this might have been a development warplane with hazards, but it certainly was not a failure! Its contribution to aviation was immense - albeit at the cost of some poor pilots lives.

Anyway, that's my opinion

Brilliant wit!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
15
Views
4K
Snautzer01
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
8K
ThomasP
T
Superlative Performance of Japanese Aircraft with Uprated Engines
Replies
17
Views
4K
NeilStirling
N
M
Bomber Armor In WW2
Replies
4
Views
2K
Ascent
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
Barrett
B
Menu
Log in
Register