Worst aircraft of WW2?

[wingnuts]

I've seen the CAC Wirraway and Boomerang mentioned a few times, I don't think either could be considered to be bad aircraft. The Wirraway was designed as a trainer based on the North American BC-1 a similar lineage to the AT6 Havard/Texan... which it resembles. It performed well in the training role and was used as a fighter occasionally when there was no alternative. It was in use by the RAAF until the late 50s. Some were converted to Ceres Ag aircraft after the war, there are several still in flying condition right now.... plus one being restored by a workmate.

The Boomerang was a rushed interim design using available components, mainly from the Wirraway... it was only intended as a stop-gap fighter and did good work in the ground support role.

I may be be biased as I'm an ex CAC employee.....

 

[wingnuts]

I've seen the Meteor mentioned as well.... it could hardly be classed as a bad aircraft, it's use as front line fighter may have been brief but it carried on in the RAF and the RAAF until the late 50s. I also worked on one being used as a 'Hack' when I worked at RAE Bedford (Thurleigh) in the UK in about 1976.

The Blackburn Botha would be high in my list.... it not only was a bad aircraft but they actually made over 500 of them!

... and I'm not biased as I am an ex Blackburn apprentice (Hawker-Blackburn Division, Brough) ... although I was not making Bothas but Buccaneers 8)

 

[Negative Creep]

Couldn't anything with the Blackburn name be a candidate? The Botha, Skua and Roc were all useless. Not sure if its been mentioned yet, but how about the Blenheim? SO it was advanced when it was introduced, but by 1940 it was out of date, after that it was a death trap. It's always surprised me how they made thousands and used them until 1944 when the Beaufighter, mosquito, Boston or Mitchell were all available and superior in every respect. The Blenheim was slow, couldn't carry much and armament was borderline pathetic for both versions. A lot of highly trained crew were lost in the early stages of the war trying to fly them unescorted

 

[evangilder]

A lot of highly trained crew were lost in the early stages of the war trying to fly them unescorted

You could say that about darn near every bomber early in the war. The USAAF daylight bombings were almost brought to a halt because of heavy losses. That was in B-17s. No matter how well armed, bombers are no match for agile fighters, especially in a schwarm.

 

[Negative Creep]

True, but the USAAF raids were far deeper into enemy territory and by that stage were up against a well established are defence network. A group of B-17s or B-24s could at least defend themselves , whereas the Blenheim was basically built with a WW1 doctrine in mind

 

[16KJV11]

I think the Breda 88 tops the list of all time worst WWII aircraft.
Structurally and mechanically unsound, history books say it did its most effective work as a decoy on the ground.

 

[Marcel]

but how about the Blenheim

I don't consider the Blenheim a bad aircraft, it was just out of date. If you use loss rate and lack of defence as a measurement, then you could consider the Ju52 a bad airplane as well. For instance, the LVA (dutch airforce) shot down dozens of them in their 5 days of war and they had only about 40 somehow modern fighters.

 

[Negative Creep]

THe Blenheim was a bomber though; it was envisaged that they could fly in formation over enemy territory and adequately defend themselves. The Ju 52 was primarily a transport, hence designed with different priorities in mind. Out of date is really the same thing as bad; you can't really say something wasn't bad because it was state of the art 10 years before. Aircraft like the Blenheim, Ju 87,I-16 and Battle were very advanced and a major step forward when introduced, but such was the pace of aircraft development they were little more than death traps when up against organised opponents over their territory

 

[Marcel]

THe Blenheim was a bomber though; it was envisaged that they could fly in formation over enemy territory and adequately defend themselves. The Ju 52 was primarily a transport, hence designed with different priorities in mind. Out of date is really the same thing as bad; you can't really say something wasn't bad because it was state of the art 10 years before. Aircraft like the Blenheim, Ju 87,I-16 and Battle were very advanced and a major step forward when introduced, but such was the pace of aircraft development they were little more than death traps when up against organised opponents over their territory

Okay, that's your definition. In my opinion, you cannot judge a plane as bad when it's a victim of false tactics as is the case with Blenheim and J87. No bomber could hold is own over enemy territory. See the dreadfull losses of the Fortresses in daylight bombing over Germany before the Mustang came along.

My point of view is that an airplane is bad if:
1. The plane was so bad it wasn't up to it's intended role from the start of it's operational career.
2. Was really a crappy airplane from starters, like flying a brick.
The Breda scores in both categories, while the ones you mentioned don't fall in either of them.
But as said, it's a matter of definition of the term "bad" after all.

 

[16KJV11]

Marcel,
Is that a Dutch airplane on your posts?

 

[ccheese]

Did anyone consider some of the Japanese aircraft ? The "Rufe" was a
floatplane fighter (?) that could also carry small bombs. Must have been
meat on the table for any allied fighter.......

Charles

 

[Marcel]

Marcel,
Is that a Dutch airplane on your posts?

Yep, Fokker G.I crashing over Ridderkerk during the last bombing of the Moerdijk bridges, not far from my home. The Emil that shot this plane is on display at Duxford.

 

[planeman45]

I believe that there are quite a few candidates for the title of the worst aircraft of WW2. Blackburn Roc, as I believe someone mentioned in the beginning of th e thread, the Breda Ba. 88, or how bout the Curtiss Seamew. As empathetic I am with the Messersmmitt aircrafts.

Even the well-known Me 163 must be considered. Althought all those are candidates, I think I have to go with the the L.W.S.4 Zubr.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/baclightning/lws_4_Zubr.jpg

Not only was this aircraft one of the ugliest, but also one of the most useless. The plane couldn't be flown with the undercarriage retracted. It was so overstressed that it was liable to disintegrate at any time. And worst of all, the Zubr was literally unable to take off with a bomb load heavier than...well, a crate of dog food....

 

[wingnuts]

Did anyone consider some of the Japanese aircraft ? The "Rufe" was a
floatplane fighter (?) that could also carry small bombs. Must have been
meat on the table for any allied fighter.......

Charles

The Nakajima A6M2-N "Rufe" was not a bad aircraft, a developement of the Reisen/Zero it was mainly designed to support and protect troops involved in amphibious invasions when carriers were not available or the invasion was beyond support of land based aircraft.

They were used in many roles, day and night bombing, spotting and it was an effective bomber interceptor. In well trained hands it was a match for most western fighters early in the war ..... it filled a gap that no other aircraft was able to fill.

It was outclassed by later western fighters like most variant of the A6M.

 

[16KJV11]

Though I think the Breda 88 tops the dysfunctional aircraft list, Brewster's Buffalo is not far behind.

 

[16KJV11]

Not to change the subject, but did the Japs buy and use operationally any German military aircraft? I'm especially interested in whether they used the ME 110.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

There were no German aircraft that were bought by the Japanese in large number and used operationaly. The Japanese recieved several German aircraft for testing and some were influential in Japanese designs.

German aircraft tested by the Japanese:

Arado Ar 196
Bücker Bü 131B Jungmann
Dornier Do 15 Wal
Heinkel He 70 Blitz
Heinkel He 118
Heinkel He 50A
Heinkel He 112B V12 / B-1
Heinkel He 100D
Heinkel He 116A
Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-3/-5
Junkers F.6
Junkers F.13
Junkers Ju 86Z-2
Junkers Ju 87A-1
Junkers Ju 160
Messerschmitt Bf 108
Messerschmitt Bf 109E-3 / E-7
Messerschmitt Me 210A-2
Messerschmitt Me 163

 

[planeman45]

thanks for the great list, i didn't know al of them were on it DerAdlerIstGelandet.

 

[Juha]

Though I think the Breda 88 tops the dysfunctional aircraft list, Brewster's Buffalo is not far behind.

Hello 16KJV11
Now in Finnish Air Force Brewster Model 239 (denavalized F2A-1) had something like 42:1 victory rate, ie aerial victory claims:air combat losses. To me that's not bad, in fact I think it's damn good.

Juha

 

[16KJV11]

Ok, you got me, but I'm going to take a wild guess that they were flying against early Ruskie types, bombers and fighters.