Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A lot of highly trained crew were lost in the early stages of the war trying to fly them unescorted
I don't consider the Blenheim a bad aircraft, it was just out of date.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.but how about the Blenheim
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 Out of date is really the same thing as bad; you can't really say something wasn't bad because it was state of the art 10 years before.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,
Is that a Dutch airplane on your posts?
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
Though I think the Breda 88 tops the dysfunctional aircraft list, Brewster's Buffalo is not far behind.