Worst aircraft of WW2?

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

Okay,
For me it is between the Blackburn BOtha and the Machester. THe vulture engines of the Manchester always caught fire and were so underpowered it isn't even funny!


P.S. how do i get a picture for my name?
 
B-17engineer said:
Okay,
For me it is between the Blackburn BOtha and the Machester. THe vulture engines of the Manchester always caught fire and were so underpowered it isn't even funny!


P.S. how do i get a picture for my name?
Click to expand...

The Manchester? Only for it's engines? Remember the Manchester has the same airframe as the brilliant Lancaster, so the plane couldn't be all that bad. The Vultures were not good, but that's only a part of the plane.

For your picture, click on "User CP: somwere on the upside of the website and choose "Avatar" there you can change your picture.
 
Plus the He 177 was probably even worse, engine fire wise. Not just due to overheating (which was somewhat improved later) but also from leaking oil that would catch fire. And the gear-boxes were a mess.
 
I read a book The World's Worst Aircraft, and the buffalo and the battle both had a chapter.
 
magnocain said:
I read a book The World's Worst Aircraft, and the buffalo and the battle both had a chapter.
Click to expand...
So did the Gee Bee. An entertaining book with "Osprey" implications. If the author really knew anything about aircraft, he wouldn't of bashed the Buffalo the way he did, or at least go into detail in the differences between the US Navy versions and the export versions.
 
At least the Buffalo could successfully take off (even from carrier deck) and was manuverable enough to return to the same carrier deck or runway after completing its mission. It was an even bet whether a Breda 88 would even be able to get off the ground - and once airborne performance was so pitiful that they often were not able to line up the target or even capable of turning around for return to the home airfield.

P-39s made sizeable contributions to the war effort in europe and the pacific (see Guadalcanal). Battles sucked - but they could at least fly well enough to deliver a bomb load and I believe were mechanically reliable enough to get the grew home most of the time (if they didn't get peppered of course).

I do not know the Blackburn (is my son's favorite English football club though), but sounds like it at least was utile in some miscelleneous/ backwater functions though. Gotta admit that it looks like a real dud.
 
The problem with the P-39 was it's poor altitude performance and being underpowered, and poor low-speed handling. The P-39D-2 had decent power and did somewhat better as did the Q-series, though the turbo really should have been left in. It may have had drag issues, but this mattered less at high altitude, though the real clincher was that the USAAC though that they were immune to bombers due to the oceans surrounding them, so development was to focus on low-altitude strike fighters. Thank god the P-38 didn't go this way, its performance w/out turbos was even worse! As seen in the British-bought ones which were quickly returned.

Another problem with the P-39 was, though it had around the same power for the same weight as the P-40, it was best at high-speed handling (350+ mph) which it needed a powerful engine to take advantage of. (1400-1600 hp) The turbo would have helped here somewhat too. The P-39D-2, N, and Q models had 1,300+ hp engines which helped but not quite enough. With these same engines and a turbo (or an auxiliary supercharger) it would have made a great medium-high altitude fighter, great for the ETO... Oh well...
 
The Breda 88 was comparable in flight characteristics to the original Wright Flyer (no offense meant to the Wright Bros) = at times capable of becoming airborne for brief moments, when actually able to get airborne incapable of lateral movement.

All the other AC in the thread could at least fly.
 
Particularly the dessert model with the sand-filters and extra equipment. They eneded up as airstrip decoy craft.

The standard model could fly somewhat, but still poorly. A stark contrast to the distance speed record set by the prototype... (at much lower weight)
 
Very cool-looking decoy though, eh?

Which is a bit of a paradox: for being a real stinker the 88 has always looked like a kick-@ss AC to me. A Botha or a Buffalo would probably not draw near as much attention as an 88 in decoy service.
 
Hello everyone, this is my first post so here goes. Personally I think that the Me 163 is about the worst aircraft if you can call it one of WW2. For what it achieved in combat compared to the loss of pilots in accidents and explosions to me far out weighs any benefits it would have brought to the Luftwaffe., A waste of time and development when resources were scarce.
 
It didn't see service in WWII though, did it? Maybe by the Brits, and just barely if that...

The F2A was always a good looking little a/c to me, especially compared to the Wildcat, and I think even an F2A-3 overweight with full fuel load (1,600+ mi) would still outperform the F4F-4 (only ~800 mi), its added guns were not worth the decrease in already low performance and firing time... The FM-2 was great, but came almost as the Hellcat was ready, though it was still the only one usable on escort carriers... Plus the Corsair was available even before then too...

As said the increase in durability of the F4F wasn't worth the poor performance as the 20mm's of the Zero could tear through the easy target and the lighter armored (but still far more than the Zero ad with armored/ self-sealing tanks) F2A-2 (or even F4F-3, with normal fuel load) could dogfight the Zero on far more even terms.

If Brewster had only been able to work out management and production problems it would have worked, but the plane was never available in numbers anywhere near those of the Wildcat...

Remember there were some other fairly young companies (compared to Grumman, in terms of Military a/c design) that could have had problems too, but were lucky enough to be well managed, Northrop, Lockheed, especially McDonnell (first military craft didn't even see service until post-war), and to a lesser extent: Republic (from Siversky) and Vought.
 
kool kitty89 said:
It didn't see service in WWII though, did it? Maybe by the Brits, and just barely if that...
Click to expand...

It saw service as a trainer and tower of targets. Hence my point. It was considered so bad, not even the plane starved British ever attempted to use them in combat...noone did, despite there being 771 being built. (examples being ordered by the USN, UK and Dutch...the latter batch being taken over by the USN as SB2A-4's)

One book I own stated it was classified as the worst American production aircraft of WWII. It is thought that many of them, after being test flown in the US were simply put in storage until being scrapped.

Thats bad.
 
They were better in performance, armament, range, and bomb load to the Fairey Battle... (more than twice the armament and bombload)

And somewhat better than the SBD Dauntless in forward armament, range, and speed, though it probably was allot more vulnerable to enemy fire (very important for the bomber role) and probably not fit for the Dive-bomber role nearly as well (much lower max G's), plus had less than 1/2 the SBD's load...

The SB2A was good in its original scout/bomber role, and probably would have made an excellent scout for the navy if it was adapted for carrier service, and with longer endurance, stronger offensive and defensive armaments, and better speed, it would have been much better than the SBD was in this role. (which it served in but wasn't designed for)
 

I suspect, that like the other infamous Brewster (F2A), the real story lay behind the "stats." The quote I pulled from the book is actually about USN fighters of WWII and it had a whole chapter devoted to the Buffalo. (of whch within was a pic and a descriptive caption devoted to Brewsters other attempt to dominate the naval air market...the Brewster Bucanneer)

Given what was written about the Buffalo in terms of stability, quality/mismanagement issues with Brewster in general and given the comment about how after being "test flown" the planes (Bucanneers) being promptly put into storage, the RL preformance was less than optimal vs. what's on the specs sheet. I'm sure it was the "specs" that made the Dutch and UK order them initially.
 
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