Worst aircraft of WW2? (1 Viewer)

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

How about the Avro 679 Manchester? 25% of those 202 build planes was destroyed in crashes. And it was manly because of the unreliability 1760 hp Vulture-engines.
 
Actually no, the Lancaster was going to have 4 Vultures instead of 4 Merlins, but when they saw their unreliability on the Manchester they were switched.

(See lanc, I DO use your information ;) )
 
it was actually changed to two larger fins on the Mk.IA manchaster because of the crap engines, if one cut out the larger tails almost directly behined the engines would offer far better directional stability...........

and the manchaster was a good plane but for those engines, damn them.............
 
Yeah, good range and payload for a twin engine.

Who knows, the range may have been even further than we know if the engines could have lasted long enough to complete a whole sortie ;)
 
cheddar cheese said:
Actually no, the Lancaster was going to have 4 Vultures instead of 4 Merlins, but when they saw their unreliability on the Manchester they were switched.

(See lanc, I DO use your information ;) )
No, the Lancaster came about because the designers of the twin-engined Manchester, Avro, got wind that Rolls-Royce was having major problems with their 1,760 h.p. Vulture engines, so as a fail-safe re-designed it with four 1,130 h.p. Merlins instead, this aircraft being known originally as the Avro Manchester Mk III.

They never had any plans to fit four Vultures to it.
 
the design for the lancaster did not come about because of the problems with the manchester, even before the manchester entered production roy chaddwic started working on designs for a four engined replacement..........
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back