Worst aircraft of WW2?

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



The P-51A more so, as its V-1710-81/99 engine was a relatively high altitude rated engine. With 1,480 hp at 10,400 ft at high speed. (added ram effect) Climb power was lower with lower crit alt. (little ram effect) But you had to be careful at low alt due to the possibility of overboost, due to the high supercharger blower ratio. (depending on octane rating and ambient air temp)

In fact the overall configuration of the P-51A was the same as the B save for the engine mounting, intake (nose top, not chin), and plumbing for intercooler. (hence the A was quite a bit lighter than the B along with the heavier merlin, armament was the same) Speed didn't drop to 400 mph until 23,000 ft where power was at ~900 hp. At 10,400 ft (crit alt for 1,480 hp) top speed was 415 mph; at 17,500 ft (crit alt for 1,125 hp Mil power) top speed was 408 mph. Even at 25,000 ft speed was still a decent 395 mph with only 836 hp, I believe this was considered the combat ceiling.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51a-1-6007.jpg
Mustang (Allison Engine) Performance Trials

Range was slightly better than the early P-51B (of same fuel load).

In a pinch it probably could have worked as a high alt escort. But the P-51B became available shortly after, not to mention there were alternatives. (the P-47 worked, but needed alot of fuel -300+ gal of drop tanks- and later D models with increased internal fuel by 65 gal with ~400 gal of drop tanks were still competitive for range with the 'Stang; the P-38 worked, but there were the cockpit heating and engine system problems with early models, and it wasn't till the J that it really became a capable high alt fighter, and until the lat J and all L models that the high speed control problems were remedied along with the boosted ailerons.
 
shorty stirling...lost a lot of crews

So did the B-17, B-24, B-26, Lancaster, Ju 88, He 111 He 177 and just about every 'superior' bomnber pressed into service in a hostile environment. Was the Short Sterling less survivable than the Betty?[/QUOTE]

The Stirlings fatal flaw was its low ceiling. Made it AA fodder. Consider this, the effective ceiling of the 88 mm, which accounted for something like 85% of german AA had an effective ceiling of 26000 ft. I think the effective ceiling of the Stirling was below 15000 (Have not checked) this means that a stirling is in the kill zone of a flak battery for a lot longer, closer to the shooter and therefore easier to hit.

But it still seems very rich to brand the Stirling the worst. Despite its shortcomings (no pun intended, the manufacturer was a company by the name of Short) it still was used to good effect, and bore the brunt of the early bomber offensive. it was the first four engined bomber on the RAF, and gave quite "stirling" service

You could only find 95% of all aircraft built during WWII that were 'worse' than a 51A

The RAF used the Mustang I for low level Recce up to the end of the war and scored quite well against 109s and 190s on the deck

Wasnt the A-36 also quite useful in ground support role??? Cewrtainly not deserving of the title for worst of the worst
[/QUOTE]
 
The Fairey Battle was a more advanced and cabable bomber than the Ju-87. It wasn't the plane at fault, it was the operational doctrine.

I think building a fighter and not fitting it with forward firing guns was a pretty dim move so I would nominate the Defiant, even the Brisfit of WW1, designed to the same basic concept, had a forward firing gun.

(apologies if this has been covered in the thread already)
 
The Roc was worse than the Defiant. At least the Defiant had decent performance, but with the Roc it was like mating the problem of the Defiant with the performance of the Skua.

But the get worse, have a red through the old posts on the thread, there are a lot worse, the Roc was in the top 3 choyces consistantly though.
 
Cheers, I will. Yes, the Defiant was pretty awful, but to deliberately make an equivalent that is asthmatic as well as ill concieved takes the cake. I understand that Boulton Paul built all the Roc's as well.

I actually think that with fixed forward firing guns the Defiant could have been quite useful, not in a Spitfire/P-51 sort of way, but useful nonetheless. Whereas the Roc of course wouldn't ever have been any better, I read once that it was never very far away from stalling and in a strong wind was in danger of going backwards.
 
Sorry but the Defiant was even pretty lame as a night fighter
 
But it still didn't have forward firing guns.

I have seen s design from Boulton Paul that looks like a slightly larger Defiant with a Centaurus engine and four 20mm cannon in the wings, plus turret, I'd like to have seen that given a chance.
 
Do you mean deleting the turret and adding wing guns, or keeping the turret and adding wing guns?


Actually considdering the added weight and drag of the turret, gunner, and supporting structure for it, in addition to being a larger a/c than the Spit or Hurricne, it's interesting that the Defiant managed the performance it did with the same engine.

Given the larger internal space, it may have been interesting to delete the turret, add a standard wing armament, and develop it into a long range single engine single-seat fighter. Or maybe as a fighter-bomber.

Either way the Defiant is still a cool looking a/c, particularly the tail.
 
kool kitty89 said:
Given the larger internal space, it may have been interesting to delete the turret, add a standard wing armament, and develop it into a long range single engine single-seat fighter. Or maybe as a fighter-bomber.
Click to expand...

Boulten Paul did make a prototype, the P.94, which was basically a Defiant minus the turret and 12x .303 MG's in the wings. I don't know much about it, but I believe it did show some promise, however with Hurricanes and Spitfires in production, it seems it was not needed at the time.
 
parsifal said:
Wasnt the A-36 also quite useful in ground support role??? Cewrtainly not deserving of the title for worst of the worst
Click to expand...
That was its main mission.
I understand it did okay, but I think the Brits found other aircraft more suitable.
However, they did have them, so they did use them.
The problem with using the 51/36 in the ground attack role comes from one of its most distinguishing features.
That big scoop under the airplane.
51's were pressed into the ground attack role in Korea and it was found that in some cases, schrapnel flying up would hit or enter the scoop, damaging the radiator....not a good thing to happen to an airplane with a water cooled engine.



Elvis
 
But to the airframe its self the Brits seem to have though the Mustang I/I-A quite rugged. (and I'd immagine the Typhoon would have similar vulnerability with the huge chin mounted radiator, and decidedly better n belly landings)

Service of Mustang I/IA With RAF
Tactical reports from RAF army cooperation units were laudatory. The Mustang I and IAs were able to take an incredible amount of battle damage.
Click to expand...

and North American A-36 Mustang

And I don't the A-36 was much used by the RAF, nearly all went to the USAAF iirc. The RAF had the Mustang I/IA's.



And for some reason the Allison engined Mustangs (and the P-40) seem to be considdered more rugged than the Merlin powered counterparts, but that would have nothing to do with the scoop. (the only thing I can think that makes the V-1710 less vulnerably is the considerably smaller parts count, but I don't know a whole lot on the structural differences of these engines)


But on the radiator its self there is a whole lot of empty space around the rasiator, so the actual vulnerable spots aren't that large. (however the lengths of cooling plumbing for this location would increase vulnerability, compared to the P-40 or P-39's placement)

 
Yes, I meant keeping the turret and giving the pilot some guns. I realise this would make the plane even heavier which is why I was thinking of B-P's own Centaurus powered project.

Moving on to the next couple of posts, maybe the fact that the Typhoon intake was immediately behind the propeller helped in batting away any debris?
 
Boeing or Saab? (sorry, being facetious) I don't know how you could nominate the B-17 as the worst plane of the war, when bombers like the Amiot 143 existed.
 
sorry guv,i was comparing the b17 against the b24.wrong thread me thinks.i just imagine the ball turret gunner being stuck in his turret,with the landing gear shot up,yuck.i wonder how many runways had red streaks up the middle.yours,starling.
 
starling said:
sorry guv,i was comparing the b17 against the b24.wrong thread me thinks.i just imagine the ball turret gunner being stuck in his turret,with the landing gear shot up,yuck.i wonder how many runways had red streaks up the middle.yours,starling.
Click to expand...

First of all the B-17 is far from the worst aircraft of WW2.

Also why would you choose a B-24 over a B-17?
 
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