Worst aircraft of WW2?

airboiy · May 18, 2009

I didn't realize that the pilot aspect was so critical...I apoligize for my lack of knowledge.

I've known that bip's were manuerverable, but not like that!

I meant that the CR.42 was the worst plane because it didn't have a radio or closed cockpit, and of the speed. The engine probably could have been replaced with a better, faster engine. That would have made the plane deadlier.

Marcel · May 18, 2009

airboiy said:
I meant that the CR.42 was the worst plane because it didn't have a radio or closed cockpit, and of the speed. The engine probably could have been replaced with a better, faster engine. That would have made the plane deadlier.

Could be said about many a/c at the start of WWII.

airboiy · May 18, 2009

FLYBOYJ · May 18, 2009

airboiy said:
I didn't realize that the pilot aspect was so critical...I apoligize for my lack of knowledge.

I've known that bip's were manuerverable, but not like that!

I meant that the CR.42 was the worst plane because it didn't have a radio or closed cockpit, and of the speed. The engine probably could have been replaced with a better, faster engine. That would have made the plane deadlier.

Actually the radio is a requirement set forth by the operator. The open cockpit was a result of the dated design as such the speed being restricted by the configuration.

As far as the engine - probably the best asset. Radials are a lot more robust and could take more punishment and even a more powerful engine doesn't always mean better performance.

trackend · May 18, 2009

airboiy said:
Of course it was...it was a solid design, born out of neccesity (or so I heard).

P.S.-Was the "stringbag" was produced by the same company that produced the Spitfire or the Hurricane?

Fairey was the company that produced the stringbag or rather the Swordfish airboiy, it gained its name as a jack of all trades carrying everything from mines,bombs rockets,torpedoes,smoke laying equipment A.S. Radar and more.

An interesting item regarding the CR42 Ray Sturtivants The Swordfish Story gives an account by a pilot claiming a kill on a CR42 without firing a shot.
Because the Swordfish was so slow it was a sitting duck for most fighters
(in the case of the CR42 over130mph slower), so the only thing it had was its unbelievable manouverability due to its very slow stall speed(around 50 knots).
Standard practice was to dive pull up and do a vertical wing over then dive again and repeat the procedure getting lower to the ground each time until the last pull up was made at less than 50 feet and hopefully the chase plane had to climb away giving the bag a slim chance to hedge hop away at sea level. On this occasion the pilot of the CR42 was so intent on trying to keep the stringbag in his sights that, on the third pass he over cooked it and plunged straight into the sea.

At the moment Duxford is restoring a CR42 and I hope to get a chance to see it fly, IMO it was a great little bi plane fighter and a much better performer than the Gladiator

Elvis · May 18, 2009

airboiy said:
Was the "stringbag" was produced by the same company that produced the Spitfire or the Hurricane?

Nope, it was made by Fairey.
Warbird Alley: Fairey Swordfish

Elvis

Elvis · May 18, 2009

FlyboyJ,

Re: Your comments on the (lack of) defficiency of the CR.42.

I read that and had a bit of a chuckle.
Reads very much like your comments on the Polikarpov I-15 from a few months ago. I often wonder if you feel as if no one is reading, sometimes.
As you've stated many times in the past, the only "bad" aircraft was one that didn't meet its design qualifications...and then ya' gotta wonder why it was ever produced in the first place.

Elvis

FLYBOYJ · May 18, 2009

Elvis said:
FlyboyJ,

Re: Your comments on the (lack of) defficiency of the CR.42.

I read that and had a bit of a chuckle.
Reads very much like your comments on the Polikarpov I-15 from a few months ago. I often wonder if you feel as if no one is reading, sometimes.

Well I'm glad someone is reading my stuff!

Elvis said:
As you've stated many times in the past, the only "bad" aircraft was one that didn't meet its design qualifications...and then ya' gotta wonder why it was ever produced in the first place.

Elvis

Simple Elvis - because at the time these aircraft were considered contemporary enough to build, even though designers of the day knew their operational life was probably limited. But the bottom line was to fulfill a role, and as for the manufacturer? To make money.

In many cases "old school" technology was also used because of the mechanics available to work on the equipment. I read somewhere this is one minor reason Hawker went with tube and fabric on a good portion of the Hurricane.

airboiy · May 19, 2009

Thanks, Elvis, for the info.

Flyboyj, your right about the radials, but weren't they ineffecint due to their design?

FLYBOYJ · May 19, 2009

Actually radials are very efficient and don't require a cooling system. They require large amounts of air to flow around them to keep them cool and don't lend themselves well for streamlining.

Njaco · May 19, 2009

...and then ya' gotta wonder why it was ever produced in the first place.

Elvis, aerial tactics weren'as advanced in the 30s when these planes were designed for the most part and mostly just theory. Dive-bombing, carpet bombing, fighter formations, etc. were for the most part theory and it took WWII to put into practice - trial and error - what worked. So designs that were developed with - for want of a better word "theory" behind it, may have turned out to be unrealistic. The Bf 110 was designed as a heavy fighter/destroyer but as the war progressed and its liabilities were glaringingly shown, its mission changed to night-fighter, etc.

WWII proved to be a test-bed for the ideas of Douhet and others from the 20s and 30s including aircraft design.

Elvis · May 19, 2009

FLYBOYJ said:
Well I'm glad someone is reading my stuff!

LOL! You're welcome!

FLYBOYJ said:
Simple Elvis - because at the time these aircraft were considered contemporary enough to build, even though designers of the day knew their operational life was probably limited. But the bottom line was to fulfill a role, and as for the manufacturer? To make money.

Ahhhhhh...and now I know.
Thanks for the revelation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Airboiy,

You're welcome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Njaco,

Really?
I had always understood that the Me110 was originally designed as a long-range bomber escort and when its defficiencies as a fighter became glaringly obvious, its role was changed to that of a multi-purpose Attack Bomber, not unlike our own A-20 (and later, A-26) and B-25.
This was why the 410 project came about. It was supposed to be a "better Me110".

This is how I've always understood it, anyway.

Elvis

airboiy · May 20, 2009

FLYBOYJ said:
Actually radials are very efficient and don't require a cooling system. They require large amounts of air to flow around them to keep them cool and don't lend themselves well for streamlining.

So they're as aerodynamic as a warthog's behind...interesting...[sits alone in thought]...I wonder-what about an engine with two radials across from each other and a shaft in between?

trackend · May 20, 2009

airboiy said:
So they're as aerodynamic as a warthog's behind...interesting...[sits alone in thought]...I wonder-what about an engine with two radials across from each other and a shaft in between?

The gear train would be interesting I 've never seen a differential fitted on a plane
I'll back your design AB but you can be the test pilot.

airboiy · May 20, 2009

trackend said:
The gear train would be interesting I 've never seen a differential fitted on a plane
I'll back your design AB but you can be the test pilot.

Differential, huh? I didn't know that is what it was called

I'l be able to be a test pilot!?! WOOOHOOO!! Now you're talkin'! But you're payin' for the kegs 'o beer!

Sorry about the poor drawing...I did it on microsh!t (I mean microsoft) paint.

Njaco · May 20, 2009

Really?
I had always understood that the Me110 was originally designed as a long-range bomber escort and when its defficiencies as a fighter became glaringly obvious, its role was changed to that of a multi-purpose Attack Bomber, not unlike our own A-20 (and later, A-26) and B-25.
This was why the 410 project came about. It was supposed to be a "better Me110".

This is how I've always understood it, anyway.

I apologize as I'm going off memory, but the long-range bomber escort may not have been so much a priority in the Luftwaffe at that time as 1) they believed the He 111 was faster than fighters or something similar 2) they really had no long-range bombers and weren't concerned so much 3) bombers were mainly to support the Army in Blitzkreig so that Stuka was emphasized. The Bf 110 was the fighter but it was IIRC to destroy enemy bombers and not so much as escort. But like you said, once deficiencies appeared the role was changed.

and there may be many things wrong with this post as I can't seem to get my head clear this morning!

vikingBerserker · May 20, 2009

airboiy said:
So they're as aerodynamic as a warthog's behind...interesting...[sits alone in thought]...I wonder-what about an engine with two radials across from each other and a shaft in between?

The one problem I could see is air cooling. With the radials perpendicular to the air flow, the air is hitting all cylinders. With it being parallel, the cylinders in front would get they air flow, but the ones in the rear would not or would just get the hot air flowing off of the font ones. I would think this would lead to cooling issue

Vincenzo · May 20, 2009

vikingBerserker said:
The one problem I could see is air cooling. With the radials perpendicular to the air flow, the air is hitting all cylinders. With it being parallel, the cylinders in front would get they air flow, but the ones in the rear would not or would just get the hot air flowing off of the font ones. I would think this would lead to cooling issue

would be usefull you see a pics of 2 row radial

Elvis · May 20, 2009

I don't know about this one.
Sounds like a recipe for destruction, if you ask me.
You're better off going with a multi-bank arrangement, like what they actually did.
Less moving parts, simpler design and it achieves the same objective.

Elvis

airboiy · May 21, 2009

How 'bout putting intake tubes right behind the prop that lead cool air to the back cylinders? would that satisfy everybody?

Hey Elvis, isn't everything a recipe for disaster if you look at it the right way?

Worst aircraft of WW2?

Airman 1st Class

rotartsinimdA

Airman 1st Class

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Chief Master Sergeant

1st Sergeant

1st Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman 1st Class

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

The Pop-Tart Whisperer

1st Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Attachments

Chief Master Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

The Pop-Tart Whisperer

Lieutenant General

Senior Master Sergeant

1st Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads