Worst aircraft of WW2?

[Matt308]

I have not yet looking into this individuals' background and expertise to give such a critique, but I'm guessing he's an "armchair" and if not I will apologize accordingly. If so I will puke on him accordingly.

EDIT!!!!

I just looked him up on line - here's what he says about himself on "cracked."


"My name's Pat Riordan. I'm an Aerospace Engineering major at U of I, and my abs are considered a precious metal by most nations. Here is a fact:

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/members/RocketScientist#ixzz16jw4CK9Y"


Pat - you're an armchair - STFU! Pray that I'm never in you're company after eating 5 beef and bean burritos and drinking 4 pitchers of cheap beer!

Honey can you bring me a micro-fiber cloth for the computer screen?

 

[HealzDevo]

Then again, GrauGeist, while the actual intent of the FI 103R-IV may not have looked like suicide, there is no way a sane designer would actually put the air-intake above the ****-pit and expect the pilot to be able to eject safely. While the contract bit may have been potential propoganda the fact remains that that is a crowning achievement in Stupid aircraft design.

Once again with the He-162 where was the air-intake? Oh yes, right above the pilot. You have to be incredibly lucky to escape these flying death-traps. Hence why none are flying at the moment...

Then again, with the G4M Betty, the author did hit the nail on the head. Range was increased at the sacrifice of the pilot's safety. Even the mosquito which was an Allied fighter-bomber had better chances of coming back that that bomber. The US was very well able to showcase a bomber in the B-17 that had all these features and reasonable range for the Pacific.

I just think that the author in amongst what he was saying did raise some really excellent questions about why such defects actually got past quality-control in these countries. A lot of the really major failures and designs that had a questionable probability of working in reality were German. We have only probably seen some of the Luftwaffe 1946 aircraft designed but already there are quite a few that we can see straight off had no chance of working in reality...

 

[GrauGeist]

When the Fi103 aquired it's target, the engine shut down and the pilot ejects...and just for the record, the "designer" never intended for a cockpit (or pilot) to be there...

The He162 (as was mentioned) had an ejection seat just for that reason...

The early "Betty" was designed at a time when Japan ruled the air and had no need for armor/self sealing tanks...those became standard in the subsequent model, starting with field modifications 1942 onwards.

If we're going to base aircraft on those attributes (as has been discussed at length in this, and other threads), then add the Me262 and the A6M as exceptionally flammable aircraft.

For that matter, any aircraft will burn when it's fuel supply gets ignited. How many photos have you seen where a B-17 gets hit by flak and erupts into a flamming ball? So then we could say that the B-17 was designed as a deathtrap, and therefore the worst aircraft of the war, right?

The P-39 and the P-40 were known to erupt into a fireball when the glycol was ignited, creating catastrophic and deadly consequences...were those intentional deathtraps too?

Sorry, but my opinion still stands...that blog is crap.

 

[parsifal]

May I nominate the Fairy Fulmar as possibly one of the worst aircraft of ww2?

Are you serious. Given its time of entry to service, what it was replacing, what it achieved, and what development came from its design, it should be considered one of the better aircraft of WWII

 

[riacrato]

Then again, GrauGeist, while the actual intent of the FI 103R-IV may not have looked like suicide, there is no way a sane designer would actually put the air-intake above the ****-pit and expect the pilot to be able to eject safely. While the contract bit may have been potential propoganda the fact remains that that is a crowning achievement in Stupid aircraft design.

Once again with the He-162 where was the air-intake? Oh yes, right above the pilot. You have to be incredibly lucky to escape these flying death-traps. Hence why none are flying at the moment...

Then again, with the G4M Betty, the author did hit the nail on the head. Range was increased at the sacrifice of the pilot's safety. Even the mosquito which was an Allied fighter-bomber had better chances of coming back that that bomber. The US was very well able to showcase a bomber in the B-17 that had all these features and reasonable range for the Pacific.

I just think that the author in amongst what he was saying did raise some really excellent questions about why such defects actually got past quality-control in these countries. A lot of the really major failures and designs that had a questionable probability of working in reality were German. We have only probably seen some of the Luftwaffe 1946 aircraft designed but already there are quite a few that we can see straight off had no chance of working in reality...

He 162 - as mentioned by Graugeist it had an ejector seat exactly for that. The reason none are flying today is because none survived the post war period in a flying condition and you'd be kind of idiotic to fly a plane that was built to last a couple of hundred hours and consisted to a large degree of plywood held together by whatever-was-available-glue more than 60 years later.

Betty - the B17 is a completely different aircraft, did the B-17 do lowlevel torpedo runs? the Betty did what it was designed to do and pretty well too, it just got overtaken by events.

Not by a long shot are these among the "worst aircraft of WW2".

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

He 162 - as mentioned by Graugeist it had an ejector seat exactly for that. The reason none are flying today is because none survived the post war period in a flying condition and you'd be kind of idiotic to fly a plane that was built to last a couple of hundred hours and consisted to a large degree of plywood held together by whatever-was-available-glue more than 60 years later.

Someone posted something here a while back about an He 162 that was being restored to flying condition.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Then again, GrauGeist, while the actual intent of the FI 103R-IV may not have looked like suicide, there is no way a sane designer would actually put the air-intake above the ****-pit and expect the pilot to be able to eject safely.

While the contract bit may have been potential propoganda the fact remains that that is a crowning achievement in Stupid aircraft design.
...

Dude, once again you have blessed us with naivety and an obvious lack of knowledge of subject matter. Have you ever seen this or heard of this?!?!?

North American F-107 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was an excellent aircraft and although the "uninformed" may have said the same thing about this aircraft as you did the Salamander, I can assure you that the air intake problem was recognized.

First, do you think if a pilot is bailing out either of these two aircraft the odds are the engine is not putting out 100%???

Second, have you ever been around an engine that suffered a catastrophic failure and seen it wind down? That big vacuum cleaner really slows to a halt very quickly and I can assure you that this giant sucking machine you may have visions about is no longer putting out human carcass shredding images that are probably affixed in your brain.

Lastly, just supposed one had to leave either of these two aircraft with the engines still operating - I'd put dollars to donuts that there would be SOP to REATARD THE POWER LEVERS TO IDLE!!!! Wow what a concept!!!! Although care has to be taken in front of any turbine engine at operation, again I'd place dollars to donuts that either machine cannot remotely come close in drawing a 180 pound man, let alone sitting in an ejection seat anywhere close to the jaws of its compressor.

Son, do your self a favor - really do some research before you post on here, you have come up with some more than interesting novice perspectives over the years that somewhat diminish your credibility.

 

[GrauGeist]

Someone posted something here a while back about an He 162 that was being restored to flying condition.

Not sure which thread it's in, but the French are restoring the one that they've had since war's end: WrkNr. 120015

Good page on the project here: He 162

And just for the record, the above mentioned He162 was used by the French Airforce as a jet trainer for a few years (through 1949) until they recieved thier new jets purchased from the British. Not a bad track record for a "stupid and/or deadly" design, huh?

 

[Marcel]

Most aircraft at the start of the war had no self-sealing fuel tanks. The british and the German a/c were more an exception than a rule at that time.

 

[Civettone]

Good posts Riacrato, Graugeist, Marcel, ... it all seems easy with 20/20hindights


Kris

 

[HealzDevo]

No, I must admit no. I just looked at it and assumed air intake in wrong place equals bad.

 

[cimmee]

The thing that the Roc has going for it is that it was just built to a bad specification. The whole idea of a turret armed fighter was messed up (though I have to admit the designs produced between the world wars were interesting).

The Battle was obsolete by the start of the war. But then so was the TBD which would certainly have to be in the running.

The TBD was a fine aircraft that was not properly used. It had to have uncontested skies and of course it did not.

So a lot of them died.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The TBD was a fine aircraft that was not properly used. It had to have uncontested skies and of course it did not.

So a lot of them died.

Actually it was used properly. It was state of the art in 1937, obsolete in 1942. With fighter escort it "might" have done better at Midway. It did serve in Coral Sea. Again one must look at the aircraft, whether it met its design criteria, and whether it was obsolete when facing an onslaught.

 

[ivanotter]

Well, the F-107 was called the "man eater". Maybe not for nothing.

I would also question the logic of ejection past the intake.

However, the X-32 is (apparantly) called the "sailor inhaler", so...

Pic thanks to Wikipedia.

Yours,

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well, the F-107 was called the "man eater". Maybe not for nothing.

I would also question the logic of ejection past the intake.

There was nothing to show that an ejection would ever be a hazard because of the intake locaton, please read the earlier post

However, the X-32 is (apparantly) called the "sailor inhaler", so...

Pic thanks to Wikipedia.

Yours,

The X-32 "was". It lost to the X-35. How many sailors did it inhale during the flight test competition with the X-35?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I would however like to point out the title of the thread is:

Worst aircraft of WW2?

 

[johnbr]

How about the Arado 240 no Buddy like to fly it.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Ar240 was never really put into production.

The few that did see service were unarmed recon versions (Ar240C-4) that overflew Britain, so I would hardly say this qualifies as the worst aircraft...

 

[Rick65]

I haven't checked all 122 pages but has the Saro Lerwick been discussed. A two Hercules engined mini Sunderland it entered production despite having vicious stall and unsatisfactory performance in yaw. Apparently the plane was unstable both in the air and on the water even.
The type entered service towards the end of 1940 and was withdrawn from operational service in May 1941 as soon as enough other boats were available.

 

[Thorlifter]

That's a pretty bad aircraft Rick. Out of 21 built, 10 crashed.

Still, I'd have to side with the Ba.88. It went from a promising civil aircraft to a horrible military aircraft. The Lerwick was a doomed design from almost the start, and history is full of those types.