Worst aircraft of WW2?

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

yeah she did, she had very good STOL capabilities and so could easily take off and land in fields and underprepared strips in occupied Europe and south east aisa where they also used C-47s in the same role.........
 
See to me bad aircraft are also those that were good. They just had some REALLY big flaws that, while they were exellent aircraft, they could be terrible aircraft or death traps. Examples:
1. Hs-129- discussed in length before
2. The B-24-Horrendous placement of its fuel tanks.
3. B-26-Horrible placement of switches.
4. The C-46 Commando- when hit and on fire, its metal would start to vaporize, especially in the wings.
5. Curtiss Helldivers- A dive bomber really does not need its tail to fly off in a dive.

And so on and so forth. I think that all aircraft are good, its just how many of its bad habits come out.

:{)
 
Thats like saying the Breda 88 was a good aircraft except for the fact it couldnt fly. Hell, maybe if a church could fly it would be a good aircraft! :lol:
 
Ya never know! It depends how big the catapult is! Okay so the Ba-88 its only a good aircraft if you are flying against Eithiopian soldiers. But my point is that even good aircraft are sometimes bad (Gawd that sounded so dirty). Even the Ba-88 which I admit my knowlege of Italian and for that matter French aircraft is very limited, must have had some good points that designers could have used on other aircraft or learned lessons from it.
But I guess all airforces have thier really ugly ducklings.

:{)
 
The Ba-88 was good, set a couple of speed records, but when they added armament, armour and sand filters to it the thing couldnt even take off with out a struggle :lol:
 
Well, actually the BA88 was NOT good even against an ant nest.
When flown (???) operationally it could not fly without 5° flap, and was always on the limit of stall.
It happened that when they tried a sortie with 3 aircrafts the luckiest one could not even take off, the second barely made a 180 to land immediately and the third could not even manage to make a 180: they had to fly straight until the next airfield and land there!

I believe that the whole plane was a big fake, the record-setting prototype could not possibly be a relative of the production plane, maybe was built with a 'racing' safety factor to reduce weight or had 'racing' engines not suitable for normal service,. Probably both!
 
I believe that the whole plane was a big fake, the record-setting prototype could not possibly be a relative of the production plane, maybe was built with a 'racing' safety factor to reduce weight or had 'racing' engines not suitable for normal service,. Probably both!
Click to expand...

Ba-88 prototype , piloted by captain Furio Niclot Doglio , an excellent pilot, could fly over 200 and over 1000 ( !) km without any problems, and it got a speed record with 1000 kg on board. It was not exactly in a " super light" configuration.

It is not possible that such an aircraft was a global failure even if it can't be considered a success at all.
It was not really as heavy as it is commonly considered, neither so wind-charged.I don't remember an heavy fighter that was as stream-lined as Ba-88 in 1939.
We should remember that the prototype had a single rudder and not the twin tail of the serial aircrafts ( Furio niclot himself had serious troubles with the twin rudder configuration) , moreover it had the very reliable Gnome Rhone 900 HP engines , the serial aircrafts had the first Piaggio PXI 1000 HP "autarchic " engines with the same head as Gnome-Rhone and a longer stroke for an higher displacement, the easiest way to boost power without adding expensive superchargers and without withdrawing the most critical component of the original engine, the head .

It would be too easy. A longer stroke means an higher linear speed of the pistons,an higher energy over rods and other components and an higher risk of failures.
Autarchic components of the engines could not be as efficient as the originals.It means waste of gas from the cylinders and other troubles that can explain the bad performances of the first Piaggio engines and, consequently, of Ba-88.
 
I have noticed that, the Ba-88 included, that the original prototype was always much more of an awesome plane but when you start sticking things like, um, guns, radios, armour, self sealing tanks, etc, etc, etc, you know all those nice extra options that a pilot needs to survive in combat, sometimes will make the plane go from awesome to useless becuase the original designers never took into consideration the wieght of all of these gizmos and options.

:{)
 
That other rocket-powered German aircraft (not the Komet). I think it was called the 'Natter'. Supposedly killed every pilot that tried to fly it. Launched vertically on a rail. Then there was the Heinkel 177.
 
The Natter only flew one pilotted flight which killed the test pilot Lothar Sieber was killed (1st March 1943) after this only unmanned flughts were undertaking and the projected was shelved at the end of March 1943. With only a range of 20km the Natter was correctly designated as a 'manned anti-aircraft rocket'.
 
I would not place the He-177 Greif into the worst aircraft catagory. She had some problems but overall she was not a bad aircraft. They just needed to get off there ass's and replace the engines with more reliable ones.
 
Yes that they did but Goering and Hitler order development of it to stop. There was also another development of it called the He-274. The 274 was actually first flown by the French after they captured it in 1945.

Here are some stats on it:

He-274

Type: High Altitude Heavy Bomber
Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG (later assigned to SAUF, Suresnes, France)
Models: V1 and V2
Production: Two prototypes
First Flight: December 1945 by the French
Engine:

Daimler-Benz DB 603A-2 inverted turbocharged V12
Horsepower: 1,850hp
Number: 4

Dimensions:
Wing span: 44.20m (145 ft. 2¼ in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Length: 23.80m (78 ft. 1¼ in.)
Height: 2.10m (6 ft. 10½ in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A

Weights:
Empty: 21,300kg (46,964 lb.)
Loaded: 38,000kg (83,786 lb.)
Performance:
Maximum Speed (Sea Level): 267 mph
Maximum Speed (11,000m): 360 mph (580 kph)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range: 4250km (2,640 miles)
Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: 46,915 ft (14,300m)

Armament:
N/A

Avionics:
N/A

He-277

Type: Heavy Bomber, Recce and Anti-Shipping Aircraft
Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG
Models: V1 to V3, B-5, B-6 and B-7 Series
Production: N/A
First Flight: Late 1943
Engine:
B-5:
Daimler-Benz DB 603A inverted V12
Horsepower: 1,850hp
Number: 4

B-6:
Jumo 213F
Horsepower: 2,060hp
Number: 4

Dimensions:
Wing span (B-5): 31.44m (103 ft. 1¾ in.)
Wing span (B-6): 40.00m (131 ft. 2¾ in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Length: 22.15m (72 ft. 8 in.)
Height: 6.66m (21 ft. 10½ in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A

Weights:
Empty (B-5): 21,800kg (48,067 lb.)
Loaded (B-5): 44,490kg (98,096 lb.)
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 354 mph (570 kph)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range (B-5): 6000km (3,728 miles)
Range (B-6): 7200km (4,474 miles)
Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: N/A

Armament:
N/A

Avionics:
N/A
 
cheddar cheese said:
Thats like saying the Breda 88 was a good aircraft except for the fact it couldnt fly. Hell, maybe if a church could fly it would be a good aircraft! :lol:
Click to expand...

Ditto.
 
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
Snautzer01
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
8K
ThomasP
T
JoblinTheGoblin
Superlative Performance of Japanese Aircraft with Uprated Engines
Replies
17
Views
4K
NeilStirling
N
M
Bomber Armor In WW2
Replies
4
Views
2K
Ascent
Ascent
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
Barrett
B
Back