Worst aircraft of WW2?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What?

There is no need for that second post so therefore I am going to combine them and make them into one post, okay harp.

There is an edit button...

 

[Seawitch]

Hi All
Well, deciding which is the worst...or the best is obviously highly debatable! If the least successful comes into equation, then I might put my money on Australia's 'Boomerang'...I gather it's the only Fighter in WW2 that never shot down an opponent?
I appreciate there might be none technical reasons why, but those could be interesting too.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think the Boomerang did shoot down one Zero but the Boomerang was a close support aircraft as its limitations as an air to air fighter was realized early in its career.

 

[Seawitch]

I think the Boomerang did shoot down one Zero

Well there you go, they scored a Zero!!

 

[flojo]

AFAIK the He162 never shot down an enemy fighter or other type of plane. The only claim, a Tempest, was credited to anti-aircraft-guns by the LW

 

[Wildcat]

I think the Boomerang did shoot down one Zero but the Boomerang was a close support aircraft as its limitations as an air to air fighter was realized early in its career.

Almost Joe, actually the Boomerang never shot down any Japanese a/c, but a Wirraway did - probably more impressive!! AFAIK the Boomerang only had a handfull of encounters with Japanese a/c, I know on one occasion they scrambled to intercept some Betty's but were to slow to close and therefore unable to attack, I also believe one or two were bounced by zero's (and a P-38) with obviouse outcomes. Because the Boomerang was never involved in any mass dogfighters or large bomber interceptions it's hard to gauge how it would have handled in air combat, probably inferior to japanese fighters but maybe more effective against their bombers.
However in the ground attack and army co-op role she excelled, with the pilots carving out a great reputation for themselves. I'm sure many Aussie diggers and US Marines and GI's were glad to look up and see a Boomer straffing or popping smoke on Japanese positions about to be pounded by allied bombers.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You're right abut the Boomer and the Zero - I confused the action with the Wirraway.

 

[Graeme]

 

[Seawitch]

Hi All
I think the Boomerangs ground role saves it? Lets try burning the candle from both ends.
Like i said with he Tiger Tanks in another thread, the best isn't always the right.
The fighter that so many would vote best I'm sure is the ME262, yet it killed about 200 pilots just I training....it suited an experienced pilot.
Also, it took up so many resources that could have provided tens of thousands of really good piston Aircraft that they could have made better use off?
Did the price that came with the ME262 make it the worst?
Statistics and speculation? Well, theres debate in that!

 

[mkloby]

Hi All
I think the Boomerangs ground role saves it? Lets try burning the candle from both ends.
Like i said with he Tiger Tanks in another thread, the best isn't always the right.
The fighter that so many would vote best I'm sure is the ME262, yet it killed about 200 pilots just I training....it suited an experienced pilot.
Also, it took up so many resources that could have provided tens of thousands of really good piston Aircraft that they could have made better use off?
Did the price that came with the ME262 make it the worst?
Statistics and speculation? Well, theres debate in that!

I agree with you seawitch. The end result is pure combat effectiveness. If an aircraft is unable to truly become effective due to problems in production, training, maintenance, etc., then it is a poor military investment. Pinpointing specific successful sorties does not make an aircraft operationally effective. It must be considered in the strategic sense. How did this piece of equipment impact of overall strategic plan for the nation, and was is a positive or negative contributor to the war effort. The Me 262 had great potential, but overall the program was a failure. Shift the timeline of WWII and set the start date in 1941 - well then it could very well have been the most combat effective aircraft. Wouldas, couldas, shouldas do not win wars.

 

[mpj29]

No one here ever talks of the Commonwealth Wirraway, if its not the worse, its got to be close!

hi guys

sorry to say but yote right, the Manchester was built to to A.M. Spec 13/36 for a meadium range bomber. The Vulture engins were intergral to the design as they were to be one of the most powerfull aero engins we had. When they failed and R.R pulled the plug, R.R were single minded in the fact that the Manchestre would not be switched to the only other engine with the power needed as this was the Bristol Centuras, (although the Napier Saber was in early production tests and it was another option that Avro were looking at).

It was therefore R.R that pushed for the Lancaster to be fitted with 4 merlin's, to do this the work was faily minimal, the wings were lenghend 90' 1" to 102'

well said, these aircraft ere built to A.M Spec 0.30/35. They did exactly what they were asked to do!

 

[pbfoot]

This is some of an anecgote by a Manchester pilot WJ Lewis RCAF
"On or about 1 December 1940, Manchesters L7279 and L7280 were delivered to 207 Squadron at Waddington, an RAF station in Lincolnshire, followed closely by L7278. For the first few days, since there were no pilot's notes or other briefing materials available, we just pored over the aircraft. One of the first things we noted was the absence of an overall heating system. Closer inspection revealed electrical outlets at each aircrew position, another first—electrically heated flying gear. Now I might as well begin our tales of woe right here.
When we were issued with electrically heated Irvin jackets, trousers, boots, and gloves, all worked okay. But how were we supposed to get the equipment on? It was all interconnected, one electrical line for each piece of equipment. We could get everything on and connected until we came to the last gauntlet (glove). Struggling into a bulky winter flying gauntlet and then attempting to plug in the electrical connector so that you would get some heat was unimaginable. On top of this, the heating elements in the equipment soon began to short out. It was no surprise to have a crew member suddenly get a hot foot, a hot hand, or a hot anywhere. Immediate modification: throw out the electrically heated flying clothing and introduce a heating system. This was done by reversing the oil-cooling system.
The oil-cooler radiator was set in the leading edge of the wing outboard of the engine. A duct in the leading edge supplied cold air that travelled horizontally through the oil-cooler and then exhausted over the top of the wing. For heating, Avro placed a small radiator in the wing leading edge between the engine and the fuselage and connected it to the engine cooling system, similar to the heating system in a car. Outside air was ducted through the leading edge of the wing, through the radiator and straight into the fuselage in front of the main spar. There was no control to regulate the flow of air nor, initially, anything to deflect the air around the fuselage interior. It blew full blast on the wireless operator, and we had to carry a piece of cardboard or plywood to set beside him to prevent his being scorched. Eventually, a deflector did this job, but since there was never any ducting the distribution of heat within the aircraft remained extremely poor.
It was only a few days until we had our first of many Vulture engine failures and with it another problem. Frankie Eustace was taking off when his port engine quit at low level. Against all flying principles, he swung left, making a 225-degree turn into the dead engine and was able to get the aircraft back safely on the ground. The Manchester was parked in front of our hangar. As this had been our only serviceable aircraft, flying terminated for the day.
Four of us sat down to a game of bridge. I happened to be seated where I could see the aircraft parked outside and I noticed that the prop on the failed engine was unfeathered. (The Manchester, incidentally, had the first fully-feathering propellers in the RAF.) The sixteen-foot props were hydraulic constant-speed de Havilland propellers. I remarked on the state of the prop to my bridge partners and asked whether they had seen anyone come over from Servicing to unfeather it. No one had, and we went on with the game. I looked out again—the prop was re-feathered. A fast call to the engineering officer brought maintenance on the run.
They discovered the feathering solenoid was stuck, and the prop was sitting there busily feathering and unfeathering. We quickly realized that this could happen in the air. If a pilot feathered the prop on a dead engine and headed for the nearest airfield, en route the solenoid could stick. The prop would unfeather and he would go down like a lead balloon! ....Two nights earlier, I had had a somewhat terrifying—yet interesting— experience. As this incident was the result of a hydraulic failure, I should say something about the system. The Manchester had one of the first "high pressure" systems. While it would not be considered high today, four hundred pounds per square inch, in 1940, was high. When the system was actuated, for instance, to pull up the undercarriage, the pumps went into action and did their job. After the undercarriage had fully retracted, the pressure would continue to build until it reached six hundred pounds. Then a cut-out valve put the system into idle at four hundred pounds. A number of hydraulic failures on flights were the direct result of the whole system being built without "olives" in the joints or angles. But this night something new occurred.
We took off with Brest as our target. I remember the incident rather well. The night was as dark as you-know-what. I lifted off in pitch black (not unusual), retracted the undercarriage, and "went on to the clocks" (blind flying instruments). At about 50 feet the undercarriage came home, and suddenly the cockpit was filled with a fine oil spray. Pumped under high pressure, it covered everything including my flight instruments. I found myself trying to wipe them—flying at 100 feet! Fortunately I succeeded.
What had happened? On the engineer's panel, there was a rotary switch to move the radiator flaps from "open" to "trail" position. The washer on this control, we later learned, was made of compressed paper (a wartime economy measure). As the wheels came home—and before the pressure reached six hundred pounds and the cut-out valve operated—the washer blew. The pumps continued to operate, however, pumping the entire hydraulic supply mto the cockpit."
should i comtinue with the Bungee cords on the bomb bay doors so they would close ? the Manchester was a horrible aircraft and I'm not even talking about the Vulture engine

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Interesting post Pb. This is a classic example of "the hurrier we go, the behinder we get." It seems a lot of standard parts and components were not fully tested aganst other operating systems and the lack of pilots notes when the aircraft was introduced is unforgivable.

BTW the A.M Spec 0.30/35 was for the Blackburn Roc.

Spec 13/36 was the right aircraft specification for the Manchester (actually for a twin engine bomber that will use Vulture engines) but it seems systems development was left to the manufacturer who seems to have failed miserably.

 

[Wildcat]

No one here ever talks of the Commonwealth Wirraway, if its not the worse, its got to be close!

Been discussed in this very thread before. definatley NOT the worst a/c of WWII
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/worst-aircraft-ww2-continued-626-41.html#post202370

 

[Heinz]

Definately not the worst by any stretch.

 

[Graeme]

Yes, it doesn't meet the threads criteria, but it had a propeller!

 

[Graeme]

...this would be more appropriate, the 1943 Rotabuggy.

 

[mpj29]

Blacburn Botha has to be the worst, it was ugly and underpowered. It was supposed to be a torpedo bomber but it was so bad it never actually dropped one. It ended up being a target tug and trainer, even the trainee pilots thought it was a pile of junk

these were actually used as navigation trainers and gunnery trainers once it was realized that it was poor. It should also be remembers that it was built to A.M spec M.15/35, this was the same spec as the Beafort and Saro Lerwick, and lets be honest the Lerwick was withdrawn just 2 years after it was first introduced. Also the Botha had a top speed of 249 mph @5,500 ft, the Lerwick was slower- just 216mp at 4000ft

 

[mpj29]

to all those having a go at the fairy Battle, it should be noted that it was in fact the first British warplane to shoot down a German over Britain!!

It was also not the manufactures fault but built to an exacting Air militery spec (the same as the Defiant). I think if you are looking for the worst aircraft it has to be the BR 88 although I thing the people who are requesting that the Botha should take the title are a little of the mark, in fairness the Botha was reliable having the same engines as the sowrdfish, at least it stayed in the air!

So lets look at the Saro Lerwick. This was a plane that was built to the same specification as the Botha but was much slower and had a maximum ceiling over 1000ft lower than the Botha!!

 

[pbfoot]

more of the Manchester story from the same source
"I must describe one of the least glamorous Heath Robinson modifications that was ever carried out on an aircraft. Although the Manchester was built to a design specification allowing for a 4,000-pound bomb, no such bomb had been designed or built by the time the aircraft were completed. ^ATien the bombs were finally due to arrive, the bomb bay of the aircraft was modified by removing the central bombing point and installing what could best be described as an enormous hook. Woe to everyone when the bombs arrived.
When the first one was winched up into the Manchester's bomb bay, the bomb's diameter was such that the bomb doors would not close. Hence the Heath Robinson mod. A section was cut out of each bomb door sufficiently large so that when the doors were closed, the "cookie" could drop through T-vithout touching them. Two pieces of alclad (aluminum alloy), cut and hinged to the bomb doors, were held closed by large bungee cords; small fairings at the front and rear of the doors improved air streaming. To load the bomb, the bungee cords were detached and the bomb doors opened. After the cookie was winched up, the bomb doors were closed and fastened with nuts and screws. Then the modified sections of the doors were closed, and the bungee pulled tight to hold them in place.
when the time came to drop the cookie on the target, the crew merely selected master switch 'on' and pressed the release button at the proper time. The cookie was released from the hook and dropped on the metal slabs inserted into the bomb doors. The weight of the bomb stretched the bungee cords and the slabs opened, allowing it to fall free. Once the bomb was gone, the bungee cords pulled the slabs closed.
Simple? Sure! But imagine the process in operation. You released the cookie, which fell on the bomb doors with a loud crash. The slabs were thrust aside and the bomb fell free, but as soon as the doors came open, the slipstream got into the act and whipped them so far around that they clapped hands with the side of the fuselage. More frightening bangs. Then the bungee cords went into action yanking the slabs closed. Since the cords never functioned with equal force, one slab would close before its mate, making for a further pair of loud and disturbing reports."
Also the mid upper turret was rotated the aircraft would begin to shimmy the Air Ministry allowed the mid upper to be removed . The Manchester had no venturi tubes and all the instruments were driven by vacuum pumps on the engines so if you shut down one engine and had a prob with the pump you had no instruments