Worst aircraft of WW2?

[Njaco]

Here are some changes effected by the Hungarians.

Me 210A-0 was re-engined with 1475 hp DB 605B engines without MW 1 Methanol injection. It was used as a pattern aircraft with lengthened fuselage and wing leading egde slots. Other than engines, the variants produced by Hungary were essentially the same as modified by Messerschmitt.

One modification was a Me 210Ca-1 into an assault aircraft with MG 17 mg replaced by a single 40mm 39M type AA cannon and 3 150mm Nebelwerfer rocket tubes mounted under each wing. Only 4 were actually produced.

Pretty interesting stuff. One group, 102 Gyorsbombazo osztaly between Aug 44 and march 45 flew 800 missions and shot down 20 to 25 Soviet aircraft. Pretty good for a ground attack unit.

Maybe standards were different between the two air forces and the 210 didn't fit what Germany was looking for. From what I've read the 210 was a pretty poor aircaft and I'm surprised that anyone even tried to fly it operationally.

 

[Kruska]

Pretty interesting stuff. One group, 102 Gyorsbombazo osztaly between Aug 44 and march 45 flew 800 missions and shot down 20 to 25 Soviet aircraft. Pretty good for a ground attack unit.

Hello Njaco,

Yes pretty interesting, would you have a link were I could backtrack on this Hungarian operational experience with the 210?

Regards
Kruska

 

[Njaco]

Unfortunately no, I was quoting from that book, "Me 210/410 in Action." Only reference I have that mentions any Hungarian 210s.

 

[Trautloft]

those who are interested in pics and so, and other types of Hungarian Air Force used(like horrible Caproni bombers) or the Ju-86 in a bomber role, visit the topic i made earlier

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/hungarian-aircraft-8284.html

 

[Njaco]

Thanks, Traut, I thought there might be a thread.

 

[Oreo]

There were a lot of bad ones: How about the Me 163 Komet-- more deadly to its own pilots than to its enemies? How about the He 177 Greif-- they should have called it "Greif" because it caused so much-- and they actually made over 1000 of them! Then there is the fact that the Oscar was built way beyond its usefulness, and the Betty, which was so flammable, the Fw 200 which was exceeding fragile, and the "Lightning" given to Britain without turbochargers! The Manchester, Whitley, Hampden, and Blenheim were all miserable, and what about the Morane Saulnier MS 406? The Soviet MiG-1 and 3 were difficult mounts, with poor armament, though one nearly succeeded in shooting down Erich Hartman before his career could even take off.

So much of this is in the perspective of the pilot (or others!), or in the needs of the theater. Who'd have thought the Buffalo and P-39 would be prized mounts on the eastern front? What made the P-38 so great in the Pacific, but poor over Europe? Another problem we face are unfair statistics. For instance, if you look at the loss/victory ratio for the P-38 over Europe, you find it approximately 1:1, which was the worst of any US fighter in theater, other than the P-40 and P-39 operating in the Med. At the same time, though, how many of those lost were lost to Flak? How many were lost on dive-bombing and ground attack sorties? Also, we don't see from that 1:1 statistic how that the P-38 did really poorly at first, until pilots began to develop good tactics to use against the FW 190 and Bf 109? The P-38 was just about the only twin engine fighter that could still fly by day in prime enemy territory and hope to come back again alive.

At first, pilots thought the P-47 was terrible, but some changed their minds as they went on.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

There were a lot of bad ones: How about the Me 163 Komet-- more deadly to its own pilots than to its enemies? How about the He 177 Greif-- they should have called it "Greif" because it caused so much-- and they actually made over 1000 of them! Then there is the fact that the Oscar was built way beyond its usefulness, and the Betty, which was so flammable, the Fw 200 which was exceeding fragile, and the "Lightning" given to Britain without turbochargers! The Manchester, Whitley, Hampden, and Blenheim were all miserable, and what about the Morane Saulnier MS 406? The Soviet MiG-1 and 3 were difficult mounts, with poor armament, though one nearly succeeded in shooting down Erich Hartman before his career could even take off.

I sould not call the He 177 the worst. It was a sound design (if it had not had coupled engines), but had problems with the engines which were later corrected. Hense over 1000 of them being built.

The Fw 200 was fragile on landing sometimes but it was a very successful aircraft, so I dont think that should be included in the worst aircraft.

 

[Ki-43-I Hayabusa]

@ Oreo.
The Ki-43 was in the early years of the war the toughest opponent for the american fighters. Slower as a P-40 and underarmed, but in the hands of a good pilot a deadly weapon. And even obsolete in the closing years, there are some JAAF-Pilots who shot down B-17s, B-24s, Mustangs and Thunderbolts with her two Machine-guns! I think it was McGuire who lost his life in a low-level fight against Ki-43?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

@ Oreo.
The Ki-43 was in the early years of the war the toughest opponent for the american fighters. Slower as a P-40 and underarmed, but in the hands of a good pilot a deadly weapon. And even obsolete in the closing years, there are some JAAF-Pilots who shot down B-17s, B-24s, Mustangs and Thunderbolts with her two Machine-guns! I think it was McGuire who lost his life in a low-level fight against Ki-43?

I believe the pilot who engaged McGuire was flying a "Frank."

 

[Ki-43-I Hayabusa]

Thanks, i don`t know that.

 

[Old Wizard]

The Curtis Helldiver has got to rank up there with the worst.

 

[kool kitty89]

Neel Kearby was shot down by Ki-43's: Seversky Aircraft and Republic Aviation

 

[csisco]

It WAS obsolete and outdated when WWII started. BUT, it could hold it's own against simmillar Japanese Claude fighters used by the Japanese over China and the Philipines, before the Zeros entered full service. Not sure about it ever shooting down a Zero though?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Curtis Helldiver has got to rank up there with the worst.

The Curtiss Helldiver had many bugs when it was first deployed but once they were worked out it was a very good aircraft. I met someone who flew it and he had high praise for it.

 

[Elvis]

It WAS obsolete and outdated when WWII started. BUT, it could hold it's own against simmillar Japanese Claude fighters used by the Japanese over China and the Philipines, before the Zeros entered full service. Not sure about it ever shooting down a Zero though?

True, but if it weren't for the Peashooter, I think it would've been very possible that we'd have entered World War II with something hardly removed from the aircraft of the previous war.
If nothing else, I think it should be understood, that the P-26 helped the US military think beyond the "standard" of 1918.




Elvis

 

[parsifal]

HE 177 did eventually overcome most of the bugs that bedevilled it at the time of its introduction. According to Green, it suffered catastrophic fires in the engine nacelles early on. According to green, he describes the problem as follows "the tendency on the part of the coupled engines to ignite, became increasingly seriousas the test program progressed. There were several reasons forn the inflammability of the DB 606, one of which was the common exhaust manifold on the two inner cylender blocks, which became excessively hot and caused the usual accumulation of oil and grease in the bottom of the engine cowling to catch fire. also, when the pilot throttled back., there was a tendency for the injection pump to deliver more fuel than was required, in addition to which the engine pump connections were found to leak. Finally, to save weight no firewall had been provided, and the power plant was fitted so close to the mainspar that there was insufficient space to safely run the fuel, oil, and electrical connections. This sardine tin arrangement (as it was dubbed at rechlin) frequently led to fuel rich environment from the many leaking connections, and sparks from the electrical cabling."

Ther were often internal failures in the engines, with conrods literally bursting through the sides of the engine crankcasings, with fuel and lubricants spilling onto the red-hot exhaust pipe collector.

In addition there were structural failures in the wings, brought about by a certain weakness in the wings. A report from Rechlin stated that the strength of the wings was at least one third less than designed for, brought about by the uneven rigidity in the individual wing members, and a consequent deformation of the wing under load. This forced the He 177 from being able to safely undertake one of its intended roles, namely that of divebomber role 9except very shallow dives.

Eventually (ie early 1944) these problems were solved, mostly in the A-5 subtype, and the he 177 did provide some useful service in the anti-shipping role, and in operation Steinbock. Its perceived failure was not so much the design issue so populalry quoted, as rushed and inadequate testing regime, before acceptance into service. By the time the bugs had been addressed, the bad reputation of the type had already been established.

 

[B-17engineer]

I think the Helldiver wasn't a bad plane at all. It deffinetly wasnt as good as the SBD but it still could get the job done. Some Helldivers had bomb hits on the Yamamoto

 

[Vincenzo]

It WAS obsolete and outdated when WWII started. BUT, it could hold it's own against simmillar Japanese Claude fighters used by the Japanese over China and the Philipines, before the Zeros entered full service. Not sure about it ever shooting down a Zero though?

Claude is a more advanced plane of P-26, Claude is a "modern" fighter only with fixed gear, the structure of P-26 it's of old generation

 

[kool kitty89]

And the performance of the A5M showed it.
(similar to the Fokker D.XXI and Ki-27, albeit with an open canopy -preferred by pilots-)
In fact retracting gear was considdered, but the increase in speed caluculated was not though worth the loss in maneuverability. (which was already fairly low by contemporary Japanese standards)

 

[Marcel]

I'll throw in a new one, Fokker T.V. Meant as an aircruiser, something like a fighter. Ended up as a bomber without decent bomb racks. Burned like a lighter, underarmed, underpowered and hardly manoeuvrable.