Worst Aircraft of WWII or Before

[GregP]

I like the P-39. Nothing there that a decent turbocharger coudn't fix. The P-63 with the Aux stage Allison fixed it and flew quite well at the altitudes expected in the ETO. For some reason, we gave most of them to the Soviet Union. Go figure.

There were many prototypes that showed good promise, but the powers that be select only a few for production contracts. I believe the choice is mostly political, and not connected in any way with the needs of the service that will USE the planes. If THAT were not true, we wouldn't be flying F-35's today.

 

[VBF-13]

Why can't I post an "8" without a smiley?

The ) after the 8. 8)

 

[Readie]

Hi Greg, that comment about P-39 et al wasn't aimed at you specifically, but they always seem to end up in these 'Worst of WW2' categories.



You might be right, John. Although the Falklands war was won without direct US military intervention, the Brits sure made use of American generosity (I love how a thread about the worst aircraft of WW2 can reference the Mongol Hoardes!).

Here's one that defines the difference in policing in different countries.

Australia; police officer draws a pistol and fires. Bang! Bang! "I think he's dead!"

United States; police officer draws a pistol and fires. Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! click click click Pause, reload, Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! "Yep, he's dead."

Britain; Police officer stops and ponders, "What ethnic minority does he represent? Is this gender or sexual discrimination? What if he/she's a homosexual, will this result in a law suit..."

True NM.
However when someone really pisses us off the race doesn't really matter...not to the SAS anyway.
The French riot Police have a quick and painful lesson waiting in store for those who insist on playing up in la belle France.

Marcel,
I meant the royal 'we' as in Britain and her allies at that time.
Napoleon was a force to be reckoned with !!

I think that if Herr Hitler had studied history more thoroughly he would not have attacked Russia so readily. Mind you, its just as well he did as I may be speaking German !

Cheers
John

 

[Coronado990]

The Silvansky IS should be on that list, Designed in 1938 as a frontal aviation fighter. There was a mistake on the landing gear lenght, too long to retract into the space for it in the wing, so it was shortened. That left the propeller too large for ground clearance, so the propeller was cropped.

It may seem funny now, but this was 1938 Russia. Only the fact that the design staff was led by some one with kin high in the party saved them from the gulag or worse.
When it finally flew, the test pilot felt lucky to be able to land, and pronounced it unfit to fly.

The design team was broke up.

I read somewhere when it was discovered the prop was too long after the landing gear mods, that someone ran into the hangar, got a hacksaw, and cut the prop blades so they wouldn't touch the ground. Handling wasn't helped by this 'fix.'

 

[swampyankee]

Tarrant Tabor (No. 2099 The Tarrant Tabor)
The Bell Airacuda YFM-1. A lesson on how not to design a combat aircraft.
The Barling Bomber (Engineering Division NBL-1 Barling Bomber. [photograph])

 

[Coronado990]

Tarrant Tabor (No. 2099 The Tarrant Tabor)
The Bell Airacuda YFM-1. A lesson on how not to design a combat aircraft.
The Barling Bomber (Engineering Division NBL-1 Barling Bomber. [photograph])

Hi! Thanks for the picture of the Barling Bomber. I hadn't even noticed the man standing on the wing until I looked at the picture again. Would you happen to have a link to the Aircuda history? I love this site. Open one door, and there are a 1,000 more!

 

[NevadaK]

Well, I'll nominate the Heston Type 5 Racer. Crashed on its maiden flight. Pilot survived, but was parboiled by a coolant leak. Barely controllable in flight. Looks cool as hell though!

 

[glennasher]

The GeeBee racers weren't known for their stability, either. I gotta think that any aircraft that damned near demanded a Jimmy Doolittle-grade aviator to fly it, wasn't worth a look.

 

[GregP]

You guys who say the Gee Bee wasn't all that controllable might like to check out Delmar Benjamin flying his replica. It is true down to the airfoils.



Delmar said that the pilots of the original were used to flying aircraft with wing loading down around 10 pounds per square foot or less. The Gee Bee he flew came in around 32 pounds per square foot and cannot be flown like an aircraft with one third the wing loading. His entire point in building it, other than an airshow act, was to show that the early aviators (1932 - 1933 or so) were simply not used to aircraft with wing loadings like we now commonly fly without any issues. It is a matter of training and getting used to aircraft with heavy wing loading. Design for the anticipated wing loading also plays a part.

Trying to slip it in instead of landing it smoothly was a guarantee of disaster and simply stalled one wing too low for recovery to matter. An F-104 Starfighter won't slip in, either.

A Bonanza is about 20 lbs.sq ft and is the "doctor killer." A Mitsubishi MU-2 comes in around 65 lbs. sq ft, twice what the Gee Bee R-1 was. It requires special "type training." The training addresses handling with heavy wing loading. It now performs very well and safely, once the MU-2 pilot population got trained. The Gee Bee is a decent flyer given decent piloting skills.

 

[windhund116]

I'd imagine that any airplane labeled "widowmaker" is prolly not a good one to start-on. I think the B-26 had this reputation. As did the 104.

 

[BiffF15]

My son solo'd out in a GeeBee at about age 4 after minimal ground instruction. Said it was a piece of cake. Gave the dog a pat on the noggin, winked at the secretary, said "I'm hungry", and then walked out to the car and buckled into his booster...

 

[pbehn]

I'd imagine that any airplane labeled "widowmaker" is prolly not a good one to start-on. I think the B-26 had this reputation. As did the 104.

The B-26 was pretty much the same issue as the GeeBee, nothing wrong with the actual plane but you have to fly them a certain way as it was designed to be flown.

 

[windhund116]

The B-26 was pretty much the same issue as the GeeBee, nothing wrong with the actual plane but you have to fly them a certain way as it was designed to be flown.

Prolly not a good thing, for thousands of green, freshly recruited pilots. Lot of those 1930s era racers were dangerous. I remember a story about the Supermarine S.6B being a complete handful, during take-offs and landings.

 

[pbehn]

Prolly not a good thing, for thousands of green, freshly recruited pilots. Lot of those 1930s era racers were dangerous. I remember a story about the Supermarine S.6B being a complete handful, during take-offs and landings.

The S 6B and others were racing machines, The B-26 was a service bomber but apart from issues with a new aircraft most seemed to be about landing, with higher wing loading the landing speed was higher along with the stall speed.

 

[GrauGeist]

Prolly not a good thing, for thousands of green, freshly recruited pilots. Lot of those 1930s era racers were dangerous. I remember a story about the Supermarine S.6B being a complete handful, during take-offs and landings.

The same can be said for any high-performance machine.
You're not going to take a person fresh from driving school and put them behind the wheel of a 7,000 horsepower Alcohol-burning Funny Car and expect anything but disaster.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'd imagine that any airplane labeled "widowmaker" is prolly not a good one to start-on. I think the B-26 had this reputation. As did the 104.

I suggest you do some research and you'll discover that label was probably not justified for either aircraft once all facts are known.

 

[pbehn]

I suggest you do some research and you'll discover that label was probably not justified for either aircraft once all facts are known.

There was a poster here adamant that the Mosquito was the same.

 

[GrauGeist]

There were a number of aircraft that were called that either at the time or much later post-war.
I suppose that the phrase casts an aire of danger, even though it could be furthest from the truth.

 

[NevadaK]

The same can be said for any high-performance machine.
You're not going to take a person fresh from driving school and put them behind the wheel of a 7,000 horsepower Alcohol-burning Funny Car and expect anything but disaster.

To wit, here is a synopsis of the first and only flight of the Heston.

It was decided to wait for perfect weather. Finally on June 12 1940, Richmond decided to test fly the Heston racer. He taxied out without the canopy. As the aircraft raced across Heston's grass strip at full power, control and response was more than adequate. Then the racer hit a bad irregularity in the grassy surface very hard, causing the Heston to rotate prematurely into a very nose-high attitude. Thirty seconds or so after hitting the bump and full throttle and becoming airborne, the engine coolant temps went critical. Richmond found himself in an unfamiliar flight attitude in a new aircraft that employed a uniquely designed and sensitive flight control system, the landing gear down and no canopy. His first landing in the Heston was going to be hot.

Six minutes after opening the throttle, he had made a wide circuit at about 200 mph, throttled back, and set up for the landing approach. The ignition was not switched off and the DeHaviland-Hamilton constant-speed prop was not feathered. Witnesses say that he leveled out at about 30 ft, stalled, and "banged it" on, quite possibly because he was being scalded from below - there is speculation that an engine coolant pipe or fitting had fractured during the hard bump incident at takeoff. Whether the aircraft stalled or not, it arrived at the field at an excessive rate of descent, hit the ground hard, drove the landing gear through the wings, broke the tail, and ensued other major airframe damage before coming to rest. The pilot was scalded but not badly hurt, the Heston was a complete write-off.

Sounds like an awful lot of airplane.

 

[Admiral Beez]

8) Handley Page Hereford: Even routine maintenance was complicated. Hopeless in combat along with the [sic] Hampdon. Seriously needed to be scrapped much sooner than it was.

The Hereford hardly warrants mention, it was in very limited use.

Nothing wrong with the Hampden IMO. Until the Beaufighter and later modified Wellington, The RAF has two twin-engined torpedo bombers, the Beaufort and Hampden. The Taurus-powered Beaufort was faster in both top and cruise speed, but the Pegasus-powered Hampden was no slow poke either, and had longer range and twice the bombload of the Beaufort. RAF Malaya Command would have welcomed the Hampden to replace its Vilderbeests.

Beauforts were supposed to go to Malaya, but never arrived. Hampdens were available, but not sent.... take your pick, Hampden or these....

Someone likes the Hampden enough to warrant saving one Handley-Page Hampden Fuselage Whole Again at RAF Museum Cosford

Some good pics of a Canadian-made Hampden Harold A. Skaarup Web page