Worst Piston engined Bomber of World War Two
- Thread starter nuuumannn
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Tankworks
Airman
(if we are talking multi engine?)Blenhiem, it peaked just pre-war.
Shortround6
Major General
Avro Manchester, AW Albemarle, Handley Page H.P.53 Hereford, Nakajima Ki-49?, Kawasaki Ki-48, Amiot 143?,
That is for starters
That is for starters
Shortround6
Major General
The Blenheim did at least perform combat missions for several years, in part because expected replacements didn't work. Had they worked the Blenheim would have been phased out much sooner and perhaps with more of it's reputation intact?
buffnut453
Captain
Amiot 143
Potez 540
Farman F222
Can anyone detect a pattern here...???
Potez 540
Farman F222
Can anyone detect a pattern here...???
- Thread starter
- #7
parsifal
Colonel
Amiot 143
Potez 540
Farman F222
Can anyone detect a pattern here...???
AM 143 were actually a pretty good design, when first designed in 1931. The Potez 540 was built to meet a 1932 specification. The farman was the spring chicken of the crowd, being designed 1933-4, and produced from 1935.
For their time, there was nothing wronmg with these aircraft, in fact they were quite advanced. the problem was the industry that produced them
buffnut453
Captain
Hi Parsifal,
My tongue was somewhat in my cheek. I think the main problem is they were still in service in 1940. That, to me, is pretty criminal.
Cheers,
B-N
My tongue was somewhat in my cheek. I think the main problem is they were still in service in 1940. That, to me, is pretty criminal.
Cheers,
B-N
baclightning
Airman
- 17
- May 12, 2011
I know it didn't see combat, but considering that 771 were built, the Brewster Buccaneer/Bermuda deserves consideration...
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
Exactly. French approached aircraft production until 1939 like they were works of art, handcrafted slow laborious expensive processes that damned the FAF to being a second rate force when called upon to defend their country. In terms of their bombers, if you exclude army co-operation biplane types, they possessed less than 300 bombers in May 1940. Now thats criminal.......
AdlA orbat 10 may '40 Armée de l'Air, Ordre de bataille au 10 mai 1940
Shortround6
Major General
The Amiot 143 may have been an OK airplane but adoption and continued use leave a lot of blame for some officials to shoulder. Look at the time line for the Martin B-10 bomber. 10 YB-10s under took a trip to Alaska over 6 months before the first production AM 143 flew. The AM 143 was obsolete before the first one was delivered. At least the Potez 540 was on secondary duties by WW II.
The Brewster Buccaneer/Bermuda certainly deserves consideration in the single engine category.
The Brewster Buccaneer/Bermuda certainly deserves consideration in the single engine category.
parsifal
Colonel
I would nominate the following by nationality
Germany
Until its problems were eventually sorted out with the mark 5 sub category,He177
Britain
Avro Manchester
France
Bloch 131
US
Cleveland, Buccaneer or Vindicator
Soviet
Probably the old Ant-20 Maxim gorky
japan
Probably the Ki49
Germany
Until its problems were eventually sorted out with the mark 5 sub category,He177
Britain
Avro Manchester
France
Bloch 131
US
Cleveland, Buccaneer or Vindicator
Soviet
Probably the old Ant-20 Maxim gorky
japan
Probably the Ki49
Last edited:
GregP
Major
That's the spirit RPope!
It would have helped if the crew had weighed anchor before attempting takeoff. Since they didn't they actually plowed many a field, albeit in a single row. The average pilot was unable to use the aircraft for its intended use!
The LWS-6 Zubr is also a very strong candidate if it weren't for the fact that they discovered their error before they made more than 17 Zubrs. It was ugly enough that even the first person who looked upon its completed form became ill and swooned out of the hangar. That SHOULD have been warning eough, but it went unheeded until they completed 17 airframes. Nobody halted the work order so work continued ...
It would have helped if the crew had weighed anchor before attempting takeoff. Since they didn't they actually plowed many a field, albeit in a single row. The average pilot was unable to use the aircraft for its intended use!
The LWS-6 Zubr is also a very strong candidate if it weren't for the fact that they discovered their error before they made more than 17 Zubrs. It was ugly enough that even the first person who looked upon its completed form became ill and swooned out of the hangar. That SHOULD have been warning eough, but it went unheeded until they completed 17 airframes. Nobody halted the work order so work continued ...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The Breda 88 was considered a fighter bomber and was mentioned on the worse fighter thread. It would probably qualify here as well.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Heinkel He 177 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
130 x He-177A1.
15 x He-177A3 powered by DB606 engines.
.....145 total He-177 production aircraft with faulty engines.
.....949 total He-177 production aircraft (He-177A3 and He-177A5) powered by reliable engines.
How many B-29s and Manchester/Lancaster bombers were produced before engine problems were sorted out? If rated by the same standard as the He-177 then B-29s and Lancasters should also be on the worst bomber list.
- Thread starter
- #19
I have to say that it's no surprise that the Manchester is here, since, aside from its well known issues with the Vulture engines, it also suffered problems with its electrics and hydraulics. Despite these faults, by the time the later models of the Mk.I and the Mk.III appeared these issues had been resolved, according to a book on RR engines I have.
Because of its poor serviceability record, by late 1940 the Air Ministry had already confined the type to the scrap heap and progress on the Manchester Mk.III continued; it was this aeroplane that changed the course of the type's troubled history. The Mk.III being renamed to detract from the stigma of the Manchester. Chadwick had always intended that a version of the Manchester be built with four engines, so the Mk.III wasn't just as a result of the failure of the Mk.I. In effect, the Lancaster's airframe was (almost) identical to the Manchester; the only difference being the centre section. Tooling up to build the Lanc was comparatively easy and was carried out rather rapidly as a result.
I guess you guys are right for including the Manchester, but part of me thinks it shouldn't be here because of the Lancaster. It was a very advanced aeroplane on roll out for the first time and was put into production and service before its issues were sorted, it also spawned the Lancaster, (which didn't have engine issues, Dave) which was essentially a Manchester with a bigger wing and four engines.
As for the Halifax Mk.I; underpowered, dangerously poor handling, too slow, faulty undercarriage... the list goes on.
Because of its poor serviceability record, by late 1940 the Air Ministry had already confined the type to the scrap heap and progress on the Manchester Mk.III continued; it was this aeroplane that changed the course of the type's troubled history. The Mk.III being renamed to detract from the stigma of the Manchester. Chadwick had always intended that a version of the Manchester be built with four engines, so the Mk.III wasn't just as a result of the failure of the Mk.I. In effect, the Lancaster's airframe was (almost) identical to the Manchester; the only difference being the centre section. Tooling up to build the Lanc was comparatively easy and was carried out rather rapidly as a result.
I guess you guys are right for including the Manchester, but part of me thinks it shouldn't be here because of the Lancaster. It was a very advanced aeroplane on roll out for the first time and was put into production and service before its issues were sorted, it also spawned the Lancaster, (which didn't have engine issues, Dave) which was essentially a Manchester with a bigger wing and four engines.
As for the Halifax Mk.I; underpowered, dangerously poor handling, too slow, faulty undercarriage... the list goes on.
- Thread starter
- #20
I have to sympathise with you a bit here, Dave, since the big problems of the He 177 were eventually ironed out, but I guess because of its protracted and difficult development and limited use it differs from the Lancaster and the B-29, although the B-29 had a pretty long and troubled gestation, but the end result was a striking aircraft with excellent performance; not to forget its use during the war. You could say that with the B-29 the end justifies the means, but you couldn't with the He 177.
It shares with the Manchester/Lancaster a troubled gestation too, but the Lanc/Manchester Mk.III was free of the issues that plagued the Mk.I and it had an enviable combat record, something that the He 177 could never have had as a heavy bomber in the Luftwaffe.
The biggest problem with the He 177 was that it was German.
Last edited:
