Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: titanic3 on June 15, 2008, 08:21:11 PM
-
I've been dieing to know the answer to this question? What is the worst aircraft ever made? And please do not compare a Sopwith Camel to a F-22... The worst aircraft that was in its time?
1. Worst Aircraft of World War 1
2. Worst Aircraft of World War 2
3. Worst Aircraft of the Korean War
4. Worst Aircraft of the Vietnam War
5. Worst Aircraft of the First Gulf War (1991)
6. Worst Aircraft of the Present Day
As I said, I'm dieing to know the answer, and I'm sure others are too. If anyone can find the answer, I'll sit and roll over!! :pray
-
You need to define "worst" first.
-
Spruce goose?
-
wost plane of ww2 the P51 :lol
-
There is no "correct answer", that is about as close to the truth as you'll get.
-
Just like there is something always bigger/faster/stronger, there was not a plane that was the slowest AND worst menouverable AND had little or no firepower all wrapped up into one package for its time.
-
The plane that most failed its intended targets, or had the worst track record one way or another, maybe?
-
Boulton Paul Defiant?
-
The Defiant may have had a better history had they put some forward guns on the thing.
This can be a very complicated topic just because of how different nations viewed an aircraft.
For the Americans, the F2A Buffalo was one of their worst fighters of WWII. However the Finns loved her.
-
fairey battle
-
TBD Devestator? WW2s?
WW1's was I think some american made plane...
I think that's all I can come up with now.
-
The Defiant was pretty effective as a night fighter.
First World War the BE2C was pretty unpopular. Slow, terrible stall, unsafe design. It was very stable for photo recon work (which was the most important job back then) probably why it was kept in service. There were so many crazy designs that didn't make service that it would be hard to pick.
Second World War i would say Ba–349 Natter, it didn't make service but it was a death trap to test pilots.
-
WWI? BE-2 perhaps.....
WW2? Fairey Battle was completely obsolete in 1939...
-
The Battles were slaughtered mainly because they were sent out in small numbers at low altitude to bomb heavily defended enemy troop columns and bridges. They usually had little or no fighter cover and faced masses of flak and enemy fighters. The point is that any similar single engined bomber of the time would have been slaughtered in the same circumstances.
The Defiant was designed to take out unescorted German bombers flying from Germany, losing France put paid to that idea. It might have done OK hitting unescorted bombers too, attacking from outside their defensive fire arcs. However a Hurri or Spit would still have done a better job for less money and aircrew.
-
well, The Me 210 was a failure.
-
I don't think obsolescence makes a plane bad. There were many planes, like the TBD Devastator that were technologically advanced when introduced, that had no place in the war when it began.
As far as aircraft that failed to hit their design targets:
Me-210
SB2C
-
Any of the biplanes and pseudo-biplanes fielded early in the war which had little real chance of killing enemy fighters because of lack of firepower/speed could be considered here.
-
well the swordfish did ok against the bismarck,depends what you expect the ac to do.All planes suck at at least 1 thing
-
In WW-ll the biggest waste of money was the ME-163. The Germans spent a ton of money on the program and got almost nothing back in return. Lucky for us they didnt spend it on more 190s instead. In reality this was the most useless airplane to see action in the war.
-
In WW-ll the biggest waste of money was the ME-163. The Germans spent a ton of money on the program and got almost nothing back in return. Lucky for us they didnt spend it on more 190s instead. In reality this was the most useless airplane to see action in the war.
Germany was not strained for airframes as much as it was strained for fuel and pilots.
-
Well the Me163 was a MTT design so the money should have gone to the Me262.
-
C202, B5n2 probably take the cake for me.
-
Edsel :aok
-
The swordfish actually did well at Taranto as well.
However, in the channel dash, they got butchered by 190's. But I think they made some damage though.
Anyway, a bipe, on the deck, on a torpedo run getting jumped by a 190...just about as good as anything slow on the deck being jumped by a 190.....
-
Edsel :aok
:rofl
-
:confused: These are the worst planes! :O
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMhdksPFhCM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5vPiOTN3d0&feature=related
I big :salute to them for trying. I would never get in one of those!
-
:confused: These are the worst planes! :O
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMhdksPFhCM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5vPiOTN3d0&feature=related
I big :salute to them for trying. I would never get in one of those!
The rocket pack strapped to that man was the funniest of them all. : :rofl :rofl :lol :lol
-
C202, B5n2 probably take the cake for me.
The C202 was actually a fairly successful aircraft IIRC.
Was a sexy bird too. Then again, anything with the lines associated with a German engine is sexy by default. :)
I just wish the Aces High model had more than 8 polygons.
EDIT: just took up the C.202 in the DA. That things freaking awesome. I beat Pannono twice him in a K4, first time 2v1 (me being 1) second time him chasing me on the deck for revenge. I killed his radiator, oil, and fuel but he was able to extend (in a K4... not catching that)
-
C202, B5n2 probably take the cake for me.
B5N2 was actually a very advanced aircraft when introduced, almost certainly the best torpedo bomber in the world at that time.
By WWII, it was obsolete, though it still scored quite a few hits.
-
In WW-ll the biggest waste of money was the ME-163. The Germans spent a ton of money on the program and got almost nothing back in return. Lucky for us they didnt spend it on more 190s instead. In reality this was the most useless airplane to see action in the war.
Well, the 262 (at first) could have been it. Hitler wanted the 262 to be a bomber..... and the 262 was actually a temporarey bomber shortly though, it was a fighter. The airmen coulda seen a whole lot more 262s if they hadn't wasted their time trying to make it a bomber.
-
Well, the 262 (at first) could have been it. Hitler wanted the 262 to be a bomber..... and the 262 was actually a temporarey bomber shortly though, it was a fighter. The airmen coulda seen a whole lot more 262s if they hadn't wasted their time trying to make it a bomber.
Hitler's idea was not that bad as the 262 was the only German a/c that could with relative impunity drop bombs on Allied targets. German prop jobs were just padding Allied pilots 'kill' tallies.
-
Avro Manchester.
-
Hitler's idea was not that bad as the 262 was the only German a/c that could with relative impunity drop bombs on Allied targets. German prop jobs were just padding Allied pilots 'kill' tallies.
He still blew too much of his time trying to make it a better bomber when it coulda been attacking enemy B-17s. Thank god for Hitler's noobish tardness. :aok :lol
-
He still blew too much of his time trying to make it a better bomber when it coulda been attacking enemy B-17s. Thank god for Hitler's noobish tardness. :aok :lol
One of the great strengths of Liberal democracy in war is if the leader looses the plot there is a mechanism for their removal. Chamberlain in the Uk was a good example. Rossevelt and Churchill stood the test (except Roosevelt didnt understand the Soviets too well, thought Britain would be the post war threat). If they hadn't kept on track they would have been gone and throughout they new they were accountable. Hitler became an hysterical paranoid amphetamine addict who lost his grip on reality and the only way to get rid of him failed.
Worst plane could also be the Bristol Blenheim.
-
One of the great strengths of Liberal democracy in war is if the leader looses the plot there is a mechanism for their removal. Chamberlain in the Uk was a good example. Rossevelt and Churchill stood the test (except Roosevelt didnt understand the Soviets too well, thought Britain would be the post war threat). If they hadn't kept on track they would have been gone and throughout they new they were accountable. Hitler became an hysterical paranoid amphetamine addict who lost his grip on reality and the only way to get rid of him failed.
Worst plane could also be the Bristol Blenheim.
Yep Hitler didn't make too good friends. Was always too paranoid which became his end (invasion of Russia and declaration of war agains the U.S.)
-
He still blew too much of his time trying to make it a better bomber when it coulda been attacking enemy B-17s. Thank god for Hitler's noobish tardness. :aok :lol
It took no time at all to put bomb shackles on the 262. The biggest hold-up was the engines.
I suggest you read the 4 series books on the 262 by Classic written by Smith and Creek.
-
I would consider only aircraft that were almost unflyable, for example:
Koolhoven F.K.31: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koolhoven_F.K.31 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koolhoven_F.K.31)
Caudron C.714:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caudron_C.714 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caudron_C.714)
VL Myrsky:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VL_Myrsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VL_Myrsky)
All such disasters that (Finnish) pilots actually refused or at least were afraid to fly them. All the other aircraft (and car) mentioned so far were great in comparison.
-
Avro Manchester.
Would that count on pair with the He-177?
:devil
-
LA7 was the WORST aircraft of all time
-
La-7 owns the LaGG :devil
-
ME-262
huge resource hog, material, men, and time wasted on something intended to turn the tide, but only hastened the end.
-
(except Roosevelt didnt understand the Soviets too well, thought Britain would be the post war threat).
1. Roosevelt was many things. One of the things he was not was stupid enough to seriously believe the Brits would be the threat and that the Soviets wouldn't. :uhoh
2. Roosevelt also said "Nothing in politics happens by accident." :eek:
3. The greatest strength of "Liberal Democracies" as opposed to outright dictatorships is, that by the clever expedient of changing figureheads every so often and not openly bludgeoning people with rifle-butts (as much), the governments of these Liberal Democracies give the people the impression that they have something do with what the government does, thus blunting any natural and healthy impulse of the people to "water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants." :devil
-
Well, the 262 (at first) could have been it. Hitler wanted the 262 to be a bomber..... and the 262 was actually a temporarey bomber shortly though, it was a fighter. The airmen coulda seen a whole lot more 262s if they hadn't wasted their time trying to make it a bomber.
The 262 wasn't a waste, Hitler was ;)
-
Galland claimed that it was the redesign of the 262 that delayed production so much. (AFAIK). However, once the airframes were in production, the engines were behind.
In fact the engines never really became ready...
-
1. Roosevelt was many things. One of the things he was not was stupid enough to seriously believe the Brits would be the threat and that the Soviets wouldn't. :uhoh
2. Roosevelt also said "Nothing in politics happens by accident." :eek:
3. The greatest strength of "Liberal Democracies" as opposed to outright dictatorships is, that by the clever expedient of changing figureheads every so often and not openly bludgeoning people with rifle-butts (as much), the governments of these Liberal Democracies give the people the impression that they have something do with what the government does, thus blunting any natural and healthy impulse of the people to "water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants." :devil
1) I cant agree although it may have been Truman who compounded the damage. Stalin new that Churchill was on to him and that both deeply mistrusted eachother. Roosevelt thought that post war the dismatleing of the British Empire best served American Trading/Imperialist interests (maybe) but in the process overlooking the real threat. Rossevelt told Churchill he new best how to handle Stalin and the Soviets. He Like Truman was concerned the soviets shpould join the war with Japan and did not atach enough importance to soviet expansion in Europe believing Churchill was prejudice against Stalin where he had an affinity with this young developing nation.
It was precisely this attitude toward what he percieved to be the conflicting interests of Britain and USA that colouresd his judgement. Remember at the start of WW2 Britain had the largest navy in the world and a quarter of the worlds population were part of the British Empire and its commonwealth. UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa all loyal allies willing to fight to defend the mother country without first having to be atacked. India (including Pakistan and Bangaldesh), Ceylon Malaya, Burma, parts of China, much of the Middle East including Palastine/Israel, much or central Africa and even parts of South America. In short the biggest empire in the history of the world and pottentially looking to take over what Germany, Italy and France had just lost in Africa and the Far east. That is what Roosevelt did not want to go back to.
History proved Churchill right in his fears and reservations as he had been about Hitler.
3)Liberal democracies do not confer power equally or true equality but they do allow for stable competing elites with a high measure of consensus. The process of legitimation does involve some stage management for the consumption of the masses but it is not orchestrated by on individual with absolute power.
-
Whatever plane Ramzey took to get here should have never been built.
-
AR234 yes it's fast but it had a small bomb load. And to be honest i never heard of it before i started playing this.
-
Hehe, Stalin and Churchill mistrusted each other. Some facts:
1. Since the deal with Hitler, the USSR was feeding the German war-machine, - up to the day of Barbarossa. This particularly made Churchill sour through the BoB.....
2. None the less, Churchill saw a potential ally in the USSR, since intellience gave the information that Nazi Germany was planning on the USSR. The UK actually WARNED the USSR about Barbarossa very shortly before it went loose. The warning was discarded.
3. Still, just a few months after the start of Barbarossa, - at the battle of Moscow, the USSR were receiving the first shipments of supplies and arms from the UK. The USA hadn't joined in at the time....The "Allies" between the solstice (21 june) and Pearl harbour (7th of Dec) in 1941 were the Commonwealth and the USSR..
All worth some thoughts...
-
AR234 yes it's fast but it had a small bomb load. And to be honest i never heard of it before i started playing this.
But you have to realize what it led to. Ar-234 eventually became the B-52 technology-wise :)
And they did have pretty good opporational success IIRC. They didnt fly much, but the one mission I can think of, (They were bombing a bridge whose name escapes me) was successful and highlighted the advantages of their speed and power. And the nightfighter versions werent bad either IIRC. There werent enough of them to make a difference, but I think they were an important stepping stone to modern bombers.
-
The B-29 was fatally flawed in that it had consistently overheating engines and also engine parts made of magnesium. The overheating/fire problem wasn't fixed until the B-50 came out.
-
Serenity, that would be the bridge at Remagen.
Also the Ar234 photographed the invasion beaches of Normandy with impunity.
There was planed NF versions but none were were built.
I think the Canberra/B-57 would be a closer match.
-
The B-29 was fatally flawed in that it had consistently overheating engines and also engine parts made of magnesium. The overheating/fire problem wasn't fixed until the B-50 came out.
flawed, but it still performed its task better than any other aircraft of they time could have, so far from "worst"
-
flawed, but it still performed its task better than any other aircraft of they time could have, so far from "worst"
If that task was bursting into flames and plunging into the sea, then yes, it did perform admirably.
-
If that task was bursting into flames and plunging into the sea, then yes, it did perform admirably.
BAH, nothing could match its bomb load, to say nothing of its speed.
-
There was planed NF versions but none were were built.
Really? There was a book on the Ar-234 I was reading in borders one day, and I swear they mentioned a few NF birds with a giant cannon strapped to their belly seeing action. Oh well.
I think the Canberra/B-57 would be a closer match.
As far as leading to the B-52, I meant that the Ar-234 paved the way for the concept of jet-powered bombers. The Ar-234 is as related to the B-52 as the Wright Flyer is to the F-22.
-
Serves me right going from memory. :o One B-2 was converted to a NF (WNr 140145, SM+FE). It crashed on the night of Feb 13 1945 killing the pilot (Hptm Bisping) and the RO (Hptm Vogl) after a few operational sorties. Some idiot turned of fthe runway lights as it was taking off and Bisping pulled up too hard and stalled. Two 20mm MG151/20 in a Magirusbombe gunpack were used.
The crescent wing of the HP Victor was from research done at Arado.
Best book out there, tho expensive
Smith, J. Richard and Creek, Eddie J. Arado Ar 234B (Monogram Close-Up 23). Boylston, Massachusetts: Monogram Aviation Publications, 1984. ISBN 0-914144-23-5.
-
Best book out there, tho expensive
Smith, J. Richard and Creek, Eddie J. Arado Ar 234B (Monogram Close-Up 23). Boylston, Massachusetts: Monogram Aviation Publications, 1984. ISBN 0-914144-23-5.
I think that's the one I was looking at, but I had to chose between that book and "Masters of the Air" (A GREAT book about the 8th AF), and I chose that instead.
-
The rocket pack strapped to that man was the funniest of them all. : :rofl :rofl :lol :lol
I have to agree
-
Avro Manchester.
Well sort of...but if the Machester hadn't been redesigned as the Lancaster, we'd probably never have had the Lancaster. So, I think it was just a very expensive prototype(s), with the wrong engines, etc etc...
-
BAH, nothing could match its bomb load, to say nothing of its speed.
B-32 Dominator had the exact same bombload (around 20,000 pounds) and IIRC, the last version of the Lancaster that served in WW2 could carry 22,000 pounds.
-
The B-29 and B-32 were classed VERY heavy bombers. The Lanc only as a heavy bomber.
-
Well sort of...but if the Machester hadn't been redesigned as the Lancaster, we'd probably never have had the Lancaster. So, I think it was just a very expensive prototype(s), with the wrong engines, etc etc...
The Brits realized the complication of a "double" engine early enough, they had the aircraft in production, and the wing design allowed 4 engines. Presto, the Lannie was born!
It would fly on 2 engines (if on different wings) while the Manchester would not fly on one, and despite a little more drag, the total thrust was more. sooooo....pretty early in the war, the RAF had a tool that could carry 10 tonnes over a long long distance.
A sad story is the one of the Stirling. Would have done the same if the wings hadn't been shortened. (hangar issue) And that was earlier in the war...
-
I think what this thread is proving is that there is no such thing as a bad plane. Even the lousiest waste of money of all time led to some important developement, and went on to influence an aircraft we now consider to be great. "There's no such thing as a stupid question..."
-
Bad plane + waste of money would be the SB2C :D
-
Bad plane + waste of money would be the SB2C :D
Depends on the model - by the late war most of the bugs & bad engineering had been worked out and the crews swore by the plane. Reputation hung with the plane though kinda like the B-26.
:salute
-
Probably the Me-163.
-
The B-29 was fatally flawed in that it had consistently overheating engines and also engine parts made of magnesium. The overheating/fire problem wasn't fixed until the B-50 came out.
It may have been flawed, but it was the only reason America did not have to invade the homeland of Japan. With out the B29 carrying the A-bomb the United States would of lost hundreds of thousands of men if not a million men invading Japan.
-
Flawed? Yes. Effective? Yes. Succesful? Yes. Almost untouchable, and it did haul a lot, unlike many of the less successful designs....
-
There were alternatives to the B-29. The B-32 and even the B-36 (which first flew in 1946). Also the XB-30 and XB-31 were contenders.
-
There were alternatives to the B-29. The B-32 and even the B-36 (which first flew in 1946). Also the XB-30 and XB-31 were contenders.
Sooo... you think an aircraft which didn't even FLY until 1946 was a contender to prevent an invasion scheduled for 1945? :huh
-
EDIT: just took up the C.202 in the DA. That things freaking awesome. I beat Pannono twice him in a K4, first time 2v1 (me being 1) second time him chasing me on the deck for revenge. I killed his radiator, oil, and fuel but he was able to extend (in a K4... not catching that)
ya just had to didnt ya? lol jk its all good
:o
-
There were alternatives to the B-29. The B-32 and even the B-36 (which first flew in 1946). Also the XB-30 and XB-31 were contenders.
The B-32 was intended as a fallback in case of any design or production difficulties with the B-29. In addition, the B-32 was riddled with flaws, like the pressurization system problems that were never solved and eliminated from production models. In addition, only 118 were built out of a 1000+ order for the B-32.
Viable alternative? I don't think so and from everything I've read the USAAC thought the same. By the time the first production B-31 was ready, the B-29 had already been in active service in China. As I mentioned, the B-32 was designed as a 'fallback' if the B-29 suffered from design and production delays but it was the B-32 that suffered production delays due to faulty designs. The USAAC then initially planned on using the B-32 to supplement the B-29 by replacing the B-17s and B-24s of the 8th and 15th AFs before redeployment to the PTO. However, this didn't work out so well when only a handful of B-32s were delivered by the end of '44, which by this time full B-29 operation in the CBI/PTO were fully underway.
B-36 a contender? It wasn't deployed during WW2, its development cycle lasted from 1941 to 1946 with the first prototype flying in 1946. The only reason the USAAF didn't cancell the project is that at the time it was the only bomber capable of carrying a thermonuclear device to the Soviet Union. It also suffered through engine problems its entire production life.
B-31 never made it out of the design stage because Boeing had a huge head start with the B-29 program and it was felt that the B-29 could do everything the B-31 could do and more.
B-30? Same reasons as the B-31.
Was the B-29 perfect? No, but it was the right plane for the right job at the time.
ack-ack
-
AKAK, i'm firing Lusche and hiring you as my new AH lawyer
-
AKAK, i'm firing Lusche and hiring you as my new AH lawyer
You never paid me anyway...
-
You never paid me anyway...
You never told me where to send it :noid
-
The B-32 was intended as a fallback in case of any design or production difficulties with the B-29. In addition, the B-32 was riddled with flaws, like the pressurization system problems that were never solved and eliminated from production models. In addition, only 118 were built out of a 1000+ order for the B-32.
Viable alternative? I don't think so and from everything I've read the USAAC thought the same. By the time the first production B-31 was ready, the B-29 had already been in active service in China. As I mentioned, the B-32 was designed as a 'fallback' if the B-29 suffered from design and production delays but it was the B-32 that suffered production delays due to faulty designs. The USAAC then initially planned on using the B-32 to supplement the B-29 by replacing the B-17s and B-24s of the 8th and 15th AFs before redeployment to the PTO. However, this didn't work out so well when only a handful of B-32s were delivered by the end of '44, which by this time full B-29 operation in the CBI/PTO were fully underway.
B-36 a contender? It wasn't deployed during WW2, its development cycle lasted from 1941 to 1946 with the first prototype flying in 1946. The only reason the USAAF didn't cancell the project is that at the time it was the only bomber capable of carrying a thermonuclear device to the Soviet Union. It also suffered through engine problems its entire production life.
B-31 never made it out of the design stage because Boeing had a huge head start with the B-29 program and it was felt that the B-29 could do everything the B-31 could do and more.
B-30? Same reasons as the B-31.
Was the B-29 perfect? No, but it was the right plane for the right job at the time.
ack-ack
You realize that more B-29s were lost due to mechanical failure and engine fires than enemy fire, right? It was also unable to defend itself without escort fighters. Though its turrets were the most advanced of the day, the whole self-defense concept of bombers during WW2 was extremely flawed. When Japanese fighters did intercept B-29s, they were able to wreak havoc on the formations. The 29 was not resilient to battle damage. Some analysts even think it would have faired as poorly as the B-17 in the ETO.
-
You realize that more B-29s were lost due to mechanical failure and engine fires than enemy fire, right? It was also unable to defend itself without escort fighters. Though its turrets were the most advanced of the day, the whole self-defense concept of bombers during WW2 was extremely flawed. When Japanese fighters did intercept B-29s, they were able to wreak havoc on the formations. The 29 was not resilient to battle damage. Some analysts even think it would have faired as poorly as the B-17 in the ETO.
The B-17 didn't fare as badly as you would have us believe considering the circumstances. The war back then wasn't the same kind of air "war" we have today, where we have a 1% loss rate... And the B-29 wasn't quite so pathetic as you allude. It wasn't able to oporate safely without escort, no, but it wasn't cannon fodder either.
-
http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t099.pdf
Heavy bomber losses overseas was 12,281 a/c.
http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t101.pdf
Very heavy bomber losses.
-
You realize that more B-29s were lost due to mechanical failure and engine fires than enemy fire, right? It was also unable to defend itself without escort fighters. Though its turrets were the most advanced of the day, the whole self-defense concept of bombers during WW2 was extremely flawed. When Japanese fighters did intercept B-29s, they were able to wreak havoc on the formations. The 29 was not resilient to battle damage. Some analysts even think it would have faired as poorly as the B-17 in the ETO.
You missed the gist of my post but I find that no surprise since you seem to miss the point of anyone's post. I just refutted your assertion that there were alternatives to the B-29 and you cited examples and I responded with my examples how you were incorrect.
You are also adding in "the concept of self-defense" as proof that the B-29 was flawed and there were viable alternatives when whether or not a bomber can defend itself isn't part of this debate. If the B-29 had difficulties in defending itself, because in your opinion the concept of bomber self defense is inherently flawed, do you somehow believe that the B-31 or the B-32 would somehow be different?
Yes, the B-29 had flaws, never said or claimed different. I did in my post assert that at the time, the B-29 was the only viable plane for the mission at hand, which it was. You haven't provided any single bit of evidence to prove otherwise.
ack-ack
-
Whoa kid, you better watch how you talk to me. I apologize that you get angry when you are wrong.
Lets see, which very heavy bomber had this catastrophic problem:
These weaknesses combined to make an engine that would overheat regularly at combat weights, particularly during climbs after takeoff. Unseated valves released fuel-air mixtures during engine combustion that acted as a blowtorch against the valve stems. When these burned through the engines disintegrated and caught fire. A fire that was not immediately contained in the forward part of the engine by fire extinguishers became impossible to put out. An accessory housing manufactured of magnesium alloy in the back of the engine would often catch fire and produce heat so intense it burned through the firewall to the main wing spar in no more than 90 seconds, resulting in catastrophic failure of the wing.
That would be the B-29.
-
http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t099.pdf
Heavy bomber losses overseas was 12,281 a/c.
http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t101.pdf
Very heavy bomber losses.
See? Those really aren't bad numbers considering the circumstances.
-
Whoa kid, you better watch how you talk to me. I apologize that you get angry when you are wrong.
Lets see, which very heavy bomber had this catastrophic problem:
That would be the B-29.
I'll speak to anyone how I choose to.
Again, why are you side stepping the issue? When I have I ever said the B-29 wasn't without its flaws? I totally agree there were some problems with the B-29. I just don't see how someone like yourself that claims to have some sort of intelligence can't fathom what the debate is, especially when that person is the one to start the debate. Are you really this dense or just being purposefully obtuse?
You asserted that the B-32, B-36, XB-30 and XB-31 were not only alternatives but contenders to the B-29, yet have failed to provide any proof to back up said claim. I posted my counter-point, it's time you post yours. This is the point where you back up your claims, not make another straw man.
ack-ack
-
I'll speak to anyone how I choose to.
Little man syndrome.
The B-32 flew a bunch of combat missions. And believe it or not, its wings didn't burst into flames and break off on a regular basis. The only big problem the B-32 had was pressurization. No big deal, B-29s flew most of their raids at low altitudes and at night. When you are flying over the ocean, RELIABILITY is paramount. Like I said, more B-29s were lost to mechanical problems than combat fire.
The only reason the other very heavy bombers didn't make it very far in the developmental stages was due to the immense amount of resources required to produce such a plane. The B-29 program cost more than the Manhattan Project.
-
Whoa kid, you better watch how you talk to me. I apologize that you get angry when you are wrong.
Lets see, which very heavy bomber had this catastrophic problem:
That would be the B-29.
B-32:
"In service, the B-32 had numerous deficiencies. The cockpit had an extremely high noise level and the instrument layout was poor. Bombardier vision was rather poor. The aircraft was overweight for the available engine power, the mechanical subsystems were inadequate, and there were frequent engine fires caused by a faulty nacelle design."
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b32.html (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b32.html)
About the B-29:
"The most common cause of maintenance headaches and catastrophic failures was the engine. Though the Wright R-3350 would later become a trustworthy workhorse in large piston-engined aircraft, early models were beset with dangerous reliability problems, many caused by demands that the B-29 be put in operation as soon as possible. It had an impressive power-to-weight ratio, but this came at a heavy cost to durability. Worse, the cowling Boeing designed for the engine was too close (out of a desire for improved aerodynamics), and the early cowl flaps caused problematic flutter and vibration when open in most of the flight envelope. The 18 radial cylinders, compactly arranged in front and rear rows, overheated because of insufficient flow of cooling air, which in turn caused exhaust valves to unseat."
EDIT/http://www.scripophily.net/beaicobaiprg.html (http://www.scripophily.net/beaicobaiprg.html)/EDIT
The cowlings have a fairly similar shape:
(http://pcpartusa.com/2003/toys/rcplane/B29/B29_2.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Consolidated_TB-32_production_line.jpg/800px-Consolidated_TB-32_production_line.jpg)
I doubt that the B-32's engine fire problems would have been that much smaller than the ones experienced with the B-29. The cowlings were fairly similar and the same basic engines were used in both aircraft. As the B-32's wing was of course different than B-29's wing so I don't know if it needed 90 secs to burn though but when an engine catches fire a stop watch would be the last thing I would be looking for... :)
-
AquaShrip, in regard to your repeated comments about the B-29 loss rates, specifically, that more were lost in non-combat than combat. I doubt you can find evidence of any combat aircraft built (in reasonable numbers) prior to 1946 that had higher combat losses then non-combat losses.
Here are some interesting points about the history of the XB-32 and you'll see how similar it was to the B-29. This is from "General Dynamics Aircraft and their Predecessors" by John Wegg, Naval Institute Press 1990.
- First flight lasted 20 minutes and resulted in an emergency landing due to rudder trim fatigue failure
- On the 10th of May 1943 the first XB-32 (on it 30th flight) crashed while performing a zero flap takeoff
- Stability problems caused the second XB-32 to be refitted with a B-29 style tail after the 25th flight
- First delivery to the AAF was on 19 Sep 44, aircraft was written off on the same day due to a nose gear failure
- as a comparison by Dec 1944 only 5 B-32's had been delivered compared to the B-29 which had started combat flights in June
- Suffered from a long list of deficiencies; high noise in the cockpit, poor instrument layout, poor bombardier vision, overweight, and the nacelle design resulted in frequent engine fires
- In May of 45 all B-32's were grounded due to undercarriage failures
- first combat mission 29 May 1945
- Last mission 28 August 1945 (two aircraft were lost both non-combat)
These are issues the Author wrote about, in detailing the companies history on pages 91-93. Not a very glowing endorsement by any stretch of the imagination. As a model that was in direct competition with the B-29 (Same proposal date, and order date) it was behind schedule and suffered many problems.
-
Like I said, more B-29s were lost to mechanical problems than combat fire.
You could make the same statement about the B-2. Or the F4U, or a hundred other combat aircraft. Matter of fact, that's why almost every combat aircraft ever used successfully by the U.S. military didn't acheive success with a model designation of "A". P-47C, P-51B, AV8B, F-16C, F-18C, etc.
-
Little man syndrome.
The B-32 flew a bunch of combat missions.
Only 10 missions. 4 test combat missions and 6 operational missions that were flown by the 312th BG.
And believe it or not, its wings didn't burst into flames and break off on a regular basis. The only big problem the B-32 had was pressurization. No big deal, B-29s flew most of their raids at low altitudes and at night. When you are flying over the ocean, RELIABILITY is paramount. Like I said, more B-29s were lost to mechanical problems than combat fire.
Like Wmaker pointed out, the B-32 was just as prone to engine fires due to the same faulty nacelle design in the B-29's engines. You can't compare the safety record either between each craft since the B-29 flew hundreds if not thousands of more missions than the B-32 did. Though, with the same problem with as the B-29, I'm sure had it seen more operational service it would have been comparable to the B-29.
If the B-32 was a viable alternative, why was production stopped after only 118? Why was the plane retired by 1948?
ack-ack
-
I'll stick to WWII because I feel most comfortable talking about it.
Worst WWII planes when it comes to meeting expectations:
American Fighters:
Early War: Brewster Buffalo.... It actually beat the F4F Wildcat for the same contract, but which became the better fighter? Someone said it earlier in the thread... and I agree....
Mid War: P-39... High expectations as a fighter fell short when additional armor resulted in underperformance.... later went on to become a highly successful ground attack.
Late War: P-75... although not a production plane, this plane was to be the end-all interceptor. Built around the most powerful liquid cooled engine of the day, upon flight it proved to be terribly designed. This one truly missed the mark.
American Bombers:
Early War: B-23 ... Never quite living up to potential, this bomber was quickly relegated to 2nd-line status.
Late War: SB2C ... I absolutely agree.
Axis Fighters:
Me210... I absolutely agree.
Modern:
F-104
F-111
B-1/B-1B
I'm sure there are many more "worsts" but these are what come quickly to my mind.
-
Modern:
F-104
F-111
B-1/B-1B
I don't know the F-104
F-111 was pretty successful no ? very fast, good loadout, the USAAF just retired theirs.
the B1B wasn't usefull at first, but now the F117 is retired, and looking at the cost of a B2 sortie, its getting used more intensively lately.
-
the B1B wasn't usefull at first, but now the F117 is retired, and looking at the cost of a B2 sortie, its getting used more intensively lately.
I've stopped paying attention to current deployments. Is my B-52 getting any 'love'? or are they all sitting on the ground at home?
-
I've stopped paying attention to current deployments. Is my B-52 getting any 'love'? or are they all sitting on the ground at home?
I've seen films of B-52 carpet bombing huge areas in Afghanistan, so I guess they are being used there. The B1B is more suited for a close support role with its ground tracking radar IIRC.
-
I've seen films of B-52 carpet bombing huge areas in Afghanistan, so I guess they are being used there. The B1B is more suited for a close support role with its ground tracking radar IIRC.
Good. I'd hate for her to be banished to the rear before I get a chance to join up!
-
I'll stick to WWII because I feel most comfortable talking about it.
Worst WWII planes when it comes to meeting expectations:
American Fighters:
Early War: Brewster Buffalo.... It actually beat the F4F Wildcat for the same contract, but which became the better fighter? Someone said it earlier in the thread... and I agree....
Mid War: P-39... High expectations as a fighter fell short when additional armor resulted in underperformance.... later went on to become a highly successful ground attack.
Late War: P-75... although not a production plane, this plane was to be the end-all interceptor. Built around the most powerful liquid cooled engine of the day, upon flight it proved to be terribly designed. This one truly missed the mark.
The Buffalo in Finish service did quite well.
The P-39 in Soviet service did quite well and not as a ground attack a/c either which is a myth. Biggest problem with the P-39 was altitude performance but that was a common problem with many a/c.
P-75 http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p75.html
-
B-32:
"In service, the B-32 had numerous deficiencies. The cockpit had an extremely high noise level and the instrument layout was poor. Bombardier vision was rather poor. The aircraft was overweight for the available engine power, the mechanical subsystems were inadequate, and there were frequent engine fires caused by a faulty nacelle design."
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b32.html (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b32.html)
About the B-29:
"The most common cause of maintenance headaches and catastrophic failures was the engine. Though the Wright R-3350 would later become a trustworthy workhorse in large piston-engined aircraft, early models were beset with dangerous reliability problems, many caused by demands that the B-29 be put in operation as soon as possible. It had an impressive power-to-weight ratio, but this came at a heavy cost to durability. Worse, the cowling Boeing designed for the engine was too close (out of a desire for improved aerodynamics), and the early cowl flaps caused problematic flutter and vibration when open in most of the flight envelope. The 18 radial cylinders, compactly arranged in front and rear rows, overheated because of insufficient flow of cooling air, which in turn caused exhaust valves to unseat."
EDIT/http://www.scripophily.net/beaicobaiprg.html (http://www.scripophily.net/beaicobaiprg.html)/EDIT
The cowlings have a fairly similar shape:
(http://pcpartusa.com/2003/toys/rcplane/B29/B29_2.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Consolidated_TB-32_production_line.jpg/800px-Consolidated_TB-32_production_line.jpg)
I doubt that the B-32's engine fire problems would have been that much smaller than the ones experienced with the B-29. The cowlings were fairly similar and the same basic engines were used in both aircraft. As the B-32's wing was of course different than B-29's wing so I don't know if it needed 90 secs to burn though but when an engine catches fire a stop watch would be the last thing I would be looking for... :)
The B-29s wing burn through issue was a direct result of the large amounts of magnesium used behind the engine. The B-32 did not have these magnesium parts. So yes, overheating may have been a problem for both aircraft. The wings burning off was only a B-29 problem.
-
The B-29s wing burn through issue was a direct result of the large amounts of magnesium used behind the engine. The B-32 did not have these magnesium parts. So yes, overheating may have been a problem for both aircraft. The wings burning off was only a B-29 problem.
The B-32 suffered the same engine fire problem as the B-29 and wasn't just 'overheating' either.
ack-ack
-
The B-29s wing burn through issue was a direct result of the large amounts of magnesium used behind the engine. The B-32 did not have these magnesium parts. So yes, overheating may have been a problem for both aircraft. The wings burning off was only a B-29 problem.
Last B-29s (B-29D/B-50 - standard) retired in the 60's. Without pressurization and automatic turrets B-32 would have had little hope to stay in service for that long regardless of the engine change that would have been made to it as it was done to B-29. You say how reliability is paramount while flying over the sea while your own candidate had the same engine troubles for the same reasons as the B-29. You mention B-29 in a thread handling "worst plane ever made" and then bring your own candidate which you see as a good replacement for it...that, I repeat suffered from the exact same troubles that were the reason why you mentioned the B-29 in this thread. The pressurization was actually pretty important feature, a big portion of the missions were flown as daylight sorties at high altitude and their duration was significantly longer than in the ETO. The production issues have already been discussed. I really see no point in continuing this discussion.
-
The B-29s wing burn through issue was a direct result of the large amounts of magnesium used behind the engine. The B-32 did not have these magnesium parts. So yes, overheating may have been a problem for both aircraft. The wings burning off was only a B-29 problem.
The B-29's "magnesium" problem that you keep mentioning was present in the B-32 as well, as both aircraft were equipped with the same R-3350 engine. The magnesium was used in the engine case and accessories to reduce weight. So, the magnesium problem was an engine design issue, not an aircraft design issue. And, as both aircraft used the same motors, the magnesium problem existed for both.
-
I guess one can say this debate is over and Aquashrimp again has come out the loser.
ack-ack
-
I didn't come out the loser. You lost for supporting a plane thats wings burn off in 90 seconds if an engine fire erupts. I realized that you are a moron and lost any motivation for talking to you. Its not my job to convince you of anything.
-
I didn't come out the loser. I took my ball and went home...
Fixed
-
I didn't come out the loser. You lost for supporting a plane thats wings burn off in 90 seconds if an engine fire erupts. I realized that you are a moron and lost any motivation for talking to you. Its not my job to convince you of anything.
And here I thought all this time you were just playing dense.
You lost this argument because you failed to prove the following:
The B-32 was a viable alternative and contender to the B-29
The B-36 was a viable alternative and contender to the B-29
The XB-30 was a viable alternative and contender to the B-29
The XB-31 was a viable alternative and contender to the B-29
I, along with quite a few others have never denied the B-29 had any issues, we just didn't agree with your point that those planes you mentioned were an alternative to the B-29 that could have done a better job. I posted some information that was counter to your argument and instead of replying with facts to shore up your position you created straw man arguments.
Yeah, I'd say you lost this one. Frankly, I am surprised that you're not used to this by now.
ack-ack
-
I don't know the F-104
F-111 was pretty successful no ? very fast, good loadout, the USAAF just retired theirs.
the B1B wasn't usefull at first, but now the F117 is retired, and looking at the cost of a B2 sortie, its getting used more intensively lately.
I thought we were talking about worst for what they were designed for.
F-111 was supposed to be a air superiority fighter, it became a highly successful e-warfare and bombardment plane.
B1B's were supposed to replace B-52s... and the 52's are still the main bomber in our arsenal.
The Buffalo in Finish service did quite well.
The P-39 in Soviet service did quite well and not as a ground attack a/c either which is a myth. Biggest problem with the P-39 was altitude performance but that was a common problem with many a/c.
P-75 http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p75.html
Buffalo was supposed to be america's prime naval fighter... it wasn't... I'm sure the finnish would have done just fine or better with an f4f as well.
P-39 was designed for extreme maneuverability firepower and speed... it underperformed in 2 of the 3. Also, same issue as with Buffalo... was better than most of what Russians had, thus looks good by comparison, though wasn't originally purposed to be exported.
Not sure what you were saying about the P-75.
Anyway, I don't want to develop into an arguement, just explain my reasoning for them.
-
Fixed
LOL pwnt. :aok