What was the worst plane that was ever made?

[Noir]

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.

[Serenity]

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!

[MiloMorai]

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

[AquaShrimp]

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

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/EDIT

The cowlings have a fairly similar shape:

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

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.

[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.

The B-32 suffered the same engine fire problem as the B-29 and wasn't just 'overheating' either.


ack-ack

[Wmaker]

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.

[Stoney]

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.

[Ack-Ack]

I guess one can say this debate is over and Aquashrimp again has come out the loser.


ack-ack

[AquaShrimp]

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. 

[Stoney]

I didn't come out the loser.  I took my ball and went home...

Fixed

[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. 

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

[Swatch]

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.

[Bronk]

Fixed

LOL pwnt.