What was the worst plane that was ever made?

[AquaShrimp]

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.

[Serenity]

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.

[MiloMorai]

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.

[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 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

[AquaShrimp]

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.

[Serenity]

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.

[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:

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

[AquaShrimp]

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.

[Wmaker]

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

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:





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...

[Baumer]

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.
 

[Stoney]

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.

[Ack-Ack]

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

[Swatch]

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.

[Noir]

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.

[Serenity]

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?