The Worst Aircraft of WW2

[Phil_K]

This is a good read:

http://worstworldwar2aircraft.wordpress.com/

[T}{OR]

A good read indeed.

[Treetop64]

Well, finally someone is wise enough not to include the P-40. Seriously, every time I see or hear something History Channel-esque disparaging the P-40 I just want to back-hand slap someone, yelling "shut the *beep* up you ignorant mutha*beep*er! You don't know what you talkin' about!"

[Phil_K]

Totally agree. The P-40 was an excellent plane.

[batistadk]

Excellent article, thanks for sharing.

Cheers

batistadk

[IceFire]

It's a great list! There's a few types on there I hadn't even heard of which is getting to be a rare thing. So many obscure WWII aviation types! Excellent knowledge of the material!

And completely agree about the P-40. I've read the same tired lines about the P-40s poor performance and it doesn't add up. While not a top performer and not being competitive in 1945 versus a top line fighter... the P-40 was excellent in its time and it was most certainly not a failure in combat.

[bf-110]

The Moskite looks pretty leet.I guess if it got operational it would at least cause some trouble for the allies.

[secretone]

Another stinker worth mentioning is the C-87 Liberator Express. This aircraft was based on the stalwart B-24D but had technical problems that caused fatal crashes. Some 280 were built and they were in service for much of the war; notably flying over the Hump and as VIP transports. I first learned about this beauty when I read Ernest Gann's classic Fate Is The Hunter.

[deskpilot]

I have often thought how often planes fail because their engines just aren't powerful or reliable enough. such a shame. This was an interesting read. Much appreciated.

[JtD]

I just realized that the Curtiss Seamew is classified as "bad but useful" - what was it useful at? Does anyone know? I've read a lot about the bad qualities, but nothing about the "useful" ones.

[Pursuivant]

I just realized that the Curtiss Seamew is classified as "bad but useful" - what was it useful at? Does anyone know? I've read a lot about the bad qualities, but nothing about the "useful" ones.

Light catapult-launched recon planes aren't exactly high performance aircraft. As long as the engine didn't fail, you didn't try to perform aerobatics in it, the windows didn't fog up and the radio didn't fail, the Seamew could still perform its missions of artillery spotting, short range recon, light liaison/transport and crew training.

Obviously, the SOC and the OS2U were much better planes, and the Japanese float planes were even better than those, but SO3C was just barely "good enough." Certainly, in many cases it was better than no airplane at all.

[JtD]

So you mean it was useful, because it was pressed into service (even though it basically was unfit for the job), and the fact it saw service, made it useful.

I'll have to think about that. Admittedly they aircraft didn't fall out of the sky all the time when spotting, but they earned the nickname "Sea Cow" and were pulled from service after a good year, not meeting the requirements.

[zipper]

So you mean it was useful, because it was pressed into service (even though it basically was unfit for the job), and the fact it saw service, made it useful.

I'll have to think about that. Admittedly they aircraft didn't fall out of the sky all the time when spotting, but they earned the nickname "Sea Cow" and were pulled from service after a good year, not meeting the requirements.


He means the SO3C was 4mph faster in cruise and had nearly 50% more range than the OS2U and although it had a 10mph cruise speed deficit to the SOC (it had a 7mph top speed advantage) it had nearly double the SOC's range. The range being the most important thing the navy was after at this point in time. The unfit part really comes into play with the SO3C's engine (the crappy stability having been *mostly* worked out). Though it wouldn't normally cause problems that would interfere with the completion of any given sortie it required constant work and parts and difficulty was found in maintaining serviceability. The SO3C was withdrawn and the SOC was recalled from training units, the navy trading away range for lawn mower like reliability.

As a side note the SO3C couldn't make a water takeoff at full fuel load, but then it was expected to be catapult launched.

[JtD]

I don't think he meant that, but the good range is indeed a valuable attribute. I wasn't aware that the SO3C was so much better in that regard than the alternatives.

Still, it's something you only appreciate if the aircraft is in service, and judging by the service history and with the benefit of hindsight, putting it into service wasn't the best idea.

Anyway, I see what you and Pursuivant are getting at. I'd at least agree it wasn't useless once put into service, and if that warrants the attribute useful is a matter of perspective. I wouldn't call it that, but I now understand how others would.

[Treetop64]

I just realized that the Curtiss Seamew is classified as "bad but useful" - what was it useful at? Does anyone know? I've read a lot about the bad qualities, but nothing about the "useful" ones.

The Seamew turned out to be quite useful as a radio controlled target. No kidding.

Curtis tried to rescue the situation with the SO3C by building a lighter version with a more powerful engine, and it had a limited production run, but no one was interested.

Poor Curtiss. They started off brilliantly with the Hawk and P-40 series, then it all went downhill from there. At least they continued to build very good propeller and hub systems for a long time, used by many other aircraft, and they could be proud of that.

[IceFire]

The Seamew turned out to be quite useful as a radio controlled target. No kidding.

Curtis tried to rescue the situation with the SO3C by building a lighter version with a more powerful engine, and it had a limited production run, but no one was interested.

Poor Curtiss. They started off brilliantly with the Hawk and P-40 series, then it all went downhill from there. At least they continued to build very good propeller and hub systems for a long time, used by many other aircraft, and they could be proud of that.

From what I've read, Curtiss ended up with severe management problems that stifled the potential of their engineers. Like a lot of companies but worse I suppose :)

Another Curtiss aircraft ..the SB2C Helldiver is lambasted in some of the short histories of aircraft... it seems that any more in depth reading suggests that after some modifications and changes that it ended the war with a good reputation and a solid combat record (more shipping sunk than any other USN type). I'm sure the Hispano cannons and HVAR rocket attachments on later models were very appreciated.

[MaxGunz]

I worked with an engineer who had worked for Curtiss until he joined the Navy in 1943. He's still alive btw. He worked on the X-55 and the X-75 mockup. When the X-55 was determined to have no significant speed increase over the P-51 it was dropped. The X-75 was a twin with a 75mm gun made to shoot proximity shells at Japanese bombers. I think that they would have run out of Japanese bombers before it could get operational.

[MiloMorai]

Something not right with those designations MaxG

Lockheed Martin X-55 Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft

Fisher XP-75 Eagle
Armament

6x .50 caliber (12.7 mm) wing mounted machine guns
4x .50 caliber (12.7 mm) fuselage mounted machine guns
2x 500 lb (227 kg) bombs

Powerplant: 1 × Allison V-3420-23 liquid-cooled 24-cylinder double-Vee, 2,885 hp (2,150 kW)

[IceFire]

Something not right with those designations MaxG

Lockheed Martin X-55 Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft

Fisher XP-75 Eagle
Armament

6x .50 caliber (12.7 mm) wing mounted machine guns
4x .50 caliber (12.7 mm) fuselage mounted machine guns
2x 500 lb (227 kg) bombs

Powerplant: 1 × Allison V-3420-23 liquid-cooled 24-cylinder double-Vee, 2,885 hp (2,150 kW)
It's actually XP-55 Ascender: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss-Wright_XP-55_Ascender

[MaxGunz]

Sorry, XP-55 Ascender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss-Wright_XP-55_Ascender

The 75 never made it past the no-wing mockup stage and Lou joined the Navy a month after someone fired the gun just as he crossed under it. For all I know, the designation was provisional. Lou worked there in 1943.
He has probably heard and seen things you won't find in books so obviously all that never happened.

I worked with him 79-83 and did PC tech work for him later up to 1999. He was old then, almost 60. He's also in the Delaware Aviation Hall of Fame, he had a long career in aviation in both fixed-wing and blimps. Don't diss the blimps, the stuff he flew makes the ones we see look like toys.

[IceFire]

I think this is your aircraft. Curtiss XP-71

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_XP-71

Designed as a very heavy fighter (larger than a B-25!) designed to operate over Europe if England was ever conquered. Has one 75mm and two 37mm cannons.

Not sure how this would ever be useful. An aircraft of that size during WWII wouldn't have the agility to defend bombers. It'd be one hell of an attack aircraft mind you... over 400mph speed.

[MaxGunz]

When Lou talked about it, it was supposed to attack Japanese bombers. The 75mm was supposed to fire proximity shells from long range. I might have got the number wrong, he might have, it's been a while.

I'll just be happy the Germans didn't have 88mm proximity shell firing jet interceptors... working.