For the WW2 Aviation Fans Here

[Negative Creep]

A while ago I wrote an article on the Top 10 Worst Aircraft of WW2 and sent it to Listverse. Completely forgot about it until I log on today and it's been published!

http://listverse.com/2011/04/04/top-10-worst-aircr...

Except I suddenly noticed some typos in it which has annoyed me no end.

[Simpo Two]

Great stuff but can you really define that without having flown them? With respect I'd have thought our old chum Captain Eric Brown would have been better placed to pass a true judgement. But you certainly seem to have some turkeys there!

[Eric Mc]

Wouldn't agree with all of these as being "worst". To some extent, it depends on how you define the term. If an aircraft matches the specification it was meant to, then it isn't really a failure. The problem is that the specification was wrong or inappropriate in the first place. And oftewn thgis only became apparent opnce the aircraft was tested in anger. The Battle and Roc would fall into that category, in my opinion.

On the other hand, aircarft such as the Botha really were poor in that they didn't even do what they were supposed to do.

[rhinochopig]

You can't deny the 210 was a looker though. I still have 1:72 model of one somewhere at my parents house.

[Eric Mc]

It was partially redeemed by the Me410 which corrected the most glaring problems with the 210, but not all of them.

The fact that the 110 was kept in production right up to the end of WW2 speaks volumes.

[Eric Mc]

Bill Gunston is the man to read when assessing what aircraft were good or bad. His "Back to the Drawing Board" book is a good read on this topic.

[Negative Creep]

Bedazzled said:

Interesting read, personally I wouldn't put the Komet on the list, difficult to judge late war German planes as they were so overwhelmed, but if they'd been developed a bit more and had enough numbers to attack in waves they could have been devastating.

With development most of those planes could have been world beaters. Since the sole job of the Komet was to shoot down enemy aircraft, the fact it lost more than it destroyed makes it a failure..

Although I do wonder what would have happened if the Germans had dumped Me 163 or He 162 development and just concentrated on the Me 262 things could have been very different

[Eric Mc]

Pushing the envelope is always risky. What's inexcusable is when a tried and tested, conservative, design fails to deliver. The Botha is a good example of this.
I'd also nominate the SARO Lerwick flying boat - which had difficulty getting airborne.

Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 5th April 21:47

[Eric Mc]

I definitely would NOT include the Boomerang. It was purely designed as a stop-gap home produced fighter in case Australia got itself cut off from supplies from the US or the UK. It was largely based on Wirraway compoonents which itself was an Aussie derivative of the Harvard trainer.

In thg event, there ere sufficient supplies of aircraft such as the Spitfire and P-40 so the Boomerangs weren't as crucial as they might otherwise have been.