World's Worst Aircraft

[PeterL]

Patrick:

* * * * "Peter, are you sure the BE 12 was designed as a single seat bomber?"

Can't quote chapter and verse, everything's in the loft, but I'll stand by that yes. As conceived it was a bomber, developements in armaments and tactics during gestation undermined that.

I wouldn't want to be drawn into nominating a worlds worst. Chances are it's too obscure, even for this crowd, and we have never heard of it. Which of the established types would I definitely not want to go to war in? Presuming the question is asked in 1915-16 the Morane N is a contender. Inadequately armed and tricky to fly.

[Barrett]

OK, I'm a dunce. Christmas Bullet? Hmm...OTOH maybe I wouldn't mind finding one under the Xmas tree.
FWIW, we did a Flight Journal WW II fighter special earlier this year. The Worst Fighter of WW Deuce is/was (the envelope please, drum roll...)
The Me-163, the world's only rocket-powered fighter. It absorbed enormous amounts of engineering time, design talent, and rare resources for virtually 0.00 return (MAYBE 16 shootdowns.)

my vote goes to the morane-saulnier 'n'. although fast for it's time (100 mph in 1911), for some strange reason there were no horizontal stabilizers. this means it had to be landed at high speed, and was sensitive to the controls. it was also tricky to fly.
not a novice favorite. i realize the planes available to fly in 1911 were limited, but, still....
one had to really want to fly to go up in this one.



leon

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Dave:
I throughly disagree with Bill Yenne about the Albatros D.V and the R.E.8. To include the Albatros D.V in the list he would have to incvlude the Alb. D.III and the Alb.D.IIIa. The D.III provided the GAF with means to kick hell out of the RFC in April 1917. The faults of the D.V were the same as the D.III and the D.Va. Assuming the his reason is the lower wing attachment, then he would need to include The Nieuport, 11, 16, 17, 21, 24, and 27. The R.E.8 was a good recce aircraft, stable good for photography and artillery direction. I can see why you found the book at the bargain counter.
GOD Bless America
Dan-San

IIRC, the Christmas Bullets were 2 aircraft designed by "Dr." William Christmas. He convinced the government that he was an aircraft designer of some renown in order to get engines and props from the Air Corps.

His design theory was that wings should be thin, flexible, and un-braced to allow them to flap and flex in flight. He then attached these flexible wings to fuselages built of heavy steel and hardwood. Consequently, both Bullets shed their wings on their maiden flights before they were high enough for the test pilots to use their parachutes, and they were killed.

"Dr." Christmas then billed the government $100,000 for sharing his revolutionary design concept for the world's safest aircraft. They paid the bill.

[Brad]

2 words:

Crack kills.

[PatrickConnell]

Hello Peter

I should like to know the story behind the BE 12 if you or any of the other folk’s here can point me towards a source. I know how sometimes what was once thought to be common knowledge can turn out to be incorrect as time and research turns up new info. It would seem that this is perhaps one of those times, as I had always thought the 12 and 12a to be ineffective stopgap fighters turned bomber/trainer/night zeppelin fighter as indicated by my old Harleyford book by O.G. Thetford and E.J. Riding, as well as another by W.M. Lamberton.

So now it seems the BE12 was actually a bomber turned stopgap fighter, turned bomber etc., etc.

If this is the case, then I shall modify my earlier statement regarding the worst service aircraft by saying that I believe the BE12 is still the worst service aircraft in it’s role as a single seat scout/fighter, regardless of it’s originators intent upon design. After all, it did see service as a scout/fighter, however briefly.

This forum is like dope to a WW-1 aero junkie like me…Thanks to you all for your sharing of knowledge.

Safe flying,

Patrick

[PatrickConnell]

I just learned that "Windsock Data File" # 66 is on the BE12.
I shall have to snag one and have a look.

Patrick

Miles writes;
>The DH5 was certainly worse as a fighter,

It would have been great in late 1916 like the Pup was, it was Pup style specs, but arrived in late 1917. But wasnt the DH5 doled out in part because the English production problems with Hispano Suiza engines for SE5a's? Most of the DH5 squadrons became SE5a squadrons as soon as SE5a's became available.

Peter writes;
>Whenever I read that the RE8 was a cr@p aeroplane

Wasnt the RE8 squadrons supposed to be replaced by Bristol Fighters but the Rolls Royce Eagles were in short supply, the stop gap Sunbeam Arab engined werent quite in the same league and took some time to get them to the front. 3 Sqn AFC got Rolls Royce Eagle engined Brifits for "O" Flight and in early 1919 started getting Sunbeam Arab engined Bristols. Was the engine of the Biff the rate determining step for them getting to the front? and would the RE8 squadrons have been replaced with them early in 1918? The Australian pilots of 1 Sqn and 3 Sqn AFC did write that they would better be able to complete their tasks as well as fight in the Bristols.


Peter writes;
>The BE12 is similarly hard done by.

The poor old Aussies and Brits got that in Palestine, the Australians used it alongside the Martinsyde in the dual role of bombing and escort. Poor old X Flight got them in late 1918 (!!) to combat the remaining German FA's at Maan. The German aircraft destroyed them quickly.

Patrick writies;
>are you sure the BE 12 was designed as a single seat bomber

Wasnt it envisioned as similar to the Martinsyde G100/102? They are contempories. It could be argued the Martinsyde's operational history is similar to the BE12, so if the BE12 is up for censure, then the Martinsyde should be too. Might appear to be "righter" to dump on BE aircraft that suffered badly at the hands of several skilled German Scout pilots. There is a very attractive single bay Martsinyde scout in the G100 genus in the back of the Datafile. Nice lines.

As for the worst aircraft, I doubt the Independant Air Force would have been too fond of their long range 7F1.a Snipe Mk.Ia's if they were meeting SSW's over German territory. But they were going to be used because the long range Buzzard wasnt ready. Bit like the DH5 being deployed and the RE8 soldiering on through late 1918.

I dont think the DH5 was an ideal aircraft for late 1917, it couldnt be used as an effective scout, single seaters werent as useful as reconn or corps aircraft, all the DH5 could do was strafe which anything with an engine and a forward firing gun could do. The DH5's made a name for themselves in trench fighting, but the Camel squadrons were doing it too. I would say the DH5 was one of the worst aircraft the RFC deployed in numbers during any particular period on the Western Front. Without selling the efforts of those who flew them short, I dont think the DH5 squadrons made any positive tactical or strategic differances in the air war either other than keeping the RFC expansion on track.



cam
(who loves the DH5)

[Ira_Silverman]

Hi all,

re - the Christmas Bullet - It certainly does belong on the list of the worst aircraft of all time. *It's history would be downright hilarious if not for the fatalities involved.

Dr. William Christmas was indeed a doctor - a MEDICAL doctor with no experience at all in aircraft design (unless one considers watching birds flying as experience).

He was also one of the great snake-oil salesmen of all time, managing to coerce the US government out of a sizeable sum of money on repeated occasions.

But the greatest irony of all was that despite the fact that everyone who tried to fly the Christmas Bullet died in the attempt, Dr. Christmas lived to the ripe old age of 94, dying in bed in the 1970's.

Sic transit...

VBR,

Ira