World's Worst Aircraft

[Lufbery]

Wow, no takers on my idea as the Camel for nomination as a worst aircraft. :-/

The Camel for me presents an enigma: it was obviously effective when flown by experienced aviators, but it killed a horrendous number of inexperienced aviators. Still, the problem was most likely with the training rather than with the plane. Yet, the SE5a was just as effective, and it was easier to fly. So, just how good was the Camel when compared to its contemporaries?

Another aircraft potentially considered a "worst" aircraft would be the Fokker Eindecker. It was unstable as all heck, but extremely successful against the British and French.

So, what makes a bad airplane into a good one? The timing of its release, maybe. Or maybe the circumstances of its use. In WWII, the P-39 was a real dog when used by the U.S., but it shined when used by the Soviets in different circumstances.

For many years, I read derogatory comments about the DH4. It was a true flaming coffin, those comments said; the gas tank between the pilot and observer was an accident waiting to happen. The Liberty engine was unreliable. Etc. All those things were true at first. But after the kinks were ironed out, the DH-4 became a very valuable asset to American squadrons.

It seems that perception is more pervasive than truth when it comes to subjective evaluations of airplanes. Planes like the DH-4 and Nieuport 28 got bad raps early on and are still viewed today as mediocre aircraft despite later successes. Other planes that may have had mediocre service histories, like the Camel, are considered the elite of WWI fighter aircraft.

Go figure.

-Drew

I'd vote for the SPAD A.2 (surprised there's been no mention of it yet) or the MS N as mentioned earlier. It does seem a bit unfair to me to chastize non-service types; there have been plenty of prototypes made of designs that clearly hadn't been thought through. The SPAD and Morane Saulnier both had operational careers, however brief. (This is why I don't nominate the BE-9, which was similar in concept to the SPAD but in just about every respect worse.)

[Droops]

Above the Trenches has a short introduction which discusses the progression of scouts in the British air forces from 1915 onwards. The Martinsyde planes are mentioned as having early success as scouts, but that they moved to a bombing role soon after that and apparently stayed in that role.

The BE12 came later and supposedly was a development from the BE2. My impression from this book is that it was intended as a scout. Most of its Western Front career was as a scout, was it not? The book goes on to indicate that at least one pilot in Macedonia had some combat success with the BE12. Must have been some weak opposition.

J.M. Bruce, in his book on British planes of the war, is more conciliatory towards the DH5. He says that while it didn't have the high altitude performance, it was fine at lower altitudes and got a bum rap. *shrug*

The RE8 seems to have had problems early that were corrected. Bruce indicates that its main problem was the same as that of the BE2 . . that its stability didn't allow it to fight very well when necessary. His assessment of the plane is less forgiving than that of, say, the DH5.

I'll have to go home and look at the entries for the BE12 in that book.

John

[Volker_Nemsch]

I found at least one that seems to fit in this category:

The Russian Anatra D / DS series ( 1915/16 )

A few years ago I read that this aircraft had such a weak structure that several of them simply broke into pieces while flying. Additionally they suffered from very bad workmanship.

???

BTW, has anyone photos of this aircraft?

Best regards
Volker Nemsch

[PatrickConnell]

Volker,

Try looking here.

http://hep2.physics.arizona.edu/~savin/ram/indexq.html


Patrick

[PeterL]

Patrick, this from Datafile #66 by Jack Bruce:

* *"...such condemnation was and is almost entirely inspired by the BE12's dismal performance as a single-seat fighter. That it was such a failure in that capacity is not to be wondered at, for the BE12 was not designed to be a single-seat fighter."

As first flown the BE12 had no gun armament, nor was it intended to have, and providing such a gun proved difficult. The BE12b is of course a kettle of a different colour and the Hisso engine appears to have improved things greatly. But I'd be surprized if it was ever considered to be a "scout".

If I can just add something to my earlier condemnation of the Morane N. It is of course made with benefit of 20:20 hindsight. Had I been around at the time no doubt I should have considered it the bee's knees.

[Brad]

"Wow, no takers on my idea as the Camel for nomination as a worst aircraft." *:-/

Well, a high-performance aircraft in any era is not the best thing for "green" pilots to fly. Look at the Beech Bonanza, a.k.a. he "fork-tail doctor killer." Beautiful airplane, great flight characteristics. Would I try to fly one? NOPE. I don't have the experience needed.

"The Camel for me presents an enigma: it was obviously effective when flown by experienced aviators, but it killed a horrendous number of inexperienced aviators. Still, the problem was most likely with the training rather than with the plane. Yet, the SE5a was just as effective, and it was easier to fly. So, just how good was the Camel when compared to its contemporaries?"

An effective interceptor would be agile and quick. The Camel was that. Was it easy to fly? NO. The training killed those pilots, not the aircraft.

"Another aircraft potentially considered a "worst" aircraft would be the Fokker Eindecker. It was unstable as all heck, but extremely successful against the British and French."

Hey now! Them's fightin' words! Ok, the Eindecker may have been somewhat unstable... but not that bad. Also, a fighter that uses the entire aircraft to aim it's weapons SHOULD be a bit unstable. Also, to be fair you really need to compare it to other aircraft of the same timeframe. No, it wasn't great, but it WAS effective.

"So, what makes a bad airplane into a good one? The timing of its release, maybe. Or maybe the circumstances of its use. In WWII, the P-39 was a real dog when used by the U.S., but it shined when used by the Soviets in different circumstances."

-Drew

Using it for a purpose suited to it's characteristics, and not trying to make it do something beyond it's capabilities. A "good" bomber (stable, big to carry big payloads) makes a horrible fighter.

A lot of this is just speculation. If you view the numbers, the German aircraft in general were more effective- a 3:1 kill ratio. Good thing for the French and British there weren't more of them, huh?

(oh, am I ever gonna get flamed!)

[Dave_Kent]

Patrick:

* * Just to confirm your thoughts, Bill Yenne does use the structural weakness of the lower wing of the Albatros D. V as his reason for its selection, and does not mention that this design feature was shared by the Albatros D. III and the Nieuport sequiplanes.

* * RE; B.E. 12, in line with what Peter has just written. *The prototype B.E. 12 was a standard B.E. 2c, No. 1697, modified to take advantage of the more powerful R.A.F. 4 engine. *When it first flew at the end of July 1915, its combination of performance and stability was enthusiastically received.

* * *As for it being a fighter the following comes from THE AEROPLANES OF THE ROYAL FLYING CORPS (MILITARY WING) by J.M. Bruce, page 385

* * "At that time (end of July) the B.E. 12 prototype had no armament and there is no evidence that there were any thoughts to providing a gun installation, though doubtless bomb-carrying was envisaged. *In September 1915 No. 1697 was in fact being used for experiments in bomb-dropping and dart-dropping at Farnborough, and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that anyone anywhere at that time contemplated using the B.E.12 as a single-seat fighter."

Dave

[PatrickConnell]

Peter and forum readers,

Thank you for the information regarding the BE12. As it turns out, I was today thumbing through the Squadron Signal BE publication and lo and behold it says just what you did. Conceived and intended as a bomber, but was first in service as a fighting scout for several weeks before Gen. Trenchard withdrew them from service as scouts and relegated them to bombing duties.

Each day it seems I learn once again from you folks here. Awesome.

As to my stance on what was the worse aircraft, I’ll still stick with the BE12 in the fighting scout role. While that may not have been it’s original mission when conceived, it was in fact impressed into that capacity…and was a dismal failure as such.

Thanks again folks.

Safe flying,

Patrick

P.S. Peter, is that you I saw on the WW-1 modeling site wearing a grass skirt? *chuckles and winks* Nice moves.

[PeterL]

Patrick:

"P.S. Peter, is that you I saw on the WW-1 modeling site wearing a grass skirt? *chuckles and winks* Nice moves."




That's me. Airlie Beach hula champion 1988. Strictly between ourselves you understand.