World's Worst Aircraft

[Dave_Kent]

Hello:

* * There is a new 'Bargain Book' out now for Christmas.

* * THE WORLD'S WORST AIRCRAFT by Bill Yenne.

* * *It contains most of the usual suspects from pioneer aircraft to today. *I disagree with some of the selections, of course, but that is the fun of this type of book. *It all comes down to the rules you choose to set. *What really makes an aircraft one of the worst ?

* * Those selected by the author for WW 1 are:

* * * * *R.A.F. *B.E. 9
* * * * *R.A.F. *B.E. 12
* * * * *R.A.F. *R.E. 8
* * * * *Tarrant Tabor
* * * * *Albatros D. 5
* * * * *Fokker D. 5
* * * * *Christmas Bullet

* * Any defenders ? candidates ?

Dave *

[DJ]

Albatross DV???????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????
Are they mad? Long in tooth by the end, butttt.

[Lufbery]

I'm going to engage in a bit of heresy. I think the Camel could be included in the list of worst aircraft. Why? I'm glad you asked.

I read a really interesting article called British Claims and German Losses that presented a very good statistical analysis of how well the Camel actually performed. The author is very careful to state that his conclusions are based on speculation, but he explains his methods well, and they make sense. If you accept his reasoning and his numbers, then you have to accept his conclusion that the Camel killed about as many British pilots as it did German pilots. :'(

That, to me, is the definition of a lousy plane.

Personally, I think the Camel is a cool aircraft, and it was effective in the hands of experienced pilots. Further, we can argue that better training would have reduced the appaling number of British deaths due to the Camel's tricky handling. But still, the SE5 was just as effective in war as the Camel (maybe more so) and it was a darned sight easier to fly.

-Drew

[Volker_Nemsch]

The Albatros D V. / D V.a among the worst aircraft? I can´t believe it. Richthofen, Voss, Udet and the majority of the German aces scored their victories with Albatros fighters. They were the main reason for the "Bloody April". Nonsense!

The BE and RE aircraft were good aircraft but unsuitable for MILITARY role they had to do.

Drinking and drugs sometimes have a horrible influence on authors and "experts".



Volker Nemsch

[MilesC]

The RE8?

The RAF RE8 was, at best, an adequate aircraft, it was certainly better than the BE2s that it partially replaced, but it was far from one of the worst aircraft in WWI. The DH5 was certainly worse as a fighter, and the BE8 "Bloater" was disastrous. The RE8 was designed for the taking of photographs and artillery spotting, and was therefore designed to be stable. This it was. That was also it's downfall. It should have been replaced by the Bristol Fighter and the Airco DH4, but it wasn't because there weren't enough aircraft to go around, and HQ thought that the RE8 was doing its job. This certainly should not damn it as one of the worst.

[PeterL]

Whenever I read that the RE8 was a cr@p aeroplane I wonder why no-one told the Australians who managed to fly it aggressively and to good effect.

The BE12 is similarly hard done by. We tend to forget that it was designed as a single seat bomber.

Tarrant Tarbor? My reading is it crashed on it's maiden flight due to pilot error.

Albatros DV? Bo//ock$!

Fokker DV? Not wonderful but hardly the world's worst.

Christmas Bullet? *And again ?

Strikes me that what we have here is someone tasked with writing a book on the world's worst aircraft who suddenly thought,

* *"Oops! I know the square root of sweet Fanny Adams about WWI. Better do some reading. This chap Longstreet seems quite knowledgeable"
* * * *

[Lufbery]

Okay, Peter, I tend to agree that the author's picks are highly suspect, but what would you consider a "worst" aircraft?

Just curious,

-Drew

P.S. How about the Camel?

[Lufbery]

Volker_Nemsch said:

"The BE and RE aircraft were good aircraft but unsuitable for MILITARY role they had to do."

Considering that they were military aircraft, isn't that damning with faint praise? A Cessna 172 is a great plane too, but not really well suited for military duty.

-Drew

[PatrickConnell]

Hello Volker

You wrote:

“The Albatros D V. / D V.a among the worst aircraft? I can´t believe it. Richthofen, Voss, Udet and the majority of the German aces scored their victories with Albatros fighters. They were the main reason for the "Bloody April". Nonsense!”

I don’t agree that the Albatros D-V/a was one of the worse aircraft of the war either, but I do understand the author’s logic for saying so. I personally believe that it was obviously an effective mount, and pilots in this machine achieved many successes.

It has been a while since I read that book, but I seem to recall that he reasons that since the Alb D-III first showed the trait of the lower wing separating in prolonged dives and high ‘G’ maneuvers, only a madman of an aircraft designer would continue to manufacture that same dangerous trait into the “Improved” model in the series. You probably know that the lower wing carried a single spar lengthwise, and was prone to twisting. This was not remedied in the D-V. The D-Va did have a small brace forward of the interplane strut to help moderate the twist.
What I find interesting, (and Dave Kent, please correct me if I am wrong) is that I don’t recall him mentioning the Nieuport sesquiplane designs as being in the worst list, and we know them to also suffer from the identical design flaw and weakness.

I believe that there were also political reasons that the Alb D-V/a were adopted as the primary or mainstay fighter aircraft, even though this design flaw was well known, and openly shunned by some service pilots. I believe Berthold opted to fly the Pfalz D-III over the Alb D-V because of this known flaw, as did Degelow.

The Albatros being the most prolific fighter in German service during 1917, and the D-V through much of 1918, most Jasta pilots had no choice but to fly the machine supplied by the Government. It stands to reason, even if it was not a superior aircraft, that were it the only one available, in the hands of a skilled pilot, many successes could be had. Further, a skilled pilot who was aware of the inherent weakness of the lower wing in a dive could develop tactics that avoided prolonged dives, thereby maximizing the machines effectiveness.

As for your statement regarding “Bloody April”…wrong Albatros mark, as it was the Alb D-III that ‘bloodied’ April of 1917, not the Alb D-V/a, which is the subject of the author.

My vote for worse? *The RAF BE 12, hands down.

Peter, are you sure the BE 12 was designed as a single seat bomber? The limited sources I have state it was a rush job fighter, that when tried in service as a fighter with Nos.19 and 21 Squadrons in August 1916, it failed miserably. It was then relegated to bombing duties, and saw some action as a scout in the Middle East. I welcome confirmation and or correction on this matter.

Safe flying folks,

Patrick

[PatrickConnell]

Hello Drew

You wrote:

“Considering that they were military aircraft, isn't that damning with faint praise? A Cessna 172 is a great plane too, but not really well suited for military duty.”

Actually, the Cessna 172 saw quite a bit of military service with the USAF and the US Army, as well as military air services around the world. Somewhere around 1,000 or so being built as the T-41 a,b,c, or d.
It was primarily used as a trainer, but also as a liaison, observation, and shuttle. Were it to go back to 1917/1918 and go into service as an observation type, bomber or perhaps even a fighter, it would have in my opinion (aside from the crappy rearward visibility), accounted for itself fairly well. (I speak of the military versions of the C-172, which ranged in horsepower from 145 to 210, and max speed from 139 mph to 153 mph.)

As far as it being used as a contemporary fighter aircraft of the time it was introduced, that is another issue, since it was born during the jet age.

Safe flying,

Patrick