Worst aircraft of the war

[Shredward]

Here's what Cecil Lewis had to say about the Parasol.....
from Sagittarius Rising, early in his career.....
There was a machine standing quietly in a corner of the hangars which had been pointed out to me casually, as one points to a rattlesnake at the Zoo and passes on to more congenial creatures, as a Morane. I had heard of it, of course. It was one of the recognised death traps which pilots in training prayed they might never have to fly. Pilots.......when turned loose on Moranes killed themselves with alarming rapidity. The authorities decided this must stop. Dead pilots and smashed-up machines: it was costly and wasteful, and bad for the morale of the squadrons concerned.....an old Morane was sent to the Depot to train pilots on....it was difficult to see what advantage was gained, beyond the fact that it may have been more convenient to kill a pilot at the base than at the front. On that point the pilots were presumably indifferent.
Of course you have already guessed the sequel. One morning the machine was wheeled out.....You'd better learn to fly the Parasol....I suppose I didn't jump with joy.....I had a look over her, and the more I saw of her the less I liked her. It was certainly not love at first sight, nor even second or third sight; but I did come to love the Morane as I loved no other aeroplane. She carried me right through the Somme battle....I got my M.C. and my mentions in despatches...Good old Parasol!
....like the Pterodactyl, the type is extinct now. Moranes were French machines.....It was something in the design, difficult to put a finger on. Rakish, rather stylish, and yet somehow different....There were three types: ....the Monocoq, a devil to fly (it landed at about seventy}; the Biplane, a venomous-looking brute of a two-seater, like a dragon-fly, with a long thin body and two square-cut wings well forward.....and the Parasol. The Parasol was the queerest-looking of the lot.............
he follows with a description of the flight characteristics, controls etc - all hilarious - and concludes
I think I have said enough for the reader....to realize that the Morane really was a death-trap, thoroughly dangerous to fly, needing the greatest care and skill, the lightest hands, and the most accurate judgement to land. Subsequently I flew every machine used by the Air Force during the war. They were all child's play after the Morane.
cheers,
Shredward

Vigilante,

Point taken about the R.E.8. But that is still only 7 occasions...not to say they didn't have any other good days. I wonder about losses-to-kills ratios over a longer period of time...say the whole war. And you make another excellent point about "with a good crew." Many a good man, or men, could overcome poor qualities on most machines.

[PatrickConnell]

Hello HistoryDude

I was curious what prompted this statement from you:

"And among common German ships, I think the Halberstadts were one of the poorer mounts. But again, I'm thinking more along the lines of combat"

I was not aware that any of the Halberstadt types were poor mounts.

Seeking enlightenment as always

Patrick

Patrick,

Again...I guess I'm pretty much thinking along the lines of relative combat performance rather than air worthiness...from what I've read, the Halberstadts did not match up with their Allied counterparts as well as the other staple scouts like the Albatros, Pfalz, and Fokker ships. I wouldn't say it was the "worst" aircraft in the war as this thread started the question, but I think that I would rather have flown a different plane, were I a German pilot in the Great War.

[Gregvan]

History Dude:

If you're referring to the Halberstadt D-series of 1916 and early 1917 (the D.I, D.II, D.III and D.V) and not the Halberstadt CL-types (which were very good aircraft indeed) then, I think these Halberstadt types were realtively successful and well-liked aircraft FOR THEIR TIME. I would suggest you read "Halberstadt Fighters" by Peter Grosz (Classics of WWI Aviation, Ray Rimell's Albatros Productions, 1996) or even the same author's article "Biplanes for the Fliegertruppe" in Air Enthusiast Quarterly, No. 14, December 1980.

Actually, I think the Halberstadts were fairly evenly matched against their contemporary Allied foes, except perhaps for the Spad VII. Remember, the Albatros D.I and D.II were not yet at the front in great quantity, there weren't any contemporary Pfalz fighters (except the really poor Eindecker series) and the old Fokker E-types and the poor-performing Fokker D-I and D.II's certainly weren't any great shakes.

Quoting Peter Grosz, "The Halberstadt Fighter was universally esteemed for its facile flight characteristics, quickness of control response and excellent performance, praise probably not equalled until the arrival of the Fokker D.VII."

Whilst an instructor at Jastaschule 1, Josef Jacobs wrote of a mock dogfight between Oblt Hans Berr in a Halberstadt and Off.Stv. Leopold Reimann in an Albatros D.I. Berr was clearly the winner, and Jacobs said this proved that, "the slower but more manoevrable aircraft is superior to a faster one in a dogfight situation." When he rerturned to the Front in Jasta 22, Jacobs frequently preferred to fly a Halberstadt D.II instead of his Albatros D.II.

The Halberstadts were finally outclassed by more powerful aircraft with 150-160 h.p. (as opposed to the Halb's usually 120 h.p.), but for their day they were quite good, IMHO.

Greg

I guess a lot would come down to personal experience of each pilot .
Maybe if you asked Hptm Wilhelm Reinhard he might say the Zeppelin-Landau DI was the worst one he flew !!!!.
BlackSeptember.

[StephenLawson]

'...You don't really think that Germany lost the war because they didn't have an equivalent to the Camel, do you?...

HistoryDude: Ginger's comeback is not historically based he just spent too much time punting in Zillebeker Zee as a canoe without his prostetics. He would rather be flying his SE 5 with the big 'G'... if he could just keep the wings on it. :

How about the US's Thomas Morse......oh wait no combat.

[PeterL]

How about the US's Thomas Morse......oh wait no combat.

The Tommy was a nice little ship, well I like it anyway. As Shooter would say, "I got no dog in this fight" ,but a particular hobbyhorse of mine is defending the Be 2 and *Be12 from what I see as the unwarranted *brickbats so often chucked thier way. The 12 was not a fighter but a bomber, in the same mold as the single seat Strutters, and as such it should not be criticised as a poor fighter. The 2 was designed for an operational environment where fighters did not exist because they hadn't been thought of yet. That it soldiered on too long is bad decision making and nothing to do with the aircraft. There is a long list of WWI types that got no further than a failed attempt at a maiden flight. Any one of them is more deserving of the title than the Be's.

Vigilante,

Point taken about the R.E.8. *But that is still only 7 occasions...not to say they didn't have any other good days. *I wonder about losses-to-kills ratios over a longer period of time...say the whole war. *And you make another excellent point about "with a good crew." *Many a good man, or men, could overcome poor qualities on most machines.

3 Squadron Australian Flying Corps was on the front from September 1917 to November 1918. (15 months)

It's pilots flew 9345 hours 40 min over the front.
1 pilot (Capt. R Francis flew 542 hours 25 min over the front.

In that time they lost 6 (six) aircraft to enemy action and 5 to other causes. Only 1 (one) was brought down behind enemy lines.

They lost 11 pilots and 13 observers KIA and 12 pilots and 12 observers WIA. Nil POWs.

They destroyed 14 enemy aircraft, drove 8 OOC and drove down 27. *The 14 includes the Albatros in the Australian War Memorial's collection.

They dropped 114,404 lbs of bombs (112, 40 and 25lb lots&#33, fired 500,000 rounds of 303, photographed 1280 sq miles of territory and conducted 735 artillery shoots.

I think that the RE.8 is a little underrated.