[Cruver Collecter]

Also have to sing in on the Short Stirling. It may not have had the performance that it's stablemates had, but it did perform solid duty. It also, as Hornchurch pointed out, was capable of performing other duties.

[Rush104]

I'd also consider the Japanese philosophy of sacrificing armor for increased speed/manouverability to be a design blunder...

[Epapazian]

Regarding the Blackburn Botha, what's really incredible is the fact that the RAF bought almost 600 of these underpowered twin engined torpedo bombers. They could barely take off when armed as intended and the onset of sudden, unexplainable, crashes caused the Botha's speedy removal from combat duties. So what did the RAF brass do? Simple. They sent the Bothas to their training units, where more crashes ensued.

[kabelace]

Originally Posted by Rush104

I'd also consider the Japanese philosophy of sacrificing armor for increased speed/manouverability to be a design blunder...

I would second that, not having self sealing fuel tanks made the Zero a flying flaming coffin.

[Hornchurch]

Originally Posted by Epapazian

Regarding the Blackburn Botha, what's really incredible is the fact that the RAF bought almost 600 of these underpowered twin engined torpedo bombers. They could barely take off when armed as intended and the onset of sudden, unexplainable, crashes caused the Botha's speedy removal from combat duties. So what did the RAF brass do? Simple. They sent the Bothas to their training units, where more crashes ensued.

Typical of 'Whitehall' Parliament Stupidity........... ('S.N.A.F.U.')

[Hornchurch]

Originally Posted by kabelace

I would second that, not having self sealing fuel tanks made the Zero a flying flaming coffin.

Same thing occured with the Curtiss C.46 Commando........
AS LATE AS (the) 24th March 1945 when it proved a 'Lemon' over the River-Rhine !

A truly LATE blunder at the tail-end of the E.T.O.

[planenutsfrog]

The Blackburn Roc floatplane "Fighter" : A Skua with the flaws of the Defiant concept + FLOATS to increase drag even more !!!

[Cruver Collecter]

I was going over the list of aircraft given so far and wondered if they all are really a design blunder. Some examples seem to point to aircraft being either obsolete at the time used, or deployed in such a manner that pretty much guarantied failure as the end result. In my opinion (Yep used the word opinion) design blunder would be along the lines of design, engineering, or concept flaw with a possibility of combinations of. The He-177 seems to be a good example of all the possible combinations combined. Coupling two engines in one nacelle as apposed to four separate engine mounts, and expecting heavy bomber to be able to perform dive bombing roll. The Manchester had a nice airframe, but faulty engines ensured plane a failure. The Boulton Paul Defiant and the Blackburn Rock seem to be best example of concept flaw with the mounting of main armament in turret. The following aircraft listed seemed to have gotten an unfair reputation due possible obsolescence, being poorly employed in combat environment or design.

Fairey Battle is one I feel might be overly criticized for its performance. To start off with I am not going to imply the Fairey Battle was a stellar performer by any means and was really obsolete as far as light bomber role was concerned when war kicked off. I think the problem with the Fairey Battle was how it was deployed in combat. The problem is that they were tasked to perform unescorted combat role and the attack on the Bridges over Albert canal on the River Muese is an example of this. With no dedicated fighter escort you would tend to expect losses to be high. There is another bomber that performance and size wise compares fairly well to the Battle and that would be the Japanese Nakajima B5N Kate. The Kate was considered successful and in part probably due to how it was employed with sufficient fighter escort. How well would the Kate have performed in similar conditions as the Battle(It did not even have the little .303 gun up front)?

The Me 163 for sure was a radical point defense design that was to some point pushed to limited operational status. Some of the post war analysis and testing I have read on plane suggests it had good flying characteristics. Would I have wanted to be one of the intrepid airman to fly in it, heck no. If you did up the numbers, how might it compare to our current shuttle program as far as mishaps go? My point is that if you going to mess around with volatile chemicals, you better expect a bang every once in awhile.

If you are going to add the Me 109 on to list due to narrow landing gear track, well ya just might want to think about adding the Spitfire and F4F Wildcat too. Another thing these aircraft all have in common is that they all flew out of some really primitive airfields or in some cases just fields (Wildcat swamps). Wider track would definitely be nice, but pilots did fly these aircraft from less than optimal conditions and still completed their missions.

[Cruver Collecter]

I might have found an aircraft that might be a true contender for worst aircraft during WWII. The Italian Breda Ba. 88 looks to be a contender. Though the plane does look fairly attractive, it was a total flop. Final assignment given these aircraft was to be parked on airfields as decoys to mislead Allied reconnaissance.


Photo from http://www.comandosupremo.com/Bredaba88.html

[Rush104]

So what's the story behind the Ba.88?