[Epapazian]

A lot of WWII airmen underperformed or lost their lives because of stupid or egotistical decisions made concerning the design of their planes. I've got a number of examples in mind but, in order not to preempt members who may wish to comment, let me cite only two of them. First, is Stalin's determination not to delay IL-2 production so a rear gunner's position could be added. Result: thousands of dead IL-2 pilots who were bounced from behind by German BF-109s in 1941 and 1942. Second, the British decision to limit the wingspan of the "Short" Sterling so these planes could fit into the RAF's then undersized hangers. Result: chronically poor climb rates and sub par high altitude performance for an otherwise passable heavy bomber. It's almost a replay of Model Power's current fixation on scaling its models to fit a standard-sized box, rather than picking the best size for the models and letting the box fit the planes. What do you guys consider to be the worst design blunders in WWII aircraft?

[Shawn 507]

I think Swoop would agree with me, it had to be the Spitfire. I'll have to look into it for anything else to come to mind.

[Shamrock]

Fairey Battle. The same engine as the Spitfire & Hurricane, three man crew, large aircraft , one .303 'popgun' each for the pilot and the poor rear gunner. The huge losses attacking the bridges in France during the Battle for France show this only too well.

[SkyBuffalo]

I'll go with the Heinkel He-177 Greif (Griffon). It was nasty difficult to fly and the engines tended to just catch fire at random times. FUN!

[Rush104]

The Boulton Paul Defiant. It had no forward firing guns.

[Spinnaker]

The decision not to include a Turbosupercharger on the P-39 turned it from being potentially one of the most effective aircraft of WWII, into a dog at altitude. See here for further info http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/XP-39.html

[Cruver Collecter]

In mid October 1941 in the Philippines a Wright Field Maintenance Command Tech Order arrived with delivery of fifty new P-40Es. The Tech Order instructed squadron armorers to plug the inlet of all the hydraulic gun charger valves, in turn making the gun charging system inoperative. The field order would remain in affect until receipt of further instructions. Although no reason was given in the Wright Field Order, rumors indicated possible problem between gun charging hydraulics and the hydraulics for landing gear and flaps. Disabling the gun charging system meant that each gun would have to be manually charged before takeoff. The 17th Pursuit's armorers were concerned with impossibility of clearing a jam in the air during combat. In air if jam occurred, pilot would have to return to field to have guns cleared. 17th Pursuit armorers even went as far as building a stand for a P-40E to be tested on. They cleared the plug, charged the weapon using hydraulic system and lowered and raised landing gear to include flap use over a three day period. At no time during the test did any failure occur. The 17th pursuit forwarded there favorable test results up to depot, but could not get them to rescind the Wright Field Order. With no further instructions, the armorers were obliged to maintain this primitive manual gun charging procedures. This definitely did not help out on December 8th 1941. Not really what would fall under a design flaw, but a major blunder to say the least.

[timbo]

I would have to say the Me-163's unique landing experience would have to take it for me.

If you managed to survive the hair-raising take off + attack, and got back to base you then had a high chance of being incinerated by the violent explosion of the rocket resedues caused by the landing vibration.

[timbo]

Another would be the Condor's ability to snap in the middle due to structural weaknesses in the fuselage - Just what you want when going out on long distance convoy hunts.

[timbo]

Originally Posted by Rush104

The Boulton Paul Defiant. It had no forward firing guns.

Not only that but it must have been impossible to aim the turret while dog fighting