Worst British aircraft of W.W.II

After Austrian Anschluss, March,1938, UK’s perception was that Germany would be economically/industrially ready to re-run April,1918, in Spring,1941. So UK Policy was, safe behind the Maginot, to deploy escort cannon fighters and Heavy Bombers to o’erleap the Siegfried Line, for aerial blockade to supplement the standard Brit maritime strategy. Military failure of Whirlwind and Warwick emerging during Summer,1938, due in large part to the engine firms, was a factor in Chamberlain trying to buy time at Munich, so that Shadow Factories could shift into more Wellingtons, Hereford, Manchester, and Hurricane, Spitfire. Castle Bromwich Aircraft Factory was to have been Whirlwind-centric. So, to a criterion of military consequences of delivery/performance disappointment, Warwick and Whirlwind win. They caused 1940/41 to be a near-run thing.

Does anyone know what happened to what was probably the largest surviving Lerwick artefact????

From what I’ve read about the Lerwick it probably self-destructed. Failing that, if it is found I think it ought to be treated as a toxic substance.

😀

Lerwick Relic

I vote for the Lerwick

Ah! The Saro Lerwick – one of my favourites too, but only because I like lost causes – it must have been hated by those who had no choice but to fly in them 🙁

Many years ago I was on holiday with my parents near Oban, when a flying boat propeller was brought into the harbour by a trawler – snagging such relics off Oban was apparently not an unusual occurrence but apparently most such lumps of scrap, as they were seen, were tossed back – this one it seems was well and truly snagged in the nets & the boat owner wanted compensation, so brought it in for proof!

Being a member of a group at the time that had a particular interest in flying boats I registered an interest in the relic with the receiver of wreck – the boat owner had pound signs in his eyes! – and left it to due processes.

Anyway to keep it short – the prop was identified as being from a Lerwick and a likely candidate was traced from the position it was snagged, the info was passed to the appropriate authorities and a few months later I was granted title – don’t know how the fisherman fared with his claim though. I did this on behalf of the group who had been very interested in it – but then failed to collect it despite numerous reminders 😡

To my knowledge the prop was never collected, by them or another group I contacted and remained in Caledonian MacBraynes cargo shed, where I had liberally sprayed it with oil. The shed was demolished several years ago and I had heard that the prop went to a local group with a small museum, but despite a number of attempts to contact them I have been unable to get any reply.

Does anyone know what happened to what was probably the largest surviving Lerwick artefact????

On consideration, although I favoured the Botha simply because it continued to be produced even after its defects were apparent, I vote for the Lerwick.

A description I read of its single engine performance which suggests that all it could do was spiral down to a crash landing, the account of the one that put down in a canal, and the one that rolled over at its mooring, drowning the crew when a wing float came adrift were the clinchers. So Lerwick it is.

And, (mentioned earlier) has to be the Saro Lerwick. It was a very bad aeroplane, nasty, with no redeeming features whatever. And useless.

Have to agree with this, the Lerwick must have been the worst, not only as a poor aeroplane, but also from a value for money point of view as they seem to have been rarely available for service (wasn’t it once said that the Germans never did it the disservice of engaging one in combat?). At least the Botha saw some use giving trainee aircrew some experience – even if it did fall out of the sky with depressng regularity. Defiants, Barracudas, Battles etc all shine in comparison with the Lerwick.

The Roc was designed to a bad requirement which was unlikely to produce a good aircraft. The Botha may have been good, average or indifferent but as it was so underpowered it was difficult to tell.

The Lerwick, as James said with remarkable restraint, was an out and out dog. No excuses about a bad specification or the wrong engines, just rubbish.

The Roc was built by Boulton Paul IIRC – always found that very odd when they had a “Sea Defiant” which surely was less expensive that two types? Interestingly as well, Roc’s were painted up in Finnish AF markings ready to donate them in the winter war which ended before they got there. Can’t imagine they asked for them!

One air to air kill for the Roc over Dunkirk – then they served as ground defence at Ford etc, target tugs etc…

I would say the Saro Lerwick. Only 21 built and bloody useless and a very poor service record to boot.

Agree, I think the airframe was sound (although the tail appeared half-a*sed on the original MkI) but the power plants let the airframe down. I dread to think what would have happened if they had continued with the RR Vulture model. I don’t think it flew well on one engine, but the Lanc could fly on two (not fully laden) Although not the worst , its got to be up there in the top ten.

It is a strange one the Manchester, especially as it led to one of the greatest types of the war. Airframe seemed sound (apart from AMs policy of short span wings), engines just not right for it.

The Roc was designed to a bad requirement which was unlikely to produce a good aircraft. The Botha may have been good, average or indifferent but as it was so underpowered it was difficult to tell.

The Lerwick, as James said with remarkable restraint, was an out and out dog. No excuses about a bad specification or the wrong engines, just rubbish.

It’s a bit hard to nominate actual failures apart from the Botha and the Roc.

And, (mentioned earlier) has to be the Saro Lerwick. It was a very bad aeroplane, nasty, with no redeeming features whatever. And useless.

Just to qualify my choice for the Bombay, it was well over weight, under powered and very old fashioned when it entered service in 1939, utterly useless in its half bomber role, and well behind transports such as the Ju-52 and DC-3.
True it did find some notoriety as a basic transport in casevac and special operations etc.
But was this due more to the RAF only willing to use these airframes for those tasks when far more capable transports, such as the C-47, were around?

It’s a bit hard to nominate actual failures apart from the Botha and the Roc. I agree about the general obsolescence of the Bombay but when it was used it generally performed the rather simple tasks allotted to it quite within what was acceptable. Sounds like an annual assessment of a rather unpromising airman doesn’t it. 😉

The Bombay just didn’t perform well in its primary role, but when you consider that aircraft like the Vildebeeste and Shark were still lumbering around, while the Valentia lasted until 1943 then we see that if a job could be found for such types then they did it. Personally although I like the Blenheim as an aircraft, in the cold light of history it really was a death trap in its main role in all but the most opportune conditions, yet it is not mentioned as a failure. It was just another aircraft available to do a job when there wasn’t anything else.

To be a failure I think the aircraft has to demonstrate that it a failure in any role that was assigned to it. Even the hapless Battle was good as probably the trainer with the most varied roles.

In early military aviation the idea was to get an observer into a good spot to observe. Hence the observer would be an officer (and or recognised at the important person / point of the exercise) the pilot a lowly other rank driver/airframe, and indeed in the German Naval Air Service, according to Johns. The cult of the pilot grew up later.

In a way that still happens, for instance on a Nimrod sortie the pilot gets the aircraft to the position and flies the mission, while the crew captain directs the operation.

Just to qualify my choice for the Bombay, it was well over weight, under powered and very old fashioned when it entered service in 1939, utterly useless in its half bomber role, and well behind transports such as the Ju-52 and DC-3.
True it did find some notoriety as a basic transport in casevac and special operations etc.
But was this due more to the RAF only willing to use these airframes for those tasks when far more capable transports, such as the C-47, were around?

Ok, there was a slight thread creap, but not going as far a Germany:D

Lankhaar, I think you have read the thread title incorrectly. It is only about British aircraft, and the Me 210 is not british!

I guess as the thread started to go off topic, so did my mind!

Lankhaar, I think you have read the thread title incorrectly. It is only about British aircraft, and the Me 210 is not british!

Anyway, to add my 2 p´s worth, I´d say the worst british aircraft of WW II was the Botha. It was a complete failure in all respects. Most other aircraft that failed in their designed role had a second lease of live in some other roles.
Albemarle was “useful” as a glider tug/para ship
Fairey Battle was past it´s sell by date when war was declared but did well in the training role
Manchester– there was nothing wrong with the basic design. Only engine problems. See what happened when it was powered by real engines
Hector a good aircraft, but flying in the wrong war! No fault of the aircraft
Barracuda. I think it was more of a training problem for the pilots. It sure looks ugly, but I think most of it´s bad reputation has to do with Stringbag pilot being let loose on the aircraft without thorough check-outs. You can not do Stringbag stuff on the Barra.
Defiant, nothing wrong with the aircraft per see. It was just based on wrong assumstions about the defence of British Isles. It did resonably well as nightfighter when few other things were available.

I could go on and on.

Edit…guess its not british!

OK, drifting off topic, but here goes. There’s a little cameo in one of the early Biggles books, when W E Johns was either writing from first-hand experience or from someone he knew, of the gunner in a German two-seater beating the pilot over the head with an empty machine gun magazine.
Seems that in the Imperial German Air Force the gunner usually outranked the pilot, whose task was that of an underling with the lowly job of pointing the contraption in the right direction.
Can anyone offer some more elucidation?

In early military aviation the idea was to get an observer into a good spot to observe. Hence the observer would be an officer (and or recognised at the important person / point of the exercise) the pilot a lowly other rank driver/airframe, and indeed in the German Naval Air Service, according to Johns. The cult of the pilot grew up later.

Must we why there hasn’t been an operational parachute drop since 1956 yet the principles borne by the gliders is still carried on to this day by the Air Landing Brigades. :rolleyes:

Both you and Moggy are missing the point – unpowered aircraft loaded with troops are no substitute for powered aircraft able to adjust to changed ground conditions. Gliders were gotten rid of pretty quickly when powered substitutes like helicopters then Stol transports became available. Still that is not the point of this discussion and we have strayed off track – if you want to debate whether gliders should be reintroduced into modern warfare then start a separate thread. They were dispensed with at the end of WW2 for sound reasons by the people who saw them in operation so I would accept that judgement rather than equating them with our current and very different troop delivery systems.

The use of parachutes was accepted by war’s end to be much more effective and lessened the casualty rates that’s why gliders got the flick.

Actually it was down to the adoption of helicopters.