I'll have to disagree with you on the Stringbag, AR, although I've pretty much agreed with the rest of your posts. I don't think she belongs under the monniker of "seriously bad aircraft". Sure she was slow and not terribly well equipped defensively, but she was tough, could lift a good load and was incredibly manoueverable. Antiquated for sure but surely an indicator of a good design is its adaptability? I don't think its designers would have envisaged the Swordfish operating towards the end of the war with an ASV radar, rockets and hunting U-boats and E-boats at night in the channel? Having said that, I'm sure the determination and skills of the crews of aircraft that were "dodgy" added to the positive side.
TBD Devastator [SIZE=+1]One of the worst operational histories for an aircraft is that of the TBD Devastator. [/SIZE] View attachment 1242
Andy That particular post was primarily about the Albacore, the successor to the Stringbag which was in many ways inferior to it. I certainly wouldn't go as far as to suggest the Stringbag was a bad aircraft; as you say it turned out to be highly adaptable and dependable. My point was that its equivalent in other Navies by the start of WW2 were all-metal monoplanes, and its not something to be proud of that we were still producing biplanes. But as Spidge says, the USN equivalent, the TBD Devastator, did no better than the Swordfish when attacked by enemy fighters.
Thought of another: The Messerschmitt ME 210. Over-complex, dangerously unstable; the Me 110 had to be restored to production when the 210 was withdrawn. The Hungarians produced better 210s than the Germans did; their version helped in the development of the 410, a much better aircraft. Messerschmitt Me 210 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
