Worst Aircraft Designed By A Genius

“A doctor can bury his mistakes but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines.” Frank Lloyd Wright


... and an aircraft designer will see them flying, if he's lucky.

Apologies and thanks in equal measure to Shevek23. I'm starting this thread, but the idea is purely his as expounded in the Greatest Aircraft Designer thread.

So, it's quite simple. Take a generally acclaimed aircraft designer (Mitchell, Johnson, Tank, Mikoyan, etc) and identify the worst turkey they ever came up with.

So, allow me to start with Willi Messerschmitt, who gets a lot of acclaim and respect (not all of it deserved IMHO), but inflicted this on the Luftwaffe.



The Messerschmitt 210 - an aircraft that made the He177 look like a success. If you were a test pilot you would find yourself flying a challenging aircraft that was incredibly manouvrable. If you were an average pilot you were trying to fly an aircraft that was totally unflyable due to being cronically unstable in all three axis, and with a ridiculous 1 ton remote controlled gun system that rarely worked into the bargain.

It might not have mattered if they hadn't ordered a 1000 off the drawing board, but whatever Messerschmitt's gifts, this was a total dog.

From this



To this



In about 4 years RJ Mitchell

Hungarian engineers put some band-aids on the design and developed the Me-210C, built under license in 267 examples, 108 of which were operated by the Luftwaffe. If that's the wurst, that's not so bad. It probably just needed paprika.

Ed Heinemann and the BTD Destroyer



Almost a Skyraider, but Ed himself asked the Navy to cancel it

Just Leo said:

Hungarian engineers put some band-aids on the design and developed the Me-210C, built under license in 267 examples, 108 of which were operated by the Luftwaffe. If that's the wurst, that's not so bad. It probably just needed paprika.

Click to expand...

Well, according to the article I read in Klassiker der Luftfahrt, Messerschmitt refused to lengthen the fuselage because he'd already had the production jigs made up, and felt it would eat into his profits if he had to throw them away and start again.

In my book appaling initial design plus pig headed stubborness is not a positive combination of characteristics for any aircraft designer.

I have 2

Fairey Spearfish



2800 hp = top speed of 293 MPH

Added to this it had no stall warning and the turning circle of a super tanker


2nd one is the Blackburn Firebrand



First flight July 1941 - operational service 1946!!! One does wonder why they persisted.

Poor viability for Deck landings and poor manoeuvrability especially poor rate of roll relative to other fighter bombers of the time.

I don't think the track record of Messerschmitt as a designer deserves the label genius. Maybe 'genius'.

The main reason for the Me 210 being a disaster was Willy Messerschmitt's obsession with weight saving. When the design was still on the drawing board, he had a 1 metre chunk taken out of the fuselage to save weight. Consequently, it flew like a bag of hammers and the problems weren't cured until the fuselage length was restored.

The Firebrand entered service because the work had been done and the aircraft paid for, not to mention the fact that the US built aircraft that the FAA were using had to go over the side post VJ Day as the UK couldn't afford to keep them. The Firebrand was a good looking aircraft but really a victim of changing requirements and specs.

All companies have successes and failures. Define what makes it the worst. The EE/BAC Lightning was highly manouverable and very fast but had pitiful fuel tankage and was a maintenance nightmare. Bf 109s were cramped and often fatal to land. Zeroes often exploded when hit due to unprotected fuel tanks.

Upon seeing the threat title, I briefly considered starting a copycat thread titled Best Aircraft Designed by A Moron.

Luckily sanity prevailed.

DrakonFin said:

Upon seeing the threat title, I briefly considered starting a copycat thread titled Best Aircraft Designed by A Moron.

Luckily sanity prevailed.

Click to expand...

Isnt that Stalins crony Alexander Yakovlev and the Yak 3

The Wooksta! said:

The main reason for the Me 210 being a disaster was Willy Messerschmitt's obsession with weight saving. When the design was still on the drawing board, he had a 1 metre chunk taken out of the fuselage to save weight. Consequently, it flew like a bag of hammers and the problems weren't cured until the fuselage length was restored.

Click to expand...

I agree with the first part. The Sprichwort of the time was that when a Focke Wulf crashed they looked at what broke to make it stronger, when a Messerschmitt crashed they looked at what survived to make it lighter. As to the second bit (removing 1 metre of fuselage) have you got a source for that? Not calling you a liar, but I'm interested.

I'd always been led to believe that the 210 used the 110's rear fuselage (and twin fins on the first prototype). I've just compared the models of each I have on my bookshelf (Bf110C and Me210A) and can't see any real difference in the length of the rear fuselage.

From the OP, we first have to determine that Messerschmitt was a design genius, and why. Was it his pencil that did something brilliant, or did he have significant help? There was also Willi the company director, whose interests lie in a different sector, profits and personal gain. After the war, Willi the designer, worked in Spain on the Saeta, and Egypt on the Halwan. Are these aircraft the product of genius?

Antony Fokker, during competition testing of the Fokker D VII, removed the machine from the competition under a premise, and added a section to lengthen the fuselage, which was from a Fokker Dr I. It was losing before, and became a winner after. Fokker had enough credits to be regarded a design genius, but questions arise about how much was Reinhold Platz's involvement and how much was copy-cat theft.

For the Blackburn Firebrand to be considered the work of a failed genius, we also have to identify the designer, and identify that work of genius which made him so. Certainly, there were enough hands in the pudding to wreck any goodness that might have arisen had a genius been involved. I would have preferred that such persistence had been applied to the B.20. They dropped that one a bit prematurely, I think. Different designer, I believe.

The Wooksta! said:

All companies have successes and failures. Define what makes it the worst. The EE/BAC Lightning was highly manouverable and very fast but had pitiful fuel tankage and was a maintenance nightmare. Bf 109s were cramped and often fatal to land. Zeroes often exploded when hit due to unprotected fuel tanks.

Click to expand...

The Lightning was designed by Teddy Petter, not as a fighter, but as a high-speed experimental fighter-like aircraft. The Fairey Delta II was just an experimental high-speed aircraft. The Delta II was successful but crushed by the gummint. The Lightning was embraced and nurtured despite operational short-comings, because everything else was crushed by white paper.

The Bf-109 also killed on take-off.

The Zeke was a creature limited by restrictive design criteria, not the fault of the designer, but the Navy procurement office, much like what befell the Firebrand.

Just Leo said:

From the OP, we first have to determine that Messerschmitt was a design genius, and why.

Click to expand...

Messerschmitt is usually mentioned in the same breath as Mitchell, Tank, Johnson, Camm etc. I personally think he's overrated, but chose him for the OP as a good example of a well known designer producing something obviously not fit for purpose and then being too pig headed to introduce the necessary modifications.

As for Messerschmitt's genius, most of his reputation comes from the Bf108 and Bf109, but these were essentially the work of Robert Lusser. He reworked his Klemm Kl 31/32 into the Bf108, and the structure of this heavily influenced the Bf109.

The Bf110 was more Messerschmitt's work (Lusser left for Heinkel) and it was undoubtedly a successful war plane. I would argue that it's failure/disappointing performance in the Battle of Britain was more down to a faulty concept than bad design (as with the Defiant). However, the 110 did have a fairly serious structural weakness in its tail section, probably as a result of Willi's obsession with weight reduction.

The Me210 was undoubtedly his and he should take full responsibility for it. It even resulted in him being kicked upstairs by the RLM. This meant he had little to do with the nuts and bolts designs of the 262, 163 and vastly improved 410.

So, given that he gets name recognition as a great designer (maybe the word genius in the OP was too strong - great designer instead?), the 210 certainly fits what I was looking for.

Anyone largely responsible for the Bf 109 deserves to mentioned along side Mitchell, et al even if he never designed anything else that flew straight. That said, I'd go with the Me 210, which was entirely Messerschmitt's fault.

Just Leo said:

The Zeke was a creature limited by restrictive design criteria, not the fault of the designer...

Click to expand...

Agree totally. Given what they were told to work with in terms of engine and materials, it was an incredible design. Maybe there's another thread in there about political interference or restrictive specifications?

oldironside said:

Agree totally. Given what they were told to work with in terms of engine and materials, it was an incredible design. Maybe there's another thread in there about political interference or restrictive specifications?

Click to expand...

I think there is. It would be easier and quicker to mention aircraft designed without interference and restrictions. Mosquito. I recently tried to draw a Hampden with a Mosquito wing, since I don't find fault with the Mossie wing. The Hampden wing is friggen huge in addition to vastly thick. And the Mossie weighs more.