# Worst aircraft of WW2?



## cheddar cheese (Jan 25, 2005)

Continued from old topic (Now in the archive thread)

Lets get it going again. I say Blackburn B-25 Roc.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 25, 2005)

Blacburn Botha has to be the worst, it was ugly and underpowered. It was supposed to be a torpedo bomber but it was so bad it never actually dropped one. It ended up being a target tug and trainer, even the trainee pilots thought it was a pile of junk


----------



## R Pope (Jan 25, 2005)

Breda 88. So underpowered it had to take off from a runway pointing in the direction it was to go, since it couldn't get high enough to dare banking!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 25, 2005)

fairey battle..............


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 25, 2005)

The Battle was ok when it was first built but by the time war came it was next to useless, don't diss the Battle!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 25, 2005)

the battle was only just worth buying when it was first bought, by 1939 in was no more than target practice for the germans..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 25, 2005)

R Pope said:


> Breda 88. So underpowered it had to take off from a runway pointing in the direction it was to go, since it couldn't get high enough to dare banking!



The man has a point  You would know from the size of he engines though 

Still think the Roc was worse though...


----------



## R Pope (Jan 25, 2005)

The Battle, and even the Roc, were pretty good AIRPLANES, they just weren't very good WARPLANES. The Breda 88 was just plain lousy, it could barely fly, and Benito's bunch still put it into mass production. The last run of them went directly from the factory to the scrap heap!
As for limited production planes, I still vote for the Curtiss Caravan.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 25, 2005)

The thing that the Roc has going for it is that it was just built to a bad specification. The whole idea of a turret armed fighter was messed up (though I have to admit the designs produced between the world wars were interesting). 

The Battle was obsolete by the start of the war. But then so was the TBD which would certainly have to be in the running.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2005)

but atleast it did something during the war, not like the battle...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

What did the TBD do? Serve as fodder for the Zero's so the SBD's could blast the Japanese? Is that a compliment?


----------



## redcoat (Jan 26, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> What did the TBD do? Serve as fodder for the Zero's so the SBD's could blast the Japanese? Is that a compliment?


Actually the TBD wasn't as bad as it is made out to be. In fact it was better than most torpedo bombers of the era.
It just gets a bad rep due to Midway ,when in fact *any* torpedo bomber attacking, against the odds they were facing, would have suffered the same fate.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 26, 2005)

That is true, and if ur talking about the worst aircraft, it should be trainer aircrafts since that basically sucks in everything


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 26, 2005)

That's why I think the Botha is the worst, it never even saw combat


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

It is true that the TBF and Marauder (both of which made torpedo runs at Midway) were both severly mauled. 

Claiming that the TBD was one of the best torpedo bombers in the world at the time isn't saying much. What else was in the running? The Stingbag, the Abalcore, the B5N. That's about it. 

And the TBD was that bad. Consider that clean it's top speed was a mere 206mph. When carrying a torp it was hard pressed to make 125mph.


----------



## redcoat (Jan 27, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> IClaiming that the TBD was one of the best torpedo bombers in the world at the time isn't saying much. What else was in the running? The Stingbag, the Abalcore, the B5N. That's about it.
> 
> And the TBD was that bad. Consider that clean it's top speed was a mere 206mph. When carrying a torp it was hard pressed to make 125mph.


I'm not arguing that the TBD was a great aircraft, I'm just saying that it doesn't belong in the 'worst aircraft of WW2 thread'

ps, even though its top speed was only around 125mph with a torpedo, it would've still had to slow down to less than 100 mph on its torpedo run, any faster, and the torpedo would break-up on hitting the water


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 27, 2005)

Adolf Galland said:


> That is true, and if ur talking about the worst aircraft, it should be trainer aircrafts since that basically sucks in everything



Why...trainer aircraft arent supposed to be good in combat, theyre supposed to train pilots/gunners/navigators/radio operators, and thats what they did...


----------



## redcoat (Jan 27, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> That's why I think the Botha is the worst, it never even saw combat


I have a nice quote on the Botha
An RAF test pilot in his report after flying it, wrote,
" The cockpit is almost impossible to get into, it should be made impossible"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 27, 2005)

Haha


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Jan 27, 2005)

redcoat said:


> Lightning Guy said:
> 
> 
> > What did the TBD do? Serve as fodder for the Zero's so the SBD's could blast the Japanese? Is that a compliment?
> ...



It was a bit underarmed and underpowered though...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 27, 2005)

And the fact that 37 out of 41 were lost in one battle has got to say something about the quality of an aircraft. Every aviation historian I've read comment on the TBD comments that it was obsolete before the war started. 

The thing about the speed means the aircraft takes longer to reach the target area. By the time the TBD reaches a point 250 miles away its target may have moved 60 miles! And even then with a top speed of 125mph it is extremely vulnerable even before it starts its run.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2005)

mind you that's what they said about the stringbag............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 27, 2005)

And didnt it prove everyone wrong...this can only prove one thing...Brits are luckier than Yanks


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2005)

what the stringbag did was not down to luck........


----------



## redcoat (Jan 27, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> And the fact that 37 out of 41 were lost in one battle has got to say something about the quality of an aircraft. Every aviation historian I've read comment on the TBD comments that it was obsolete before the war started.


and I'm *not* disagreeing with them  
But there were lots of obsolete aircraft which flew in WW2.
The point which I keep attempting to explain is,
the TBD was indeed *obsolete*, but it wasn't bad enough to be put in the 'worst aircraft of WW2' thread


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 27, 2005)

the reason y the traniers are s'pose 2 be the worst aircraft cuz if they are good, y not use them in combat? so the old junks are use 4 traniers(some of them are light planes w/ weak engines)


----------



## evangilder (Jan 27, 2005)

But some aircraft are specifically designed as trainers and were never designed for combat. That does not make them bad airplanes. The North American AT-6 is a great example. Over 20,000 of them were made and today, over 1,000 of them are still flying! They are durable and great to fly.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 27, 2005)

i also got a really bad plane to show u and here it is:
Boeing P-26 Peashooter
(s'pose to be a)fighter, 500HP, Range 300miles w/ fuel tanks, max speed 233mph, ceilig 27400, remained in sencond line duty in WWII.
picture:
<a href"http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/photos/p-26.jpg">http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/photos/p-26.jpg</a>


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 27, 2005)

evanglider:
wut i mean by that is the ones that are retired from front line duty cuz it prove to be sitting ducks for the enemy.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 27, 2005)

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

The P-26 was the very first all metal skinned fighter the Americans had, but was very obsolete by the time the war broke out. It first flew in March of 1932 and for it's day, was faster and could outclimb the biplanes. It was one of the first allied aircraft to shoot down a Japanese plane though.

Edit:
Most of those P-26s that had been stationed in the Philippines had been sold to the government of the Philippines by the time of the Japanese attack. The Philippine government acquired 12 P-26As beginning in July of 1941. Some of these P-26s were serving with the 6th Pursuit Squadron of the Philippine Army Air Force based at Batangas Field at the time of the Japanese attack. Despite their total obsolescence, the Filipino P-26s succeeded in scoring some victories against the Mitsubishi A6M Zero during the first few days of the Japanese attack. One of the Philippine P-26s is credited with shooting down the first Japanese plane destroyed during the early attacks on the islands. The best-known action took place on December 12, 1942, then a group of six Philippine P-26s led by Capt. Jesus Villamor shot one bomber and two Zeros with the loss of three P-26s. However, the few P-26s operated by the Philippine Army Air Force were quickly overwhelmed by the onslaught of the Japanese Zero fighters, and the surviving P-26s were destroyed on the ground by Filipinos to prevent them from falling into enemy hands. 

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p26_6.html

It is amazing, or truly lucky that they managed to get Zeroes with the P-26, but they did.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 27, 2005)

That's why the Battle became a trainer, some combat aircraft were so bad though that they never even reached operational squadrons, worst example- the Botha


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 27, 2005)

The Stingbag would have been slaughtered if it had ever faced the situations that the TBD did.

So what constitutes a 'worst aircraft?' The TBD's performance stank. It was obsolete at the start of the war. Within 6 months of war virtually everyone produced had been destroyed. And the only thing it did was to earn a bunch of guys Purple Hearts . . . posthumously.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 27, 2005)

The worst aircraft would have to be the one that had incredibly bad handling, woefully underpowered and had inadequate armament/payload, the sort of plane that nobody wanted to fly


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 27, 2005)

Sounds like a descritption of the TBD to me . . .


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 27, 2005)

At least the Devastator made combat, the Botha was considered more dangerous to the airmen inside it than to anything else


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 27, 2005)

But the Devastator never should have been committed to combat.


----------



## Kongo Otto (Jan 28, 2005)

Worst WW2 Plane?

Me-163B
Killed more Pilots in accidents,than by enemy action.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 28, 2005)

It was just too far ahead of it's time, it some of the best performance of any plane in the war


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 28, 2005)

I agree. I think the 'worst plane' would be a time that was too far behind its time.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 28, 2005)

Yep. If it were not for the volatile fuel the Me-163 wouldnt have been so bad.

I also agree with that statement LG, but the Swordfish was behind its time and that had success. Still, I see what you're saying and am beginning to see what you're on about with the TBD.


----------



## R Pope (Jan 28, 2005)

The Komet actually had the best flying characteristics of any Luftwaffe fighter. The engine was an abomination, though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 28, 2005)

but that still makes it a bad plane, it had potential but it was still bad...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 28, 2005)

The TBD may not have been the worst aircraft of the war. But it certainly deserves to be in the running. It was obsolete at the start, contriduted virtually nothing to the Allied war effort, and in its biggest battle it was shot down in droves.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 28, 2005)

Not really...the plane was good, engine bad...I dont really think it should be considered for this.


----------



## redcoat (Jan 28, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Not really...the plane was good, engine bad...I dont really think it should be considered for this.


Oh yes it should....
The plane was nothing more than a death trap.
What numb-nuts designs a plane with highly explosive fuels on board and then as its landing gear fits a skid....


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 28, 2005)

Willy Messerschmit, the same guy who designed the Me262


----------



## evangilder (Jan 28, 2005)

The idea behind the Me-163 was interesting, but the volatile fuels and the landing gear configuration were just a dangerous combination. I think as a research aircraft, it would have been one thing, but as a warbird, it was not effective.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 28, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Willy Messerschmit, the same guy who designed the Me262



Messerschmitt was the manufacturer but the designer was Lippisch.

Only one of the fuels was dangerous.

Here is avery good website for the Walter motor. http://www.walter-rockets.i12.com/walter/walter.htm

Another website with an article by Rudy Opitz, the test pilot. http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/articles/me163/me163_1.asp


----------



## evangilder (Jan 28, 2005)

I don't think I have said a proper welcome, KK. Welcome, you seem to be settling in nicely. Good info in those links. 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 29, 2005)

Ok...we need to start compiling a list of contenders...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2005)

Fairey Battle.........

anyone who suggests the wordfish is seriously dead BTW..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 29, 2005)

Wordfish  

Ok I thnk we got:

Fairey Battle
Blackburn B-25 Roc
TBD Devastator
Breda 88
Blackburn Botha
Me-163 Komet

I vote for Breda 88, after doing research I see it was dreadful...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2005)

why can't you include the komet?? it was ahead of it's time but an absolute death trap...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 29, 2005)

Fine...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2005)

i'm going for the battle then..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 29, 2005)

Why, at least it could fly...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2005)

but it sucked..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 29, 2005)

Wow, im convinced. Being told it sucked is enough to convince anyone how bad a plane is...use more detail...at least it could fly. The RAF didnt really have anything else to use...

Not only was the Breda 88 poor in its role but it had extremely bad flight characteristics.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2005)

didn't anything else to use?? there was absolutly no point in using the ones they did use, they weren't doing anything to stop the germans..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 29, 2005)

I'm still going with the TBD. Obsolete at the start of the war. Terrible performance. Slaughtered at Midway.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 29, 2005)

Botha, so bad it never became operational. Bad flight performance, under-armed and underpowered


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 29, 2005)

Lets look at said culprits...






TBD Devastator





Me-163 Komet





Blackburn Botha





B-25 Roc





Fairey Battle


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 29, 2005)

323 gigant maybe , slow , very big-easily shot down ) and too many guns and they didnt help it in anyway


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2005)

it could be in the running i suppose although it was designed for secong line duties and not for combat with the enemy, i think..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 29, 2005)

Yeah, it wasnt perfect but it did the job ok. I think the planes mentioned were far worse...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 29, 2005)

I think the 323 was an impressive aeronautical achievement for the simple fact that it flew.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 29, 2005)

Me too. In trials one dropped a 17 ton bomb, but the aircraft crashed due to structural failure caused by an allied strafing earlier in the week


----------



## Viper (Jan 30, 2005)

i agree those pics are the worst planes of the war that botha looks like a accomplishment in reverse and the others are beond words


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2005)

well the 323 could carry up to 44,000lbs at a struggle i think, but i'm a bit sceptical of the 17ton bomb, was it really a bomb?? any onfo on the bomb??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

Well 17 metric tons (which is what the site said) works out at about 39,000lbs I think...I have no info on the bomb im afraid. I read about it on www.warbirdsresourcegroup.com though...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2005)

well that really is all it says, i'd rather have some more info on it............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

Me too...but AFAIC its true until proven otherwise


----------



## Napier Sabre (Jan 30, 2005)

Has to be the Battle, those things got murdered.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

Nah, has to be the Breda 88, not only did they get slaughterd but they were crap in their role and could barely fly.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 30, 2005)

No it's the Botha, it was so bad it didn't even get to an operational squadron


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2005)

> AFAIC



what the hell's that mean??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

As far as im concerned...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2005)

ah well "AFAIC", i need more proof..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

Ill get some after tea...yum Lasagne tonight


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2005)

when do you leave for the trip?? midnight aint it??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

1am...gotta be at school at 12.30


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2005)

ah, bring me back something nice.............


----------



## Grampa (Feb 7, 2005)

How about the Avro 679 Manchester? 25% of those 202 build planes was destroyed in crashes. And it was manly because of the unreliability 1760 hp Vulture-engines.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 7, 2005)

It was only problems with the engines, Manchester+4 Merlins=Lancaster


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 7, 2005)

Actually no, the Lancaster was going to have 4 Vultures instead of 4 Merlins, but when they saw their unreliability on the Manchester they were switched.

(See lanc, I DO use your information  )


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 7, 2005)

Same airframe though


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 7, 2005)

Pretty much. Early Manchesters had 3 tail fins...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 7, 2005)

it was actually changed to two larger fins on the Mk.IA manchaster because of the crap engines, if one cut out the larger tails almost directly behined the engines would offer far better directional stability...........

and the manchaster was a good plane but for those engines, damn them.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 7, 2005)

Yeah, good range and payload for a twin engine.

Who knows, the range may have been even further than we know if the engines could have lasted long enough to complete a whole sortie


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 8, 2005)

it was always gonna be replaced by a four engine though, the manchester held little advantages over other 4 engines..............


----------



## redcoat (Feb 8, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Actually no, the Lancaster was going to have 4 Vultures instead of 4 Merlins, but when they saw their unreliability on the Manchester they were switched.
> 
> (See lanc, I DO use your information  )


No, the Lancaster came about because the designers of the twin-engined Manchester, Avro, got wind that Rolls-Royce was having major problems with their 1,760 h.p. Vulture engines, so as a fail-safe re-designed it with four 1,130 h.p. Merlins instead, this aircraft being known originally as the Avro Manchester Mk III. 

They never had any plans to fit four Vultures to it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 15, 2005)

Im still believe lanc...hes got THE knowledge on the Lancaster!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 15, 2005)

the design for the lancaster did not come about because of the problems with the manchester, even before the manchester entered production roy chaddwic started working on designs for a four engined replacement..........


----------



## Chocks away! (Mar 12, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> fairey battle..............


 Come on man , the battle isn't that bad. It may have suffered great losses , but it gave a good account of itself.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2005)

The Breda 88 was far worse. Looked good though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

no not really


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2005)

Yeah it did. Look at its dominance in my siggy...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

hey loving the new siggy........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2005)

Thanks. I made it myself!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

that shows........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2005)

Hey, I actually thought the collaboration of pictures turned out very well.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

well the border's not that bad but it'd look better if they were all black and white...........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 13, 2005)

It looks fine.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

yeah but you're Canadian..........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 13, 2005)

Even better, I'm Nova Scotian!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

oh dear God..........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 13, 2005)

Yeah, that's what everyone says.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well the border's not that bad but it'd look better if they were all black and white...........



Can you not see that pattern?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2005)

i see the pattern but it doesn't look right..........


----------



## acesman (Mar 21, 2005)

I would like to nominate the HE-177 as a contender, though perhaps as an idea of how not to design a bomber than as a poor performer. The following is from http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/luftwaffe/bomber/he177/he177.html

The He 177 served as a five/six-seat heavy bomber from 1942 to 1945. The Greif (Griffin) was the only long-range heavy bomber built by the Luftwaffe in World War II in significant numbers. It was, to the good fortune of the Allies, one of the most trouble-plagued and accident-prone aircraft in existence, and the German crews and ground staff did not like it either. The plane was desgined to meet a misguided and impossible goal of 1938 that not only demanded long range with heavy bomb load and a speed of 536km/h but also required the big bomber to be able to divebomb. This and many other difficulties caused great delays and added to the weight. The designers wanted to use neat remotely controlled guns but this was a big problem and eventually it had to be discarded in favor of the ordinary turrets or hand-aimed guns. Worse yet, it was decided to use four engines and pack them in two coupled pairs to reduce drag, so that the He 177 looked like a twin-engined aircraft. Although great efforts were made by Daimler-Benz to make the 2,950hp DB 610A twinned units work properly, they created numerous problems and caught fire so often that - like an aircraft of World War I - the big Heinkel was dubbed "the flaming coffin." In total more than 1,000 of many versions were built. Armed with various combinations of 20mm cannon, 13mm heavy machine guns and rifle-caliber guns, the He 177 carried up to 6,011kg of bombs or missiles, and in some types even went into action at "nought feet" as tank-busters carrying huge 50 or 75mm caliber cannons. Late in the war some new versions, like the He 274 built in France and He 277 in Austria, had four separate engines, but they were too late to have any significant influence in the course of the war.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 21, 2005)

Sounds almost like a Manchester, you know they had to be able to be catapult launched


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2005)

AH its all in metric, dreadful, evil metric!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 21, 2005)

Yeah, we never had weather this crappy before we switched to the metric system!  

So said my great-grandfather, anyway.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2005)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 22, 2005)

he sounds like a great man...........


----------



## redcoat (Mar 31, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> the design for the lancaster did not come about because of the problems with the manchester, even before the manchester entered production roy chaddwic started working on designs for a four engined replacement..........


The Lancaster came about because Avro found out that the engines on the Manchester were not going to deliver the expected power.
So he re-designed the Manchester Mk III to have 4 engines
http://www.aviation-history.com/avro/683.html


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 31, 2005)

no, Chackwick started designs for a four engined bomber before the manchester even entered production, in service the manchester airframe proved very good, so he simply used that and 4 engines, Chadwick never liked the vulture engine, he only used them on the manchester because all merlin production was earmarked for the fighters, he always wanted to use the merlins, and he did on the lancaster...........


----------



## GT (Apr 4, 2005)

Update.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 4, 2005)

The Manchester had similar stats, of 202 built 50 crashed through engine problems


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2005)

and 100 were lost on operations.........


----------



## lightning38 (Apr 4, 2005)

I think the worst aircraft would be Italy's Fiat C.R. 42 Falco. It might not have been a bad plane before the war, but it was quickly outclassed by the superior monoplane fighters. Production was terminated in early 1942.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 4, 2005)

The Battle, the Roc or the Botha were worse, they were underpowered, slow and had no useful defensive armament


----------



## lightning38 (Apr 4, 2005)

Yeah, the Roc was pretty bad wasn't it? The Skua too.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

oh the roc was worse than the skua, although interestingly when the last rocs were grounded and it wasn't worth repairing them, their turrets were useed for AA defence, so they weren't as useless as the Battle............


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 5, 2005)

The Skua was good!
The Botha has to be the worst, it was so bad it never made operational service


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

but that's true of many planes.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

lightning38 said:


> I think the worst aircraft would be Italy's Fiat C.R. 42 Falco. It might not have been a bad plane before the war, but it was quickly outclassed by the superior monoplane fighters. Production was terminated in early 1942.



You mad?! The best biplane of WW2. 8)

If it wasnt for your username, I would have got a lot angrier...youre lucky!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

define "best" because it could be argued the stringbad was the best.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

Sorry, I meant fighter terms.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

well then it's the gladiator.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

Pfffft


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

yeah i mean what did the gladiator ever do?? defend an island from attack from an entire air force??


----------



## lightning38 (Apr 6, 2005)

> If it wasnt for your username, I would have got a lot angrier...youre lucky!


Thanks. 

But seriously, the Gladiator wasn't bad at all. Oh, and I take back what I said about the Skua. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

of course the gladiator wasn't bad, because it was the best!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

Or rather if it would have been, were it not for the CR.42 8)


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 7, 2005)

Right on CC!

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

oh god you're not a .42 fan as well kiwi??


----------



## GT (Apr 7, 2005)

Update.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

i can't believe you just said that, we're talking about a plane obsolete before the war even started, sinking half an entire navy (well the big ships atleast) in one attack, helping to destroy a proud nation's finest battleship and even being better than the plane designed to replace it!!


----------



## GT (Apr 7, 2005)

Update.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

well i don't know in detail like that........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

Liking the .gif


----------



## GT (Apr 7, 2005)

Help! I need the 
Swordfish combat history!!!

Cheers
GT


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

sorry i can't really help............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

Sure you can, its a British plane! You must be an imposter...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

well i can't give a detailed service history.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

Oh dear, im disappointed! 

GT, Ill have a look round for ya 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

> History
> 
> 
> The Fairey Swordfish, the legendary ‘Stringbag’, was a Torpedo Spotter Reconnaissance biplane dive-bomber which went into service with the Fleet Air Arm pre-war in 1936. Initially, Swordfishes operated from the large fleet carriers. Later Swordfishes operated from escort carriers, and were very effective against U-boats. The nickname Stringbag indicated the versatility of the Swordfish, which could carry an unlikely combination of loads, but also referred to its jungle of bracing wires, which belonged to a past age. The Swordfish remained operational until the end of the war, gaining the distinction of being the last biplane to see active service.
> ...



source- www.fleetairarmarchive.net


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

I knew that would encourage you to get something


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

well i couldn't have you beating me.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

Hehe, I doubt very much whether I would actually have looked anyway


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

well the mere thought that you might have been out there looking was enough to get me moving........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

UGH, that sounds a bit dodgy


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

well i was moving in the opposite direction to you..........


----------



## GT (Apr 9, 2005)

Thank´s Lanc for the Swordfish story and thank´s CC for the offer.

Cheers
GT


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

that's ok glad i could be of help.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2005)

Don't forget the Demon CW-21B - These things got mauled! 

All CW-21 Demons: The CW-21 was a development of a Curtiss air racer. It had speed, power and fair agility, but was quite fragile and under-gunned by 1940 standards. *Two wing spar hits destroys the aircraft*.
CW-21: 30 built for China. Chennault used a few for recon after destruction of Dutch Demons. 
Combat record (like many Chinese WW2 air combat records) sketchy at best.
CW-21b: 24 Built for Netherlands East Indies Air Force. Armed with two
7.7mm (.303) Browning MGs (N1 only). All were destroyed in combat or the ground by December 1941 - February, 1942.
*Wright Cyclone problem: Poorly designed oil system stopped lubricating
under heavy G. If a/c uses HT or higher turn or dives from inverted bank, roll*1D10: 1 = engine seizes; 2-3 = engine coolant crit (w/o white smoke).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2005)

BUT DON'T FORGET THE BUFFALO!

Early on June 4, 1942, radar picked up Japanese planes closing on Midway Island. Capt. Philip Renee White, one of 21 Buffalo pilots stationed there, scrambled into his fighter and met the enemy at 12,000 feet. The Battle of Midway was a stunning victory for the United States. But White's Buffalo squadron was slaughtered: 13 pilots died in minutes. Five other planes were wrecked. White filed a damning report: 

*"Any commander that orders pilots out for combat in a [Buffalo] should consider those pilots lost before leaving the ground." *


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 12, 2005)

but they served well over singapore and the rest of asia, they're not the worst...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

And when the Finns recived them (redesignated B-239) they used them extremely well, amounting in the highest kill ratio for any plane of WW2.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 12, 2005)

i would like to see more information about that claim...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

> This is an edited copy of a news article posted by Jyri-Pekka Järvinen ([email protected]) on the infamous subject of the worst fighter in WW2.
> 
> -- Begin quote --
> 
> ...


http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/war/faf/brewkills.html


Alos, by typing "Brewster B-239 kill ratio" into Google you will note that most of the results seem to also say that it had the highest kill ratio.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2005)

That is so true - even though they fought the Russians ferociously, it seems the Finns knew how to fly them well, maybe the Marines should have gotten training from the Finns!


----------



## dinos7 (Jun 5, 2005)

i think the german rocket plane was the worst beacasue it ran on two guns with 50 rounds each and a sucky glider effect when the rocket engine ran out. but there is the japanese suicide bomb aircraft too


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 5, 2005)

Do me a favour dino. From now on put all of your immediate remarks in the same post, instead of trying to increase your post count by posting a long string of successive one-liners. It's annoying as hell to read, and looks crappy. If you were unaware, it's possible to add remarks or questions to a previous post by using the "edit" tab.
I combined them this time, but I don't feel like doing that forever.

Thanks.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 6, 2005)

he's right though, the komet did suck some seriously big... well i'm sure you can imagine what i wanna put here.....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> he's right though, the komet did suck some seriously big... well i'm sure you can imagine what i wanna put here.....



Found this on "Wikipedia"

"one squadron are equiped with this,the Jagdgeschwader 400(J.G.400) in two units,with mission of defend synthetic gasoline installations,during May 1944. First actions occured at the end of july,attacking to USAAF B-17 without positive results,and continuing in combat during period of May 1944 to Spring 1945,has very little used,obtain only 9 victories against 14 proper losses."  

I think with this in mind, the ME-163 was a dog! Not only did it suck in combat, it could get you very killed just by flying it!  

(Although it still would of been a blast to go from S/L to 30,000 ft in 3 minutes!) 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 6, 2005)

if you made it that far.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 6, 2005)

Actually the Komet had brilliant flight characteristics, and it was only the engine that made it a bad plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> if you made it that far.........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 6, 2005)

yes but that doesn't stop the fact that it's a crap plane........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 6, 2005)

Who knows how the Me-263 would have faired...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

Same way


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 6, 2005)

Probably 

It *did* have retrctable undercarraige though so at least landing wouldnt be much of a problem any more


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

It'll be a rolling fireball then!


----------



## trackend (Jun 6, 2005)

It was a fire work with a gun, If I asked FBJ to fly an aircraft powered by hair bleach with no undercarriage Id be told to Piss off.
I can prove it listen " FlyboyJ will you fly this hair bleach powered aircraft with no undercarriage please "?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

PISS OFF!


----------



## trackend (Jun 6, 2005)

See what more proof do you want guys


----------



## evangilder (Jun 6, 2005)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

That brings up a good one - pick your "DEATH FLIGHT!"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 6, 2005)

I go ohka.......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

I don't know Lanc., The Okha you're guaranteed death 100% (You'll have a great flight though). The Natter I would give 99.997% and the -163 about 55%. I guess it depends how quick you want to die


----------



## trackend (Jun 6, 2005)

Reitschberg III a follow on from Hanna Reitsch's V1 test machine


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 6, 2005)

well if i'm gonna die, i want it to be doing something usefull and heroic, which is why i chose the ohka...........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well if i'm gonna die, i want it to be doing something usefull and heroic, which is why i chose the ohka...........



Good Point! - Die quick a hero!   



trackend said:


> Reitschberg III a follow on from Hanna Reitsch's V1 test machine



Oh yea, can't forget that death trap! I rate it 50% if you were just going to fly it, 100% if you were planning on crashing into something. If I was a Typhoon pilot, I would love to shoot one of those down!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 6, 2005)

Most Ohkas got shot down before they reached their target whilst still aboard the mother ship.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Most Ohkas got shot down before they reached their target whilst still aboard the mother ship.



Ohka = 100%

Kamikaze Math


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 6, 2005)

I know, but lanc was saying hed rather die helping his country, but if he got taken out before he reached the target then that isnt helping your country! 

Id go with the Ba-349 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

Another thrilling flight!


----------



## trackend (Jun 6, 2005)

It looks like something off a fair ground ride


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

It sure does!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 6, 2005)

trackend said:


> Reitschberg III a follow on from Hanna Reitsch's V1 test machine


Well out of the choices so far, it's the best looking. If ya gotta go, it may as well be in a cool looking death trap! 8)


----------



## evangilder (Jun 6, 2005)

Good point, if you are going to go out, you umight as well do it in style!


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 7, 2005)

I'd go for the -163, at least that way I'd have some chance of survival


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 7, 2005)

hey love the siggy evan.........

and the way i see it, you will die flying an ohka, but atleast you're cirtain to die heroically (unless you get shot down on the mothership), if you fly a Komet, you may servive, but if you die, which is much more likely, you haven't died heroically........


----------



## evangilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Thanks Lanc. I didn't realize how noce the shot would look when I took it. I liked it alot once I saw it on screen.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 7, 2005)

Yeah, nice sig evan.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 7, 2005)

dudes that no reason to ignore the rest of my post then..........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 7, 2005)

Did you guys hear something?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 7, 2005)

Yeah, that's a great sig, evan...


----------



## GrayWard (Jun 7, 2005)

Hi everyone. I'm new to posting on this forum. Hope I can throw my two cents in. Interesting topic.. If one were talking "hoping to return", I would vote the Natter as the most dangerous. After firing your 24 rockets simultaneously your aircraft nose cone separates and a chute pops out of the tail. Hopefully you are jerked free to open your own chute. I don't know what the odds were, but it must have been pretty small.

Gray.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2005)

Hey, welcome Gray! I see you're from the Great White, where abouts? I lived there for 5 years. We have our resident Canucks, Non-Skimmer, sunny 91, Maestro, Krazy Kanuck to name a few, lots of great folks here, we have a blast! - Welcome!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 7, 2005)

Welcome. Take some time to weigh up the lads [and lasses] here, it'll do you a world of good. 8)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 7, 2005)

Hey, Gray. 
Welcome. It might be a good idea to take plan_D's advice and get yourself a good feel (figuratively  ) for everyone here. We have some very knowledgeable folks on site, and quite an array of personalities.  

Hope you enjoy your stay.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Welcome Gray. Just watch yourself around nonskimmer, he takes "feel" to a new level...(ohmigod, did I say that out loud?!) 

Just kidding, NS. There's quite a group of characters here. Don't be afraid to ask questions, to avoid duplication, it's always a good idea to use the search funtion of postings to see if a question has been asked before.

Enjoy your stay!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 7, 2005)

Hey... Im one of the characters....... I have the ONLY "Official" Moniker here : 

Minister of WhoopAss...

If u spend a few hours browsing through some of the past topics, i think ull get a better feel of how things run here, and maybe educate urself to some of the attiudes/personalities/flamboyancy/history of our members here....

It will definatly make ur stay here alot more enjoyable...

OH, and FBJ, KrazyKanuck was banned dude...... He thought that ALL Americans shoulda been nuked by the Russians....


----------



## GrayWard (Jun 7, 2005)

Thanks for the welcome everyone. Sorry to say there is no Great White where I'm from. There is Great Rain. I'm south of the 49th in Deep Cove Vancouver Island. Just lots of blue Pacific around here. 

Gray.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 7, 2005)

Cool......


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 8, 2005)

GrayWard said:


> Thanks for the welcome everyone. Sorry to say there is no Great White where I'm from. There is Great Rain. I'm south of the 49th in Deep Cove Vancouver Island. Just lots of blue Pacific around here.
> 
> Gray.


Yeah cool. I lived in Colwood for a while. The Island is a beautiful place.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> OH, and FBJ, KrazyKanuck was banned dude...... He thought that ALL Americans shoulda been nuked by the Russians....



Another Genius I see....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2005)

hello!! you're likely to hear allot from me, i love the lancaster and am cirtainly up on my british bombers, anything like that i'll cirtainly try and answer......

also you may at times wonder why everyone is so affectionate towards me, i'm something of the sugar daddy of the site and i have numerous bitches at my "disposal", yes skimmy, that does include you


----------



## GrayWard (Jun 8, 2005)

Nonskimmer, if you haven't been to Colwood for a few years you probably wouldn't recognize it now. A lot of changes on the island.

Lanc, what a great aircraft the Lancaster was. Interesting hobby you have on the side. Are there any pension benefits that go with being a sugar daddy or is it strictly pleasure.

Gray.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2005)

well i cirtainly get looked after, if that's what you mean..........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 8, 2005)

Ain't little lancy cute when he tries to be all aggressive and stuff? 
Actually lanc, I think it's your turn to bend over.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2005)

awww not again skimmy


----------



## plan_D (Jun 8, 2005)

You cheating bastard!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2005)

it's ok, from what CC's told me about the size of your equiptment there'll be plenty of room for you to join in pD..........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2005)

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 8, 2005)

That wasn't me CC felt.  

(That was pretty good one, by the way.  )


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2005)

i think you should be more worried about what's coming off than going on.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2005)




----------



## plan_D (Jun 8, 2005)

I'm not going on, NS has cheated on me with LANC of all people...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2005)

speaking of coming off, i'm off to the lovely men thread.......


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 8, 2005)

What can I say? I've got a lot of love to give. 


(And with that, Nonskimmer quietly ducks out of this disturbing conversation. :-" )


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2005)

yes and i think it's time i reassure grey that we're not always like this, don't get me worng, NS and pD are gayer than lesbians with cucumbers, but no one else is, so i apologise for these two, as sometimes they do get a little frisky........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 8, 2005)

**pops in**

No I don't. 

**ducks back out**


----------



## plan_D (Jun 8, 2005)

I don't get how lesbians with cucumbers is the definative homosexual? And...no I'm not...it's not me and NS pictured in the lovely men thread...


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 9, 2005)

Don't worry pD, the cucumbers are just one of Lanc's fantasies


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2005)

i wouldn't know who is pictured in the lovely men thread, given that i've never been in there


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 10, 2005)

A nun doing press ups in a cucumber field is less conspicuous than you guys :lol


----------



## Rafe35 (Jun 28, 2005)

Worst aircraft?

Rather go for Defiants....


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

Reasoning would be nice but since the B-25 Roc was much-much-much-much inferior to the Defiant, then the Roc is the worst.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 28, 2005)

but the battle was worse wtill........


----------



## Rafe35 (Jun 30, 2005)

Argh....! I really agree with Lancaster Kicks Ass.

*Fairey Battle* (But the pilots of No. 12 Squadron fought brave while attacking bridges over the Albert Canal at Maastricht on May 10, 1940 and 35 of 63 Battles failed to return from sorties on May 14, then RAF withdrawing the type from front line service)


----------



## Glider (Jul 1, 2005)

In a scale of 1 - 10 how low do you reckon the Fulmar is?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

On a scale of 1 - 10? I'd say it's wrong out of 10.


----------



## Smokey (Jul 1, 2005)

The Fairey Battle is the worst aircraft I know of that served in WW2


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 1, 2005)

Trust me, the Breda 88 was worse


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 1, 2005)

and the fulmar wasn't that bad, it's nowhere near bad enough to be considdered the worst of the war........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 1, 2005)

The Battle wasnt bad either - Just hopelessly outdated.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 1, 2005)

you kidding me!! she was obsolete by the time she'd entered service.......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2005)

Lets put a Breda 88 and a Battle in a dogfight - "WAR OF THE WORSE"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 1, 2005)

The Breda 88 wont be able to take off if its in desert spec, so the Battle wins by default


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 2, 2005)

damn it he's right........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 2, 2005)

I mean the 88 started off promising - Set several speed records before the war, had some good armament and reasonably powerful engines. Great! They ship them off to Africa to obliterrate Allied tanks, but to prevent engine failures they place dust covers over the radiators and other minor mods - all of a sudden, engine power is sapped and they cant even take off!  So they leave them as decoys on airfields for the rest of their career


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 2, 2005)

What speed records did she set??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 2, 2005)

In 1936 the prototype set 2 world over-distance speed records, and again in 1937. Thats all I know, I wonder if anyone else can elaborate on this, cos I cant find anything else about it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 2, 2005)

well, i have infront of me the Guinness book of aircraft, a book in which all records made by aircraft are listed, a book in which no mention is made of the Breeda 88............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 2, 2005)

Hmmmm...I dunno why that is, I dont think its BS. Just about every site ive been to on the Breda Ba-88 mentions the setting of a speed-over-distance record.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2005)

You got to go to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) site and they might have the record archived. The aircraft might of set a record for speed over a given distance based on the size, weight and engine HP.


----------



## red admiral (Jul 2, 2005)

"In April 1937 Niclot established two world speed-over-distance records, averaging 517km/h over a 100km distance and 475km/h over a 1000km circuit. In December of that year he raised these speeds to 554km/h and 524km/h respectively."


----------



## Smokey (Jul 4, 2005)

Surely this is just as bad as the Battle?
http://www.aviationtrivia.homestead.com/Wellesley.html


----------



## red admiral (Jul 4, 2005)

The Battle isn't that bad, just grossly underpowered. The Bloch MB. 150 didn't fly, so that is surely one of the worst.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 5, 2005)

how dare you suggest the wellesley was a bad plane, she was effective in her role and was mostly retired before the war, she had very good range meaning she set many records, and due to Dr. Barnes Wallis' geodetic frame was exeptionally strong yet still light(ish).........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 5, 2005)

Yeah the Wellesley was good.

The Breda Ba-88 Lince was the worst, trust me. I like the Breda Ba-88 loads, but it was dreadful. Utterly, hopelessly, completely dreadful.


----------



## vanir (Jul 27, 2005)

I was just reading that at least one pilot of a Komet was literally melted in his seat by fumes from the fuel.

Now I dunno 'bout everyone else, there's worst aircraft of the war and then there's just plain nasty...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 27, 2005)

yeah i think the komet's a contender for title........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 27, 2005)

I think based on it's combat record the Curtiss CW-21A has to be in the top 5.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 27, 2005)

The Blackburn Botha is a contender- underpowered, undergunned and with a useless bombload


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 27, 2005)

Did the Botha ever get mauled in a major battle?


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 27, 2005)

It didn't get a chance to go into battle, it was instantly relegated to pilot training, probably on the basis of "If they can fly this, they can fly anything"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 27, 2005)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 27, 2005)

I just read a little on her - WHAT A PIG!


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 27, 2005)

It's ugly aswell

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/album_search.php?mode=name&search=Botha


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 27, 2005)

My God! It's asking to be shot down!


----------



## evangilder (Jul 27, 2005)

Yep, you may want to bail out before you are seen in that thing!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 27, 2005)




----------



## solnar (Jul 27, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Did the Botha ever get mauled in a major battle?




it was considered to be too underpowered for operational purposes


----------



## F4UCorsair (Jul 27, 2005)

Was the Defiant mentioned already?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 27, 2005)

F4UCorsair said:


> Was the Defiant mentioned already?



Yep!


----------



## vanir (Jul 28, 2005)

What about of front line aircraft? I just heard the Betty was nicknamed "the flying lighter" by its Japanese pilots because it burst into flames so easily when hit. That's gotta give you pause before you climb in one for a combat mission...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2005)

ah, but the komet will set itself on fire without being hit!!

and the defiant's been mentioned, althought the Roc's worse........


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2005)

And the Defiant had some early day success and then some night success, so it can't be the worst.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 28, 2005)

But the Breda Ba-88 Lince has to be the worst. It really does.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2005)

as i recall, it stuggled to take off did it not??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 28, 2005)

Yeah, they couldnt get to altitude or stay in formation, they barely flew above the stall speed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2005)

you're right, that's pretty crap


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 28, 2005)

Its primary role was as a decoy. MMMMMMM, CLASSY!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2005)




----------



## red admiral (Jul 29, 2005)

The Bloch MB 150 must win. The prototype wouldn't actually fly.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 29, 2005)

But thats the protoype, production ones did manage to fly...

PRODUCTION Breda 88's wouldnt fly.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> But thats the protoype, production ones did manage to fly...
> 
> PRODUCTION Breda 88's wouldnt fly.



Here ya go CC........

"On 6/16/40, just after Italy declared war on France and her allies, 12 Ba.88's of the 19th Group made bombing and machine gun attacks on Corsica. Three days later, 9 more Ba.88's attacked Corsica again. Analysis of these attacks showed that the Ba.88 had only a limited value. This was driven home when Ba.88s of the 7th Group joined action in Libya against the British. Fitted with sand filters, the engines overheated and could not put out the promised power rating. An attack on Sidi Barani in 9/40 had to be cancelled when the Ba.88s could not make altitude, as the engines could not generate the power necessary to gain sufficient altitude. *By mid 11/40, most surviving Ba.88s had been stripped of useable equipment and were left as decoy targets around airfields."*
http://www.comandosupremo.com/Bredaba88.html


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 29, 2005)

Exactly!  That Breda 88 in the picture is probably crashing as well, not making an attack  My analysis on that is this: If it was attacking, it would be in hostile territory. This means that the enemy is likely to have sent up planes to intercept. It would therefore be sensible for the gunner to be at the gun, and not inside. He's probably fannying around to try and get his parachute  What if it isnt making an crashing, I hear you say? Well, there are only 2 situations where a Breda 88 dives at that angle.

1) Making an attack. 
2) Crashing.

Since I just proved why it isnt making an attack, the 2nd one is logical. If I was flying a Breda 88 at 20,000ft, after several hours of brutal Italian engine acceleration, the last thing you would do is dive.  In other words, you wouldnt do that on purpose. ITS CRASHING!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2005)

I can't wait for that to go on "Pimp My Ride!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 29, 2005)

I know what I will do


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2005)

A Coffin?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 29, 2005)

More Simple


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 29, 2005)

from wht i've read hear the breda 88 sort of wins but my heart still goes to the defiant and if were gonna go to a/c that never did anything like the botha my vote would go to that great canadian a/c known as the Canadian Vickers (Northrop) Delta http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2689.htm


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 30, 2005)

I wouldnt consider the Defiant to be honest - If you think its bad, then consider the Blackburn B-25 Roc. It was supposed to intercept bombers....except it wasnt as fast as the German bombers  I still dont think its Breda 88 bad, because it could fly, but still pretty poor. 

Fighter developed from 136 aircrafts Skua, armed with a four-gun turret. This shipboard equivalent to the Defiant suffered not only from a bad tactical concept but also from having ridiculous performance for a fighter. After a few months it was relegated to training duties. The Roc could be equipped with floats, but only three ever were. 

Primary function Fighter 
Power plant One 9cylinder Bristol Perseus XII radial engine 
Thrust 905 HP 675 kW 
Wingspan 46 ft 14.02 m 
Length 35 ft 10.67 m 
Height 12.4 ft 3.79 m 
Wingarea 310 sq ft 28.8 sq m 
Weight empty 5,018 lb 2,276 kg 
max. 8,800 lb 3,992 kg 
Speed 196 mph 315 km/h 
Ceiling 17,720 ft 5,400 m 
Range 800 mi 1,287 km 
Armament 4x 7.7mm machine gun; 110 kg bombs 
Crew Two 
First flight 23.12.1938 
Date deployed April 1939 
Number built 136 






http://www.military.cz/british/air/war/fighter/skua/skua_en.htm


----------



## plan_D (Jul 30, 2005)

The Defiant had some early success, so it cannot possibly be in the running for worst aircraft of the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 30, 2005)

no there's no way the defiant was the worst, besides it's not the defiant's fault, the whole idea of turret fighters is flawed.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 30, 2005)

With more power and some fixed forward firing guns it might have worked.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 30, 2005)

With a new fuselage, four-engines, fork-tail, more crew and a big bomb bay it could have been quite good as a bomber, I reckon.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 30, 2005)

Minor field mods then.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 30, 2005)

Yeah, just a few tweaks here and there.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 30, 2005)

PIMP MY RIDE!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 31, 2005)




----------



## Glider (Jul 31, 2005)

Re the Defiant it should have been possible to make a decent GA aircraft, after all it did go 300mph with a heavy turret and an early Merlin. 
Take the turret out put in a rear gunner, couple of 20mm in the wings and you should be able to have a decent bombload. May not be the greatest GA in the world but a lot better than nothiing which is what we had GA wise at the time.
Said before but relavent here


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 31, 2005)

well at the time we didn't need ground attack, unless it could penetrate into france from england, we have no use for it!! what needed at this time was fighters!! for every ground attack defiant, that's one less fighter to take on the luftwaffe...........


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Aug 7, 2005)

> Since I just proved why it isnt making an attack, the 2nd one is logical. If I was flying a Breda 88 at 20,000ft, after several hours of brutal Italian engine acceleration, the last thing you would do is dive. In other words, you wouldnt do that on purpose. ITS CRASHING!



Breda 88 was operatively and from any other point of view a poor aircraft but ,strange to say,in 1938 it got a world record in maximum medium speed with load at 100-200 Km......

Shortly:
1)If you have a dragster projected for the maximum speed and acceleration along 1 Km( more, with an unreliable engine for the poor quality of the steel alloys available) , you paint it with mimetic camouflage and a bull-bar and you try to run an african rally of 1000 Km don't get surprised when it is stopped by 2 cm of gravel.
2)Breda factories had built exclusively light weapons, flamethrowers, hand grenades ,heavy tractors up t0 year 1935, when they suddently and inexplicably shifted to aircrafts,only with a experience of guns,grenades ,flamethrowers etc etc.With this poor aeronautical background they immediately won two public competitions for an assault aircraft ( breda Ba-65 and, later, Ba 88) over other italian industries that had built aircrafts since 1914! I am still wondering the reason why all this happened, but the fact that king Vittorio Emanuele III and Savoia family were among the main owners of Breda industries seems quite suspect.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 7, 2005)

Yeah, the 88 was good prior to being equipped with weapons, armour et al, but if we're talking operational then it just plain sucked.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 18, 2005)

yes but performance with warload is kinda important for a warplane........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 18, 2005)

Naaaaa....... 

Its better if they look good - if they fly well, that's better!


----------



## mosquitoman (Aug 18, 2005)

Yeah, but the Breda 88 didn't even look good!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 18, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Yeah, but the Breda 88 didn't even look good!



Ya know you're right! It didn't look good, it didn't fly well, I wonder what it smelled like?


----------



## mosquitoman (Aug 18, 2005)

Oil, coolant and petrol?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 18, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Oil, coolant and petrol?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 22, 2005)

I think it looks pretty neat! Or rather it would do if the engines were smaller  As For the smell, that is pure heaven for me. Id have Oil, Coolant and Petrol afrtershave if I could


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 22, 2005)

but would the people that have to smell you??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 22, 2005)

Everyone loves the smell of engines! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 22, 2005)

i must say i rather like the smell of petrol........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 22, 2005)

Its great 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 22, 2005)

not as good as diesel


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 22, 2005)

Nah its better.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 28, 2005)

I don't know if it could be considered the worst but it's certainly one for the running. The Vought-Sikorsky SB2U Vindicator (Chesapeake in RN service). 

It achieved nothing. For 1937 it was a modern aircraft for USN standards but with the inclusion of modern military equipment it was under-powered and obselete by the start of the war. Those in FAA service were replaced by Swordfish Mk.IIs. 

It was supposed to be carrier capable but it turned out to have too long of a take-off length to take off from a carrier. 50% of the casualties in them were due to carrier training accidents upon it's introduction. 30% of all built were lost to the enemy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 28, 2005)

I guess the Midway based Vindicators did some damage during that battle. Still, not an aircraft I would feel comfortable in, I'd take an SBD anyday!


----------



## Dac (Sep 15, 2005)

The TBD Devastator was for it's own crews, with an entire squadron wiped out in a matter of minutes at Midway.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 15, 2005)

Dac said:


> The TBD Devastator was for it's own crews, with an entire squadron wiped out in a matter of minutes at Midway.


They showed their vulnerability at Coral Sea. At least they were pulled from service after the Midway Massacre!


----------



## Dac (Sep 15, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> They showed their vulnerability at Coral Sea. At least they were pulled from service after the Midway Massacre!



I guess it was all they had until the Avenger could be delivered in enough numbers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 15, 2005)

Yep - and even after Midway and the introduction of the Avenger in understand torpedo bombing was accomplished on a limited basis.

The Japanese were extremely fearful of torpedo bombers - Karma from Pearl Harbor?


----------



## Dac (Sep 15, 2005)

I guess torpedoing ships anchored in harbor is easier than in the open ocean.


----------



## F4D (Sep 21, 2005)

Well as it seems that this thread is with qualifying guideline's yet.
I propose that the worst plane was one that crashed landed or just crashed every-time it took to the air and was very underpowered.

That being any glider aircraft used in the war.  
JUST KIDDING!

I think you will find that all pre war combat aircraft had a tough time dealing with the reality of war.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 21, 2005)

F4D said:


> I think you will find that all pre war combat aircraft had a tough time dealing with the reality of war.



Yes, thats true as far as it goes, of course the first rule of war is that all preconcieved ideas are wrong. There were also a few that rose to the occasion.

The P-40 was a hard worker durring the war and the P-38 held it's own in the begining and grew to true greatnes. In fact the P-38 in K format was the equal of any end of war design.

The Spitfire and Hurricane reacted similarly.

B-17 and the B-25 also rose to the occasion and carved out their niches.

How many others?

wmaxt


----------



## F4D (Sep 21, 2005)

My bad! I was thinking of the TBD and the Defiant when I wrote that.  

Look at the record of the Finnish Ace Eino Juuttilainen with the Buffalo (34 of his 94) and Aleksandr Pokryshkin of the Soviet Union with the P-39 (45 of his 59). The Finn faced 22 different fighter types built by both the British and Americans (flown by Russians) and the Soviet's and never got so much as a hole in his aircraft.  

Some pre war birds could hang after all. Even if they didn't have the base
to be better developed in the war.


----------



## Glider (Sep 21, 2005)

Ju88 did a fair job from the beginning to the end of the war

109 is an obvious one plus Sunderland, Catalina and Wildcat. 

The Wellington didn't make it to the end of the war in great numbers at the front line service but its record was nothing to be ashamed about and someone would shoot me if I don't include the Swordfish.


----------



## CurzonDax (Sep 21, 2005)

Well one plane that started out as a death trap was the Henschel 129. But put a big gun on it and some Russian tanks in front of it and BOOM! You have the A-10's uncle.

:{)


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 1, 2005)

> But put a big gun on it and some Russian tanks in front of it and BOOM! You have the A-10's uncle.


Good example there. The east would have been littered with Soviet T-34 tanks!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

The East was littered with T-34 tanks.


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 12, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> F4D said:
> 
> 
> > I think you will find that all pre war combat aircraft had a tough time dealing with the reality of war.
> ...



Look at the B-26 or the Hs-129 for example. Crew actually refused to fly in them but by the end of the war they racked up great war records. 

:{)


----------



## ollieholmes (Oct 19, 2005)

i would have to say the humble lysander. who ever designed it as a fighter should be shot. it did a great role as a soe plane but not as a fighter.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 19, 2005)

ollieholmes said:


> i would have to say the humble lysander. who ever designed it as a fighter should be shot. it did a great role as a soe plane but not as a fighter.



The Lysander was not developed as a fighter. It was developed for the RAF as an army cooperation aircraft and for ground support.


----------



## ollieholmes (Oct 19, 2005)

ive seen pics of it with cannons in the weel spats and ive seen many pics of them downed in the battle for france.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 19, 2005)

They can use cannons for ground support. They were not meant to be a fighter. As such they are obviously no match for a fighter of the time.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 19, 2005)

More info on the Lizzie here:
http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html pages/WESTLAND LYSANDER.htm


----------



## plan_D (Oct 19, 2005)

The Lysander was a ground support/spotter/liason aircraft. It was never intended as a fighter, and never took part in fighter operations. It was used as a light bomber for a small amount of time ...never as a fighter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 20, 2005)

and she cirtainly shouldn't be considdered for the worst aircraft of WWII..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 22, 2005)

Hell no, although am I right in saying that It did score a couple of air-to-air kills early in the war? I remember reading it somewhere.


----------



## trackend (Oct 22, 2005)

I agree she did her job well


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 22, 2005)

trackend said:


> I agree she did her job well


That she did Lee, especially later in the war, dropping and picking up agents in occupied countries (at least I think she did)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 23, 2005)

yeah she did, she had very good STOL capabilities and so could easily take off and land in fields and underprepared strips in occupied Europe and south east aisa where they also used C-47s in the same role.........


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 24, 2005)

See to me bad aircraft are also those that were good. They just had some REALLY big flaws that, while they were exellent aircraft, they could be terrible aircraft or death traps. Examples:
1. Hs-129- discussed in length before
2. The B-24-Horrendous placement of its fuel tanks.
3. B-26-Horrible placement of switches.
4. The C-46 Commando- when hit and on fire, its metal would start to vaporize, especially in the wings.
5. Curtiss Helldivers- A dive bomber really does not need its tail to fly off in a dive.

And so on and so forth. I think that all aircraft are good, its just how many of its bad habits come out. 

:{)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2005)

Thats like saying the Breda 88 was a good aircraft except for the fact it couldnt fly. Hell, maybe if a church could fly it would be a good aircraft!


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 24, 2005)

Ya never know! It depends how big the catapult is! Okay so the Ba-88 its only a good aircraft if you are flying against Eithiopian soldiers. But my point is that even good aircraft are sometimes bad (Gawd that sounded so dirty). Even the Ba-88 which I admit my knowlege of Italian and for that matter French aircraft is very limited, must have had some good points that designers could have used on other aircraft or learned lessons from it. 
But I guess all airforces have thier really ugly ducklings.

:{)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2005)

The Ba-88 was good, set a couple of speed records, but when they added armament, armour and sand filters to it the thing couldnt even take off with out a struggle


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 25, 2005)

Well, actually the BA88 was NOT good even against an ant nest.
When flown (???) operationally it could not fly without 5° flap, and was always on the limit of stall.
It happened that when they tried a sortie with 3 aircrafts the luckiest one could not even take off, the second barely made a 180 to land immediately and the third could not even manage to make a 180: they had to fly straight until the next airfield and land there!

I believe that the whole plane was a big fake, the record-setting prototype could not possibly be a relative of the production plane, maybe was built with a 'racing' safety factor to reduce weight or had 'racing' engines not suitable for normal service,. Probably both!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2005)

Agreed, it was a truly terrible plane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 26, 2005)

which makes the question what did the italians learn from the Ba-88 all the more interesting


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2005)

They learned that Breda should stick to making 12.7mm SAFAT MG's for the planes


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Oct 28, 2005)

> I believe that the whole plane was a big fake, the record-setting prototype could not possibly be a relative of the production plane, maybe was built with a 'racing' safety factor to reduce weight or had 'racing' engines not suitable for normal service,. Probably both!



Ba-88 prototype , piloted by captain Furio Niclot Doglio , an excellent pilot, could fly over 200 and over 1000 ( !) km without any problems, and it got a speed record with 1000 kg on board. It was not exactly in a " super light" configuration.

It is not possible that such an aircraft was a global failure even if it can't be considered a success at all.
It was not really as heavy as it is commonly considered, neither so wind-charged.I don't remember an heavy fighter that was as stream-lined as Ba-88 in 1939.
We should remember that the prototype had a single rudder and not the twin tail of the serial aircrafts ( Furio niclot himself had serious troubles with the twin rudder configuration) , moreover it had the very reliable Gnome Rhone 900 HP engines , the serial aircrafts had the first Piaggio PXI 1000 HP "autarchic " engines with the same head as Gnome-Rhone and a longer stroke for an higher displacement, the easiest way to boost power without adding expensive superchargers and without withdrawing the most critical component of the original engine, the head .

It would be too easy. A longer stroke means an higher linear speed of the pistons,an higher energy over rods and other components and an higher risk of failures.
Autarchic components of the engines could not be as efficient as the originals.It means waste of gas from the cylinders and other troubles that can explain the bad performances of the first Piaggio engines and, consequently, of Ba-88.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2005)

Interesting, I've trouble with information about the Ba-88's record prior to this, thanks! 8)


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 1, 2005)

I have noticed that, the Ba-88 included, that the original prototype was always much more of an awesome plane but when you start sticking things like, um, guns, radios, armour, self sealing tanks, etc, etc, etc, you know all those nice extra options that a pilot needs to survive in combat, sometimes will make the plane go from awesome to useless becuase the original designers never took into consideration the wieght of all of these gizmos and options.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2005)

I will be honest I dont know much about Italian aircraft so this is all good info to me.


----------



## V-1710 (Nov 9, 2005)

That other rocket-powered German aircraft (not the Komet). I think it was called the 'Natter'. Supposedly killed every pilot that tried to fly it. Launched vertically on a rail. Then there was the Heinkel 177.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 10, 2005)

The Natter only flew one pilotted flight which killed the test pilot Lothar Sieber was killed (1st March 1943) after this only unmanned flughts were undertaking and the projected was shelved at the end of March 1943. With only a range of 20km the Natter was correctly designated as a 'manned anti-aircraft rocket'.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2005)

I would not place the He-177 Greif into the worst aircraft catagory. She had some problems but overall she was not a bad aircraft. They just needed to get off there ass's and replace the engines with more reliable ones.


----------



## V-1710 (Nov 10, 2005)

Didn't they try replacing the paired Daimler's with 4 separate engines (HE-277?)?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

Yes that they did but Goering and Hitler order development of it to stop. There was also another development of it called the He-274. The 274 was actually first flown by the French after they captured it in 1945.

Here are some stats on it:

*He-274*

Type: High Altitude Heavy Bomber 
Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG (later assigned to SAUF, Suresnes, France)
Models: V1 and V2
Production: Two prototypes
First Flight: December 1945 by the French
Engine:

Daimler-Benz DB 603A-2 inverted turbocharged V12
Horsepower: 1,850hp
Number: 4

Dimensions:
Wing span: 44.20m (145 ft. 2¼ in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Length: 23.80m (78 ft. 1¼ in.)
Height: 2.10m (6 ft. 10½ in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A

Weights:
Empty: 21,300kg (46,964 lb.)
Loaded: 38,000kg (83,786 lb.)
Performance:
Maximum Speed (Sea Level): 267 mph
Maximum Speed (11,000m): 360 mph (580 kph)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range: 4250km (2,640 miles)
Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: 46,915 ft (14,300m)

Armament:
N/A

Avionics:
N/A

*He-277*

Type: Heavy Bomber, Recce and Anti-Shipping Aircraft
Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG
Models: V1 to V3, B-5, B-6 and B-7 Series
Production: N/A
First Flight: Late 1943
Engine:
B-5:
Daimler-Benz DB 603A inverted V12
Horsepower: 1,850hp
Number: 4

B-6:
Jumo 213F
Horsepower: 2,060hp
Number: 4

Dimensions:
Wing span (B-5): 31.44m (103 ft. 1¾ in.)
Wing span (B-6): 40.00m (131 ft. 2¾ in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Length: 22.15m (72 ft. 8 in.)
Height: 6.66m (21 ft. 10½ in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A

Weights:
Empty (B-5): 21,800kg (48,067 lb.)
Loaded (B-5): 44,490kg (98,096 lb.)
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 354 mph (570 kph)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range (B-5): 6000km (3,728 miles)
Range (B-6): 7200km (4,474 miles)
Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: N/A

Armament:
N/A

Avionics:
N/A


----------



## Kuna (Nov 15, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Thats like saying the Breda 88 was a good aircraft except for the fact it couldnt fly. Hell, maybe if a church could fly it would be a good aircraft!



Ditto.


----------



## Parmigiano (Nov 15, 2005)

Another contender : General Motors (Fisher Body Division) XP 75 'Eagle'

More a fraud than a bad aircraft, it was put together using parts of other planes (Frankenstein-like) only to spare GM from the committment to build parts of B29

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p75.htm


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 15, 2005)

Parmigiano said:


> Another contender : General Motors (Fisher Body Division) XP 75 'Eagle'



Gawd, I had forgotten about this abortion. I do have to admit that during the war the US came up with some pretty strange designs.

:{)


----------



## SUperflanker37 (Nov 20, 2005)

In my opinion the B-17 could either be one of the best or one of the worst depending on how it was armed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

How is that?


----------



## SUperflanker37 (Nov 20, 2005)

Well its pretty useless unarmed eh? Haha.. got you! (and your probably thinking, "Wow what an idiot..." dont worry i get that a lot)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

No I am not thinking that, but they would not send an un armed bomber out over Germany.


----------



## SUperflanker37 (Nov 20, 2005)

I've yet to realize it but a few years ago I think I lost my sense of humor.. well I'm off on vacation.. I'll be back in a week or two I think.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Enjoy your vacation. See you when you get back.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 21, 2005)

although if he means payload i can see his point about the B-17 being uselessy armed


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 21, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> although if he means payload i can see his point about the B-17 being uselessy armed



Well the USAAF did send B-29s with only thier tailguns to do fire raids over Japan.

:{)


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 21, 2005)

CurzonDax said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > although if he means payload i can see his point about the B-17 being uselessy armed
> ...



Thats cause the Japanese had no nightfighter force to really worry about.


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 21, 2005)

Besides, it takes quite a bit to knock one of those monsters out of the sky


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> although if he means payload i can see his point about the B-17 being uselessy armed



Umm Lanc the B-17 could carry as much as the Lanc, but it did not for range reasons.


----------



## R988 (Nov 22, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No I am not thinking that, but they would not send an un armed bomber out over Germany.



The British sent unarmed (well they had bombs obviously) Mosquitos over Germany. 

I suppose if you could lighten it enough to make it fly faster and/or higher than the enemy interceptors then it might work.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 22, 2005)

adler you know as much as anyone that the lanc carried not only more on average per sortie than the B-17 but the lanc also had a greater maximum payload..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2005)

But only 400lbs if we dont include the specially modified Grandslam lancs...B-17's had to carry around all those guns and ammo and armour plating too...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 22, 2005)

the lanc could carry the grand slam without modification (apart from removing the bomb bay doors) it was simply modified to increase range...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2005)

Well removing the bomb-bay doors is still modifications...


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 23, 2005)

Well the USAAF did send B-29s with only thier tailguns to do fire raids over Japan.

:{)[/quote]

Thats cause the Japanese had no nightfighter force to really worry about.[/quote]

Yes and no. Also one of the reasons was to lighten the load as the Superforts firebombed Japan at low lovel.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> adler you know as much as anyone that the lanc carried not only more on average per sortie than the B-17 but the lanc also had a greater maximum payload..........



A B-17 gave up some of its bomb payload so that it could have a greater range and carry greater defensive armament. That is the only reason why.


----------



## The Nerd (Dec 8, 2005)

The aircobra sucked, and it was ugly.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 8, 2005)

The Nerd said:


> The aircobra sucked, and it was ugly.


Read the thread on the -39, there's a lot more too what you say.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

Yes while I happen to not like the P-39 either, what are you reasons. It is hard to say something sucks and not explain why you feel so.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Dec 20, 2005)

worse enough to kill bf109s and get good aces?

i think u should look at d other side of europe


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 20, 2005)

there were buffalo aces, that doesn't make them great planes


----------



## book1182 (Dec 20, 2005)

I would have to say the worst airplane of World War 2 would have to be the Fairey Battle. It was a concept that was a left over from World War 1. A single engine bomber??? How could that survive against at 
Bf-109!?!?!?! It's bomb load was around 1,000 pounds and they even tried to turn it into a carrier fighter... What an even worse idea.

Also I don't know were that other guy gets off saying the P-39 was the worst. As shown above there are far more bad airplanes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 21, 2005)

yes i think the battle should eb considdered


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Dec 21, 2005)

the battle was more or less vulnerable than a stuka but didnt even do as well as d stuka. merlin engines dont scare ppl as much as stukas with dove horns and also the engines roaring as they execute a dive.

the battle sucked, good when it was new, light machine gun fodder in 1939


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2005)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> worse enough to kill bf109s and get good aces?
> 
> i think u should look at d other side of europe



I dont quite understand what you are saying with this. While I am not saying that P-39 was the worst aircraft. I hardly think it was remotly close to the worst aircraft, it was certainly outclassed by the Bf-109. As Lanc has said the Buffalo had aces, does that make it a good plane?


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Dec 24, 2005)

i stand corrected L0Lx


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 24, 2005)

book1182 said:


> I would have to say the worst airplane of World War 2 would have to be the Fairey Battle. It was a concept that was a left over from World War 1. A single engine bomber??? How could that survive against at
> Bf-109!?!?!?! It's bomb load was around 1,000 pounds and they even tried to turn it into a carrier fighter... What an even worse idea.



At least it could fly, unlike a certain Italian GA plane I can think about


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jan 19, 2006)

I'd say the F2A Brewster buffalo is one of the worst aircraft in WW2, at least in the battle of Midway. After the vicious dogfight near midway in which the Marine fighter squadron VMF-221 was decimated, one of the surviving pilots said. " Anyone who goes up in a Buffalo should be chalked off as dead even before they enter combat". that tells ya something.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jan 19, 2006)

I'd say the F2A Brewster buffalo is one of the worst aircraft in WW2, at least in the battle of Midway. After the vicious dogfight near midway in which the Marine fighter squadron VMF-221 was decimated, one of the surviving pilots said. " Anyone who goes up in a Buffalo should be chalked off as dead even before they enter combat". that tells ya something.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 19, 2006)

Tell that to these guys....
Hans Henrik Wind
Second highest scoring ace of the Finnish Air Force during second world war was Hans "Hasse" Wind. 

Born: 30.7.1919 in Tammisaari. Died: 24.7.1995 in Tampere. 

Score: 75 kills in 302 sorties. 

Wind served first as a Leutnant and later as a Captain in Lentolaivue 24 during the Continuation War. Wind scored his first victory (a Soviet I-15bis fighter) on 27 September 1941. flying a Brewster B-239 numbered BW-367. Wind achieved total of 39 kills with the Brewsters.

The top Finnish Ace, Eino Juutilainen attained 33 of his 94 victories in the Buffalo.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2006)

The Finnish did have some success with the Buffalo, I am still debating with myself what the worst aircraft was in my opinion. I really am not sure. I had my mind made up at one point and then I dont know anymore. Just about all major aircraft had there good points and bad points. Its tuff for me.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 19, 2006)

It's tough to judge based on the success of individual pilots. The Finns, like the Germans in the east, were up against largely inferior Soviet pilots, so a skilled flyer like Juutilainen in a Buffalo would chalk up a decent record anyway. Having said that, I too have no idea what the actual worst fighter was.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 19, 2006)

Italy's Breda Ba.65 may very well have been the worst attack plane of the war.





> The Nerd wrote:
> The aircobra sucked, and it was ugly.


 
It did suck but it was not ugly, in fact it was beautiful plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 19, 2006)

Ba.88 - any aircraft that ends it's career as a decoy has to be on the worse ever list!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 19, 2006)

"Helldiver!" What a great name! But what a lousy airplane! 
Tough to fly, poorly designed, and delivered too slowly, the Curtiss SB2C comes somewhere near the top of most lists of "Worst Aircraft of World War Two." Of course, that judgement is no reflection on the crews who had to fly "The Beast," who were as brave, skilled, and resourceful as any other pilots - perhaps more so! 

The poor results of the SB2C program contributed to the decline of the once-great Curtiss aircraft manufacturing company. After WWII, the company never won any more significant military business, and eventually shrank into a specialty supplier to the industry.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 19, 2006)

I have to agree that its has to be the Battle. The Buffalo was actually a pretty manuverable plane with a good engine but once the put all those unnessesary things like guns, armor, radios, y'know the stuff that makes a fighter a fighter, it made it suck.

As far as the Battle, I was watching a terrible movie this weekend called Flying Fortress. The end had a faux Winston voice doing a speech about how the RAF and jolly 'ol England would survive through the RAF. One of the planes that they showcased in the ending montage was the Battle, and many formations worth! Talk about a propaganda machine!

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 19, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> "Helldiver!" What a great name! But what a lousy airplane!
> Tough to fly, poorly designed, and delivered too slowly, the Curtiss SB2C comes somewhere near the top of most lists of "Worst Aircraft of World War Two." Of course, that judgement is no reflection on the crews who had to fly "The Beast," who were as brave, skilled, and resourceful as any other pilots - perhaps more so!
> 
> The poor results of the SB2C program contributed to the decline of the once-great Curtiss aircraft manufacturing company. After WWII, the company never won any more significant military business, and eventually shrank into a specialty supplier to the industry.
> ...



Actually I have talked to some Helldiver pilots and once all the kinks were worked out, many of them liked the Helldiver over the Dauntless. By Okinawa they were a good plane with a pretty good service record. I think the Helldiver suffered the same fate as the B-26, we only remember the bad aspects. Also the Greeks used them with great success in thier post WWII civil war.

But I am still a SBD fan!

:{)


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 20, 2006)

Well, there should be a reason why the SB2C Helldiver was nicknamed 'Son of a Bitch 2nd Class'  
However she was able to take off climb and land, so it was maybe 'amongst the worst' but not the absolute worst.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 20, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> The Nerd said:
> 
> 
> > The aircobra sucked, and it was ugly.
> ...


It didn't actually suck either. It wasn't a good high altitude fighter due mainly to it's engine, but it excelled at medium to low altitudes. Reportedly, it had excellent manoeuvrability and was extremely stable and simple to fly, with excellent visibility. It was just the type of plane the Soviets were looking for. They couldn't get enough of the thing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> 102first_hussars said:
> 
> 
> > "Helldiver!" What a great name! But what a lousy airplane!
> ...





Parmigiano said:


> Well, there should be a reason why the SB2C Helldiver was nicknamed 'Son of a Bitch 2nd Class'
> However she was able to take off climb and land, so it was maybe 'amongst the worst' but not the absolute worst.



I knew a Helldiver Pilot - he said the same - Cmdr. Bill Chin told me that besides the maintenance issues, it was a matter of training. Bill stated that the Helldiver was a heavy aircraft to fly but once learned was found to be sturdy and relianble. He also said it was easier to land on a carrier than a Corsair...



Nonskimmer said:


> 102first_hussars said:
> 
> 
> > The Nerd said:
> ...



If the P-39 was so bad, why did the men of the 39FS, 5th AF achieve about a 1.5 to 1 kill ratio over the Japanese over Rabual with the P-39? Many notable P-38 aces got their first kills in the -39 and if you look at statistics the -39 really didn't do as bad as people may think in the Pacific.

Check Yeager said it was the best WW2 fighter he's flown!!!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 20, 2006)

Did I mention the success it had in the Pacific? 
Good stuff, Joe.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 20, 2006)

Agreed, Joe. I saw a program the other night on the military channel about Russian aviation during the great patriotic war and they said the P-39 worked well for the Russians because they typically flew it below 12,000 feet and the 37MM cannon was great fo ground attack.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 20, 2006)

Not only ground attack, but they found it to be an excellent air superiority fighter too.

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/soviet_p39_airacobra.html


----------



## evangilder (Jan 20, 2006)

Yup.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Agreed, Joe. I saw a program the other night on the military channel about Russian aviation during the great patriotic war and they said the P-39 worked well for the Russians because they typically flew it below 12,000 feet and the 37MM cannon was great fo ground attack.



I think several things doomed the P-39 as being a bad airplane. First it was actually an unstable aircraft, it was actually designed that way as a fighter. When used in the ground support role, I believe the pilots flew it cautiously. It was when the better pilots (Tommy Lynch and Buzz Wagner) got their hands on it is when its true potential as a fighter became evident, but by then the P-38 was arriving in the Pacific. Also I think it was a matter of tactics - If I'm not mistaken I believe the USAAF were still flying 3 ship flights similar to the RAF at the beginning of the BoB. From what I understand this gave little room for maneuvering as the two wing men were tight with their leader. When the 4 man, 2 element flight was introduced, this gave a better tactical plan and enabled each aircraft more flexibility.

If anyone has any information on this, please post it, this is from memory, many dead brain cells ago!!!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 20, 2006)

I've read that Russian pilots found the Airacobras to be very stable in flight. I suppose it was all related to experience. Maybe it was based on a comparison to earlier VVS fighters?


----------



## evangilder (Jan 20, 2006)

Compared to the I-16, it probably was a dream to fly!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Compared to the I-16, it probably was a dream to fly!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 20, 2006)

Heh. No doubt, if what you and Eric (the other one  ) say is true about the I-16.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 20, 2006)

I have heard it said by pilots that have flown the I-16 that if you could fly it, you could fly anything.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2006)

evangilder said:


> I have heard it said by pilots that have flown the I-16 that if you could fly it, you could fly anything.



Yep!! I heard landings were almost suicidal. I guess the thing really liked to snake and if you added power low and slow there wasn't enough rudder to offset torque effect....

Maybe when some of the guys from the museum start flying the museum's I-16 they could confirm this...


----------



## evangilder (Jan 20, 2006)

Eric said that Varter has been flying it. I should have a chat with him about it. He knows how to tell a story too. He told a story about flying the Martlett around Toronto and how the tower guys wanted to see it, so they diverted all the traffic from Toronto Int'l Airport so that he could do some tower flybys for them. When he told that story at the airshow, my sides hurt from laughing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Eric said that Varter has been flying it. I should have a chat with him about it. He knows how to tell a story too. He told a story about flying the Martlett around Toronto and how the tower guys wanted to see it, so they diverted all the traffic from Toronto Int'l Airport so that he could do some tower flybys for them. When he told that story at the airshow, my sides hurt from laughing.



That's great!!!  Edwards did that to us when I flew one of my FCF flights in BAEs' F-4s. It was several years since the F-4 left Edwards; some Colonel in the tower heard us coming in for a touch and go, he asked if we could do a few low approaches - they had a B-1 and 2 F-16 hold over Rogers Lake as we did our little airshow!!!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 20, 2006)

evangilder said:


> I have heard it said by pilots that have flown the I-16 that if you could fly it, you could fly anything.



Ive heard a few geezers say that about the Harvard trainer, but Ive heard mostly good things about the Harvard.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 20, 2006)

I'm sticking with the Botha for this dubious accolade- so bad it didn't go to operational squadrons


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 20, 2006)

Yes it did:

"Deliveries began in May 1940 to No 608 (North Riding) Sqn and others served briefly with No 502 Sqn; No 608 operated the Blackburn Botha until November 1940 but it was seriously underpowered and was then assigned to second-line units, such as No 3 School of General Reconnaissance, No 11 Radio School and other training units until declared obsolete in 1944. A few served as target tugs, with winch gear replacing the dorsal turret."

http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html pages/BLACKBURN B-26 BOTHA I.htm


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 20, 2006)

ok, it saw front-line service for 6 months until it went to training schools, but this was a newly designed airplane, not one that had served prewar like the Battle that had become obselete- this pile of junk was obselete when it reached the front line


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 20, 2006)

That I will agree with, it was a crap aeroplane, but is it as bad as the Breda BA.88...


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 20, 2006)

at the same level i.e. only fit for scrap


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 21, 2006)

I knew a Helldiver Pilot - he said the same - Cmdr. Bill Chin told me that besides the maintenance issues, it was a matter of training. Bill stated that the Helldiver was a heavy aircraft to fly but once learned was found to be sturdy and relianble. He also said it was easier to land on a carrier than a Corsair...



Nonskimmer said:


> 102first_hussars said:
> 
> 
> > I think anything was easier to land a Corsair on a deck.
> ...


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 21, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> That I will agree with, it was a crap aeroplane, but is it as bad as the Breda BA.88...



Hmmmm, back to this plane. I think in the back of our heads this is the lemon of the war.
:{)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 21, 2006)

At least Bothas went for training purposes, Ba-88's were just stripped ofuseful equipment and left as decoys


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 21, 2006)

Ok, you have a point.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> At least Bothas went for training purposes, Ba-88's were just stripped ofuseful equipment and left as decoys



I think based on that the Ba.88 has got to get the title!!!


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 21, 2006)

Gets my vote!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> It did suck but it was not ugly, in fact it was beautiful plane.



I agree.

Based off of what has been said here though, I think the Ba-88 is my worst aircraft.


----------



## The Nerd (Jan 24, 2006)

I personally believe that the aircobra was bad, mabye not the worst, but it was crud.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 24, 2006)

Ho hum.....  

If the P-39 was so bad, why did the men of the 39FS, 5th AF achieve about a 1.5 to 1 kill ratio over the Japanese over Rabual with the P-39? Many notable P-38 aces got their first kills in the -39 and if you look at statistics the -39 really didn't do as bad as people may think in the Pacific.

Crud?!? What are you backing that up with?!? You have squadron history, infomration or statistics?!?

Just as a hint - here's a site for the Tuskeegee airmen, Look at a few P-39 kills...

http://tuskegeeairmen.org/images/stats.pdf

You ever hear of Buzz Wagner?!?

"As soon as partial sight was restored to his injured eye, Wagner led a combat mission flying a P-39. His flight was hit by enemy fighters that shot down four of the P-39s. Before the action ended, four enemy fighters were downed, three of them by Wagner, bringing his victory total to eight."

http://www.afa.org/magazine/valor/0996valor.asp

I haven't even brought up the Russians!  

So much for "Crud."


----------



## The Nerd (Jan 24, 2006)

sorry, but ive read that the plane was junk, thats why we lend-leased it to the Russians and no I


----------



## The Nerd (Jan 24, 2006)

sorry bout that, and I dont have any info about any of that, but I am entitled to my own opinion.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 24, 2006)

You certainly are entitled to an opinion, but when discussing history surely some facts to back up that opinion would serve you well. After all, history is fact and you cannot running around calling the P-39 a poor performer if you have nothing to back that notion up. 

Personally, I would call the P-39 a "less than adequete" fighter. The USAAF had many superior planes to fill it's role such as the P-51, P-47 and P-38. The P-39 was good, but not as good as the premier fighters of World War II.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 24, 2006)

The P-39 was, quite rightly, replaced as soon as possible in the Western Allied air forces. And it was not a performer for the ETO, but there are reasons for this. 

When the XP-39 was rolled out on to the pan and test flown, it was quickly understood as being one of the best fighters in the world for it's day. Heavily armed, extremely fast and quick to altitude. But this centered around it's turbo-supercharger which, to cut a long story short, was deleted because the inlet caused too much drag. A massive mistake, amongst the others such as the increase in fuselage size, reduction in wing-span and reduction in cockpit size. Bell couldn't stop these changes, being in debt and having no political strength to stop anyone doing anything. 

The P-39 itself was a poor performer at altitude, which leads to it's awful reputation in the ETO where high altitude combat was the norm. The RAF dispised the P-39 and many pilots refused to fly it. On the other hand, some RAF pilots did comment that the P-39 could match a Bf-109E in a dogfight below 10,000 feet. And this is what leads to the success of the P-39 in VVS hands; on the Eastern Front combat generally took place below 10,000 feet, in fact most of the time it was below 6,000 feet all the way down to tree top height and this is where the P-39 was in it's element. It was a capable plane at these heights but I would much prefer to be in a Bf-109F or Fw-190A. 

Basically, for the ETO it wasn't suited. 

The P-39 served with the RAF, VVS, Free French and USAAF in the PTO, ETO, MTO and Eastern Front. It's hardly a record of a "crud" fighter.


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 24, 2006)

I fully subscribe PlanD posts about P39


----------



## plan_D (Jan 24, 2006)

To reinforce my post, I quote Bud Anderson a USAAF pilot who flew the P-39 in 1942 before being transferred to the P-51 later in the war. 

_"It was a good-looking airplane. If looks counted for anything, it would have been a great airplane. And the Russians absolutely loved them, and wound up with most of them. Under 15,000 feet, the P-39, called the Airacobra, was a decent if underpowered performer. 
*But the Airacobra was mincemeat above 15,000 feet, and useless in Western Europe, where virtually all of the flying and fighting was at double that altitude. ...* 

But in October of 1942, I was thrilled to be flying it. It was unique, with its engine behind the cockpit, and the propeller drive shaft running between the pilot's legs. It had a tricycle landing gear, unlike anything in our arsenal except the P-38. And the cockpit was more like a car's, with a door instead of a swing-up or sliding canopy, and windows that actually rolled up and down with a crank. You could taxi the thing while resting your elbows on the sill, like cruising the boulevard on a Saturday night."_

And the showing of the P-39 on the Eastern Front proves the true performance of the P-39 was not too bad, if limited:

_"Several of the Red Air Force's ranking aces flew the P-39 for a major portion of their combat sorties. The top ace in the P-39 and number four overall was Guards Major Gregoriy Rechkalov, who shot down 50 of his total 56 kills while flying a P-39. Guards Colonel Aleksandr Pokryshkin, who finished the war as the number two Soviet ace with 59 individual and 6 shared kills, reportedly flew the P-39 for 48 of his kills. Another high scorer in the P-39 was Guards Major Dmitriy Glinka, who destroyed 20 German aircraft in 40 aerial engagements in the summer of 1943, and finished the war with an even 50 kills, 41 of them while flying the P-39. Third-ranked Soviet ace Guards Major Nikolay Gulaev transitioned to the P-39 in early August 1943 with 16 individual and 2 shared kills. He flew his last combat sortie on 14 August 1944 (ordered to attend higher military schooling), leaving the battlefield with an additional 41 individual victories and 1 shared kill after just over one year in his P-39."_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 24, 2006)

Thank you D!!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 24, 2006)

Good work, D! It goes to show that sometimes, reputations of airplanes are unfounded.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 24, 2006)

So Nerd, you're entitled to your opinion, but at the same time, things aren't always what they seem....


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 24, 2006)

I see that myth that the Russians used the P-39 as an a2g ac is still going. Sure it did some but that was not its primary role.

Most Western writers claim that the Russians utilized the P-39 primarily in the ground attack role. Though it was competent in this role, that was not the primary mission of Soviet Airacobra pilots. The priorities of the P-39 flyers (and Soviet fighters in general) were:

Protect ground units from enemy aircraft 
Escort bombers 
Suppress AAA in the area of bombers 
Reconnaissance 
Free hunt 
Attack soft targets (i.e. troops, convoys, supply dumps, railroads, airfields, barges or other small naval craft) 
Protect high-value friendly targets (i.e. bridges, amphibious landing forces, reserves, command and control, major cities, etc). 

http://www.chuckhawks.com/airacobra_iron_dog.htm

The 37mm M4 was not a great a2g weapon.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 24, 2006)

I didn't see anyone state that air to ground was it's primary mission. In fact, the last several posts were talking about air to air kills and aces.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 24, 2006)

I've read if placed in an air-to-air role, the P-400 (export version of the P-39) was a better aircraft. Instead of the 37mm it had a 20mm in the nose.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 24, 2006)

When I was a kid, it was my fav plane because I thought they looked so futuristic. But if memory serves me right the 400 was used in a A2G role by the USAAF especially on the 'Canal. It could make Japanese tanks inot sushi.

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 24, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> When I was a kid, it was my fav plane because I thought they looked so futuristic. But if memory serves me right the 400 was used in a A2G role by the USAAF especially on the 'Canal. It could make Japanese tanks inot sushi.
> 
> :{)



Yep - some AAF guys call them "Klunkers," but others did well with them.

Here's a good P-39/ P-400 site

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2003/05/stuff_eng_profile_p39.htm


----------



## The Nerd (Jan 24, 2006)

well, thanks for setting me strait on that, mow Ill never refer to it as that bad of plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 24, 2006)

The Nerd said:


> well, thanks for setting me strait on that, mow Ill never refer to it as that bad of plane.


 No sweat! Call it a Klunker, but not crud!


----------



## Smokey (Jan 25, 2006)

According to this website:



> The most serious change, however, was the elimination of the turbosupercharger, and its replacement by a single-stage geared supercharger. This change was a result of a shift in philosophy on the part of the USAAC. The USAAC believed that the widths of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans made the USA virtually immune from high-altitude attack by enemy bombers. Therefore, the development of high-altitude interceptors was curtailed in favor of strike fighters optimized for low-level close support. The 1150 hp V-1710-17 (E2) of the XP-39 was replaced by a V-1710-37 (E5) engine rated at an altitude of 13,300 feet. The carburetor air intake was mounted in a dorsal position just behind the cockpit, where it was to remain throughout the Airacobra production run.



http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_1.html

Also this website:

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/XP-39.html

How America's Best Pre-War Single Engine Fighter
Was Ruined By The Air Corps








Bell XP-39





Presumably an XP-39B

http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/les_collections/phototheque/dig_image.cfm?Lang=f&id=24835






http://www.aerofiles.com/_bell.html

Another mid engined fighter of the 1930s:






Koolhoven F.K.55
High performance fighter with many innovations, 1936

http://www.koolhoven.com/history/airplanes/koolhoven/


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 25, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> I see that myth that the Russians used the P-39 as an a2g ac is still going. Sure it did some but that was not its primary role.


Agreed, it was never it's primary role. In fact, the link I posted earlier attempts to dispel that myth as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2006)

This is the way I always looked at the P-39. It was a decent aircraft but she was a step behind the Spitfire, Bf-109, Fw-190 and P-51. Sure at the hands of an experienced pilot she could get the job done. She was deffinatly in my opinion better suited for ground attack than as a fighter. Plus as stated before I would not like to sit on a drive shaft!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 26, 2006)

It's my understanding the myth came from a bad translation. What was translated as "Support of ground forces" was taken to mean direct *close air support* (ground attack) - however that has been updated; in the Russian system "support of ground forces" means to secure air superiority and to halt any enemy air attacks on the ground forces.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 26, 2006)

I think If the P-39 was given a more powerfull engine and better armament it would have had a much better service record in my opinion.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 26, 2006)

P-63...


----------



## Hellbird (Jan 26, 2006)

p-39


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> This is the way I always looked at the P-39. It was a decent aircraft but she was a step behind the Spitfire, Bf-109, Fw-190 and P-51. Sure at the hands of an experienced pilot she could get the job done. She was deffinatly in my opinion better suited for ground attack than as a fighter. Plus as stated before I would not like to sit on a drive shaft!



Agree - I put the P-63 about a half of step behind the Mustang, Later Spitfire Models and early Me-109G models...


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 27, 2006)

I still reckon that the Martin Mariner was one of the worst aircraft of WW2. It earned from the crews that flew it the nickname of the 'Flying Gas Can' for its habit of exploding in mid-air!!! A famous case was that a squadron of fighters went missing in the Bermuda Triangle shortly after the War. A Martin Mariner was sent to find them but a bright explosion was seen- presumeably the Martin Mariner exploding? 
There is also the He-177 Grief on the German side which had a habit of catching fire and burning. Germany's own aircrews nicknamed it the 'Flying Coffin' for goodness sakes. If the aircrews that operate such aircraft give them such uncomplementary nicknames doesn't that put them in the running for the Worst Aircraft of WW2. Don't these aircrews have enough to worry about without wondering whether they are going to be burnt to death or blown up by faults in the aircraft? These two are worthy nominations for Worst Aircraft of WW2. They may have done the job, but they certainly wouldn't have done anything for the aircrews' peace of mind.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> I still reckon that the Martin Mariner was one of the worst aircraft of WW2. It earned from the crews that flew it the nickname of the 'Flying Gas Can' for its habit of exploding in mid-air!!! A famous case was that a squadron of fighters went missing in the Bermuda Triangle shortly after the War. A Martin Mariner was sent to find them but a bright explosion was seen- presumeably the Martin Mariner exploding?


Now that I disagree with!!! I knew many "ole timers" who flew the Mariner During and after WW2. Not the most endearing patrol plane in the world, the "Pig Boat" served faithfully until Viet Nam in its later version, the Marlin. I don't know where you heard of it being a flying gas can, but I could tell you many of the crews I met actually preferred the Mariner/ Marlin over the P-2...

As far as the Bermuda Triangle story, it was never substantiated what happened to any of the aircraft lost that day including the Mariner.

The Mariner provided much of the ASW work during the Korean War and I even heard stories of several sinking submarines during the clandestine post Korean War period...

There were close to 1800 Mariners built from the PBM-1 through the much Improved PBM-5 and finally the P5M-1 Marlin which was retired from USN service in 1968 and was the US Navy's last seaplane.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

I actually just saw a documentary on that mission over the Bemuda Triangle, and they beleive that the lead planes navigational equipment was faulty and even though the rest of the flight told him so, the "experienced" pilot he was, would not listen to the trainees. They ran out of gas and crashed in bad weather.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

I worked with several people who flew Mariners during WW2 and into the Korean War. The earlier -3s were a bit underpowered. It was the -5 that was the real improvement and the Marlin was probably the zenith of ASW flying boats until the Japanese deployed their Shin Meiwa PS-1 which was actually based on the Mariner/ Marlin. HealzDevo, I'd like to see where you got this story that the Mariner was a flying gas can, be rest assured if it was the VP community would of seen that it was immediately withdrawn...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

I never said it was flying gas can. I actually like the plane, even though I believe he is correct that one did not return when it was sent out to find the missing pilots from the "Ghost Squadron" in the Bermuda Traingle.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I never said it was flying gas can. I actually like the plane, even though I believe he is correct that one did not return when it was sent out to find the missing pilots from the "Ghost Squadron" in the Bermuda Traingle.



Oh I know Adler, I was refering to HealzDevo....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

OOOps I misunderstood then. Sorry


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

No sweat!


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 28, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > I never said it was flying gas can. I actually like the plane, even though I believe he is correct that one did not return when it was sent out to find the missing pilots from the "Ghost Squadron" in the Bermuda Traingle.
> ...



I've heard the 'Flying Gas Can' and the explosion explanation for a number of unexplained Mariner losses. I also heard that story about the rescue attempt of the avengers and this is what they attributed the loss of the Mariner to. I don't know if some earlier planes had problems or just crap like so much of the P-38 stuff is.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> ...



*just crap like so much of the P-38 stuff is.*


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2006)

so you're saying the P-38 had no problems and that all the most commonly stated problems are just lies?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> so you're saying the P-38 had no problems and that all the most commonly stated problems are just lies?



No, but there were a lot of exaggerations of the P-38's shortcomings, especially in the ETO...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2006)

The only real problem I could think of for the P-38 in the ETO would be the poor cockpit heating. BRRRRRR it would be cold this time of year!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2006)

It was a truely remarkable plane, but not without it's problems as we all know. I think the people from either side (the supporters, and critics) are going over the top with the P-38. One side says it's the unbelievable, could do anything and beat anyone fighter ... while the other side says it's a waste of time. 


The P-38 was an effective, long-range fighter with the capability to dogfight anything in the sky with an experienced and well trained pilot inside. It was a versatile and could perform most tasks better than others. But it could not carry the war on it's own back. It did have various problems. It wasn't an aircraft for the rookies, it was hard to learn. And there were better dogfighters in the sky.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2006)

Ill agree with that.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 29, 2006)

So will I. It can't be that bad if the top American ace of the war flew one in the Pacific...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2006)

Jesus Villamor, the first filipino ace flew a P-26, does that make them great too? 

see, i do pay attention in the other threads


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 29, 2006)

Great for its time. Not by '41. Its the same for the P-38 or the Lanc, is it great today, no. But back in its day they were hi-tech. Even the P-26 is great today as a piece of history not a front line plane.

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

plan_D said:


> It was a truely remarkable plane, but not without it's problems as we all know. I think the people from either side (the supporters, and critics) are going over the top with the P-38. One side says it's the unbelievable, could do anything and beat anyone fighter ... while the other side says it's a waste of time.
> 
> 
> The P-38 was an effective, long-range fighter with the capability to dogfight anything in the sky with an experienced and well trained pilot inside. It was a versatile and could perform most tasks better than others. But it could not carry the war on it's own back. It did have various problems. It wasn't an aircraft for the rookies, it was hard to learn. And there were better dogfighters in the sky.



Perfect!


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 29, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > It was a truely remarkable plane, but not without it's problems as we all know. I think the people from either side (the supporters, and critics) are going over the top with the P-38. One side says it's the unbelievable, could do anything and beat anyone fighter ... while the other side says it's a waste of time.
> ...



I think Plan is very close but It wasn't that hard to fly if you had someone interested in flying it. And yes there were a couple of planes that under some situations were better dogfighters, there weren't many. All planes had their limitations including the P-38, but very few had as wide a range of abilities much less the competency of those various capabilities.

One of the things that is little known about the P-38 was the attitude that some COs had. The CO of the 20th FG (8th AF) hated the P-38 simply because it wasn't a P-40 or single engined. They never operated the P-38 effectively or even tried to develope tactics for it. They didn't like it over 20,000ft where in their words "it was only as good as the German fighters" due to the altitude (the power did drop considerably at altitude in the early P-38 because of the intercooler situation). They still thought it was the best plane under 20,000ft.

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2006)

The P-38 was a hard aircraft to fly simply because of the twin-engine layout. Single engined aircraft are much easier to fly. And it's well known that P-38 trainees had a hard time with the P-38, and even more so the first-time combat drivers were almost always in a difficult position because the P-38 took much more training which the USAAF did not give. 

It's not a case of the people being uninterested in flying the plane - it's a case of Spitfires, Fw-190s, Mustangs, Hurricanes, Bf-109s all being easier planes to be trained in.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

plan_D said:


> The P-38 was a hard aircraft to fly simply because of the twin-engine layout. Single engined aircraft are much easier to fly. And it's well known that P-38 trainees had a hard time with the P-38, and even more so the first-time combat drivers were almost always in a difficult position because the P-38 took much more training which the USAAF did not give.
> 
> It's not a case of the people being uninterested in flying the plane - it's a case of Spitfires, Fw-190s, Mustangs, Hurricanes, Bf-109s all being easier planes to be trained in.



D's hitting the nail on the head, I've rambled about training in multi engine aircraft and practicing engine out procedures - the #1 killer of multi engine pilots.

I've recently learned that when you had an engine out in a P-38 you actually REDUCED power on the good engine, but to the point where you still maintained what is called Vmc, the minimum control airspeed with the critical engine inoperative, or in airplanes with counter rotating propellers, one engine inoperative (OEI). If you maintain an airspeed above Vmc, you should theoretically have enough rudder power to counteract any engine-out yawing and rolling. At the same time, regardless of horsepower, A piston twin with one operative engine doesn't lose half its climb capability — it loses about 80 percent! Too much power on one engine in the P-38 and you torque roll, flip and die, too little power and you don't climb or exceed Vmc, stall and die. 

Now with all this aside, if you have the right pilot trained, he's a formidable opponent riding on a survivability insurance policy...


----------



## evangilder (Jan 30, 2006)

Yep, that is true. I have interviewed a P-38 pilot that said that if he had an engine out in his first 20 hours or so, he probably would not be there talking to me. There was basically no training for the P-38, just a quick orientation while squatting down behind the pilot in the radio area. He went from P-39s to the P-38. After the orientation, they gave him a plane and left him to his own devices.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 30, 2006)

This brings to mind for me the teething problems the B-26 had, the so called Widowmaker. If you did not follow procedure and did not flip the engine management systems that were located behind the Pilot, then yes the plane tended to fall from the sky. It was at one time considered the worse aircraft in the US inventory but once the pilots were well trained it became, arguably, the best medium bomber the US had. I say arguably because I am still a Mitchell fan. Point is that many a great plane started out as a piece of buffalo chip.

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> This brings to mind for me the teething problems the B-26 had, the so called Widowmaker. If you did not follow procedure and did not flip the engine management systems that were located behind the Pilot, then yes the plane tended to fall from the sky. :{)



Engine Management system?!? Explain that one????


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 30, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> CurzonDax said:
> 
> 
> > This brings to mind for me the teething problems the B-26 had, the so called Widowmaker. If you did not follow procedure and did not flip the engine management systems that were located behind the Pilot, then yes the plane tended to fall from the sky. :{)
> ...



Sorry my techno-speak got ahead of the technology. If I remember, and I have been thinking about this on and off all day, some of the swtiches that controlled the engines were located on a panel behind the pilot. In the beginning of the B-26's deployment many pilots because of poor training would forget about this panel, take off, the engines would freak out and earth and plane would collide. Therefore it was called the widowmaker because pilots thought it was unflyable and a danger. But Jimmy Doolittle proved, with training, that it was a fantasitic aircraft. In fact during a demonstration he even buzzed the field on one engine!

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > CurzonDax said:
> ...



The only thing behind the pilot in a B-26 are fuel transfer valves and some hydraulic controls. The FE would deal with those in the event of an emergency. Everything pertaining to the engine is on the front pedestal. I circled the photo to show where the engine controls are including ignition stitches for starting. Its this way on just about every American plane I've ever run across!

Below is a site that actually goes into a B-26 flight.


http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/B-26.html


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 30, 2006)

Why is the picture called "B-24 cockpit" when it clearly says "Martin B-26 Marauder" on the picture... 

Good pic all the same.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 30, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> Why is the picture called "B-24 cockpit" when it clearly says "Martin B-26 Marauder" on the picture...
> 
> Good pic all the same.



There are also only engine control levers for two engines.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> Why is the picture called "B-24 cockpit" when it clearly says "Martin B-26 Marauder" on the picture...
> 
> Good pic all the same.


My error


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 31, 2006)

I stand corrected plus I went back and read Dolittle's account on this and I was mistaken about what the controls were. But still my point is the same, in the beginning of the B-26's deployment, many pilots would forget about this panel and crash thier planes. Because of this the plane was considered "bad". 

:{)


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2006)

It didn't have anything to do with where the controls were. The main problem with the B-26 was training. Pilots were not used to the high landing speed and wing loading of the airplane. This led to accidents that could have been avoided with proper training.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> I stand corrected plus I went back and read Dolittle's account on this and I was mistaken about what the controls were. But still my point is the same, in the beginning of the B-26's deployment, many pilots would forget about this panel and crash thier planes. Because of this the plane was considered "bad".
> 
> :{)



I don't know what panel you're talking about - there are no engine controls behind the pilot on the B-26 or any medium bomber. The B-29 had dedicated flight engineers station but all engine contorls on light and medium WW2 bombers are on the center pedistal, this includes starting, magneto, mixture and thottle. The B-26 had electic propellers and there was a feathering button in the overhead, again typical of 90% of WW2 designs. Behind the pilot are usually circuit breakers to be pulled in case of an emergency.

The B-26 had a high accident rate becuase there was not a lot of twin engine training, and the B-26 landed very fast. Once training was improved and simple things were corrected (like using a check list) thngs got a whole lot better...


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 31, 2006)

Like I said training. I have also read that the positioning of these controls was also a contributing factor. I mean its a horrible place to place to put fuel transfer valves and hydraulic controls. 

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> Like I said training. I have also read that the positioning of these controls was also a contributing factor. I mean its a horrible place to place to put fuel transfer valves and hydraulic controls.
> 
> :{)



Actually its not - you use those in case of emergency and usually the Flight engineer is the one who uses them on command from the pilot and again all US medium and light bombers are set up that way. Even today many light twin engine aircraft are set up the same way. Transfering fuel is something to be done in cruise using a checklist. If you look at that training video some of the valves are safety wired with break away wire so the only time you use them is in case of emergency. For its day the B-26 was a complicated aircraft and many pilots were first taught to memorize things instead of using a checklist. Those who tried to "wing it" usually wound up dead...


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 31, 2006)

Maybe thats is what I am thinking of. I stand corrected then. Lesson to all, don't rely on memory from material you have read a zillion years ago and are away from your sources. Thank you for setting me straight. 

But again my point is the same, at first the B-26 was thought to be a horrible aircraft and pilots did not want to fly them. My whole argument is that there were aircraft that started out as "the worst" and ended up being the best with training and/or modification.

:{)


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 31, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> CurzonDax said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said training. I have also read that the positioning of these controls was also a contributing factor. I mean its a horrible place to place to put fuel transfer valves and hydraulic controls.
> ...



Yeh I just read a book where some pilots loved them and called them the best planes in WW2 and some pilots hated them, called them death traps.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 31, 2006)

Oh by the way, the B-26 website that you suggested is blocked by my school system because its considered:

a: Adult Oriented material
b. Racist or Hate Oriented material
c. Illegal Material
d. School Cheating material

Its just so future B-26 pilots in my school can't cheat on thier solos so when they fly against the "damned Nazis/Japs/Abortion Clinics/Republicans/Democrats/Napster/Kazaa Lite Ressurction". An then they wonder why Johnny can't learn. I am sure it was a kick-ass site.

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> Oh by the way, the B-26 website that you suggested is blocked by my school system because its considered:
> 
> a: Adult Oriented material
> b. Racist or Hate Oriented material
> ...



Oh that's hilarous!!! I logged on yesterday, it has a B-26 trining film!! I'm at an airbase and it let me in with no problem...


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 31, 2006)

Believe it or not many aircraft sites are blocked including the PBS 100 Years of Flight documentary site. Also I am teaching western expansion and I wanted to know what the settlers carried in thier wagons. Several sites even in this subject were blocked. 

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> Believe it or not many aircraft sites are blocked including the PBS 100 Years of Flight documentary site. Also I am teaching western expansion and I wanted to know what the settlers carried in thier wagons. Several sites even in this subject were blocked.
> 
> :{)



Incredible!!!


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 31, 2006)

Welcome to modern teaching.

:{)


----------



## Guns!Guns!Guns! (Feb 2, 2006)

Anyone yet consider the BoultonPaul Defiant amongst the lousiest ideas ever? I mean this thing was supposed to be a FIGHTER. I can just hear the prospective aircrews now, "Right, I'm supposed to let him get on my six, then my gunner is supposed to splash him withthese little peashooters, without popping my own tail off, all the while he is shooting me with large caliber weapons....RIGHT! Now why didn't I think of that!"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 2, 2006)

Guns!Guns!Guns! said:


> Anyone yet consider the BoultonPaul Defiant amongst the lousiest ideas ever? I mean this thing was supposed to be a FIGHTER. I can just hear the prospective aircrews now, "Right, I'm supposed to let him get on my six, then my gunner is supposed to splash him withthese little peashooters, without popping my own tail off, all the while he is shooting me with large caliber weapons....RIGHT! Now why didn't I think of that!"



Nope...

Welcome!


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 3, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> Jesus Villamor, the first filipino ace flew a P-26, does that make them great too?
> 
> see, i do pay attention in the other threads



the P-26 is just strange, CurzonDax said that he had balls of steel thats why he can fly the plane right? so u fly the p-26 with ur balls


jk i suck


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 5, 2006)

Believe it or not this site is blocked by the Army at the airfield I work at.


----------



## Twitch (Feb 5, 2006)

I vote for the Brewster Buffalo as worst. I can't get over Saburo Sakai's view of how bad this plane was. A close 2nd is the Me 110 as a day fighter. During Battle of Britain they, as bomber escorts, needed 109s to escort them! The fact that Allied pilots called them "meat on the table" for easy kills means something too. Only at night were they able to perform.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 5, 2006)

Actually the F2A got a worse rap than it deserved. In the battles where it did poorly (Midway and Singapore) the pilots who flew her were poorly trained and had no combat experience. Remember at Midway there were F4Fs mauled a well. The caliber of the Marine pilots were not as good as the pilots found aboard the US Carriers at Midway, in addition the Navy pilots had some combat experience (Coral Sea) and developed tactics. The Finns as we know did very well with the "Sky Pearl" and was even planning on building their own version. Finnish pilots kept their combat situations at low level and basically mauled the Russians. Some Finn pilots even preferred the Buffalo over the ME-109!!!

The Finns with their Buffalos had the highest kill/ loss rate of the war!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 5, 2006)

I happen to be looking at this site last night, it took me a while to find it again...

"The Brewster F2A Buffalo, a minor combatant in World War II, has a very checkered reputation. The story of the Buffalo is indeed a story of contradictions. On the one hand, it was derided as a death trap by the US Marines and, on the other, so beloved by the Finns that they attempted to continue the development of the Buffalo. Purpose-designed as a carrier-based fighter, the Buffalo only flew into action off dirt and grass. Built by the Allies, it saw most of its action by an ally of Germany. In the US and Britain, it has been considered one of the worst fighters of World War II, but in Finnish hands, continued to outperform more modern Soviet aircraft. Truly contradictions! What, then, was the true character of the Buffalo?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Buffalo was designed in response to the US Navy's call for a replacement for the F3F Biplane in 1935. The prototype first flew in late 1937, contemporaneous with other monoplane fighters like the Hawker Hurricane, Curtiss Hawk, Fiat G.50, Supermarine Spitfire, and Messerscmitt Bf 109. Like these aircraft it had its share of design flaws, but in the isolationist United States, there was no particular impetus for rapidly improving the design. When war seemed imminent in Europe, the US Government allowed Brewster to turn production to foreign markets - which the Brewster management pursued vigorously to the detriment of the Buffalo's development. The Buffalo performed adequately in foreign hands at least early in the war, but, like most aircraft of its generation, was clearly inferior to later designs. When the United States did come closer to a war footing, the inadequate production facilities, the slow delivery of aircraft, and rather short-sighted new specifications laid on the Buffalo would eventually lead to its doom. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early History 
In late 1939, Finland was suddenly attacked by the Soviet Union, and, desperate for modern aircraft, sought the Brewster aircraft. The Navy had ordered fifty-four aircraft in 1938, but by late 1939 only 11 had actually been delivered. The remaining 43 Buffalos on the production line were allowed to go to Finland. The Finns loved their Buffaloes, and named it the Taivaan Helmi (Sky Pearl). Finnish engineers introduced some minor design modifications that helped as well. Too late to defend Finnish skies against the Soviet invasion during the Winter War of 1939-40, the forty or so Finnish Buffaloes were wildly successful in the early stages of the 'Continuation War' against the Soviets. They never completely lost favor with Finnish pilots, even though they were later supplanted by German Bf 109 variants. Finland was so impressed with the qualities of the Buffalo it attempted to develop its own variant, the Humu (Distant Storm). The Buffalo remained in Finnish service after the armistice with the Soviets, helping to drive the last German pockets from northern Finland, and as a trainer up to 1948. In all, the Finns, while claiming a phenomenal 496 kills, lost only 19 Buffaloes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Buffalo in Finland 
The Buffalo also served with the RAF, the RAAF, the USAAF and the ML-KNIL (the Dutch Air Force in Indonesia), all primarily in Southeast Asia. The Commonwealth and Dutch Buffalos saw a great deal of action in Indonesia and acquitted themselves well against overwhelming odds, the Dutch pilots reportedly achieving a 2:1 kill ratio before surrendering. These Buffalos were all variants that were heavier and slower than the Finnish Buffalos, due to increased armor and fuel. The last surviving Dutch Buffalos ended up in Australia, and, for a brief period, with the USAAF in Australia as base hacks. The Commonwealth air forces had about 150 Buffalos in Southeast Asia and the Dutch had another 72. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffaloes in Southeast Asia 
The only Buffalos in service with the US Navy at the time of Pearl Harbor were the 'Fighting Chiefs' VF-2 on the USS Lexington. They did not see combat before being replaced by Grumman F4's in January of 1942. However, two Marine Corps squadrons remained equipped with the F2A-3 Buffalo. This was by far the heaviest and most sluggish variant, since new USN specifications called for increased armor, fuel, ammunition, and emergency supplies designed to allow the Buffalo to spell the Dauntless as a long-range scout. VMF-221 was on Midway with mixed flights of Wildcats and Buffalos when the Japanese attacked. 13 Buffalos were lost intercepting the Japanese bombers, prompting one official to comment "It is my belief that any commander that orders pilots out for combat in an F2A-3 should consider the pilot as lost before leaving the ground." The remaining Buffaloes in US service were quickly withdrawn from front-line service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffalos in the Pacific 
Why did the Buffalo have such a bad reputation? Certainly in the hands of the Finns it had the best kill ratio of any fighter in World War II. Even in Dutch and British hands, it was at least competitive against the Imperial Japanese Army fighters. Why were American losses so high?
The first reason is pilot skill. The Finns were largely combat experienced veterans able to make the most out of their aircraft. Even the Dutch pilots flying the Buffalo were reasonably well trained and familiar with the Buffalo by the time combat arrived. The Commonwealth and American aircrews, on the other hand, were largely inexperienced and inadequately trained. Most of the trained Commonwealth pilots were needed on other fronts, and the Americans were only beginning to mobilize and train for combat after Pearl Harbor. The Marine pilots on Midway were certainly inexperienced; at least a third still hadn't had operational training on the Buffalo while the Zero pilots who shot them down were all combat-hardened veterans. 

The second reason is technical. A 950-hp engine with a weight around 5,000 lb. powered the Finnish Buffalos. Low altitude performance was excellent, especially after Finnish engineers tinkered with the engine. The RAF and RAAF Buffalos had a 1,100 hp engine (often rebuilt commercial engines which were, in fact, derated to below 1,000 hp) powering a variant over a thousand pounds heavier! Furthermore, these refurbished engines did not have pressurized fuel lines which severely affected performance above 18,000 feet. The Marine Buffalos at Midway were the heaviest variant of all over 6500 lb., loaded up with a maximum speed of only 321 mph and a very sluggish climb. 

The third reason for the Buffalos successes and failures was tactical. The Finnish Buffalos were primarily used at low altitude against Russian aircraft that were technologically equivalent. By the time the Soviets were throwing more advanced aircraft at the Finns, skilled pilots were needed against the Germans, and the Finns continued to benefit from a definite skill advantage. The Dutch and Commonwealth Buffalos were, at least initially, pitted against Imperial Japanese Army fighters not dramatically superior. Later, however, the Buffalo ran up against the phenomenal Imperial Japanese Navy A6M Zero, which would have outclassed any fighter the allies could have sent up against it anyway. The Buffalos at Midway were originally planned to escort a low-level attack on Japanese fleet. Split into two flights, the Marine Buffalos were disadvantaged by altitude, numbers, experience, and strategy as well as technology; the outcome was never in doubt.

As can be seen by its history, the much-maligned Brewster Buffalo really deserves to be reevaluated. It certainly deserves a place in the history books, not only for it being the first American carrier-based monoplane fighter, but also for its stalwart service in Finnish hands, and its heroic actions against impossible odds in Southeast Asia. It should not be relegated to a footnote as "the worst fighter of world war two!"


----------



## plan_D (Feb 5, 2006)

Excellent write-up, a much better defence of the Buffalo than I did of the Airacobra. I would like to add that a plane that shot down seven Spitfire Vs, in a dogfight, cannot be considered World War IIs worst fighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 5, 2006)

Thanks D - a Buffalo shot down 7 Spits?!?!?


----------



## evangilder (Feb 5, 2006)

Nice work, Joe! I actually kind of liked the buffalo before I knoew much about it. It always made me think of the fatter big brother of the Gee Bee racer.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 6, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Thanks D - a Buffalo shot down 7 Spits?!?!?


wth?
so probably a finnish guy flew that, and how many buffaloes were against how many spits?


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 6, 2006)

Excellent write up on a very much maligned and relatively ignored aircraft. Also even the immortal Spitfire can have a bad day.

:{)


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 6, 2006)

Yes it can, good write up FBJ.


----------



## Twitch (Feb 6, 2006)

In my opinion only, I'd LOVE to be up against a Buffalo in a Zero!


----------



## plan_D (Feb 6, 2006)

Not a single one, but seven Spitfire Vs were lost to Buffalos of the Finnish Air Force.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2006)

Twitch said:


> In my opinion only, I'd LOVE to be up against a Buffalo in a Zero!



As shown in some earlier posts, if the Buffalo kept the fight up at high speeds it might have a chance!!!


----------



## plan_D (Feb 8, 2006)

Y'know what's funny, Joe ... ? You put the Buffalo up for the vote of worst plane of World War II on Pg.8 of this thread! See ... you must have learnt something while on this site.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Y'know what's funny, Joe ... ? You put the Buffalo up for the vote of worst plane of World War II on Pg.8 of this thread! See ... you must have learnt something while on this site.



Yep! Seen the light!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

Funny how that works huh?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2006)

YEP!!


----------



## V-1710 (Feb 19, 2006)

Speaking of Brewster's, how about the Buccaneer?


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Mar 2, 2006)

...I've been thinking and thinking. So many come to mind, so many are French, or Polish... but I'm leaning towards the Polish aircraft in whole. I think the 'Hawk' was the best aircraft in the French 'fighter' inventory; as for the Poles there are those 'PZLs'... Those poor souls in 11s, 24s... OK there were a few possible exceptions PZL P-50, maybe, Dewoitine D.520, maybe... Why maybe? They were 'dead end' designs. They may have been barley the equivalent of their fielded adversaries, but they both seem not to offer any design growth.


----------



## GregP (Mar 5, 2006)

I vote for the L.W.S. Zubr. It was designed with underpowered engines, and then proper engines were installed, all without beefing up the airframe. As a result, the Zubr had an operational life of ONE mission! After that, teh Polish Air Force used it as an airfield decoy!

Just think, maybe it could have been flown somewhere by unknowing crewsadn then was found to unairworthy, stranding the crews wherever they happend to be at the time! Maybe that's why the Polish air force was overrun so easily!


----------



## blue swede (Mar 7, 2006)

I have to agree with an earlier posting, that the worst aircraft would be the Me163 Komet. Maybe it belongs in a new aircraft grouping, "Desperation Aircraft". The Japanese would have some aircraft to contribute.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 7, 2006)

GregP said:


> I vote for the L.W.S. Zubr. It was designed with underpowered engines, and then proper engines were installed, all without beefing up the airframe. As a result, the Zubr had an operational life of ONE mission! After that, teh Polish Air Force used it as an airfield decoy!
> 
> Just think, maybe it could have been flown somewhere by unknowing crewsadn then was found to unairworthy, stranding the crews wherever they happend to be at the time! Maybe that's why the Polish air force was overrun so easily!



I think with this suggestion we have a viable compititor to the Ba-88...more stats and info?


----------



## MikeNZ (Mar 7, 2006)

I've just come to this board have read this entire thread - fascinating!! 

Can I suggest some rules?

1/ The a/c must have seen active service, not been immediately relegated to training/target/transport duties
2/ the a/c must not have had a development that went on to be successful (eg Manchester -> Lancaster, Me-210 (surprised no-one mentioned it) -->Me-410)
3/ Obsolescence is not sufficient reason (so Battle TBD are out)

Seems the top contender is the Breda 88 hands down.

I'd like to suggest another contender - I don't think it is in the same class as the Breda, but the Short Stirling was not a sparkling success!

the 1st of the British 4-engined heavies it was designed with a short wingspan to fit into existing hangers, and carried all the shortcomings of that decision with it for its like. It had limited ceiling, limited load carrying capacity, and although manouvreable for a 4-engined bomber this wasn't enough to help it much!

Other marginal WW2 designs include the P43 Lancer - predecessor of the P-47 it served in small numbers in China to no great note, as did the P-66 Vanguard - rejected by the RAF although apparently liked by USAAF pilots who flew the type while it was defending the West Coast of the USA in 1941-1942!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 8, 2006)

i think everyone's trying to go for aircraft that saw active service, but i believe obsolesance is a reason fer it being bad, just because it's out of date that doesn't stop it being an appauling aircraft! and the stirling wasn't nearly as bad as some of the other aircraft suggested, interestingly though in the same way they restricted her wingspan to less than 100ft in order to get her into the hangars, she was also known as the packing crate bomber because some her her fusilage sections had to be able to fit into a standard RAF aircraft packing crate........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2006)

I agree with Mike, Obsolescence alone is not a good enough reason...the CR.2 was obsolete, but had WW2 been 4 or 5 years earlier it would have been one of the very best fighters...(Even though it was designed in 1938...forget I said that  )

There is bad by the standards of the day and then there is just bad. The Fairey Battle was outdated, and very poor for use in World War 2...The Ba-88 was just a horrifically poor aircraft, and is bad at any time.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2006)

but the battle, when used in WWII, was a bad aircraft, it'd be amazing in WWI, but against it's contemparies it sucked, how good something is is judged by other planes of the day.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 10, 2006)

The Ba.88 would be bad even in WW1. A plane that struggles to even take off is a bad airplane.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 11, 2006)

the Bloch MB150 (or is it 151) sucked so much it wouldnt take off


----------



## plan_D (Mar 11, 2006)

That was the prototype that failed to take off. It produced the MB.152 which was very heavily armed for 1940 !


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2006)

For someone on this thread here:

The He-177 was the worst aircraft of WW2.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 17, 2006)

but it had great potential


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 17, 2006)

Nope, still the Brewster Buffalo for me. Not only a lousy fighter but ugly to boot.

Kiwimac


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 18, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> but it had great potential


Maybe but it was still crap.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 18, 2006)

blame Goering or some RLM guy


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2006)

Yes it had potential but they went about building it the wrong way, and it never should have been attempted for dive bombing or tank busting duties.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 24, 2006)

at least better than putting a 50mm cannon in the worlds 1st operational jet fighter


----------



## plan_D (Mar 24, 2006)

Brewster Buffalo ? Are we talking about the same plane that had the highest kill ratio of the war here, Kiwimac ?


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 25, 2006)

The Buffalo?

THOSE facts I'd like to see. The Buffalo was obsolete by the start of WW2.

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 25, 2006)

In the hands of the Finns, the Buffalo (B-239) had the highest kill ratio of the war...496 planes shot down for 19 losses - a 26:1 kill ratio...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 25, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> In the hands of the Finns, the Buffalo (B-239) had the highest kill ratio of the war...496 planes shot down for 19 lossed - a 26:1 kill ratio...



Yep, the ones flown by the US Marines were the heaviest of the bunch and had the worse climb performance, but basically it was the same aircraft operated by the Finns...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 25, 2006)

That is a very impressive kill Ratio. WOW!


----------



## Dogwalker (Mar 25, 2006)

Not to forget that the Finns gained a similar kill ratio even operating whit the puny G-50, that even his creator Gabrielli described as "a machine substancially too big for it's engine".
It depends of the pilots.


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 26, 2006)

Ah, so the only thing saving the Buffalo from being a complete waste of metal were the Finns?

Seems fair somehow.

Kiwimac


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 26, 2006)

kiwimac said:


> Ah, so the only thing saving the Buffalo from being a complete waste of metal were the Finns?
> 
> Seems fair somehow.
> 
> Kiwimac



Yep! I guess it did well as a trainer...Probably a good role for it!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 26, 2006)

kiwimac said:


> Ah, so the only thing saving the Buffalo from being a complete waste of metal were the Finns?
> 
> Seems fair somehow.
> 
> Kiwimac



LOL


----------



## SpitTrop (Mar 27, 2006)

Brewster - I'd say that apart from the Finns, who used it against a VERY WEAK Red airforce, using obsolete biplanes like the I-153 in 1939-40, the Buffalo was not a particular success in its appointed role as a fighter in WW2. Just ask those poor RAF and USMC pilots who had to take on Oscars and Zero's!
There are others, the Fairey Battle and the TBD were both swatted from the sky with ease, yet both were modern designs when they were first conceived, and both should have had better fighter support, so I think its unfair to include them. The Ju-87 was just as easily shot-down, but that doesn't make it a failure.
When it comes down to it, it really depends on the situation that the warplane is used in I guess.
The Blackburn Botha is an odd one to choose as it was very much a prewar aircraft! At least I don't recall reading anything about them in combat in WW2 anyways!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

I personally like to think of either the the MS.405 or the P.11 as the worst aircraft. The MS.405 was a good solid fighter when it came out but was outclassed by the wars begin and that is why over 400 of them were shot down to only 175 enemy kills. The P.11 was outdated before the war even started, but I give it up to the Polish pilots who flew the P.11 against the Germans. They new they were outclassed and they bravely flew against them during the battle for Poland.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 28, 2006)

The P.11 cant be considered bad as for what it was it was quite good and extremely manoeverable...

This is why I dont think an aircraft can be bad for being simply outdated...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2006)

SpitTrop said:


> Brewster - I'd say that apart from the Finns, who used it against a VERY WEAK Red airforce, using obsolete biplanes like the I-153 in 1939-40, the Buffalo was not a particular success in its appointed role as a fighter in WW2. Just ask those poor RAF and USMC pilots who had to take on Oscars and Zero's!



This very very weak Red Air Force outnumbered the Finns like 6 to 1, despite the obsolete aircraft they used they should of pounded the Finns in days and the Soviet aircraft contingency did not consist solely of I-153s - in fact the I-153 was one of the best bi-plane fighters of its day.....

The Finns fought well and figured out how to get the best from their Buffaloes -


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2006)

> This is why I dont think an aircraft can be bad for being simply outdated...



i see what you mean but the question asks for the worst aircraft of WWII, and in the context of WWII, aircraft like the battle a Ba-88, whilst good when they first came out, were rubbish in WWII.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 28, 2006)

But the Ba-88 was only good in its original record breaking form, the military aircraft was totally different and couldnt really fly 

Ba-88 is still the worst.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> The P.11 cant be considered bad as for what it was it was quite good and extremely manoeverable...
> 
> This is why I dont think an aircraft can be bad for being simply outdated...



I understand that, but compared to what the Germans through against it ie. Bf-109 it did not stand a chance and after that it practically did not exist anymore.


----------



## Dogwalker (Mar 28, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> But the Ba-88 was only good in its original record breaking form, the military aircraft was totally different and couldnt really fly


It's not completely true.
the Ba-88 was used to bomb Corsica, and ended it's life as dive-bomber trainer. 
Only in North Africa, where the sand filters lowered the power of the engines and the external bomb raks enanched the drag, the Ba-88 proved to be useless, and 28 of them were finally used as decoy.

It's however a good candidate for the title of the "less economical efficient airplane", since it was even expensive to build, decisely too much for a trainer.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 29, 2006)

I forgot the fact that it was only the North African ones...Its still pretty shoddy though.

From what ive read it also seems the the Ba-65 was a poor aircraft too.


----------



## Dogwalker (Mar 29, 2006)

Definitely, and essencially for the same reason, the particular structure studied by the designers Giuseppe Panzeri and Antonio Parano.


----------



## book1182 (Mar 30, 2006)

Does anyone have any pictures of the Ba-88 or 65? I don't think I have ever seen one of these aircraft before.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 30, 2006)

Ba-65





History/Specs: http://www.comandosupremo.com/Bredaba65.html

Ba-88




History/Specs:http://www.comandosupremo.com/Bredaba88.html

All sources on right click.


----------



## Dogwalker (Mar 30, 2006)

Oh, I'm late. But I want to post some more.

The Ba-88, heavvy fighter, light bomber.





The real ancestor of Ba-88, the recognitor Ba-75.




images out of copyright

the Ba-65 was an assault aircraft, proposed in two versions, with or without the gunner




www.airwar.ru


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 4, 2006)

The F2A buffalo was good in the hands of experienced finnish pilots who went up against rookie russian pilots in inferior planes. I would rate the buffalo as the worst fighter in the pacific, since the A6M2 Zero could fly circles around it and blow it out of the sky.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 6, 2006)

dude, they were probably still fighting when the La-5s came into service, and the Finnish version was better cause it was lighter, more maneuverable and had a better power-to-weight ratio


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 6, 2006)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> The F2A buffalo was good in the hands of experienced finnish pilots who went up against rookie russian pilots in inferior planes. I would rate the buffalo as the worst fighter in the pacific, since the A6M2 Zero could fly circles around it and blow it out of the sky.


 Rookie? How much combat experience do you think the Finns had?!?! "0"!!!! 

Training, training, training - the Finns were better trained but had NO combat experience, unlike the Soviets.....


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 6, 2006)

okay, so if the soviets had combat experience, how come some the top Finnish pilots with no pre-combat experience stave off a airforce bigger than its own?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 6, 2006)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> okay, so if the soviets had combat experience, how come some the top Finnish pilots with no pre-combat experience stave off a airforce bigger than its own?


 They were better trained and basically they fought for their very existence - its amazing what a little incentive will do!!

Here's a good site about the Finns and their WW2 participation:

http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/war/finland/summary.html


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 7, 2006)

they don't use big formation tactics, if they encounter a huge formation theirs is like so far apart, and the Finns also had experience with their D.XXIs from the winter war, before they got their Buffaloes


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 7, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> they don't use big formation tactics, if they encounter a huge formation theirs is like so far apart, and the Finns also had experience with their D.XXIs from the winter war, before they got their Buffaloes


 They arrived too late in the winter war but that's when most of the "Russian Mauling" took place. 

Bottom line the Finns fought better and were better trained - it was a level playing field and the Finns made the best of it. If anything the Russians should of gotten better and mauled the Buffalo during the Constitution War if the aircraft was truly that bad.....


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 7, 2006)

what really was the primary fighter of the Finnish during the continuation war? Buffalo? Fokker? 109?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 8, 2006)

I would say the 109 - since it was the only aircraft where a spares and support system was available....


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 10, 2006)

Didn't they fly the P-36 Hawk as well?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 10, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> Didn't they fly the P-36 Hawk as well?


 Yes, they had 44 of them they purchased from Germany. These were captured after the fall of France.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 11, 2006)

I just read that website by FlyboyJ on the winter war, whoa, whole soviet infantry divisions wiped out.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 11, 2006)

quite an embarrasment to the Ruskies ain't it?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2006)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> I just read that website by FlyboyJ on the winter war, whoa, whole soviet infantry divisions wiped out.


Yep - the Finns were ferocius on the ground and in the air... 


loomaluftwaffe said:


> quite an embarrasment to the Ruskies ain't it?


 Actually fear - after WW2 they limited the Finnish military by treaty. Till today I believe the Russians have a great fear of fighting the Finns...

Although the Finns have always professed their neutrality, unlike other European neutrals (Switzerland, Sweden) these guys put their money where their mouths were!!!


----------



## blue swede (Apr 14, 2006)

A lot of Finnish soldiers were able to flee into Sweden for refuge from the Soviets. The Soviets stopped at the Swedish border.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 9, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep - the Finns were ferocius on the ground and in the air...
> Actually fear - after WW2 they limited the Finnish military by treaty. Till today I believe the Russians have a great fear of fighting the Finns...
> 
> Although the Finns have always professed their neutrality, unlike other European neutrals (Switzerland, Sweden) these guys put their money where their mouths were!!!



I think almost 1 million Russians wounded, killed, or missing in action were all do to Finland. Those guys were tough!


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 9, 2006)

I agree. The Buff did wonders.


----------



## Allison Johnson (Aug 22, 2006)

mosquitoman said:


> That's why I think the Botha is the worst, it never even saw combat


Saro Lerwick was a bit of a pig too.

Ali


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 23, 2006)

a bad plane that doesn't enter service will always be better than a bad plane that does enter service, (save for the odd crash) a bad plane that doesn't enter service causes no deaths, a bad plane that does enter service (the battle for example) will cost you hundreds of good men.........


----------



## plan_D (Aug 23, 2006)

The Battle wasn't a bad plane when it entered service. In fact, compared to the Audax and Hart that it was replacing it was quite revolutionary. But then the Blenheim that entered service at the same time with 2 Group was the fastest bomber in the world, and could out-run all RAF interceptors of the day. And this was proven in the Air Defence Great Britain exercises when 11 and 10 Group both could achieve minimal intercepts on 2 Group Blenheims. 

I'm not saying the Battle was a good plane, but the situation it was thrown into with the Advanced Air Striking Force was always going to be costly. The Battle suffered heavy losses because of German efficiency in setting up effective AA batteries along the whole course of their advance in France. The Ju 87 in the exact same situation would have been slaughtered in equal measure.


----------



## Allison Johnson (Aug 24, 2006)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAIIY5SjDGI_

Espcially like the music.


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 24, 2006)

Just goes to prove there are more planes under the water than submarines in the sky.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 24, 2006)

Nice clip!


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 24, 2006)

Nice clip, I tried to dive a Blenheim when I was in Malta however, it was a decompression dive and I haven't done enough to allow me to do it...


----------



## R Pope (Oct 26, 2006)

From what I've read of the Battle, it was a pretty good airplane, nice to fly with no bad habits. It just wasn't a very good warplane, by the time it had to prove itself.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 28, 2006)

The worst plane of World War Two was undoubtedly French, the Breguet 270. Well, if it wasn't the worst, at least it looked convincingly bad.

Oh dear, I can't find a pic on the net. Have to scan one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2006)

Going back on the posts here, it's got to be the Ba.88. Any flyable aircraft that is purposely used as a target by it's operator has to be somewhat problematic!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2006)

And remember to use the term 'flyable' very loosely when describing the Ba.88


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2006)

Yep!


----------



## ndicki (Oct 29, 2006)

Whatever you say about the Ba.88, do not be so quick to dismiss those you may not have heard about. The Breguet 270/271 was one of the fastest ways of bringing about manpower reductions that has yet been discovered. Look at this!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2006)

It looks like a flying broom...

But remember, that was an observation aircraft designed in the late 20s. The Breda was supposed to be front line equipment at the opening of the war. Look at the normal performance of the aircraft and it could barely get out of its own way...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 29, 2006)

what a beauty!


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 29, 2006)

Just because it is French lanc...

Agreed on the Ba-88, it can almost not be classed as an aeroplane...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 29, 2006)

seriously what's wrong with it? cute short legs, a thin waistline, bulges in all the right places and nice curves!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2006)

And an "Oh Merde! We have forgotten the tail section so lets just stick a bit of metal on the back and put it on there" attitude to the back end


----------



## Old_Tonto (Oct 29, 2006)

I would have to agree that the Blackburn Roc is one of the worst designs to ever get off the drawing board of one of the worst aircraft design companies to ever exist. The idea of putting a turret on the back end of a Skua is simply stupid. You can bet none of the designers were ever going to fly that into combat.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 30, 2006)

That Br270 above actually flew on ops in 1939-40. Not very often, though, about once each, in fact.

I'd have thought that a good qualification for being the worst aircraft of WW2 would be killing the pilot almost every flight - so how about the Me163? At least you'd go out with a bang, not a whimper!


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 30, 2006)

brewster buffalo i would submit all time worse aircraft WW2. CAC wirraway not much better. unfortunately haven't pics to show you


----------



## rochie (Oct 30, 2006)

i agree with ndicki the me163 i wonder if it killed more of its own pilots and ground crew than those it was fighting against


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2006)

Emac44 said:


> brewster buffalo i would submit all time worse aircraft WW2. CAC wirraway not much better. unfortunately haven't pics to show you


Go back in this thread and read some of the stuff about the Buffalo. It actually had the highest Kill-loss ratio of the war!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 30, 2006)

yes there are some big fans of the buff on here and she most cirtainly isn't the worst of the war, and i hardly think tonto's bashing of the Blackburn comany's very justified, the Roc and Defiant are victims of pre-war thinking on the part of the RAF not the companies..........


----------



## ndicki (Oct 30, 2006)

Although the RAF, RAAF and FAA (over Crete - its only use in Western Europe) got chopped to bits flying the Buffalo, the Finnas did well with it. I expect that's already been said.

The initial versions of the Buffalo were not at all bad, apparently; it's when they started sticking all the 'accessories' like armour plate and dingies on that it dropped off.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2006)

Correct - some RAF Squadrons in the Pacific didn't do too badly - there's some info in earlier threads. 

The Finns loved the aircraft and made great use of it...


----------



## DamoSanchez (Nov 5, 2006)

the Aussie WirraWay, only shot down like 1 zero in the entire war


----------



## rochie (Nov 16, 2006)

dunno if anyone else has mentioned this but what about the He-177, overley complicated engines a problem that never got fixed, they even tried to make it a dive bomber ! so it probabley never had a chance anyway


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2006)

I agree that it was a terrible aircraft but it did not get a chance to really prove that. I think the He-177 was a promising design just plagued by the stupid coupled engines.


----------



## GANJIRO (Nov 19, 2006)

Honorable (dishonorable?) mention should go to the Chance Vought SB2U Vindicator (aka "Vibrator").
No SB2U survived the war; approximately 30 percent were lost in combat while 50 percent were lost due to accidents and attrition.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 19, 2006)

I agree, I mentioned it earlier:

_"I don't know if it could be considered the worst but it's certainly one for the running. The Vought-Sikorsky SB2U Vindicator (Chesapeake in RN service). 

It achieved nothing. For 1937 it was a modern aircraft for USN standards but with the inclusion of modern military equipment it was under-powered and obselete by the start of the war. Those in FAA service were replaced by Swordfish Mk.IIs. 

It was supposed to be carrier capable but it turned out to have too long of a take-off length to take off from a carrier. 50% of the casualties in them were due to carrier training accidents upon it's introduction. 30% of all built were lost to the enemy."_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 19, 2006)

GANJIRO said:


> Honorable (dishonorable?) mention should go to the Chance Vought SB2U Vindicator (aka "Vibrator").
> No SB2U survived the war; approximately 30 percent were lost in combat while 50 percent were lost due to accidents and attrition.



While not the best in its class the Vindicator did inflict damage when used in combat - I don't know where you got the 50% attrition rate but after Pearl Harbor many obsolete combat aircraft were used as advanced trainers and in those early years of the war many aircraft had high attrition rates because of the amounts of new pilots being trained, especially those being carrier qualified...


----------



## ndicki (Nov 19, 2006)

DamoSanchez said:


> the Aussie WirraWay, only shot down like 1 zero in the entire war



Mind you, it's not as though Wirraways were really MEANT to get stuck into the Japs. Advanced operational trainer rather than a fully-fledged combat aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 19, 2006)

Oh come on there ndicki, Id take on a Zero with a Fiesler Storch! Id probably win too because the Jap would be laughing so hard, I could shoot him down with my pistol.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 19, 2006)

Something else about the Vindicator - A high accident rate in the late 30s? Prior to that we saw bi-planes with approach speeds under 100 kts. The Vindicator, a modern monoplane for it's time would probably have a way higher approach speed, the high attrition rate and longer take off roll explained - I would not call this aircraft a crown gem by any means, but there were many a lot more dismal than this guy!

Vindicators mauled the Mikuma during Midway....


----------



## GANJIRO (Nov 19, 2006)

Yup, deffinately alot worse planes than the "Vibrator" thus just worthy of dishonorable mention, maybe on the top ten worst of U.S. planes at U.S. entry into war.
Good Vindicator info here:
Chance-Vought SB2U Vindicator, by Jack McKillop


----------



## ndicki (Nov 19, 2006)

GANJIRO said:


> Yup, deffinately alot worse planes than the "Vibrator" thus just worthy of dishonorable mention, maybe on the top ten worst of U.S. planes at U.S. entry into war.



Which is most of them!  

NO! PEACE! I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING! NO! MERCY!

(You see what it's like in an American-dominated forum!)


----------



## Wildcat (Nov 19, 2006)

ndicki said:


> Mind you, it's not as though Wirraways were really MEANT to get stuck into the Japs. Advanced operational trainer rather than a fully-fledged combat aircraft.



True and therefore the role the Wirraway played in successfully training thousands of pilots for the EATS to fly in combat in every theater of WWII cannot be over looked. On these grounds alone, I believe it shouldn't be ranked in the worst a/c category.
Saying that however, when used in the role of a fighter it was totally outclassed, but what do you expect from an a/c that was designed as a general purpose trainer? It was only out of sheer desperation that the Wirraway was used as a fighter to defend Malaya and Rabaul in the first place. The RAAF simply had no other a/c at the time. On the 20th of January 1942, 8 Wirraway's took of to intercept over 100 Japanese a/c over Rabaul, the zero's got stuck in and decimated them. Brave men indeed!
In New Guniea and Bougainville the Wirraway was used for Tac Recce, Arty Observation, target marking and Army Co-op to great effect and was ideal for these jobs.
Not the worlds greatest a/c of WWII but definately not the worst.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 20, 2006)

The Blenheim didn't suffer that high an attrition rate, Flyboy, and it was an advance from Hawker Hind! Over 100 MPH faster, landing flaps and twin engine!


----------



## rochie (Nov 20, 2006)

agreed it might have been a great bomber (the he-177) with a normal engine layout, but was seen as twin engined and hitler insisted it be capable of dive bombing


----------



## ndicki (Nov 20, 2006)

Wildcat, you're dead right. An aiorcraft is a bad one when it fails to do the job it was intended for. The Wirraway was not a fighter - so it shouldn't be judged as one.

What about the Boomer?


----------



## Wildcat (Nov 20, 2006)

ndicki said:


> Wildcat, you're dead right. An aiorcraft is a bad one when it fails to do the job it was intended for. The Wirraway was not a fighter - so it shouldn't be judged as one.
> 
> What about the Boomer?



As much as I love the Boomerang it was a very mediocre fighter. It wasn't called the panic fighter for nothing, when the RAAF was caught with its pants down with no modern fighters and very few a/c from Britain or the US(hence the use of Wirraways), the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC) quickly made plans to produce a fighter a/c using readily available components. The powerplant was the P&W 1200hp Twin Wasp which was being built here for Australian made Beauforts and most of the other components were from the Wirraway. the Boomerang went from drawing board to first flight in only 14 weeks!
The faults of the Boomer was it's slow speed and bad performance over 15 000ft. Many times the Boomerangs couldn't close with Japanese a/c to engage them.
Its good points was it good armament (2x20mm cannon and 4x.303machine guns) and great manoeuvrability at low levels, apparently it was a great a/c to fly and its pilots loved them.
Although a dud as an interceptor, it excelled in the ground attack role in which it was used to great success in New Guinea, the Solomons and Borneo. The Boomerangs were famous for zipping in and out of valleys to draw enemy ground fire which they would either strafe or mark with smoke for other allied a/c. They were paticularly successfull with RNZAF corsairs.
So I guess in the fighter role it is a candidate for the worst a/c but it more then proved it's worth it the ground attack role for which it is best known for.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 24, 2006)

Are there boomerangs that hit the air show scene over yonder??


----------



## Seawitch (Dec 17, 2006)

The Boomerang was the plane that never shot down another plane isn't it?
I still give the Boulton Paul _Defiant_ my vote as the lemon of the War though.
Why did they not give it guns up front? I can't answer that but it wouldn't have turned it into anything worth carrying on with.
Built with first world war attitude!


----------



## Wildcat (Dec 18, 2006)

mkloby said:


> Are there boomerangs that hit the air show scene over yonder??




Yup, two so far but hopefully more to come..


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2006)

we've covered the defiant issue many times, far from the worst aircraft!


----------



## mkloby (Dec 19, 2006)

Very nice Wildcat - I like the pic


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 20, 2006)

Ive got one. What about the Soviet I-16?


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 20, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> we've covered the defiant issue many times, far from the worst aircraft!


heard many compliments on its stability and its use as an air gunnery trainer or target tug


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> Ive got one. What about the Soviet I-16?



Actually in its day it was a good aircraft, tricky to fly, it was obsolete by the start of WW2.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 21, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> heard many compliments on its stability and its use as an air gunnery trainer or target tug



not only that but she enjoyed a lot of success early on, and then went on to have success as a night fighter, she was a victim of pre-war RAF thinking, not a bad aircraft as such...........


----------



## mkloby (Dec 21, 2006)

The greatest thing aout the Defiant is the boldness that she represented. Sometimes high scommands lack this attribute - crap there was a time when some doubted an all metal low wing cantilever monoplane would fly due to weight, no lift, and weak thrust.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 21, 2006)

well the entire concept of a turret fighter was proven wrong so she was a bad aircraft in that sence......


----------



## exec228 (Dec 21, 2006)

i'd not be so categorical.
mig-3 was built with hi-alt dogfights in mind, but east front demanded low-to-medium alt superiority. at these alts mig-3 became bulky and hardly match to friedrich. on the other hand, at high-alt mig-3 had quite actual performance until 1944, i believe. and soviets even developed high-alt mig-line as A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A with backup project D and DD! just in case.
it's hard to say wether mig-3 is good or bad. i'd say "good in the field of unlucky conception".
i think that defiant is not too bad night fighter (when dogfigts are absent), since many nations sought for ideas different from axis guns and came to schrage musik. some of night fighters with pilot-controlled schrage musik even were two-seat planes.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 21, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually in its day it was a good aircraft, tricky to fly, it was obsolete by the start of WW2.



By the looks of it, it doesent look like a good aircraft. (Looks almost like a toy.) But looks can be decieving!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> By the looks of it, it doesent look like a good aircraft. (Looks almost like a toy.) But looks can be decieving!


It ruled the skies over Spain during the Spanish Civil War until the Bf-109 came along and even then with a skilled pilot it gave early 109s a run for their money.


----------



## exec228 (Dec 22, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It ruled the skies over Spain during the Spanish Civil War until the Bf-109 came along and even then with a skilled pilot it gave early 109s a run for their money.


afair bf 109 dora.
109 berta/caesar was still inferior to i-16.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 22, 2006)

exec228 said:


> afair bf 109 dora.
> 109 berta/caesar was still inferior to i-16.



The first Bf-109's to arrive in Spain were the V-3. V-4 and V-5 prototypes which were sent to the Legion Kondor in 1936. In 1937 these were followed by a number of B machines and in 1938 by C and D models. The Bf-109E arrived in Spain just too late to see action in 1939. The 
V3, 4 and 5 prototypes had the advantage in speed and altitude, the B, C and D were surperior in almost all counts except at low altitudes where the I-15 and I-16 totally out manuvered them.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 22, 2006)

exec228 said:


> afair bf 109 dora.
> 109 berta/caesar was still inferior to i-16.



Exec - you speak like a seasoned pilot that has flown these craft... Please also bear in mind that while the books are good and interesting, many of the authors have never touched a friggen airplane's controls before. I've said before that you can't boil and A/C down to mere numbers and digits. Some things, sure they yield worthwhile comparisons - but there's more to the "soul" of an ship than that.

BTW - thanks for info on that book, I will check it out.


----------



## Raf ace (Jan 14, 2007)

The Tbd was bad because it was slow and had light arrmour


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 14, 2007)

Raf ace said:


> The Tbd was bad because it was slow and had light arrmour


It's at least on the top 5...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 17, 2007)

i think the Ba-88 deserves a place in there too, but the other 3?


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 19, 2007)

Hi everyone! Im new here,i m glad to enter this detailed,interesting forum with nice people who are like 'experten' in knowledge about airplanes

this topic been a good idea. i read your replies carefully, let me share my opinion aswell.


i think we have to check the question first. Worst airplane. in my eyes its a plane,which suffered heavy losses due to various reasons, combined with unreliable abilities.i wont be able to tell which plane been THE worst.
but i can enlist my favourites. i seen some people posted the Gladiator or the cr42. i have to defend them,even if obsolete,they been very nice biplanes at that time. since im from hungary, i know a bit about hungarian aviation in ww2.the backbone of the hungarian royal airforce been fiat cr32 and 42 at the start of ww2.they prooved well against russian fighters like the rata on the eastern front,and before while border clashes in slovakia and yugoslavia against similar aircraft like avia biplanes. later hungary bought the licence of the reggiana re.2000 falco,which been used in small amounts only in the Italian Airforce.looking similar to seversky P-35 or even the Thunderbolt,it been promising to equip the airforce with modern aircraft beside the me-109 recieved from germany and also built in licence(btw.the hungarian airforce used/built more then 570 me-109,and been the largest foreign operator of the messer.italy,romania and finland never had this ammounts)and they started to build it.the plane been catastrophic,causing many lethal crashes while takeoff,even aces perished. 
thats why i have the Re.2000 on my blacklist,among with the Me210 and He177. the reasons are unreliability of the engines, not the combat losses.the me163 Komet is also very high ranked on my list of worst planes,as you already posted,i agree. it had superb flying characteristics but it been simply too dangerous ,te landing,refueling and while 'sailing' to attempt a landing.they also been simply too fast to successfully intercept the bombers.
The Mitsu G4M been a deathtrap aswell,at the cost of great range it had to sacrifice armor and defensive armament.a single shot could turn it into a fireball.the crew disliked the betty ,just like luftwaffe pilots did the me210, or the he177 greif.the italian Breada ba65 and 88 ,the SM81 been truly terrible,obsolete or unreliable aswell.
these are axis. on the allied site i tend defend the brewster buffalo and the douglas devastator.they played a very important role, the slaughtering of these planes is obvious,against the outstanding zeros .and the devastator simply lacked defense armament,a single 12.7 and a 7.62 .cal mg wasnt enough. the losses been very high ,in one attack all of the 15 TBDs attacking were lost,but they caused enormous damage to the japanese fleet at the early stages of war before they get withdrown and replaced by the avenger.
i agree, the manchester because of the weak engines, i agree ,the roc and the skue,but they werent the worst.the skua played an important role in norway aswell. the roc been too slow, if im right its highest speed been 313kmh which is simply crap. weirdly the similar boulton paul defiant had a speed of 500+kmh.a better engine,better characteristics at all,the defiant suffered heavy losses aswell,later they been put into night fighting roles,where they achieved limited successes.the 4-gun-turret itself been a failure,so i have the roc/defiant on my list aswell.
Worst plane could mean unsuccessful,or already obsolete before entering service. Thats why i agree with you on Blackburn Botha. But i didnt find any posts about rareaircraft like the Saro Lerwick,or the Handley Page Hereford,the Vultee A-31 or the Vickers Wellesley.i would be pleased if you share your knowledge about the named planes with me,except those wgich we already talked about alot like the botha or the il-2.

The soviets had many rubbish planes,like the Mig-1,the szu-2 or even the famous sturmovik. i know,many gonna discuss my opinion about the il-2,but i stick to it. the Il-2 been built in highest numbers among warplanes,and favourized of Stalin and his regime. But the effectiveness compared to losses prooved to be extremely low. Sure,they played an important ground attack role,sure they destroyed thousands of german vehicles. but at which cost? once hit, the protecting armor's heavy weight caused to fly with the characteristics of a stone,no manouvres been possible anymore .until the very end of wear,the gunner had no protection at all.it been rare to fly more then 5 sorties,very few made it back.its not a well-known fact tho.but i considered the pro's and contras of the sturmovik,and i decided to put it on my list of worst aircraft.

thanks for reading,and sorry if it looks a bit chaotic ,i gt get use to this


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 20, 2007)

the forst point you make about what the worst aircraft is what's tripped most of us up- no one can agree what criteria to use! for example i don't belive it can be the worst unless it entered service i.e. no prototypes

however i agree as most would that the CR.42 and Gladiator don't belong on the list, but i most certainly wouldn't put the defiant on the list- too much success to be the worst and the Manchester is not the worst if only for the Lancaster!


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 20, 2007)

what about the others i named?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 21, 2007)

most of the others aren't the worst, you've picked on some for being easy to shoot down, but all you have to do is look at what they achieved, the IL-2 for example and you've even mentioned the Bf-109 as she killed many on take off/landing- not a chance!


----------



## renrich (Jan 27, 2007)

I don't know about the worst aircraft but my vote for the worst fighter would be the Brewster Buffalo.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 27, 2007)

Look back over this thread and you will see that there are others a lot worse than it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 28, 2007)

it would save so much time if people read this thread first... interesting how the newbies _always_ choose the buff though


----------



## Thumper (Jan 28, 2007)

renrich said:


> I don't know about the worst aircraft but my vote for the worst fighter would be the Brewster Buffalo.



sorry cant agree on this one

the export version did a hell of a job for the Finns during their little war

"A significant user of the Buffalo was the Finnish Air Force. Though unloved by the British, Australians, Americans, Belgians and Kiwis, 44 Buffaloes were flown by the Finnish LLv24 Squadron, and the aircraft was beloved and found to be very effective in the hands of its Finnish pilots. No fewer than 12 pilots became aces in Buffaloes, and the aircraft is remembered fondly by many."


----------



## riseofnations (Jan 29, 2007)

i think it might of been the Heinkel 177 Griffon or something that had a habit of falling out of the sky or catching fire. Hitler once called it a piece of crap. Of course some of the italian planes were pretty bad too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2007)

He He-177 definatly was a piece...

The coupled engines is what ruined an otherwise good design.


----------



## koivis (Jan 30, 2007)

If you had asked my half-sister's grandfather about which was the worst aircraft of WW2, he never would have mentioned the Brewster B-239 Buffalo. His name was Hans Henrik "Hasse" Wind, and he scored a total of 75 air-to-air kills, of which 31 flying THE ONE AND THE SAME BUFFALO, BW-363. The total kill tally for that single aeroplane was 41. 

SO STOP CLAIMING THAT BUFFALO WAS THE WORST!
It simply wasn't. It may have been "obsolete" but many, many GREAT aircraft became obsolete during the war. For example:
Vickers Wellington, maybe the best armed medium bomber at start of the war, totally obsolete as bomber by 1943
Bristol Blenheim, fastest bomber in the world between 1937-1939, totally obsolete as bomber by 1943
Hawker Hurricane, the hero of BoB, TOTALLY obsolete in A-to-A role by 1944
etc etc

If some of you say Buffalo was the worst, why not say Fokker D.XXI? A bit over 400 kph top speed, 4 x .303 armament? BECAUSE it was just obsolete by WWII! It's that simple.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2007)

Well put!!! Keep in mind the B-239s used by Finland were a lot lighter than the ones used by the US Marines at Midway, but your point is well taken...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2007)

and it is one which have have made several times over, but for the new guys that come along ever so often and for some reason _all_ pick the buffallo  i believe "aircraft" like the Ba-88 are more deserving.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and it is one which have have made several times over, but for the new guys that come along ever so often and for some reason _all_ pick the buffallo  i believe "aircraft" like the Ba-88 are more deserving.........


Agree...


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 31, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and it is one which have have made several times over, but for the new guys that come along ever so often and for some reason _all_ pick the buffallo  i believe "aircraft" like the Ba-88 are more deserving.........



Agreed as well, it is similar to the way everyone picks the P-51 for best fighter...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2007)

even some Brits do that, although quite rightly many do pick the spitfire.......


----------



## Civettone (Feb 7, 2007)

A logical question is always: "was the aircraft a bad design or were the requirements along which it was designed, wrong?" 

Such an attitude gives a more correct view on aircraft like the Heinkel He 177 or Breda Ba.65. The latter was a light bomber in the same category as the Sukhoi Su-2 or Fairey Battle (and in a way as the Stuka). Although they are classical examples of 'bad aircraft' I believe it would be closer to the truth to state that the 'light bomber' concept was outdated.

For the Ba.88 however, there are hardly any excuses  

Kris


----------



## timshatz (Feb 7, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well put!!! Keep in mind the B-239s used by Finland were a lot lighter than the ones used by the US Marines at Midway, but your point is well taken...



And the Fins were up against an enemy without the experience or refined doctine of the Marines at Midway. The Japanese pilots were amongst the best in the world at that point. The Marines were barely out of training. Put it all together and you have the makings for the slaughter that ensued.


----------



## Barrett (Feb 11, 2007)

I've not gone thru all 43 pages of this thread but want to point out something about the Devastator. According to Osprey's combat aircraft series on the TBD, it had no losses to Japanese fighters OR flak until Midway. that's six months of combat without any losses in flight. Midway of course was a disaster, but it wasn't a pointless mission either. The TBDs brought the enemy CAP down to wavetop level so the SBDs could deliver the punch.

I've known a couple of TBD pilots and they liked the airplane. Wanted more power, but that's not unusual.


----------



## bigZ (Feb 11, 2007)

Any mention of the Bachem Natter or the Ohka yet?


----------



## Heinz (Feb 11, 2007)

Avro Manchester was pretty woeful.

Its engines were its downfall.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2007)

bigZ said:


> Any mention of the Bachem Natter or the Ohka yet?


They were mentioned earlier.

The Natter never saw service and the only major strike using Ohkas was intercepted by Hellcats, most of the Betty mother ships jettisoned their loads to evade destruction.

If I remember there were at least 2 successful Ohka attacks, one of them sank a USN destroyer - the Ohka cut it in half!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 12, 2007)

Biplane pilot said:


> I've not gone thru all 43 pages of this thread but want to point out something about the Devastator. According to Osprey's combat aircraft series on the TBD, it had no losses to Japanese fighters OR flak until Midway. that's six months of combat without any losses in flight. Midway of course was a disaster, but it wasn't a pointless mission either. The TBDs brought the enemy CAP down to wavetop level so the SBDs could deliver the punch.
> 
> I've known a couple of TBD pilots and they liked the airplane. Wanted more power, but that's not unusual.


I do believe some were lost at Coral Sea. They did help sink one Japanese carrier.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 12, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> They were mentioned earlier.
> 
> The Natter never saw service and the only major strike using Ohkas was intercepted by Hellcats, most of the Betty mother ships jettisoned their loads to evade destruction.
> 
> If I remember there were at least 2 successful Ohka attacks, one of them sank a USN destroyer - the Ohka cut it in half!



The Natter saw no service and only one manned flight (in a Ba-349 M-23) which killed the test pilot Lothar Sieber on 1st March 1945 and it was removed from the test program after the 20th of March.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2007)

By the way here is a picture of the remains of a Natter at the Sinsheim Museum about 2 hours from where I live. I went there for like the 100th time a few months ago when I too this picture.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 12, 2007)

IMO the Ohka (especially the prjected K43B with RATO and folding wings) and the Natter could well have been two of the most formidable weapons of WW2 had the war lasted longer. Especially the Natter was exactly what Germany needed in 1945.

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2007)

I think the Wasserfall or the Enzian would have been more successful than the Natter if they had become operational. They would have rendered the Natter useless.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 12, 2007)

Yep, I agree. But I'm assuming here that the Natter would have been operational before those. Neither were ready when the war ended but at least the Natter engineers didn't have to worry about getting the guidance system ready. Plus, there's the concern that the allies would probably be capable of jamming that guidance system shortly after the first guided missiles were encountered...

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2007)

That is probably a very likely scenerio in this never happened story.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 12, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Yep, I agree. But I'm assuming here that the Natter would have been operational before those. Neither were ready when the war ended


 Are you including the Ohka? It was operational in WW2.


----------



## bigZ (Feb 12, 2007)

Seeing this post is worst AIRCRAFT. I am going to settle for the Rotabuggy. Ok it didn't get past prototype. 


Unreal Aircraft - Roadable Aircraft - Hafner Rotabuggy Flying Jeep

Perhaps the Wassarfall or Enzian would have became a reality if they hadn't of wasted time and resources on the V2?


----------



## Civettone (Feb 13, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Are you including the Ohka? It was operational in WW2.


Nope, was referring to the Natter ànd SAM.

Kris


----------



## Wespe (Feb 14, 2007)

Hi guy's as you can see I am new on this Forum

Let me say, the Natter wasn't a plane, and I would agree to a very early statement on this thread, that the worst plane was the Me-163B.

More pilots killed then planes destroyed, too fast to hit anything, 3 seconds time to fire on target, 3-4 min flight endurance, and not to mention the resources spend for nothing.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 15, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Hi guy's as you can see I am new on this Forum
> 
> Let me say, the Natter wasn't a plane, and I would agree to a very early statement on this thread, that the worst plane was the Me-163B.
> 
> More pilots killed then planes destroyed, too fast to hit anything, 3 seconds time to fire on target, 3-4 min flight endurance, and not to mention the resources spend for nothing.


The best thing about the Natter was that it wasn't a plane because it didn't need trained pilots!! 

The things you say on the Me 163 are either wrong or exaggerated. Not more pilots killed than planes destroyed. What's more, 1 B-17 is equal to about 10 Me 163s. 
It wasn't much faster than your beloved Me 262. 
3 seconds fire means 60 MK 108 shells fired. 
It had 7 minutes endurance but could float back down for an additional 15 minutes and pick out any field where a glider could land on. 
And what resources were used for this? It was a sideshow and never got the resources the Me 262 got. I think the problem was that it didn't get enough support, not from the RLM, not from the Luftwaffe and not from Messerschmitt who was opposed to anything coming from the Lippisch section. 

Kris


----------



## Wespe (Feb 15, 2007)

Thank god they didn’t put further recourses into this fly. Well I never flew one, but from what I read it had 2.5 min of rest fuel after reaching its altitude target giving the pilot 3 sec. to shot (doesn’t mean he fired for 3 sec.) and after that gliding home making itself a sitting duck for any allied aircraft. Only the 163C hat a propulsion/flying time of 7 – 15 min and never made it to the Lw.
Out of 364 Me163’s all they performed was 11 successful attacks. If the recourses spend on the egg had been put into the GO 229, yep that would have been it.
So the worst airplane of the Lw in WWII – undisputable the Me-163B

Long live the Me-262

Wespe


----------



## Civettone (Feb 15, 2007)

Fine that you think so but it would be nice if you would base it on correct information. Optimum altitude could be reached in less than 3 minutes which means 4 to 5 minutes of operational flight which is sufficient if you use the Me 163 as a point defence fighter. 
The short firing time is overrated and is only a problem for pilots who are not used to it. Or did the MiG-15 have much problems with it while attacking the B-29s? 
You got a point on the dangers of gliding back but this also could be countered to a certain degree. While without fuel the Me 163 was the most manoeuvrable fighter aircraft in existence. But again, you need a good pilot to get the most out of it. 
You also state that 364 Komets were build. Though there is discussion about the number of Komets built, it's clear that very few became operational. 
And to state that the Go 229 was a better alternative shows that you put down a good design as a failure for trading a bad design as a future succes. Recent computer simulations have shown that the Go 229 would have had unsurmountable aerodynamic problems. These problems could have been solved but would have required a lot of time. There is not a chance that the Go 229 could have been fully operational before 1947. But the comparison is moot because they cannot be compared, the Go 229 is a heavy jet fighter (bomber) while the Me 163/263 was a simple/easy to produce design without aerodynamical problems.

I also used to be critical of the Komet but then I read the interview with Rudi Opitz and I noticed that most criticism was based on tales in the same league as Bf 109 narrow undercarriages and Ju 290s flying to Manchuria...
Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 15, 2007)

Civettone said:


> The short firing time is overrated and is only a problem for pilots who are not used to it. Or did the MiG-15 have much problems with it while attacking the B-29s?


you are very correct..
The MiG-15 had no problem targeting B-29s at higher speeds. By the time the Korean War started tactics and firing solutions were well worked out on both sides....


----------



## Wespe (Feb 16, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Fine that you think so but it would be nice if you would base it on correct information. Optimum altitude could be reached in less than 3 minutes which means 4 to 5 minutes of operational flight which is sufficient if you use the Me 163 as a point defence fighter.
> The short firing time is overrated and is only a problem for pilots who are not used to it. Or did the MiG-15 have much problems with it while attacking the B-29s?
> You got a point on the dangers of gliding back but this also could be countered to a certain degree. While without fuel the Me 163 was the most manoeuvrable fighter aircraft in existence. But again, you need a good pilot to get the most out of it.
> You also state that 364 Komets were build. Though there is discussion about the number of Komets built, it's clear that very few became operational.
> ...




Off course the Go 229 would have taken years to be worked out, as any other plane, but the potential due to its jet engine was given, whilst a rocket propelled projectile would never have been successful. And that about 300 163's only can show for 11 attacks is no tale. Until today besides props. all aircrafts are jet propelled and the Americans and Russians abandoned all their rocket propelled projects (for combat planes). As I mentioned earlier I have never flown a jet or rocket propelled plane, but I could imagine that regulating the speed is the main issue which led to a focusing towards the jet turbines. (I am sure Erich, or Adler know a lot more then me about this). And shooting down Mig’s in Korea was 8 years later regarding the targeting instrumentation, (or Grabewskis? chewing gum targeting device) You mentioned “experienced” pilots, of which the Lw didn’t have much in 43 onwards, so it is a waste to me to divert these experienced pilots to the Me-163 project. If the Germans had focused on the Me-262 and Fw D series from the start, then there would have been no need for all these “ridiculous” wonder weapons such as Me-163, Natter, Volksjaeger, the later designed to be flown by HJ boys. (But maybe that is just my opinion).

Junkers in Manchuria ? never heard, what was that about ? Something like the New York flight?

Have fun
Wespe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 16, 2007)

Wespe said:


> And shooting down Mig’s in Korea was 8 years later regarding the targeting instrumentation, (or Grabewskis? chewing gum targeting device)


Somewhat of a myth - the F-86 had radar computing sights and they did have some problems, but when rectified the sights worked fine making targeting highly accurate.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 16, 2007)

You sure that it is a myth ?

"Gabby" Grabewski - Americas leading Europe WWII ace? And his bubble gum story in Korea ? 

Quote: In July, 1951, now-Colonel Gabreski downed his first MiG, flying an F-86 Sabre jet, despite its unfamiliar new gunsight which he replaced with a piece of chewing gum stuck on the windscreen


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 16, 2007)

Wespe said:


> You sure that it is a myth ?
> 
> "Gabby" Grabewski - Americas leading Europe WWII ace? And his bubble gum story in Korea ?
> 
> Quote: In July, 1951, now-Colonel Gabreski downed his first MiG, flying an F-86 Sabre jet, despite its unfamiliar new gunsight which he replaced with a piece of chewing gum stuck on the windscreen



Not a myth but not typical of the radar computing gun sights on the F-86. He was flying an F-86A in late 1951, early 1952 when that allegedly happened. After that story got out the all the gun sights installed on the F-86 got a bad rap. The A4 gun sight was very accurate and it was recorded that F-86 drivers put every round on target using this sight, that's not to say that it did have problems during its early deployment.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 16, 2007)

> And that about 300 163's only can show for 11 attacks is no tale. Until today besides props. all aircrafts are jet propelled and the Americans and Russians abandoned all their rocket propelled projects (for combat planes). As I mentioned earlier I have never flown a jet or rocket propelled plane, but I could imagine that regulating the speed is the main issue which led to a focusing towards the jet turbines.


No 300 were ever operational. And there were more than 11 attacks. Perhaps you mean 11 kills.
And just because there were no rocket fighters after the war doesn't mean that it wouldn't have succesful during WW2. I think it would have been succesful until the turbojet would have matched its performance and far exceeded its endurance. But just because something isn't developed further doesn't mean it's a bad design at the time itself. Just think of biplanes. Outdated in the 30s but up till then a good design. IMO the rocket fighter was a good stopgap for interceptors until the arrival of supersonic interceptors. Post-war development of rocket fighters wasn't stopped because the rocket engine wasn't suited for it but because in the 50s the development of the turbojet had evolved so fast that there were no more advantages to the rocket fighter. That's not the case for WW2. You can build 4 Me 163s for the prize of 1 Me 262. And the Fw 190D was not the solution either, it could only hope to match the P-51, and was in no way better than the Bf 109K.



> Junkers in Manchuria ? never heard, what was that about ? Something like the New York flight?


Yeah, similar.

Kris


----------



## Wespe (Feb 16, 2007)

That the F-190D series could only “hope” to match the P-51 ??. What is so great or outstanding about the P-51. It looks good – fantastic range, okay – so what else ? Do you have any statistics about F-190D’s on P-51 kills or wise versa that makes you so sure to put up that statement?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 16, 2007)

Wespe said:


> That the F-190D series could only “hope” to match the P-51 ??. What is so great or outstanding about the P-51. It looks good – fantastic range, okay – so what else ? Do you have any statistics about F-190D’s on P-51 kills or wise versa that makes you so sure to put up that statement?



The P-51 wasn't the best performer by any means. What made it great it was easily produced, competitive enough to combat the competition and was easy enough to fly that is made a mediocre pilot a good pilot and the end results were the final evidence of this.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 16, 2007)

Hi Civettone,

let's hear what an expert had to say:

"Wolfgang Späte, ein guter Freund, flog die Me 163. Ich hörte, das Problem war, dass das Ding explodierte, wenn beide Treibstoffe zusammenkamen. Deswegen hatten sie hohe Verluste. Es konnte nur als, wie wir es nannten "Objektjäger" gebraucht werden. Sie konnten es erst aufsteigen lassen, wenn sie die Bomber bereits gesichtet hatten, und dann flog sie sehr schnell hoch. Die Haupttaktik, soweit sie mir bekannt ist, bestand darin, von oben anzugreifen, ohne Treibstoff, wenn möglich. Ich kenne keinen, der sie gerne geflogen hat, da sie ein verdammt gefährliches Ding zum Fliegen war. Ich würde sagen, es war eine verrückte Idee - das ist meine Meinung. Wenn du einen Jäger hast und zuerst den Treibstoff verbrauchen musst, dann angreifen und dann eine Segelfluglandung absolvieren musst, das scheint mir nicht besonders sinnvoll"
Luftwaffengeneral Walter Krupinski

Translation:
Wolfgang Spaete a good friend, flew the Me 163. I heard the problem was, that this Thing exploded if both propellants joint. That’s why they had high losses. It could only just as we called it be used as a object interceptor. They could only go up once they had already sighted the bombers and then they flew up very fast. The main tactic as known to me was to attack from above if possible without the liquid propellant. I don’t know anybody who liked to fly them, since they were a dam dangerous thing to fly. I would say it was a crazy idea – that is my opinion. If you have a fighter and you have to use up the propellant first, then attack and then to absolve a glider landing, then this doesn’t make much sense to me. 
Air force General Walter Krupinski

Interesting is also that he refers to the Me-163 as a "thing"

Below are two photos; 1st photo was taken 20 min before the 2nd photo. And in the right background of the 2nd photo you can see what the Lw really needed: Fw-190D-12 or Ta-152 - the best props of WWII.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 16, 2007)

Wespe, that's a pretty good translation. 
I am not calling Späte a liar but there are certain things which are simply not true. His main claim is that they had hohe Verluste but the I/JG 400 received more than a 100 aircraft in 1944. Do you know how many were lost to non-combat? 11! And 6 due to enemy action. It's all BS... and I'm fed up with it! 



> It looks good – fantastic range, okay – so what else ? Do you have any statistics about F-190D’s on P-51 kills or wise versa that makes you so sure to put up that statement?


The Fw 190D wasn't better than the P-51D. You'll find dozens of discussions on the net which of the two was the best. But that in itself proves that both were rather close to each other performance wise. 
I know the Dora quite well and think she was a great fighter. But based on official data I have to conclude that the P-51D still had the edge because it was faster, especially because the Dora still lacked the MW 50 system during 1944. 



> was easy enough to fly that is made a mediocre pilot a good pilot and the end results were the final evidence of this.


The problem was that the American pilots were the best trained and most confident pilots, and combined with the Mustang a far superior adversary to the average Luftwaffe pilot of 1944.

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2007)

At what alltitudes are you talking about. There is more to the equation. Because the max speed obtained by a Fw-190D was 704kmh and the max speed obtained by a P-51D was 703kmh. That is fairly even rathre than the P-51 being faster.

The reason I ask is because at certain alltitudes I am sure the P-51 is faster and at certain alltitudes I am sure the Dora is faster.

There is more to what makes a great fighter than speed and numbers my friend.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 17, 2007)

Hi Civettone

Well if you think the 163 would have brought any advantage to the Lw, I think you would still be wrong. Let’s face it the Me163 was just a “desperate” solution like Natter and Co. 
Regarding Fw better then P51 and all these competitive discussions, I think they lead nowhere since it is still the pilot that makes the difference. And taking some off Germanys best pilots, put them in a Bf 109K and let them compete against a P51 flown by Americas best, would certainly still have ended in favor to the German pilots.
The Fw 190D-12 which my uncle flew had as you surly know a MW 50 charger and he didn’t have a problem to outrun or out fly a P51 or whatever. It comes back to what you pointed out very correctly, the inexperienced Lw pilots from 43 onward.
Quote my uncle; it was ridiculous to put those young pilots into the cockpits with a mere 2-6 hours flying experience. More of them crashed there planes whilst starting then flying. And there was no chance for a non experienced pilot to survive in face of being additionally outnumbered no matter how good the plane was. It was a crime what they did to those young pilots. It took experienced pilots 2-3 engagements to figure out practically (not based on the theory in Flying school) on how to keep the nerves and flight maneuver under control in order to attack a B-17 effectively. And those especially young pilots already got shot down during their fist combat or lost there nerves (understandably) shocked and shaking when they made it back to base. I had 3 years flying experience before the war broke out including the glider experience from the Flieger HJ. And in 44 those young fellows where put into High tec planes such as the Fw and Me 262’s which they could barley bring of the ground. Hitler and his gang never took into account that this war would go on for so long and therefore never paid attention to the flying schools and senior pilots who where demanding a drastic change in pilot recruitment and training procedures. Many times it was also proposed in 43 to rather retrain existing bomber and Zerstoerer pilots into fighter pilots allowing the new pilots to receive a proper basic training. We would have lost the war anyway but at least the lives of many young pilots would not have been wasted for nothing. 
Quote my uncle: In the middle of 44 most German planes where shot down by the Americans whilst trying to land, start or being already damaged trailing smoke and being hunted down by 5-6 American planes. There was no honor amongst those cowboys; they just loved to shoot at anything that moved including civilians on the road. It was not comparable to the engagements we had with the English or French earlier, where most engagements were based on one to one and sometimes no shots where exchanged but pilots just flew and even waved at each other. It was just like this Assho…… Goebels proclaimed – total war, for which the Lw was not in a position to do.

Well so much for citing a veteran, so which was the worst plane in WW2?, how about the Gloster Meteor after 4 years of development – fast as a prop, not better then a Mossy and I think didn’t shoot down a thing (besides some V1’s), only the Meteor F.4 in 1947 (thanks to all the German know-how) managed to close in on the performance of the Me-262. And 6 years later in Korea it lost just as many in air combat as it shoot down (6).

Wespe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2007)

> so which was the worst plane in WW2?


The Breda 88....


----------



## Civettone (Feb 17, 2007)

Wespe, what is your uncle's name. He's spot on! It was ludicrous that the high brass wanted to put pilots in the air before properly trained.
But there's definitely a flaw in your own reasoning: if you only put the best pilots in the best aircraft, it will lead to nothing. Remember JV 44? And enough of these Experten were shot down, so your claim that they will be victorious against American pilots is simply wrong. Don't think the German pilots like your uncle were superhuman, they were damn good pilots, but all sides had men like these! 



> The reason I ask is because at certain alltitudes I am sure the P-51 is faster and at certain alltitudes I am sure the Dora is faster.


I don't think so Adler, 704 kmh? Perhaps you're talking about the D-12? The D-9 had a max speed of around 685 km/h, and that's with MW 50. 
Even with MW 50 the Fw 190D-9 was not faster than the P-51D, at any altitude! 

FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials



> There is more to what makes a great fighter than speed and numbers my friend


You want to talk about that too? Like I said, there are more than enough discussions on the net about which was the best, but the only conclusion is that there is not enough difference between them to say that one is definitely better than the other. In any case, the Fw 190D-9 was not better than the P-51D. But the Mustang was there in great numbers and flown by the best trained pilots in the world. So that's why I'm saying the Fw 190D wasn't the solution. And because the Bf 109K was at least as good as the Dora but easier to produce, I don't see any reason for the Dora. But that last bit is just my opinion. My main point was to prove that the "Dora could only hope to match the P-51D".

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Wespe, what is your uncle's name. He's spot on! It was ludicrous that the high brass wanted to put pilots in the air before properly trained.
> But there's definitely a flaw in your own reasoning: if you only put the best pilots in the best aircraft, it will lead to nothing. Remember JV 44? And enough of these Experten were shot down, so your claim that they will be victorious against American pilots is simply wrong. Don't think the German pilots like your uncle were superhuman, they were damn good pilots, but all sides had men like these!



He is doing what Lanc does and let national pride get in the way. 



Civetone said:


> I don't think so Adler, 704 kmh? Perhaps you're talking about the D-12? The D-9 had a max speed of around 685 km/h, and that's with MW 50.
> Even with MW 50 the Fw 190D-9 was not faster than the P-51D, at any altitude!
> 
> FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials



I am going to have to look more into that and look at that site you just posted more later because I have never heard of a D-9 flying only 685kmh in optimum conditions. However I am willing to look it up some more, and be proven wrong it is so. We are all here to further our knowledge.

Eitherway the P-51 could not fly 703kmh at every altitude. 703kmh was at its optimum altitude. The P-51 did not fly at its optimum altitude most of the time, because Combat never happens in favorable conditions all the time...

...I know this first hand...



Civetone said:


> You want to talk about that too? Like I said, there are more than enough discussions on the net about which was the best, but the only conclusion is that there is not enough difference between them to say that one is definitely better than the other. In any case, the Fw 190D-9 was not better than the P-51D. But the Mustang was there in great numbers and flown by the best trained pilots in the world. So that's why I'm saying the Fw 190D wasn't the solution. And because the Bf 109K was at least as good as the Dora but easier to produce, I don't see any reason for the Dora. But that last bit is just my opinion. My main point was to prove that the "Dora could only hope to match the P-51D".
> 
> Kris



The Dora was never meant to be the "solution". It was only a stop gap until the Ta-152 came on board.


----------



## Gimmeacannon! (Feb 17, 2007)

Worst aircraft? Manchester.


----------



## Gimmeacannon! (Feb 17, 2007)

The best fighter is the one with best manauverability, take the Falklands for instance where supersonic Mirage were useless because of lack of the abilty to manauvre effectively and were shot full of holes by the subsonic Harrier.
The Harrier has the ability to manauvre unlike any other aircraft and can even fly backwards, I would put a Mustang up against a Pitts Special anyday to see who would servive and I know which one my money would be on because you have to keep the enemy aircraft in your sights to shoot it down.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 17, 2007)

Gimmeacannon, if manoevrability is the most important, how come the countries with the most manoeuvrable fighters got beaten by countries with power fighters: Japan, Russia and Italy.

I think what you say was true in WW1 but was outdated in WW2. I think the outcome of the air battles near the Falklands was more a matter of superior training, tactics and electronics. It's also my understanding that the Argentinian AF didn't engage the Harriers but focused on attacking the ships and that most Neshers didn't carry the AA missiles to save fuel. But this is getting off-topic... I'm sure there has been a dedicated topic to the Falkland campaign in the appropriate sub-forum.
Kris


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

Hi Civettone,

Come on don’t put words in my mouth and spread and change in all direction for arguments. It was you who initially stated the Fw D could only “hope” to match the P-51.
Therefore I stated that the FwD’s didn’t need to “hope” because they were actually a match to the P-51.
Then you bring up this “super trained US pilots” against helpless Lw kids.
Even it was so, it doesn’t give any indication on those two planes matching each other or not.
So as an example, I forwarded that if you take an experienced (5 years lw pilot) against an super trained US pilot to combat in a Me-109F against a P-51 that most certainly the lw pilot would have won.
This has nothing to do with national pride or JV 44. Since not all the JV 44 pilots where experts or veterans your assertion also limps. And where most of the shot down Me-262 downed in Air combat? Or whilst trying to land, or with only one turbine running? Or being hit by defensive bomber fire?
It took highly qualified pilots to handle the Me-262, that is the reason why Galland collected the experienced (experten) around him, that these experts partially possessed high kill scores is obvious, but it doesn’t indicate that these pilots automatically are “immortal”, “superhuman” or invulnerable to combat. 
Since the Me-262 and the FwD’s where not operational in numbers at 43 which they could have been, we will have to stick to the historic facts, which are, that the US industry out weight the German by far and that in 43 onwards the US pilots where well trained and in total superior numbers. But again this gives no indication about the FwD’s not being able to match any allied plane.

In the meantime you changed your “hope” to “the Fw 190D-9 was not better than the P-51D” which I never forwarded or claimed in our discussion. 

So I will still stick to my opinion that the FwD certainly was capable of matching and taking on the fight with a P-51 or any other allied plane.

Wespe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

I have to agree though. The Fw-190D was a match for anything that was in the sky. Was it the end all aircraft and solution to the Luftwaffes problems. Absolutly not though.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe, where did I put words in your mouth? 

I looked it up, and it was you who started saying that if the Luftwaffe had focused on the Me 262 and Dora, there would not have been any need for Me 163, Natters, and the like. Then I said that the Dora wasn't the 'solution' because it could only hope to match the P-51. 
I use the word 'solution' deliberately: if you want to defeat the 8th AF (that is inflicting more losses than they are able to sustain, like happened in 1943) you'll need a solution! for the American P-51 problem. 
So that's why I said that the Fw 190D could only hope to match the P-51, as it is not superior. You can say it matched the P-51 but it's my opinion that it didn't even manage to do that. This is partly because it doesn't have an answer to the main weapon of the Mustang: speed! I provided a link that shows that the Dora was too slow. Only in 1945 with MW 50 enabled overboosting could the Dora get to a speed of 685 kmh at an altitude at which the Mustang was still faster. So the Dora can not run from the Mustang, which is a huge disadvantage.

So then you can start talking about the D-12 or D-13, D-14 or D-15 for all I care, that only appeared in 1945. At that time the Americans were producing the P-47N and P-51H. And they also had the even faster P-47M and P-51F/G available at the end of 1944, but decided there was no need to interrupt production for them because there was no need for better fighters. 

Then, you can start discussing how Luftwaffe veterans with 5 years experience are better than the best trained USAAF pilots. I agree with that, though I don't know what that's worth. Better to have a steady flow of well trained pilots than a bunch of Experten who were getting killed one by one...

But back to my main point, you don't need a Fw 190D that can "handle" a P-51D. The Dora appeared a year later than the P-51D. Dann brauchst du keine Zwischenlöschung mehr. Even the Ta 152 wouldn't have been made a difference in 1945, only jet fighters were able to clearly outmatch the P-51H, Spitfire F.21, Tempest II, Fury, Spiteful, ... and then there are the P-80, Vampire, ... 

Or am I missing something about the Dora??
Kris


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Wespe, where did I put words in your mouth?
> 
> I looked it up, and it was you who started saying that if the Luftwaffe had focused on the Me 262 and Dora, there would not have been any need for Me 163, Natters, and the like. Then I said that the Dora wasn't the 'solution' because it could only hope to match the P-51.
> I use the word 'solution' deliberately: if you want to defeat the 8th AF (that is inflicting more losses than they are able to sustain, like happened in 1943) you'll need a solution! for the American P-51 problem.
> ...



The example (5 years experience contra well trained US pilot) only clarifies that it is not just the performance of a plane that decides an outcome. In other words even in a "****" plane an experienced Lw Pilot could have knocked out an Super dooper wowy wow wow P-51 or what ever)
Since the Germans did not have enough jet fighters and enough time to make them more reliable, what should they have send up against the allies ??
9 mm Parabellum or what ?
And P-80s and Vampires during WWII, well obviously your knowledge is far ahead of mine

Wespe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> The example (5 years experience contra well trained US pilot) only clarifies that it is not just the performance of a plane that decides an outcome. In other words even in a "****" plane an experienced Lw Pilot could have knocked out an Super dooper wowy wow wow P-51 or what ever)
> Since the Germans did not have enough jet fighters and enough time to make them more reliable, what should they have send up against the allies ??
> 9 mm Parabellum or what ?
> And P-80s and Vampires during WWII, well obviously your knowledge is far ahead of mine
> ...



There were many experten left at the end of WW2 but at the same time there were many extremely low time pilots who were meat on the table for P-51s and P-47s. As stated a so-so pilot jumps into a P-51 and becomes a "good" pilot. With many Luftwaffe aircraft you had to be a good pilot to begin with to fully exploit its characteristics. Again not taking anything away from the Luftwaffe and its aircraft but they were simply overwhelmed in intercepting bombers, attacking fighters and stopping invading allied armies after D-day.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There were many experten left at the end of WW2 but at the same time there were many extremely low time pilots who were meat on the table for P-51s and P-47s. As stated a so-so pilot jumps into a P-51 and becomes a "good" pilot. With many Luftwaffe aircraft you had to be a good pilot to begin with to fully exploit its characteristics. Again not taking anything away from the Luftwaffe and its aircraft but they were simply overwhelmed in intercepting bombers, attacking fighters and stopping invading allied armies after D-day.



Yes, absolutly correct,

and I never stated anything else in contra.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 18, 2007)

An aircraft is only as good as the pilot flying it. That's old wisdom, FlyboyJ.

It also seems as if you're saying that the P-51 made a mediocre pilot a good one, while the Bf 109 required a good pilot to begin with. That also means that the Bf 109 was difficult to fly. I would like to know why you make such a statement. German and Finnish accounts tell quite a different story.

And what does this mean regarding the Fw 190D? Was it more difficult to fly than a P-51?
Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

Civettone said:


> An aircraft is only as good as the pilot flying it. That's old wisdom, FlyboyJ.
> 
> It also seems as if you're saying that the P-51 made a mediocre pilot a good one, while the Bf 109 required a good pilot to begin with. That also means that the Bf 109 was difficult to fly.


Not for a well trained pilot and Germany had thousands of those at the beginning of the war. 


Civettone said:


> I would like to know why you make such a statement. German and Finnish accounts tell quite a different story.


Again, see the above The Geman and Finn account of flying the aircraft come from guys with ample training under their belts.


Civettone said:


> And what does this mean regarding the Fw 190D? Was it more difficult to fly than a P-51?
> Kris



It might of been - I could tell you from experience it is very unnerving taxing , taking off or landing an aircraft where you can't see over the nose


----------



## Civettone (Feb 18, 2007)

So the average American recruit which has 250 hours on his belt before training on fighter aircraft, would have no problem with the Bf 109, right? 

Just a question - I am not a pilot like you Flyboy J - don't most WW2 fighters have long noses that keep the pilots from seeing over the nose (exception of course aircraft with tail wheels)?

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2007)

Civettone said:


> So the average American recruit which has 250 hours on his belt before training on fighter aircraft, would have no problem with the Bf 109, right?


 Actually many US fighter pilots had a hell of a lot more flight hours before they went into combat. I believe 400 - 600 hours would be closer to the norm. Some of the pilots that were serving prior to the start of the war (I'm speaking about the US's entry) is was not uncommon to find line pilots with several thousand hours flight time.


Civettone said:


> Just a question - I am not a pilot like you Flyboy J - don't most WW2 fighters have long noses that keep the pilots from seeing over the nose (exception of course aircraft with tail wheels)?
> 
> Kris




Yes they did and mastering a landing in an aircraft like the P-40 or Bf 109 didn't come overnight. I think Soren posted a while back that it was recommended that the -109 was landed in the full 3 point position. When you go into the flare and let the aircraft settle you have no foward visibility. At this point peripheral vision comes into play and hope if you're landing on a dirt strip hope there are no craters or furrows in your path.

Now imagine a 200 hour pilot having to learn to fly a WW2 fighter and throw in cross winds, adverse weather, bad landing fields and now yo have a very slim "forgiveness margin" for that pilot.

For the low time fighter pilot just taking off and landing was a feat in itself.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 19, 2007)

When the Luftwaffe units had to frequently change base in the last months of the war, they experienced a 10% accident ratio. So this is just taking off, flying level for 15 minutes and landing, 1 out of 10 aircraft had to be written off due to landing accidents. These pilots couldn't even fly their aircraft, how could they expect them to fight?
Half of the fighters in those days served no other purpose than getting shot down which in effect drew off enemy fighters. What a waste. 
That's why I'm saying there was no point in increasing aircraft production or even having enough fuel to fly them if you didn't have pilots who could do something useful with them. But the problem is that well-trained pilots need time. So in 1944 it was already too late, no matter how much fuel and aircraft the Germans had. 

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2007)

Yep!


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

Civettone said:


> When the Luftwaffe units had to frequently change base in the last months of the war, they experienced a 10% accident ratio. So this is just taking off, flying level for 15 minutes and landing, 1 out of 10 aircraft had to be written off due to landing accidents. These pilots couldn't even fly their aircraft, how could they expect them to fight?
> Half of the fighters in those days served no other purpose than getting shot down which in effect drew off enemy fighters. What a waste.
> That's why I'm saying there was no point in increasing aircraft production or even having enough fuel to fly them if you didn't have pilots who could do something useful with them. But the problem is that well-trained pilots need time. So in 1944 it was already too late, no matter how much fuel and aircraft the Germans had.
> 
> Kris



Hi Civettone,

so what are you trying to say? that Hitler and his gang lost the war in 44?
Well gues what Stauffenberg and his gang on 20th July 1944 tried to accomplish.
So what was the worst plane in WWII ?
Still the Me-163 or The Gloster Meteor ?
3-4 years of development ending in a plane that had the same datas as a prop that was build 3 years earlier? 
Wespe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

No Germany lost the war when they invaded the Russians.

The Meteor can hardly be considered the worst aircraft of WW2. It was not finished with development when the war ended. Very soon after the war the Meteor was performing better than the Me-262.

Why did development of the Meteor take so long? Because the British and the rest of the allies had the time to work on there aircraft and work out the bugs. 

I guarantee you that if Germany was in the position that the British and the allies were they would have taken just as long as well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2007)

Later variants of the Meteor served well - it was made into an nightfighter in the post war years and was also able to fulfill many roles. I worked for someone who had a civilian one and he said it was a great flyer - today the same aircraft is at the Edwards AFB Museum.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No Germany lost the war when they invaded the Russians.
> 
> Well if you want to go into that depth; Germany lost the war the moment they attacked Poland, and Hitler was not able to convience Churchill that they should be buddies.
> 
> ...



No argument to proof that the Gloster performed.

Wespe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Later variants of the Meteor served well - it was made into an nightfighter in the post war years and was also able to fulfill many roles. I worked for someone who had a civilian one and he said it was a great flyer - today the same aircraft is at the Edwards AFB Museum.



Exactly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

Wespe said:


> No argument to proof that the Gloster performed.
> 
> Wespe



Since I am unbiased toward aircraft that are not German, yes I would be glad to show you...

*Meteor MK.4, 8, and 9*

Max Speed: 585-595 mph (940-958 km/h)
Rate of Climb: 7,000-7,600 ft/min (2130-2315 m/min)
Range on internal fuel only: About 1,000 miles at altitude.

*Meteor MK.7, 10-14*

Max Speed: 579-585 mph (931-940 km/h)


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Since I am unbiased toward aircraft that are not German, yes I would be glad to show you...
> 
> *Meteor MK.4, 8, and 9*
> 
> ...



Sorry NOOOO proof,

the F.4, the first example flew on 12 April 1945, F.8 (the major production version, first flown on 12 October 1948, not to mention MK9.
Fact is the Metors build and in action during WWII were just as good as a mossie. The requirement for persuing this jetfighter where never met. And if someone takes 3-4 years to build a plane that performs at a level of a prop build in 1942, then this aircraft is a total failure, no matter how good this plane was to become 5-8 years later. (taking all the German knowledge ).

Even in Korea this "fighter" performed misserably. it shot down 6 and lost 6. So it ended up as a Ground attack plane, for which it was never ment.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 20, 2007)

Wespe, when was the development of the Meteor started? I know the first plane flew in 1943. The Me 262 flew two years earlier IIRC. 



Kris


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

Hi Civettone,

trying to proof something  ??

Well you are wrong, go and check the books. Wait ... I am a nice guy so I will provide you with some proof.

There is a reason, that if the time for the argument seem apropriate,that the English will proudly anounce that they were acctually the first. But when it comes to the "results" of the Meteor MKI-III then suddenly there is no more first but ... a no push....no priority....no ah whatever.

Both countries started of pretty at the same time. Whilst the English were making sure on the engine, Hitler halted the whole project. At the end the English engine was more reliable but had no performance. Just at around the war ending days a better engine came into testing and as such into the Meteor MK4. too late.

So whilst the Meteor MKI-III in 44 was crusing at around 650 - 690 km the Me-262 was roaming the skies with almost 200km plus. 

Unfortunatly the Germans did not have the materials to bring reliability to their engines,but after 3-4 years of development they still came up with a multirole fighter that could outfly any allied plane by a 150+ km, whilst the English had a jet fighter that was showing the same performance after 3-4 years of development as a prop build 2-3 years before. 

See below for historic datas:

In September 1939, the Air Ministry also ordered that Gloster design an aircraft, the "E.28/39", to test-fly the engine. In the meantime, Whittle was hearing rumors that the Germans were also working on "turbojet" engines, as they came to be known.
Despite the disruption caused by the Battle of Britain, work on turbojet engines and aircraft continued at a low level. In fact, in 1940 the Air Ministry issued a request, designated "F.9/40", for an operational turbojet-powered fighter. 

Only eight of the twelve G.41 Meteor prototypes were completed. They featured a confusing variety of engine fits, reflecting the zigs and zags of British engine development. The initial engine fit was specified as Rover W.2B engines, with the first and fourth prototypes completed with such powerplants. However, after performing taxi tests and short hops with the first G.41 prototype in July 1942, Gerry Sayer said the thing was simply too underpowered to fly safely, and as discussed the Rover turbojet engine development effort which was dying of its own bureaucracy. 

The first Meteor to actually fly took to the air on 5 March 1943, with Michael Daunt at the controls. It was the fifth in the prototype manufacturing sequence and was fitted with de Havilland Halford H.1 turbojets, the ancestor of the Goblin. This particular engine fit led to the sixth prototype, which flew on 12 July 1945.

So if you take the Australian Boomerang as the worst plane (ugly little guy) it wasn't out classed by a own plane build 2-3 years before (Wirraway). 
Neither was a Fw-D12 out classed by a Fw-190A and so on and so on.

So fact is, the Meteor was just as good in May 45 as a 1942 build Mossie, and therefore it is the only WWII plane that was not better than a similar plane build 2-3 years before, which inturn makes it the worst plane in WWII to me.
Imagine The Me-262 would have had the same performance as a Me-410
Probably the Gestapo would have picked up Willi at home.
Wespe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Sorry NOOOO proof,
> 
> the F.4, the first example flew on 12 April 1945, F.8 (the major production version, first flown on 12 October 1948, not to mention MK9.
> Fact is the Metors build and in action during WWII were just as good as a mossie. The requirement for persuing this jetfighter where never met. And if someone takes 3-4 years to build a plane that performs at a level of a prop build in 1942, then this aircraft is a total failure, no matter how good this plane was to become 5-8 years later. (taking all the German knowledge ).



Sorry Wespe I did not want to say this, but you are fool of ****. Get over it. Get off of your Luftwaffe holier than thou self. No where idd 

*Go back and read my post. I said a few years after the war it was performing better than the Me-262. You asked for proof, I gave it to you.

Again why did the Meteor take longer. 2 reasons:

1. Its development started later than that of the Me-262. The Meteor did not fly until 1943. Not even a year after the war was over a Meteor broke the world speed record with 616mph.

2. The British had time. The Germans did not.*

No one is saying the Meteor was better than the Me-262, just that your automatic dismissal (more than likely because it was the British jet fighter) is probably a bit wrong, when there were aircraft much worse than the Meteor. 

*I would lable the Bf-110 worse than the Meteor! (I am sure that pisses you off because it was a Luftwaffe aircraft)*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Imagine The Me-262 would have had the same performance as a Me-410
> Probably the Gestapo would have picked up Willi at home.
> Wespe



Atleast the 410's engines would not flame out on your after 10 hours of flight time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

I will apologize for first post up there. However you are so biassed you are just as bad as syscom3!


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I will apologize for first post up there. However you are so biassed you are just as bad as syscom3!



_Don't apologize to me Yank  FIGHT, PROOF_

*Go back and read my post. I said a few years after the war it was performing better than the Me-262. You asked for proof, I gave it to you.

We are talking about WWII - not few years after

Again why did the Meteor take longer. 2 reasons:

1. Its development started later than that of the Me-262. The Meteor did not fly until 1943. Not even a year after the war was over a Meteor broke the world speed record with 616mph.

Who cares for the reason? both started up in 1939 and the British came up with a plane that performed as a Mossie build 2-3 years before.
2. The British had time. The Germans did not.*

No one is saying the Meteor was better than the Me-262, just that your automatic dismissal (more than likely because it was the British jet fighter) is probably a bit wrong, when there were aircraft much worse than the Meteor. 

_OFF COURSE nobody is saying that, it would be utter nonsense._
*I would lable the Bf-110 worse than the Meteor! (I am sure that pisses you off because it was a Luftwaffe aircraft)*[/QUOTE]

_Definatly the Me-110 was not up to a Meteor - I dont care about Luftwaffe, or RAF or USAAF or whatever - I only care for facts._
_So don't bring in this national thing, just because Iam forwarding a non-German plane as being the worst._
Anyway the English are all gays, and the men in the north wear skirts. 

Wespe


----------



## Civettone (Feb 20, 2007)

It was just a question. And from what you quoted, it seems safe to assume that the Meteor development started a year later than the Me 262. Meteor designing started in 1940, you say? Me 262 in 1939. First flight of the Meteor in 1943? First flight of the Me 262 in 1941 - or if you will in 1942. 
The English development of their engines apparently went even slower than that of the German jet engines and so they were still in the prototype stage when the Me 262 was already in production. 
I took a quick look at wikipedia ... the Meteor F.1 was only produced in small numbers and mainly used for training (and for V1 hunting). The Meteor F.3 was 120 km/h faster which would mean a maximum speed of 790 km/h. It became operational in December 1944. Though not as fast as the Me 262, I think this is quite allright: at least it was faster than any piston engined fighter... at least no reason to claim it to be the worse fighter of WW2. Just shortly after the war, it beat the world speed record and became a reliable and capable jet fighter until the early 50s.

It just wasn't completely ready when the war ended. If this makes you conclude that it was a bad aircraft, then you can throw in every other prototype of 1944 or 1945 on that heap.

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

Wespe said:


> _Don't apologize to me Yank  FIGHT, PROOF_



First of all dont call me a Yank. You may call me an American. You may call me a German, since I am both. Yes I hold both passports.

The problem is I provide proof in 99 percent of my posts. You dismiss them with:

a. It was not a Me-262.
b. It was not engineered by Germans.
c. It was not Luftwaffe.

You want proof then of things then dont be so biased. Because the Me-262 really was not the greatest thing since bread and butter. 

It was the best Jet fighter to see WW2 service but it was not the best overall aircraft.

How do you come to the conclusion of what is best. (and not in any particular order)

1. Performance
2. Quality of Construction
3. Maneuverabilty and ease of handling
4. Ease of Maintenance
5. Impact it had on the war (not necessarily to winning but what its impact was)




Wespe said:


> _Definatly the Me-110 was not up to a Meteor - I dont care about Luftwaffe, or RAF or USAAF or whatever - I only care for facts._
> _So don't bring in this national thing, just because Iam forwarding a non-German plane as being the worst._
> Anyway the English are all gays, and the men in the north wear skirts.
> 
> Wespe



I too am a big Luftwaffe fan. I think the best aircaft built was the Ta-152 during WW2. But in my search for knowlege I am willing to go outside the box. The reason I am picking on you because of this is because in about 75 of your 80 posts you dismiss anything that is not made by a German company and most of the time with sly remarks that just irk me.

With the exception of the Me-262 I most certainly would agree with you on many of your posts.

You say your search for truth, then forget about who made the planes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

Civettone said:


> It was just a question. And from what you quoted, it seems safe to assume that the Meteor development started a year later than the Me 262. Meteor designing started in 1940, you say? Me 262 in 1939. First flight of the Meteor in 1943? First flight of the Me 262 in 1941 - or if you will in 1942.
> The English development of their engines apparently went even slower than that of the German jet engines and so they were still in the prototype stage when the Me 262 was already in production.
> I took a quick look at wikipedia ... the Meteor F.1 was only produced in small numbers and mainly used for training (and for V1 hunting). The Meteor F.3 was 120 km/h faster which would mean a maximum speed of 790 km/h. It became operational in December 1944. Though not as fast as the Me 262, I think this is quite allright: at least it was faster than any piston engined fighter... at least no reason to claim it to be the worse fighter of WW2. Just shortly after the war, it beat the world speed record and became a reliable and capable jet fighter until the early 50s.
> 
> ...



Thankyou Kris. Atleast you understand what I am trying to say and I agree with you fully.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

Civettone said:


> It was just a question. And from what you quoted, it seems safe to assume that the Meteor development started a year later than the Me 262. Meteor designing started in 1940, you say? Me 262 in 1939. First flight of the Meteor in 1943? First flight of the Me 262 in 1941 - or if you will in 1942.
> The English development of their engines apparently went even slower than that of the German jet engines and so they were still in the prototype stage when the Me 262 was already in production.
> I took a quick look at wikipedia ... the Meteor F.1 was only produced in small numbers and mainly used for training (and for V1 hunting). The Meteor F.3 was 120 km/h faster which would mean a maximum speed of 790 km/h. It became operational in December 1944. Though not as fast as the Me 262, I think this is quite allright: at least it was faster than any piston engined fighter... at least no reason to claim it to be the worse fighter of WW2. Just shortly after the war, it beat the world speed record and became a reliable and capable jet fighter until the early 50s.
> 
> ...



No I wont, because it was not a prototype, the Meteor and Me-262 never started in 1939, but the development of jetfighters. In the second stage the Germans came out with the "Unstoppable King of the Sky)" and the British with a plane just as good as a Mossie. The MK III was loaded and armed less than 700km fast and was obiously not god enough,otherwise why didn't the RAF use them,like the USAAF who shot down (helpless 262's ) Instead they come up with this frase: Unfortunatly the Meteor did not see combat because the Germans had no more planes. BULLSH...... .
Wespe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

Yeah the Me-262 was the King of the Skies for all of 10 hours...Then the engines flamed out...


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thankyou Kris. Atleast you understand what I am trying to say and I agree with you fully.



Jeeeeee,

You think he is going to give you some Belgium chocolate for that


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

Was that a very sorry attempt at humor Wespe? Because it was not funny? Dont piss me off tonight Wespe.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah the Me-262 was the King of the Skies for all of 10 hours...Then the engines flamed out...



Yep,

thats exactly the 10 hours I am talking about 8) , unfortunatly they didn't have 3000 planes at 10 hours.
Don't bring up the pilot and fuel shortage now.
thanks


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

Why not, it was the truth. Is the truth desturbing you. Does the truth hurt.

History is history, I am sorry if you dont want to realize what the truth is.


----------



## Jabo (Feb 21, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Yep,
> 
> thats exactly the 10 hours I am talking about 8) , unfortunatly they didn't have 3000 planes at 10 hours.
> Don't bring up the pilot and fuel shortage now.
> thanks



Hallo Wespe/Landsmann

come on, I agree that the 262 was a fantastic fighter (when it was able to fly) fact is the bird was not performing as a whole due to its engines. So the impact it was supposed to have never came.

So you also knowing that, you should be able to agree, that due to this it cant be nominated as "the" best aircraft of WWII right ?

Jabo


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 21, 2007)

Okay Jabo or should I say Wespe. What would you rather be called? Wespe or Jabo? You tripped the multiple login alarm. What game are you trying to play? You know we dont like people being dishonest with others around here. Even though this place is laid back we take it serious.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 21, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Okay Jabo or should I say Wespe. What would you rather be called? Wespe or Jabo? You tripped the multiple login alarm. What game are you trying to play? You know we dont like people being dishonest with others around here. Even though this place is laid back we take it serious.




Oh damn someone else trying to come here and play games or BS us. He had better explain fast before Dan sees this.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 21, 2007)

He has 15 minutes...actually 10 now...


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 21, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> He has 15 minutes...actually 10 now...



Lay the beat down Chris, kick some butt.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 21, 2007)

Swing Batta Batta Swing!!! He is out of here.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 21, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Swing Batta Batta Swing!!! He is out of here.



You the man Chris. 

At times you come off as this nice quite guy but when you get ticked (takes more to tick you off then Dan) you play hard ball. 

No games or BS here newbies. You want to try and snow people then go some place else. Way to go Chris


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 4, 2007)

Worst aircraft of WWII: The unfixable ones. Keep tinkering with them and they never run. Might as well get rid of them but you keep on trying, hoping it will work. 

I guess all kinds of aircraft suffer from this problem.


----------



## lape2002 (May 16, 2007)

Looks sometimes define performance, in aviation at least and that one really sets the bar for being a bad aircraft : 

Here is a quote from Jerzy B. Cynks's Polish Aircraft 1893-1939:

"To save time and expense the Department of Aeronautics insisted that conversion to the Pegasus engines should be carried out with the minimum of alteration. Initial investigations, conducted by P.Z.L stress specialists, revealed that this could only be done at the expense of a reduction in the safety factor, and the Department accepted the risk. Consequently, in spite of an increase in power of over 50 per cent, the structure was not strengthened except for the gluing of pieces of thicker plywood into some sections of wing covering...Superficial checks did not indicate any structural damage, but the spars were not examined properly...On [November 7, 1936], the aircraft...took off on a demonstration flight and then disintegrated in the air over Okecie aerodrome, killing the entire crew. Comprehensive static tests and thorough investigations were ordered to determine the causes of the crash, and those confirmed the general weakness of the wing and also revealed a considerable disparity between the theoretical and actual strength of the casein glue which reduced the already low safety factor even further.

"The undercarriage units imported from France had faulty locking mechanisms and the electric engines proved too weak to raise the wheels properly...The mechanical locking device added by L.W.S. did little to resolve the problem, and the undercarriages of most Zubrs were eventually locked permanently in the down position."

The Zubr entered service in the summer of 1939, but due to their increased weight, they were practically useless. Cynk notes, "The aircraft could not be operated at full loaded weight from temporary landing fields, and in a lightly loaded condition could carry virtually no bombs and were therefore useless for combat."

Only 16 were built, as Poland got attacked by Germany, the Zubrs only served as decoys! 
At least for consolation, one had been used by the Luftwaffe as an unarmed trainer.


----------



## Graeme (May 31, 2007)

Forgive me for not reading the previous 48 pages..but has the Saro Lerwick been mentioned?


----------



## Graeme (Jun 2, 2007)

Quote from earlier..

"the 1st of the British 4-engined heavies it was designed with a short wingspan to fit into existing hangers, and carried all the shortcomings of that decision with it for its like". 

Mason in 'The British Bomber since 1914', amazingly points out that...

"A thorough search among design drawings of all Service hangers in use during the 1930s has disclosed none in which the door width was 100 ft."

Most hangers were a "Type C".. with a "door aperture width of 126 feet".

Yet the Stirling specification imposed a wing span limitation of 100 feet..'to fit in existing hangers'.
At the time of its conception it was confidently expected to win the war. (Gunston)


----------



## Trautloft (Jun 4, 2007)

this wespe guy forgot the meteors great role in destroying v1's


----------



## Graeme (Jun 5, 2007)

Trautloft said:


> this wespe guy forgot the meteors great role in destroying v1's



If the total V-I kills by the Meteor of 13 is "great", how would you describe the Tempest's 638 kills?


----------



## Trautloft (Jun 6, 2007)

its role weren't important bcs of the numbers,which are,compared to the tempest's low indeed,but because the RAF had the source, he could allow himself this 'luxury act' to have a jet-engined squad only to pick the lame attempt of v1's.
also,the possibility to use them against the Me-262 (in case the best piston-engined fail,this worry wasnt necessary tho). to be honest,i think the messer would be victorious on a 1on1.
still,my point been defending the meteor,and refuse it as 'worst'. i told already,il2,explained aswell on page 43 here


----------



## Graeme (Jun 6, 2007)

Trautloft said:


> its role weren't important bcs of the numbers,which are,compared to the tempest's low indeed,but because the RAF had the source, he could allow himself this 'luxury act' to have a jet-engined squad only to pick the lame attempt of v1's.
> 
> It wasn't just numbers that impeded the total of V-1's destroyed by Meteors.
> "Great things were expected from the Meteors, but during their first week of operations they had no success against the flying bombs...something always went wrong. A common cause of failure was the Hispano armament.. Apart from the lack of engine power..restricted maneuverability,..the cockpit visibility was poor".
> ...


----------



## Trautloft (Jun 9, 2007)

ok.so? i just mean ,the meteor can't be considered as 'worst', you have to check out all factors. and that why i took il2


----------



## Graeme (Jun 10, 2007)

Trautloft said:


> ok.so? i just mean ,the meteor can't be considered as 'worst', you have to check out all factors. and that why i took il2



Agreed


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2007)

The Meteor was certainly not the worst aircraft. The only one who thought that was Wespe.


----------



## Negative Creep (Jun 10, 2007)

When we have aircraft posted that couldn't even take off, I can't really see how you can site the IL-2. Yes it suffered heavy losses, but when you consider small arms fire and German fighters ready to pounce, is it really that surprising? If it hadn't been for that plane, the Soviet Unions would have had a much harder time in turning the course of the war, given the German's usage of tanks and armoured vehicles


----------



## witman (Jun 11, 2007)

hi


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2007)

Please use the Basic thread for you welcoming. Just saying Hi (especially when it is your first post) is just spamming up a thread.


----------



## sturmer (Jun 13, 2007)

hi there, 
in my opinion the Tupolev TB-3 was the worst plane, it was quickly outdated and underpowered. i even think its a wonder that such a plane even returned to base lol


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 14, 2007)

sturmer said:


> hi there,
> in my opinion the Tupolev TB-3 was the worst plane, it was quickly outdated and underpowered. i even think its a wonder that such a plane even returned to base lol



It was used as a transport by the time WW2 started and was just obsolete. In it's day it was the most advanced bomber in the world.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 14, 2007)

Sounds like it had the same problem as the Blenheim- better and faster than any fighter of it's day but stayed in service too long.
I would go for a plane so bad it got entered into service and then was quickly withdrawn because of how bad it was i.e. the Blackburn Botha


----------



## Graeme (Jun 14, 2007)

mosquitoman said:


> Sounds like it had the same problem as the Blenheim- better and faster than any fighter of it's day but stayed in service too long.
> I would go for a plane so bad it got entered into service and then was quickly withdrawn because of how bad it was i.e. the Blackburn Botha



Regarding the Botha.
From Bill Gunston's 'Back to the Drawing Board'-(Aircraft that flew but never took off), pp99..
"Service pilots..hated it, perhaps because it was said that when fully laden with crew and warlike stores it could lift only enough fuel for *50 miles* flying. I was nearly lynched when I delivered one to an aerodrome whose CO had that very morning grounded a whole squadron, as being too dangerous to operate".


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 14, 2007)

good info!
Thanks for proving my point


----------



## Graeme (Jun 15, 2007)

Bill Gunston's book lists and describes the following aircraft, *around the 1939-1945 period,* that "should never have happened". Note that some had no military purpose. A man with a sense of humour, he points out at an early stage in his analyses that "Blackburn Aircraft appear in this book with distressing frequency".

Handley Page Hereford
Brewster SB2A Buccaneer/Bermuda
Breda Ba 88 Lince 
 Bloch 150
De Havilland DH.91 Albatross
De Havilland DH.93 Don
Airspeed AS.45 Cambridge
LWS Zubr
Romano R.110
Saro Lerwick
Blackburn Roc
Blackburn Botha
Silvanskii's IS
Avro Manchester
Heinkel He 177
Messerschmitt Me 210
Curtiss SO3C Seamew
De Havilland TK.5
Caproni-Campini N.1
Junkers Ju 322 Mammut
Blackburn Firebrand
Bristol Buckingham
Blohm und Voss BV40
General Aircraft GAL.56
Kokusai Ku-105
and......Avro Tudor


----------



## Cub Driver (Jun 25, 2007)

R Pope said:


> The Battle, and even the Roc, were pretty good AIRPLANES, they just weren't very good WARPLANES...



Good point, and not unique to them. The Brewster Buffalo was widely and usually praised as a sweet airplane to fly. In combat, only the Finns had anything good to say about it. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford


----------



## renrich (Jul 7, 2007)

The Brewster factory had some major problems because even when they were given a good design to build they could not get it built correctly, namely the Corsair.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 7, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> By the way here is a picture of the remains of a Natter at the Sinsheim Museum about 2 hours from where I live. I went there for like the 100th time a few months ago when I too this picture.







This is going WAY back in this thread. The Natter photo puzzles me. It looks to be made of metal with numerous glass portals and a cooling grill. The nose is very long and thin. The Natter was wood construction-"non strategic materials." 

Any more details on this Adler?


----------



## Graeme (Jul 7, 2007)

Adler, I believe the photo you posted, believing it to be a Bachem Natter, is the remains of a Republic RF-84F Thunderflash.

We are looking at the underside. Half a fuselage, tipped up, with the outer wings missing. The 'wing' remaining is the wing root with jet intake. This root has the wing drop tank outlined in green.

I apologise in advance, if this has already been pointed out to you.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 8, 2007)

Wespe said:


> You sure that it is a myth ?
> 
> "Gabby" Grabewski - Americas leading Europe WWII ace? And his bubble gum story in Korea ?
> 
> Quote: In July, 1951, now-Colonel Gabreski downed his first MiG, flying an F-86 Sabre jet, despite its unfamiliar new gunsight which he replaced with a piece of chewing gum stuck on the windscreen



Still digging up the past.

My understanding of the 'chewing gum' incident is as follows.

'Kelly' Johnson (Lockheed) visited Korea and discussed with pilots what they wanted in the next generation of fighters. At this point in time, "they were tired of being out-flown by the unexpected MIG-15, and had to some extent tried to rectify things by throwing out all they could from their F-80s, F-84s, F-86s, and F9Fs to get more performance".
Colonel 'Gabby' Gabreski, said 'We're burdened by complicated and heavy devices in big, heavy airplanes. I'd rather sight with a piece of chewing gum stuck on the windscreen.'
Johnson sympathised, and determined to give the USAF more speed and height than it had ever dreamed of. The F-104.

Fighters of the Fifties-Bill Gunston, 1981.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 8, 2007)

Cub Driver said:


> Good point, and not unique to them. The Brewster Buffalo was widely and usually praised as a sweet airplane to fly. In combat, only the Finns had anything good to say about it. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford



James Gilbert's book 'The Worlds Worst Aircraft' (1975) mentions the Finnish situation, but points out that the Finnish version was;

"...an early model, a whole ton lighter than later machines; and they had an improved 'export' version of the Wright Cyclone engine, which in any case would have been less prone to its worst fault-overheating-in Finland's climate...Perhaps in truth it was because the Finnish fighter pilots were very good, and highly motivated, whereas the Red Air Force wasn't too hot".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 8, 2007)

Graeme said:


> Adler, I believe the photo you posted, believing it to be a Bachem Natter, is the remains of a Republic RF-84F Thunderflash.
> 
> We are looking at the underside. Half a fuselage, tipped up, with the outer wings missing. The 'wing' remaining is the wing root with jet intake. This root has the wing drop tank outlined in green.
> 
> I apologise in advance, if this has already been pointed out to you.




Hmmm It seems you are correct. At the museum it is listed as a Natter.


----------



## harp (Jul 13, 2007)

Me 163 fuselage/production might have been down to Messerschmidt AG, but the powerplant was Walter's. Hindsight says that the use of Z stoff and T stoff might have made the pilots P stoff somewhat, but that's progress. The Walter rocket motor weighed a fraction of a normal fighter engine and propelled the aircraft to 30,000 ft in about 3 mins to make combat with the bombers - which was the main objective.

The further development of advanced weapon systems to fire 50mm shells into the wings of B17s from below at high speed (and it was proven to work too!) suggests that this might have been a development warplane with hazards, but it certainly was not a failure! Its contribution to aviation was immense - albeit at the cost of some poor pilots lives.

Anyway, that's my opinion   

Brilliant wit!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2007)

What?

There is no need for that second post so therefore I am going to combine them and make them into one post, okay harp.

There is an edit button...


----------



## Seawitch (Jul 14, 2007)

Hi All
Well, deciding which is the worst...or the best is obviously highly debatable! If the least successful comes into equation, then I might put my money on Australia's 'Boomerang'...I gather it's the only Fighter in WW2 that never shot down an opponent?
I appreciate there might be none technical reasons why, but those could be interesting too.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2007)

I think the Boomerang did shoot down one Zero but the Boomerang was a close support aircraft as its limitations as an air to air fighter was realized early in its career.


----------



## Seawitch (Jul 14, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think the Boomerang did shoot down one Zero


Well there you go, they scored a Zero!!


----------



## flojo (Jul 14, 2007)

AFAIK the He162 never shot down an enemy fighter or other type of plane. The only claim, a Tempest, was credited to anti-aircraft-guns by the LW


----------



## Wildcat (Jul 18, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think the Boomerang did shoot down one Zero but the Boomerang was a close support aircraft as its limitations as an air to air fighter was realized early in its career.



Almost Joe, actually the Boomerang never shot down any Japanese a/c, but a Wirraway did - probably more impressive!! AFAIK the Boomerang only had a handfull of encounters with Japanese a/c, I know on one occasion they scrambled to intercept some Betty's but were to slow to close and therefore unable to attack, I also believe one or two were bounced by zero's (and a P-38) with obviouse outcomes. Because the Boomerang was never involved in any mass dogfighters or large bomber interceptions it's hard to gauge how it would have handled in air combat, probably inferior to japanese fighters but maybe more effective against their bombers.
However in the ground attack and army co-op role she excelled, with the pilots carving out a great reputation for themselves. I'm sure many Aussie diggers and US Marines and GI's were glad to look up and see a Boomer straffing or popping smoke on Japanese positions about to be pounded by allied bombers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 18, 2007)

You're right abut the Boomer and the Zero - I confused the action with the Wirraway.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 18, 2007)




----------



## Seawitch (Jul 19, 2007)

Hi All
I think the Boomerangs ground role saves it? Lets try burning the candle from both ends.
Like i said with he Tiger Tanks in another thread, the best isn't always the right.
The fighter that so many would vote best I'm sure is the ME262, yet it killed about 200 pilots just I training....it suited an experienced pilot.
Also, it took up so many resources that could have provided tens of thousands of really good piston Aircraft that they could have made better use off?
Did the price that came with the ME262 make it the worst?
Statistics and speculation? Well, theres debate in that!


----------



## mkloby (Jul 22, 2007)

Seawitch said:


> Hi All
> I think the Boomerangs ground role saves it? Lets try burning the candle from both ends.
> Like i said with he Tiger Tanks in another thread, the best isn't always the right.
> The fighter that so many would vote best I'm sure is the ME262, yet it killed about 200 pilots just I training....it suited an experienced pilot.
> ...



I agree with you seawitch. The end result is pure combat effectiveness. If an aircraft is unable to truly become effective due to problems in production, training, maintenance, etc., then it is a poor military investment. Pinpointing specific successful sorties does not make an aircraft operationally effective. It must be considered in the strategic sense. How did this piece of equipment impact of overall strategic plan for the nation, and was is a positive or negative contributor to the war effort. The Me 262 had great potential, but overall the program was a failure. Shift the timeline of WWII and set the start date in 1941 - well then it could very well have been the most combat effective aircraft. Wouldas, couldas, shouldas do not win wars.


----------



## mpj29 (Jul 22, 2007)

No one here ever talks of the Commonwealth Wirraway, if its not the worse, its got to be close!

hi guys

sorry to say but yote right, the Manchester was built to to A.M. Spec 13/36 for a meadium range bomber. The Vulture engins were intergral to the design as they were to be one of the most powerfull aero engins we had. When they failed and R.R pulled the plug, R.R were single minded in the fact that the Manchestre would not be switched to the only other engine with the power needed as this was the Bristol Centuras, (although the Napier Saber was in early production tests and it was another option that Avro were looking at).

It was therefore R.R that pushed for the Lancaster to be fitted with 4 merlin's, to do this the work was faily minimal, the wings were lenghend 90' 1" to 102'

well said, these aircraft ere built to A.M Spec 0.30/35. They did exactly what they were asked to do!


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 22, 2007)

This is some of an anecgote by a Manchester pilot WJ Lewis RCAF 
"On or about 1 December 1940, Manchesters L7279 and L7280 were delivered to 207 Squadron at Waddington, an RAF station in Lincolnshire, followed closely by L7278. For the first few days, since there were no pilot's notes or other briefing materials available, we just pored over the aircraft. One of the first things we noted was the absence of an overall heating system. Closer inspection revealed electrical outlets at each aircrew position, another first—electrically heated flying gear. Now I might as well begin our tales of woe right here.
When we were issued with electrically heated Irvin jackets, trousers, boots, and gloves, all worked okay. But how were we supposed to get the equipment on? It was all interconnected, one electrical line for each piece of equipment. We could get everything on and connected until we came to the last gauntlet (glove). Struggling into a bulky winter flying gauntlet and then attempting to plug in the electrical connector so that you would get some heat was unimaginable. On top of this, the heating elements in the equipment soon began to short out. It was no surprise to have a crew member suddenly get a hot foot, a hot hand, or a hot anywhere. Immediate modification: throw out the electrically heated flying clothing and introduce a heating system. This was done by reversing the oil-cooling system.
The oil-cooler radiator was set in the leading edge of the wing outboard of the engine. A duct in the leading edge supplied cold air that travelled horizontally through the oil-cooler and then exhausted over the top of the wing. For heating, Avro placed a small radiator in the wing leading edge between the engine and the fuselage and connected it to the engine cooling system, similar to the heating system in a car. Outside air was ducted through the leading edge of the wing, through the radiator and straight into the fuselage in front of the main spar. There was no control to regulate the flow of air nor, initially, anything to deflect the air around the fuselage interior. It blew full blast on the wireless operator, and we had to carry a piece of cardboard or plywood to set beside him to prevent his being scorched. Eventually, a deflector did this job, but since there was never any ducting the distribution of heat within the aircraft remained extremely poor.
It was only a few days until we had our first of many Vulture engine failures and with it another problem. Frankie Eustace was taking off when his port engine quit at low level. Against all flying principles, he swung left, making a 225-degree turn into the dead engine and was able to get the aircraft back safely on the ground. The Manchester was parked in front of our hangar. As this had been our only serviceable aircraft, flying terminated for the day.
Four of us sat down to a game of bridge. I happened to be seated where I could see the aircraft parked outside and I noticed that the prop on the failed engine was unfeathered. (The Manchester, incidentally, had the first fully-feathering propellers in the RAF.) The sixteen-foot props were hydraulic constant-speed de Havilland propellers. I remarked on the state of the prop to my bridge partners and asked whether they had seen anyone come over from Servicing to unfeather it. No one had, and we went on with the game. I looked out again—the prop was re-feathered. A fast call to the engineering officer brought maintenance on the run.
They discovered the feathering solenoid was stuck, and the prop was sitting there busily feathering and unfeathering. We quickly realized that this could happen in the air. If a pilot feathered the prop on a dead engine and headed for the nearest airfield, en route the solenoid could stick. The prop would unfeather and he would go down like a lead balloon! ....Two nights earlier, I had had a somewhat terrifying—yet interesting— experience. As this incident was the result of a hydraulic failure, I should say something about the system. The Manchester had one of the first "high pressure" systems. While it would not be considered high today, four hundred pounds per square inch, in 1940, was high. When the system was actuated, for instance, to pull up the undercarriage, the pumps went into action and did their job. After the undercarriage had fully retracted, the pressure would continue to build until it reached six hundred pounds. Then a cut-out valve put the system into idle at four hundred pounds. A number of hydraulic failures on flights were the direct result of the whole system being built without "olives" in the joints or angles. But this night something new occurred.
We took off with Brest as our target. I remember the incident rather well. The night was as dark as you-know-what. I lifted off in pitch black (not unusual), retracted the undercarriage, and "went on to the clocks" (blind flying instruments). At about 50 feet the undercarriage came home, and suddenly the cockpit was filled with a fine oil spray. Pumped under high pressure, it covered everything including my flight instruments. I found myself trying to wipe them—flying at 100 feet! Fortunately I succeeded.
What had happened? On the engineer's panel, there was a rotary switch to move the radiator flaps from "open" to "trail" position. The washer on this control, we later learned, was made of compressed paper (a wartime economy measure). As the wheels came home—and before the pressure reached six hundred pounds and the cut-out valve operated—the washer blew. The pumps continued to operate, however, pumping the entire hydraulic supply mto the cockpit."
should i comtinue with the Bungee cords on the bomb bay doors so they would close ? the Manchester was a horrible aircraft and I'm not even talking about the Vulture engine


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 22, 2007)

Interesting post Pb. This is a classic example of "the hurrier we go, the behinder we get." It seems a lot of standard parts and components were not fully tested aganst other operating systems and the lack of pilots notes when the aircraft was introduced is unforgivable. 

BTW the A.M Spec 0.30/35 was for the Blackburn Roc.

Spec 13/36 was the right aircraft specification for the Manchester (actually for a twin engine bomber that will use Vulture engines) but it seems systems development was left to the manufacturer who seems to have failed miserably.


----------



## Wildcat (Jul 22, 2007)

mpj29 said:


> No one here ever talks of the Commonwealth Wirraway, if its not the worse, its got to be close!



Been discussed in this very thread before. definatley NOT the worst a/c of WWII
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/worst-aircraft-ww2-continued-626-41.html#post202370


----------



## Heinz (Jul 23, 2007)

Definately not the worst by any stretch.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 23, 2007)

Yes, it doesn't meet the threads criteria, but it had a propeller!


----------



## Graeme (Jul 23, 2007)

...this would be more appropriate, the 1943 Rotabuggy.


----------



## mpj29 (Jul 23, 2007)

mosquitoman said:


> Blacburn Botha has to be the worst, it was ugly and underpowered. It was supposed to be a torpedo bomber but it was so bad it never actually dropped one. It ended up being a target tug and trainer, even the trainee pilots thought it was a pile of junk



these were actually used as navigation trainers and gunnery trainers once it was realized that it was poor. It should also be remembers that it was built to A.M spec M.15/35, this was the same spec as the Beafort and Saro Lerwick, and lets be honest the Lerwick was withdrawn just 2 years after it was first introduced. Also the Botha had a top speed of 249 mph @5,500 ft, the Lerwick was slower- just 216mp at 4000ft


----------



## mpj29 (Jul 23, 2007)

to all those having a go at the fairy Battle, it should be noted that it was in fact the first British warplane to shoot down a German over Britain!!

It was also not the manufactures fault but built to an exacting Air militery spec (the same as the Defiant). I think if you are looking for the worst aircraft it has to be the BR 88 although I thing the people who are requesting that the Botha should take the title are a little of the mark, in fairness the Botha was reliable having the same engines as the sowrdfish, at least it stayed in the air! 

So lets look at the Saro Lerwick. This was a plane that was built to the same specification as the Botha but was much slower and had a maximum ceiling over 1000ft lower than the Botha!!


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 23, 2007)

more of the Manchester story from the same source
"I must describe one of the least glamorous Heath Robinson modifications that was ever carried out on an aircraft. Although the Manchester was built to a design specification allowing for a 4,000-pound bomb, no such bomb had been designed or built by the time the aircraft were completed. ^ATien the bombs were finally due to arrive, the bomb bay of the aircraft was modified by removing the central bombing point and installing what could best be described as an enormous hook. Woe to everyone when the bombs arrived.
When the first one was winched up into the Manchester's bomb bay, the bomb's diameter was such that the bomb doors would not close. Hence the Heath Robinson mod. A section was cut out of each bomb door sufficiently large so that when the doors were closed, the "cookie" could drop through T-vithout touching them. Two pieces of alclad (aluminum alloy), cut and hinged to the bomb doors, were held closed by large bungee cords; small fairings at the front and rear of the doors improved air streaming. To load the bomb, the bungee cords were detached and the bomb doors opened. After the cookie was winched up, the bomb doors were closed and fastened with nuts and screws. Then the modified sections of the doors were closed, and the bungee pulled tight to hold them in place.
when the time came to drop the cookie on the target, the crew merely selected master switch 'on' and pressed the release button at the proper time. The cookie was released from the hook and dropped on the metal slabs inserted into the bomb doors. The weight of the bomb stretched the bungee cords and the slabs opened, allowing it to fall free. Once the bomb was gone, the bungee cords pulled the slabs closed.
Simple? Sure! But imagine the process in operation. You released the cookie, which fell on the bomb doors with a loud crash. The slabs were thrust aside and the bomb fell free, but as soon as the doors came open, the slipstream got into the act and whipped them so far around that they clapped hands with the side of the fuselage. More frightening bangs. Then the bungee cords went into action yanking the slabs closed. Since the cords never functioned with equal force, one slab would close before its mate, making for a further pair of loud and disturbing reports."
Also the mid upper turret was rotated the aircraft would begin to shimmy the Air Ministry allowed the mid upper to be removed . The Manchester had no venturi tubes and all the instruments were driven by vacuum pumps on the engines so if you shut down one engine and had a prob with the pump you had no instruments


----------



## rhit81 (Aug 6, 2007)

I have read the whole thread and found it very informative. I am somewhat surprised that more French aircraft have been nominated. I would be inclined to think that the Moraine-Saulnier 406 would have to be the worst aircraft, or at least the most disappointing aircraft, of the war. 

It was a design contemporary of the P-36, the Me-109, the F2A Buffalo and Hurricane yet was nowhere near as effective as any of these. It was slaughtered in the Battle of France and disappeared thereafter. The M.S-406 did not even have the excuse of being a "pre-war design" available as it was slaughtered by another pre-war design (admittedly a good one in the ME-109) but a pre-war design nonetheless. No air arm, Allied or Axis, knew anything other than defeat while flying the MS-406. Its poor performance was one of the main reasons the French lost in 1940.


----------



## Trautloft (Aug 6, 2007)

i have to disagree with you mentioning the MS-406.It claimed a considerable number of german ac, around 200,more then the Hawks or Dewoitines.
They been inferior to the the Bf-109 at that time,the real slaughter happened as Bulgaria tried to fight with them Lightnings and Mustangs in 44'


----------



## Vitamin J (Aug 9, 2007)

I'd have to say the Primary British Fighter that was used in Japan along with the P-40 Tomahawk,The Brewster Buffalo. They were useless agaist the Japanese. cause it was just like the Japanese planes, no armor.... 5 shots with .30 Calibur and PLOP! Fallin like a lead brick....I pray I don't get reincarnated in the past as a British pilot in Japan.[-o< I would never man one of those flying piece of sh**s  
I've seen pictures of P-40's still flying with 70-80 bullet holes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2007)

If you think the P-40 was the worst aircraft you need to ask the Flying Tigers who racked up some impressive kills against the Japanese.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 9, 2007)

Vitamin J said:


> I've seen pictures of P-40's still flying with 70-80 bullet holes.



That says it right there - had it been a Zero with that damage it would of been in 70 or 80 pieces.

I suggest some remedial aviation history - start off with some history channel re-runs and work your way up from there...


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 9, 2007)

Any aircraft built by Brewster. If I'm not mistaken the license-built Brewster Corsairs (thank God not many came off the assembly line) were of poor quality and were never flown in combat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 9, 2007)

ToughOmbre said:


> Any aircraft built by Brewster. If I'm not mistaken the license-built Brewster Corsairs (thank God not many came off the assembly line) were of poor quality and were never flown in combat.


735 Corsairs were built by Brewster and there is *NO* evidence that I could find to show that these aircraft *DIDN'T* see combat.

Brewster's quality varied between the late 30s and its ultimate demise in 1946. The company was severely mis-managed, had labor problems and even had some of its corporate officers sued by the Federal Government. The US Navy actually seized the company in 1943...


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 9, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 735 Corsairs were built by Brewster and there is *NO* evidence that I could find to show that these aircraft *DIDN'T* see combat.



Stating that they were *never* flown in combat was a slight exaggeration on my part. *Some* probably did. My feeling is that *most* didn't. My source is a Michael O'Leary article in the May 2002 issue of Air Classics, _Bent Wing Warrior_. O'Leary stated...

"Goodyear proved to be a model of efficiency, delivering Corsairs to combat units at a prodigious rate but Brewster production was disastrous and was terminated after 735 F3As. Pilots considered the F3A to be structurally deficient and to be avoided at all costs. Many of the Brewster-built machines were assigned to training units or shipped to the Royal Navy under Lend-Lease."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 9, 2007)

ToughOmbre said:


> Stating that they were *never* flown in combat was a slight exaggeration on my part. *Some* probably did. My feeling is that *most* didn't. My source is a Michael O'Leary article in the May 2002 issue of Air Classics, _Bent Wing Warrior_. O'Leary stated...
> 
> "Goodyear proved to be a model of efficiency, delivering Corsairs to combat units at a prodigious rate but Brewster production was disastrous and was terminated after 735 F3As. Pilots considered the F3A to be structurally deficient and to be avoided at all costs. Many of the Brewster-built machines were assigned to training units or shipped to the Royal Navy under Lend-Lease."


I've seen the article and know of O'Leary. Take what he writes with a grain of salt. A pilot flying a Brewster, Vought or Goodyear built Corsair wouldn't be able to tell them apart and I cannot see how any WW2 pilot could determine that his aircraft was structurally deficient unless he had strong aircraft maintenance background and really knew what he was looking at (and I could tell you the vast majority didn't). 

If the aircraft was structurally deficient, they (Navy and Marine Pilots) wouldn't be allowed to fly them. Now that's not to say that Brewster didn't build some real crap, but eventually those deficiencies had to be corrected for the aircraft to be used operationally at any squadron level....

Knowing what went on at Brewster I doubt the RN would of accepted deficient aircraft, even if they were part of lend lease...


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 9, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I've seen the article and know of O'Leary. Take what he writes with a grain of salt. A pilot flying a Brewster, Vought or Goodyear built Corsair wouldn't be able to tell them apart and I cannot see how any WW2 pilot could determine that his aircraft was structurally deficient unless he had strong aircraft maintenance background and really knew what he was looking at (and I could tell you the vast majority didn't).
> 
> If the aircraft was structurally deficient, they (Navy and Marine Pilots) wouldn't be allowed to fly them. Now that's not to say that Brewster didn't build some real crap, but eventually those deficiencies had to be corrected for the aircraft to be used operationally at any squadron level....
> 
> Knowing what went on at Brewster I doubt the RN would of accepted deficient aircraft, even if they were part of lend lease...



Your points are well taken. I'll leave it that Brewster built junk, compared to the other manufacturers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 9, 2007)

ToughOmbre said:


> Your points are well taken. I'll leave it that Brewster built junk, compared to the other manufacturers.


Agree...

BTW I had an uncle who worked for them, he left when labor disputes started then went in the Army.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 9, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree...
> 
> BTW I had an uncle who worked for them, he left when labor disputes started then went in the Army.



My dad worked for Curtiss-Wright. After three years in the Navy ('37-'40), he figured he was working on the assembly line for the duration. Got drafted in 1942, got to visit France in 1944...2nd wave Utah Beach.


----------



## comiso90 (Aug 9, 2007)

Vitamin J said:


> I've seen pictures of P-40's still flying with 70-80 bullet holes.



 

How many Zeros have you seen with 70 or 80 holes?

The P-40s had weaknesses thats why P-40 tactics centered and slashing attacks. As long as the didn't get into a turning fight, they stood a good chance against the Japanese.


----------



## Crumpp (Aug 10, 2007)

> I'll leave it that Brewster built junk, compared to the other manufacturers.



I think all contractors that sub-contracted had _that one_ company which built the lowest quality product.

For Focke Wulf it seems that Focke Wulf Soren was noted as the top quality manufacturer and was charged with building the "example" aircraft which toured the sub-contractor assembly points. This gave the sub-contractor the quality control standard.

That standard was met with varying degrees of success by sub-contractors. NDW (Dornier) was the quite frankly the worst sub-contractor and was noted for poor quality control. Problems with excessive fuel consumption, excessive vibration of the engine, and airframes not able to meet minimum performance standards are some of the investigations Focke Wulf launched into NDW. IMHO this most likely had to do with NDW’s practice of further subcontracting out to manufacturers located in Neutral countries such as Sweden and Switzerland.

Supermarine also had their problems with subcontractors and the RAF notes "rouge" airframes. This is just a by product of producing a complex piece of mass manufactured machinery. 

Just like any aircraft manufacturer, the Contractor has to deliver products which meet the contracted requirements. It is standard for aircraft to be inspected upon delivery and they must meet certain performance minimums before and during ferry to the accepting service. NDW had the highest number of rejected airframe from all the subcontractors. Our Focke Wulf is an NDW airframe, btw!  AFAIK, NDW FW-190's never developed a "bad reputation" with the Luftwaffe fighter force. They certainly did develop one with Focke Wulf, GmbH however.

This brings up another point on production figures. It is highly unlikely all airframes produced will see service. From any given monthly production figure, on average 50% will be rejected outright. These airframes just do not meet quality control standards and are not accepted for delivery. That is one reason initial production figures are so much lower than preceding months. That does not mean they are scrapped, just that they require additional work or refinement to bring them up to acceptance standards. The airframes then go on to be accepted and enter the accounting policies of the company. From that pool of accepted aircraft many will be tied up in maintenance stock by the gaining service. This can be as high as 75% of the airframes accepted but can vary and tends to be lower with entire assembled airframes. 

This can be easily seen in the T3 production figures for the BMW801TS engine. Over 4,000 engines were delivered to the Luftwaffe from Feb. 1944 until Dec. 1944. However 75% of these engines were maintenance stock. Some 900 FW-190A9's were produced by Focke Wulf and sub-contractors and a handful of engine upgrades of older airframes to FW-190A9 standards.

So out of 735 Brewster Corsair accepted airframes with a 75% maintenance stock, we are looking at about 180 airframes in the force. Considering the sheer size of the just the USN and not counting exports, the chances of encountering a wealth of experience on "Brewster Corsairs" alone is pretty low just from the end user pool. 

Just to break things down so there is not confusion on my point.

Focke Wulf and sub-contractors delivered ~340 FW190A9 airframes to the Luftwaffe by Sep. 1944. The total SE engine fighter strength of the LW is reported to be ~1810 airframes of all types in Sep 1944. Of these about 1/3 are FW-190A fighters or ~ 600 aircraft. Of the 340 FW-190A9's about 85 will be flying in the force during Sep 1944 at any given time or 14% of the total FW190A's. The rest are either down for maintenance or awaiting issue as a replacement airframe. With the engine exchange program began in July 1944 the percentage is probably a tad bit higher but our SWAG is close.

Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen, Jagdverbände

Just some food for thought.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 11, 2007)

Interesting points Crump, but I'd like to know where you substantiate your rejection rates. Brewster did deliver 735 airframes, signed sealed delivered. Any company operating at a 50% rejection rate won't be in business long and well before that the production management would of been history, unless this was the case in Germany. I worked for Lockheed for a number of years and I was told during WW2, the rejection rate was never above 5%.


----------



## Crumpp (Aug 11, 2007)

It's not a Germany, United States, United Kingdom, or any nationality issue. It is an industrial issue and a manufacturing reality when ever you develop a complex manufacturing system for a given product from the ground up.

Look at "Willow Run", a plant which is held up as a manufacturing miracle of WWII! I don't think an argument can be made that Henry Ford did not have considerable experience in assembly line manufacturering. 



> *By December a total of 107 bombers had been offered to the Army Air Corps, but only 56 were acceptable.* Part of the problem was that, as in the auto industry, the plant was using hard steel dies instead of the softer dies more conducive to the multiple changes demanded by the aircraft industry. In the first year alone there were 575 changes required.



Willow Run and the Arsenal of Democracy

It is a fact of business. Generally speaking the more experience your assembly line work force gains and the longer you manufacture a given product, the easier and more efficient that production becomes.

It is only natural that parent companies experience fewer problems with their own design than sub-contractor making someone else’s design.

Aircraft are extremely demanding in their maintenance tolerances as you should know having worked for Lockheed. I have no doubt that only 5% of the airframes manufactured by Lockheed during the war were rejected by the services. However I imagine that is percentage of airframes which could not be brought up to acceptance levels and required scrapping and complete remanufacture.

The rejection rates I refer too are the normal deliveries. The vast majority of those airframes rejected for initial acceptance only require some reworking in order to meet acceptance standards.

For example let’s say our hypothetical service inspector finds an aircraft that does not pass its magneto rpm check. This is a very common on a hot summer day in an aircooled radial engine. Oil pools on the plugs and they foul! He might lean it to see if they clear but if that does not do the trick, the airframe is rejected. The company does not scrap that airframe; they figure out if there is a problem with the magneto, plugs, or ignition harness and fix it. The next inspection it passes and is accepted for service.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Crumpp (Aug 11, 2007)

> Brewster did deliver 735 airframes, signed sealed delivered.



I don't understand where you are percieving there is any claim that Brewster did not deliver 735 airframes to the USN in my post.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 11, 2007)

Crumpp said:


> I don't understand where you are percieving there is any claim that Brewster did not deliver 735 airframes to the USN in my post.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Crumpp



From this statement...



> So out of 735 Brewster Corsair accepted airframes with a 75% maintenance stock, *we are looking at about 180 airframes in the force*.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 11, 2007)

Crumpp said:


> It's not a Germany, United States, United Kingdom, or any nationality issue. It is an industrial issue and a manufacturing reality when ever you develop a complex manufacturing system for a given product from the ground up.
> 
> Look at "Willow Run", a plant which is held up as a manufacturing miracle of WWII! I don't think an argument can be made that Henry Ford did not have considerable experience in assembly line manufacturering.
> 
> ...



I think we're confusing rejection rate with scrap rate. When you say that an aircraft isn't accepted by the customer, it doesn't mean that there isn't rework performed to make the unit acceptable, I think you might of pointed that out in this post. Each airframe delivered is going to have some type of "corrected rejection" against it, in the aircraft production world this process is known as a "Material Review Board" or MRB. The goal is to limit MRB actions during manufacturing and perhaps that's where you're getting that 75% rejection rate. During WW2 some of the material was furnished by the government (as the case today) to build aircraft and there was actually a scrap rate built into that. If the manufacturer uses up his "scrap allowance" he's paying big penalties to the government, so this is something to be avoided at all costs.

Now as far as parent companies experiencing fewer problems than their sub-contractors - not always the case. There were many subs during WW2 that did well in their niche. McDonnell aircraft was great at making major airframe sub assemblies and eventually came into their own. Rohr Industries made engine QECs and the remnants of that company are still in the same business today - just two examples I could think of.

All in all it is quite rare to find an airframe so "butchered" that the whole thing is rejected and scrapped during manufacturing. Even during the high pace war years a company will monitor the progress of each airframe being assembled and when one is coming down the line there are Quality Assurance folks that will jump all over it to find out why things are going so bad and what's going to be done to fix the problem (My old job). You're talking thousands of dollars even back in the 1940s, and even though there was a war going on, aircraft manufacturers were still there to make money and the thought of scrapping an incomplete airframe for quality deficiencies was incomprehensible.


----------



## Crumpp (Aug 11, 2007)

Hi FlyboyJ,



> So out of 735 Brewster Corsair accepted airframes *with a 75% maintenance stock,* we are looking at about 180 airframes in the force.



Maintenance stocks are accepted airframes and owned by the gaining service. They are just not issued to operational units in anticipation of the operational unit experiencing a 100% loss to an existing aircraft.



> Now as far as parent companies experiencing fewer problems than their sub-contractors - not always the case.



Well there are very few absolutes in life much less business.

However, Dornier is still in business today. In fact many of the companies still exist today. The company that designed the Kommandogerät assisted us in our restoration of a working unit for our aircraft.

Willkommen bei Lindauer DORNIER GmbH

Remember we are discussing in general terms the ability of a sub-contractor to make a specific complex manufacturing product designed by the parent company with more experience manufacturing it. Of course we are ruling out mismanagement as a factor as well.



> All in all it is quite rare to find an airframe so "butchered" that the whole thing is rejected and scrapped during manufacturing.



I completely agree. Given the scope and rapid expansion of Lockheed’s manufacturing effort during WWII, 5% is an excellent rate. The company has good reason to be proud.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## wingnuts (Aug 29, 2007)

I've seen the CAC Wirraway and Boomerang mentioned a few times, I don't think either could be considered to be bad aircraft. The Wirraway was designed as a trainer based on the North American BC-1 a similar lineage to the AT6 Havard/Texan... which it resembles. It performed well in the training role and was used as a fighter occasionally when there was no alternative. It was in use by the RAAF until the late 50s. Some were converted to Ceres Ag aircraft after the war, there are several still in flying condition right now.... plus one being restored by a workmate.

The Boomerang was a rushed interim design using available components, mainly from the Wirraway... it was only intended as a stop-gap fighter and did good work in the ground support role.

I may be be biased as I'm an ex CAC employee.....


----------



## wingnuts (Aug 30, 2007)

I've seen the Meteor mentioned as well.... it could hardly be classed as a bad aircraft, it's use as front line fighter may have been brief but it carried on in the RAF and the RAAF until the late 50s. I also worked on one being used as a 'Hack' when I worked at RAE Bedford (Thurleigh) in the UK in about 1976.

The Blackburn Botha would be high in my list.... it not only was a bad aircraft but they actually made over 500 of them!

... and I'm not biased as I am an ex Blackburn apprentice (Hawker-Blackburn Division, Brough) ... although I was not making Bothas but Buccaneers 8)


----------



## Negative Creep (Sep 6, 2007)

Couldn't anything with the Blackburn name be a candidate? The Botha, Skua and Roc were all useless. Not sure if its been mentioned yet, but how about the Blenheim? SO it was advanced when it was introduced, but by 1940 it was out of date, after that it was a death trap. It's always surprised me how they made thousands and used them until 1944 when the Beaufighter, mosquito, Boston or Mitchell were all available and superior in every respect. The Blenheim was slow, couldn't carry much and armament was borderline pathetic for both versions. A lot of highly trained crew were lost in the early stages of the war trying to fly them unescorted


----------



## evangilder (Sep 6, 2007)

Negative Creep said:


> A lot of highly trained crew were lost in the early stages of the war trying to fly them unescorted



You could say that about darn near every bomber early in the war. The USAAF daylight bombings were almost brought to a halt because of heavy losses. That was in B-17s. No matter how well armed, bombers are no match for agile fighters, especially in a schwarm.


----------



## Negative Creep (Sep 7, 2007)

True, but the USAAF raids were far deeper into enemy territory and by that stage were up against a well established are defence network. A group of B-17s or B-24s could at least defend themselves , whereas the Blenheim was basically built with a WW1 doctrine in mind


----------



## 16KJV11 (Sep 7, 2007)

I think the Breda 88 tops the list of all time worst WWII aircraft.
Structurally and mechanically unsound, history books say it did its most effective work as a decoy on the ground.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 8, 2007)

Negative Creep said:


> but how about the Blenheim


I don't consider the Blenheim a bad aircraft, it was just out of date. If you use loss rate and lack of defence as a measurement, then you could consider the Ju52 a bad airplane as well. For instance, the LVA (dutch airforce) shot down dozens of them in their 5 days of war and they had only about 40 somehow modern fighters.


----------



## Negative Creep (Sep 9, 2007)

THe Blenheim was a bomber though; it was envisaged that they could fly in formation over enemy territory and adequately defend themselves. The Ju 52 was primarily a transport, hence designed with different priorities in mind. Out of date is really the same thing as bad; you can't really say something wasn't bad because it was state of the art 10 years before. Aircraft like the Blenheim, Ju 87,I-16 and Battle were very advanced and a major step forward when introduced, but such was the pace of aircraft development they were little more than death traps when up against organised opponents over their territory


----------



## Marcel (Sep 9, 2007)

Negative Creep said:


> THe Blenheim was a bomber though; it was envisaged that they could fly in formation over enemy territory and adequately defend themselves. The Ju 52 was primarily a transport, hence designed with different priorities in mind. Out of date is really the same thing as bad; you can't really say something wasn't bad because it was state of the art 10 years before. Aircraft like the Blenheim, Ju 87,I-16 and Battle were very advanced and a major step forward when introduced, but such was the pace of aircraft development they were little more than death traps when up against organised opponents over their territory



Okay, that's your definition. In my opinion, you cannot judge a plane as bad when it's a victim of false tactics as is the case with Blenheim and J87. No bomber could hold is own over enemy territory. See the dreadfull losses of the Fortresses in daylight bombing over Germany before the Mustang came along.

My point of view is that an airplane is bad if:
1. The plane was so bad it wasn't up to it's intended role from the start of it's operational career.
2. Was really a crappy airplane from starters, like flying a brick.
The Breda scores in both categories, while the ones you mentioned don't fall in either of them. 
But as said, it's a matter of definition of the term "bad" after all.


----------



## 16KJV11 (Sep 10, 2007)

Marcel,
Is that a Dutch airplane on your posts?


----------



## ccheese (Sep 10, 2007)

Did anyone consider some of the Japanese aircraft ? The "Rufe" was a
floatplane fighter (?) that could also carry small bombs. Must have been
meat on the table for any allied fighter.......

Charles


----------



## Marcel (Sep 10, 2007)

16KJV11 said:


> Marcel,
> Is that a Dutch airplane on your posts?



Yep, Fokker G.I crashing over Ridderkerk during the last bombing of the Moerdijk bridges, not far from my home. The Emil that shot this plane is on display at Duxford.


----------



## planeman45 (Sep 10, 2007)

I believe that there are quite a few candidates for the title of the worst aircraft of WW2. Blackburn Roc, as I believe someone mentioned in the beginning of th e thread, the Breda Ba. 88, or how bout the Curtiss Seamew. As empathetic I am with the Messersmmitt aircrafts. 

Even the well-known Me 163 must be considered. Althought all those are candidates, I think I have to go with the the L.W.S.4 Zubr.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/baclightning/lws_4_Zubr.jpg

Not only was this aircraft one of the ugliest, but also one of the most useless. The plane couldn't be flown with the undercarriage retracted. It was so overstressed that it was liable to disintegrate at any time. And worst of all, the Zubr was literally unable to take off with a bomb load heavier than...well, a crate of dog food....


----------



## wingnuts (Sep 10, 2007)

ccheese said:


> Did anyone consider some of the Japanese aircraft ? The "Rufe" was a
> floatplane fighter (?) that could also carry small bombs. Must have been
> meat on the table for any allied fighter.......
> 
> Charles



The Nakajima A6M2-N "Rufe" was not a bad aircraft, a developement of the Reisen/Zero it was mainly designed to support and protect troops involved in amphibious invasions when carriers were not available or the invasion was beyond support of land based aircraft. 

They were used in many roles, day and night bombing, spotting and it was an effective bomber interceptor. In well trained hands it was a match for most western fighters early in the war ..... it filled a gap that no other aircraft was able to fill. 

It was outclassed by later western fighters like most variant of the A6M.


----------



## 16KJV11 (Sep 10, 2007)

Though I think the Breda 88 tops the dysfunctional aircraft list, Brewster's Buffalo is not far behind.


----------



## 16KJV11 (Sep 10, 2007)

Not to change the subject, but did the Japs buy and use operationally any German military aircraft? I'm especially interested in whether they used the ME 110.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2007)

There were no German aircraft that were bought by the Japanese in large number and used operationaly. The Japanese recieved several German aircraft for testing and some were influential in Japanese designs.

German aircraft tested by the Japanese:

Arado Ar 196 
Bücker Bü 131B Jungmann 
Dornier Do 15 Wal 
Heinkel He 70 Blitz 
Heinkel He 118 
Heinkel He 50A 
Heinkel He 112B V12 / B-1 
Heinkel He 100D 
Heinkel He 116A 
Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-3/-5 
Junkers F.6 
Junkers F.13 
Junkers Ju 86Z-2 
Junkers Ju 87A-1 
Junkers Ju 160 
Messerschmitt Bf 108 
Messerschmitt Bf 109E-3 / E-7 
Messerschmitt Me 210A-2
Messerschmitt Me 163


----------



## planeman45 (Sep 11, 2007)

thanks for the great list, i didn't know al of them were on it DerAdlerIstGelandet.


----------



## Juha (Sep 11, 2007)

16KJV11 said:


> Though I think the Breda 88 tops the dysfunctional aircraft list, Brewster's Buffalo is not far behind.



Hello 16KJV11
Now in Finnish Air Force Brewster Model 239 (denavalized F2A-1) had something like 42:1 victory rate, ie aerial victory claims:air combat losses. To me that's not bad, in fact I think it's damn good. 

Juha


----------



## 16KJV11 (Sep 12, 2007)

Ok, you got me, but I'm going to take a wild guess that they were flying against early Ruskie types, bombers and fighters.


----------



## Juha (Sep 13, 2007)

Mostly, but they also claimed many newer Soviet fighters, Yaks, MiGs, LaGGs and La-5s. You can even see a list on Brewsters’ claims on page 11 on this very thread, Cheddar Cheese 04-12-2005, 10:09 AM.

Juha


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Sep 13, 2007)

True what the Finish managed to do with the Buffalo its amazing.True pilots that demonstrated the whole world that you don't need the numbers or technology to win.


----------



## Juha (Sep 14, 2007)

Argh
I's always better to check the facts before writing, so my IIRC claims was wrong and most of the FAF Brewster Model 239 claims were against later types, i.e. Hurricanes, P-40s and MiG-3s and later.

Juha


----------



## 16KJV11 (Sep 15, 2007)

My thoughts about the Brewster come from it's engagements against the Japanese.


----------



## Juha (Sep 16, 2007)

Hello 16KJV11
now Dutch seemed to have thought that Brewster was better than Tropical Hurricane and IIRC British thought otherwise. But anyway it is difficult to agree with your claim that Brewster was worst a/c of WII but one.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 16, 2007)

Later versions of the Buffalo were too heavy for their enginepower. This especially concerned the RAF versions which had a lot of modifications, making them about 900 pounds heavier than the original version. The B239 of the Finnish airforce on the other had didn't have this problum, thus performed well.


----------



## Juha (Sep 18, 2007)

Hello, yes 339E's gross weight seemed to be nearly 1000 lb more than that of 239's, but it had 150 hp more at take-off power but only 100 hp more at military power and of course wing loading also went up. F2A-2 should not be too bad, gross 400 lb more than that of 239 but 250 hp more at take off power setting. But F2A-3, gross 1100 lb more than that of F2A-2 with same engine, clearly too much was tried in that version. More protection clearly not always made a fighter more safe in combat.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 18, 2007)

I think it was the F2A-3 that got beaten at Midway, leading to the bad reputation the Buffalo got. It really was a bad aircraft. Not confinced if the other models were. The dutch put up a helluva fight in their 339C's in the dutch east indies and while aiding the British.


----------



## Juha (Sep 19, 2007)

Hello Marcel
Yes, all 18 Brewsters on Midway were F2A-3s. Now the weights I cited earlier were manufacturer's numbers from Dean’s American 100 000. On next double page there are different sets of numbers and according to them F2A-2 had almost 1400 lb greater gross than Model 239 and F2A-3 1630 lb greater, so the difference between -2 and -3 might not be so great after all. When we think that Model 239 had a powerloading of appr. 5.3 lb per 1 hp and F2A-2 and -3 had 200 hp more power at Military rating we see that powerloading got worse and wing loading even more so. So at least the idea to put more fuel into that small plane was mistake, greater fuel capacity added 440 lb if we only count liquid weight without changes in structural weight. Clearly too much was put into the plane.

Juha


----------



## 16KJV11 (Sep 23, 2007)

Any opinions on the Bell Airacobra? I'm sure some remarks were made earlier in the thread, but I'm not privy to them.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 24, 2007)

16KJV11 said:


> Any opinions on the Bell Airacobra? I'm sure some remarks were made earlier in the thread, but I'm not privy to them.



Not one of the most brilliant fighters, but performed very well in the ground support role with the ruskis


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 24, 2007)

Marcel said:


> Not one of the most brilliant fighters, but performed very well in the ground support role with the ruskis



not just ground support... they effectively used it as a low and med altitude fighter. Five Russians shot down more aircraft in a P-39 than Richard Bong in a P-38

Soviet P-39 Aces




.


----------



## 16KJV11 (Sep 25, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> not just ground support... they effectively used it as a low and med altitude fighter. Five Russians shot down more aircraft in a P-39 than Richard Bong in a P-38
> 
> Soviet P-39 Aces
> 
> ...


Did the Russians have a Fly 'til you die policy like most Axis powers?
Or, were they rotated like US pilots?


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 25, 2007)

I'd astonished if the Soviets didnt fly to ya die in most circumstances but like us, they needed experienced pilots to train youngens too. also their home front needed a few heros alive... On the whole i'm sure they grounded their pilots down but transfered a few for training.

I think one of the reasons the P-39 performed well on the Eastern front is IMO aerial engagements tended to take place at lower altitudes where the P-39 could compete better. I suspect much of the Soviet victories in P-39's were against aircraft in ground attack or anti-tank roles.

.


----------



## 16KJV11 (Sep 25, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> I'd astonished if the Soviets didnt fly to ya die in most circumstances but like us, they needed experienced pilots to train youngens too. also their home front needed a few heros alive... On the whole i'm sure they grounded their pilots down but transfered a few for training.
> 
> I think one of the reasons the P-39 performed well on the Eastern front is IMO aerial engagements tended to take place at lower altitudes where the P-39 could compete better. I suspect much of the Soviet victories in P-39's were against aircraft in ground attack or anti-tank roles.
> 
> .



Did any King Cobras go for Lend Lease to the Reds?


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 25, 2007)

16KJV11 said:


> Did any King Cobras go for Lend Lease to the Reds?



Google, "P-63 Lend-lease" and this is what you get:

_In total 2400 airplanes P-63 "Kingcobra" were supplied to USSR in accordance to Lend-Lease terms._

Russian site with good info:

P-63 Kingcobra

Google is your friend


.


----------



## 16KJV11 (Sep 25, 2007)

I was reading about the Soviet P-39 aces and I thought it was noteworthy that they wouldn't recognize one of the greatest aces as Hero of the Soviet Union b/c he became such a top scorer in the P-39 instead of one of the Reds workhorses.
Such pride!


----------



## Marcel (Sep 26, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> not just ground support... they effectively used it as a low and med altitude fighter. Five Russians shot down more aircraft in a P-39 than Richard Bong in a P-38
> 
> Soviet P-39 Aces
> 
> .



Good point, I think one of the reasons that the P39 wasn't the fighter it was supposed to be, was the fact that early Alison engines didn't perform wel at high altitudes, at least compared to the RR Merlin and the DB601. I think more fighters with this engine suffered from this (like the P40).


----------



## 16KJV11 (Sep 27, 2007)

The ME 210 would probably rank up there amongst the 10 worst aircraft of WWII.


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 27, 2007)

16KJV11 said:


> The ME 210 would probably rank up there amongst the 10 worst aircraft of WWII.



I'd have to say that it is the COOLEST looking poor performer.

.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 1, 2007)

16KJV11 said:


> I was reading about the Soviet P-39 aces and I thought it was noteworthy that they wouldn't recognize one of the greatest aces as Hero of the Soviet Union b/c he became such a top scorer in the P-39 instead of one of the Reds workhorses.
> Such pride!


Who was that??

Kris


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 1, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Who was that??
> 
> Kris



this what he is talking about:

Soviet P-39 Aces


_Flying American equipment was a mixed blessing. The airplanes were as good (or better) as any Russian-made, but in the Stalinist era, carried a certain stigma. The leading Airacobra ace, Alexandr Pokryshkin, who finished the war with 59 aerial victories, was once denied a third award of the Hero of the Soviet Union, because that would have glorified foreign manufacturing._


----------



## Marcel (Oct 1, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Who was that??
> 
> Kris



Kris, nice to have you back!


----------



## mkloby (Oct 1, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Who was that??
> 
> Kris



Welcome back - haven't seen you around in quite a while.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 2, 2007)

Yeah I got back a couple of days ago. I said I would be back at the forum in the beginning of October ... so here I am. 

Anyway, about the matter of the lend-lease equipment, I have my doubts about it. Awarding medals are not an exact science. It doesn't always makes sense why some get them and others don't. I can imagine it's normal to find reasons behind it. 

Well, I'm not saying it wasn't because of the foreign equipment but I have my doubts about it as I don't hear this stories from the army of which half was equiped with lend-lease equipment.
Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 2, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Anyway, about the matter of the lend-lease equipment, I have my doubts about it. Awarding medals are not an exact science. It doesn't always makes sense why some get them and others don't. I can imagine it's normal to find reasons behind it.


I'm reading "Bloody Shambles" Vol. 2. Some of the RAF, RAAF and RNZAF pilots and aircrews who flew against the initial Japanese invasion forces in SE Asia should of been awarded the Victoria Cross (Especially those flying Wildebeest) and probably would of had they done the same actions in Europe.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 3, 2007)

Interesting. It's definitely true that those boys didn't get the attention nor the praise they deserved. 
Just one of many factors which influence handing out medals or not.

Kris


----------



## SteveH (Oct 3, 2007)

I have to stand up for the Boomerang - it might not have shot much down (embarrassingly, I think it was the Wirraway that shot down the Zero), but it doesn't qualify for the list by virtue of its pleasant aesthetics. Arguably quite a pretty plane...

Steve


----------



## Civettone (Oct 3, 2007)

As a fighter the Boomerang was no match for the Zero and uncapable of catching most Jap bombers but it must have been a decent attack aircraft with its bombload and cannons. 
At the time of its design the Australians didn't have an alternative, so better this aircraft than none at all.

Kris


----------



## grob (Oct 8, 2007)

Dont diss the Battle some very brave pilots bombed german targets and harbours at the start of the war knowing what they had to go against but it was all we had at the time.Dont forget we were even still flying the Gladiator and Heyford


----------



## Civettone (Oct 8, 2007)

The thing with these light bombers is that it's not so much that these aircraft were bad, it was the concept with proved to be disastrous. All single-engined light bombers failed during WW2. The Germans were one of the few to realize this before the start of the war when they put the He 45 out of service. On the other hand, if the British had had a Stuka it would probably have faired just as bad as the Battle.

Kris


----------



## Negative Creep (Oct 14, 2007)

To say a plane is bad in no way takes away from the bravery of its pilots. If anything, it amplifies their courage


----------



## PFF (Oct 21, 2007)

I'd have to say the RAF Defiant-aircraft-not because it couldn't shoot down EA-but because it not only had such a ludericous design-putting 4 MG in a Bomber type turrent on a figther aircraft yet not leaving any MG for the Pilot in the Wings! In fact it would have been better to have placed 2 to 4 MG in the Wings and streamlined the rear canopy os the gunner could fire 1 to 2 MG-but the whole concept of a EA bomber letting itself be blasted at close range by 4 MG from a fighter plane!!


----------



## Civettone (Oct 22, 2007)

Again, it may not have been a bad aircraft but a bad concept. 

There would be no need to change the Defiant into a conventional aircraft, you already had the Hurricane and Spitfire for that. 
I can imagine it looked like a good idea in the late thirties... 

And it did make a reasonably good nightfighter... 
Kris


----------



## Cdat88 (Oct 23, 2007)

Well, I would have to say the Breda Ba. 88 has my vote. Other than as a weight to keep the airfield from spinning off the planet, it seemed to have no useful purpose.  

Decoy work not withstand, of course.


----------



## magnocain (Oct 28, 2007)

i dont know.... but i think it is the Potez 25. it was and old french biplane that didnt have a propose. the


> All single-engined light bombers failed during WW2.


. what about the Mosquito? it was 2 person, but could have easily been 1 person. nice picture cosimo90


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 29, 2007)

magnocain said:


> what about the Mosquito? it was 2 person, but could have easily been 1 person. nice picture cosimo90



I think you mis-read him, He said single engined light bombers, not crewed by a single man.


----------



## Neto (Oct 31, 2007)

the p 39 may be. the low power of alison singel engine and very weight airframe gives then bad mobility and poor dogfight capability. If he is a Bomber no problem but the main rolle of p 38 is fighter bomber.. he needs power and manover


----------



## magnocain (Oct 31, 2007)

Ok, ya that is right.


> All single-engined light bombers failed during WW2


 Not to be argumentative, but the TBF Avenger, SBD Dauntless, Swordfish, SB2C Helldiver, and D3A Val were all single engined (mostly light) bombers,(if carrier baised) and were all relatively successful.
That isn't counting the A-1 Skyraider, which was too late for ww2


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 1, 2007)

mosquitoman said:


> The Battle, the Roc or the Botha were worse, they were underpowered, slow and had no useful defensive armament



On the ROC's account that's wrong. It only had a useful defensive armament. That was the problem, like the Defiant, a good rear turret but no offensive/foreward-firing gins. A FIGHTER with NO offensive armament!!!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 1, 2007)

Glider said:


> Re the Defiant it should have been possible to make a decent GA aircraft, after all it did go 300mph with a heavy turret and an early Merlin.
> Take the turret out put in a rear gunner, couple of 20mm in the wings and you should be able to have a decent bombload. May not be the greatest GA in the world but a lot better than nothiing which is what we had GA wise at the time.
> Said before but relavent here




They had the Whirlwind and the Beaufighter didn't they? and the Whirlwind was a good fighter below 20,000 ft. So it could do both roles.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 2, 2007)

Wespe said:


> No I wont, because it was not a prototype, the Meteor and Me-262 never started in 1939, but the development of jetfighters. In the second stage the Germans came out with the "Unstoppable King of the Sky)" and the British with a plane just as good as a Mossie. The MK III was loaded and armed less than 700km fast and was obiously not god enough,otherwise why didn't the RAF use them,like the USAAF who shot down (helpless 262's ) Instead they come up with this frase: Unfortunatly the Meteor did not see combat because the Germans had no more planes. BULLSH...... .
> Wespe




Wrong, the Meteor III did serve in the active combat role in early 1945 performing recon and ground attack over germany. Though it never encountered airborne resistance, the closet it came to Jet vs Jet was an attack on a Ar 234 airfield. The meteor's engines may have been draggy but they (derwent I) were more powereful than the 004 and the Derwent IV engine put out 2400 lbf. Along with the Derwent IV and the long chord nacelles (the nacelles not only reduced compressibillity but also speed by 120 kph !) of the last Meteor III's it should have been capable of well over 500 mph. And it wasn't only the materials that made Brit engines more reliable, it was also the simpler and more reliable centrifugal flow compressor that contributed.

The main factor limiting the meteor's development was lack of engine development, since the prototype airframes were ready long before the engines. From the start the RAF had been slugish to fund Whittle's and Power-Jet's development. Even after interest was taken and things seemed to be coming along Power-Jets then got teamed up with Rover in 1941 to develop a production version. Rover was a horrible partner, perferring to work on their own developments of the engine rather than converting the prototype to production. After some time of stagnation Rolls-Royce finally stepped in and offered to take Rover's place and the work was transfered in early '43, the agreement between Rover and Rolls taking place on January 1 1943. This Rover mess delayed production and development by nearly 2 years! Had Rolls initially taken the contract, who knows, the Meteor could have flowd before the Me-262. So this 2 year lag effectively delayed the Meteor's development by 2 years as well as verry little testing could be done without them.

If such development had occured sooner, the US would have kicked into gear sooner too. As it was the Brit buracratic problems resulted in the engines not entering production until the US's version the GE I-16 (J31) was ready for production. The XP-59A flying several months before the first meteor took to the air.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

Kool Kitty look at the date of his post. He wrote that a long time ago and we all explained to him he was wrong. The guy no longer posts here either...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 2, 2007)

Well I read through the whole thread and these were the main things (albeit a little late) that I thought should be noted that haven't been specifically, though granted it might have . (I assume you are talking about Wespe, though the other 2 were old too, I just wanted to refrence them since they seemed to still be interested in the topic...)

And you may have banned Wespe's proxy ( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/members/jabo.html ), but though Wespe doesn't seem to have posted since February, he is not shown as banned...

I'm surprise no one mentioned the Airacomet as the worst, it was certainly behind the Meteor in development. Though I wouldn't considder it the worst there have been so many "bad" planes thrown around you'd think it would have come up. To be honest if the Meteor had had the same development restrictions placed on it and Gloster had had the same problems Bell was going through, the Meteor might have had the same fate.

As I've said before a major problem with the P-59 was a lack of streamlining, wind-tunnel access, and cockpit redesign (though a cockpit redesign wasn't too hard). Even if the thick wings were retained, they would have still been better if they were smaller (lower span and area) and used laminar flow (ie like the P-63's wings) and overall streamlining of the airframe would have helped markedly. Granted, the engine placement had aerodynamic problems, but if one went out no appreciable asymmetric forces were exerted. It would also have been prudent to max out fuel capacity once service quality performance was acheived. Another problem was, due to the secrecy of the project verry few Bell engeneers knew about it so only its design team could develop it using the devlopments on the P-63 which shared many characteristics. Good examples of Bell's aerodynamic capibillities are seen in the P-63, and just look what the managed to get out of a design like the XP-83. (though its performance wasn't great the bulky craft, with all its inherent disadvantages, manage to get up to 522 mph with less than 8000 lbf of thrust for its 27,000 lbs weight)

As it turned out, the P-59 still served well as a testbed and conversion trainer and the single engine XP-59B design was developed by Lockheed into the XP-80.

With streamlining, a cockpit redesign, nacelle critique, better wings, control surfaces and added airbrakes, and increased fuel capacity (same sort of changes the Meteor went through from Mk-I to F. III and Mk 4) the P-59 would have made decent jetfighter. 

I also thought someone would have said the Whirlwind (due to initial impressions of this craft, similar to the F2A), though that choice would be quicly explaned away.


As for rocket planes, the Me 163 was only really bad because of its unstable fuel, the airframe was excelent. The Bereznyak / Isaiev BI-1/BI-6
on the other hand had the opposite problem. It never was lost due to engine problems, the engine using realitively stable (and cheaper compared to peroxide and hydrazine) nitric acid and kerosene as fuel. The airframe however was badly flawed, with poor maneuverabillity, and worse horrible high-speed characteristics. If a speed of 750 kph was exceded the a/c would begin an uncontrollable nose-down dive, it would then continue to accelerate even with the power off. (similar to the P-38's problem but worse) BI-6

The M.K.Tikhonravov 302 ( 302 ) was a similar concept, but much better design. The airframe was perfected but the engines failed to materialize.


----------



## Graeme (Nov 2, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> On the ROC's account that's wrong. It only had a useful defensive armament. That was the problem, like the Defiant, a good rear turret but no offensive/foreward-firing gins. A FIGHTER with NO offensive armament!!!



A *fighter *using a *four gun turret*, surely this equates as both offensive and defensive armament? 



kool kitty89 said:


> They had the Whirlwind and the Beaufighter didn't they? and the Whirlwind was a good fighter below 20,000 ft. So it could do both roles.



Gliders point (IMO) is one concerning timing...

The Defiant was ordered into production in 1937. The Whirlwind in January 1939 and the Beaufighter in mid 1940.


----------



## Trautloft (Nov 2, 2007)

the Whirlwind is one of my fav a/c, but it definately wasnt a great design..the peregrine engines been unreliable,thats why it saw limited combat .
the mossie and the beau been far superior


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 2, 2007)

As stated earlier I qouted a pilot who had flown 33 different Whirlwinds also Spits and Hurricanes and 2 tours on Mossies which was the start of his 50 year flying career and he states the Whirlwind was his favourite aircraft to fly of all time it was fully aerobatic and unbeatable below 15000 feet , the Peregrine wasn't developed further because RR was fully commited to the Merlin and the designer Petter didn't do it any favours either as he kept pissing of the Air Ministry . Petter later was the major designer of the fabulous Canberra and Lightning


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 2, 2007)

Totaly agree pbfoot, as in the other thread (though that whole discussion has taught me alot too)

At its introduction, the Whirlwind was faster than anithing out there, and it was not just the unreliabillity of the engines, but also general lack of them as the Perigrine was canceled. It was very small and light for a twin (only slightly larger than the Hurricane or Spit) and was quite maneuverable, but the engines resulted in poor altitude performance.(like the P-40 or P-39) It actually served for 3 years, mostly as a fighter-bomber. It was also said to be able to outclimb almost anything out there. The low fuel capacity (135 gal) and lack of drop-tank plumbing likited iths range to 800 miles, making a medeocre escort. And I'd bet it could outfly the Mossie or Beaufighter easily.(below 20,000 ft) Careful streamlining mace for a very clean a/c which is one of the problems of searching for alternative engines as the Peregrines were a key part of the streamlining.

Trautloft, if you want to continue on this discussion see: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-twin-engined-fighter-8053-5.html

If you want to continue the


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 2, 2007)

Graeme said:


> A *fighter *using a *four gun turret*, surely this equates as both offensive and defensive armament?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, my bad, but still foreward firing guns would have helped markedly, say 4x .303 guns.


----------



## Graeme (Nov 3, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> The low fuel capacity (135 gal) and lack of drop-tank plumbing likited iths range to 800 miles, making a medeocre escort.



It wasn't designed to be an escort.

The Whirlwind was designed to specification F.37/35. The specification called for a maximum speed of at least 286kts at 25,000ft and the fighter was to carry a sufficient number of forward firing 20mm cannon to “effect a decisive result in a short space of time”. The requirement was for a home defence interceptor, with a good climbing performance and sufficient speed to enable it to bring the battery of cannon to bear on enemy bombers.

No matter how the RAF used the Whirlwind, it’s important to remember that the original specification…

Did not ask for an aircraft that could take on enemy fighters.
Did not call for a particularly long range or endurance.
And it certainly did not ask for an ability to attack ground targets.

You only get what you asked for.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 3, 2007)

Still it performed well in most of those roles below 20,000 ft (as well as an interceptor as long as the bombers were lower than 25,000 ft). With a fuel capacity of only 135 gal. drop-tanks would have markedly improved this, and with bomb racks capable of 2x 100 lb bombs, 2x 75 gal tanks would be reasonible, assuming the plumbing was added, and this would more than double its capacity. 

I wonder why the remaing Whirlwinds weren't sent to commonwealth operators after the RAF retired them in '43. They would hve been one of the best fighters with them if this had been done.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 3, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> I wonder why the remaing Whirlwinds weren't sent to commonwealth operators after the RAF retired them in '43. They would hve been one of the best fighters with them if this had been done.


263 sqn was over half 12 Canadian and 2 Americans plus 8 others when my source flew them


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 3, 2007)

I meant in the pacific, with the RAAF and RNZAF like was done with the Buffalo. Would have been a better ground attacker than the Buffalo, except for the slightly lower range. A good escort too, considdering they were using mostly Hurricanes for this. It might have needed to be tropicalized though.

Do you know how many were left by the time they were retired in 1943?


Also found some more info on the Brewster: Brewster F2A

I think the F2A-2 was the best of the line, heavier and lower climb then the F2A-1's (2,500 ft/min from 3060 ft/min), but well armed and armoured, decent range and bombload, and a top speed of 344 mph. At least as good as the Wildcat and more maneuverable faster and gave better visibility to the pilot. (even a limited vew below with the ventral window. (though I'd bet the F4F was still tougher) The biggest problem was Brewster's poor ability to manufacture the Buff, both in quantity and quality. (they should have stuck with this model and just worked on strengthening the airframe and landing gear, and improving production and company management.

"The Navy pilots were, nonetheless, generally pleased with their F2A-2s, and they regarded them as the best of the Buffalo variants that they had the opportunity to fly."

The F2A-3 was overweight and underpowered and the top-speed dropped to 321 mph. The climb dropped to 2290 ft/min.

even so:

" Many pilots actually preferred the F2A-3 to the F4F Wildcat, but one experienced Buffalo pilot said that he would have never have taken an overweight F2A-3 into combat."


----------



## Wildcat (Nov 5, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> I meant in the pacific, with the RAAF and RNZAF like was done with the Buffalo. Would have been a better ground attacker than the Buffalo, except for the slightly lower range. A good escort too, considdering they were using mostly Hurricanes for this. It might have needed to be tropicalized though.



The RAAF only used the Buffalo operationally over Singapore and Malaya at the start of the Pacific war. Apart from a handful used as PR a/c based in Darwin none were used in combat in 43. I reckon the RAAF was more than happy with its Beaufighters, P-40's and later Mosquitoes in the ground attack role (Beaufighters and Mossie being produced here BTW) therefore no need to ship obsolete a/c out this way! 
As for the Hurricanes, the RAAF didn't use them in the PTO however I believe there was a Kiwi squadron that used them early on over Singapore and later Burma. As far as escort a/c for the RAAF in the Pacific is concerned, we had Spit V's and VIII's plus P-40's for this role. Again no need for the Whirlwind out here.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2007)

There were Hurricanes over Singapore and later Burma. Read "Bloody Shambles."


----------



## Wildcat (Nov 5, 2007)

Yeah I know that Joe, I was talking about the RAAF, we did not use Hurricanes in the PTO.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2007)

OK...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 6, 2007)

The RAAF used them in North Africa though. 
I kind of got mixed up there though... 

What did the RNZAF have that was better than the Whirlwind? (I wouldn't say the Hurricane was better just had different advantages) The Whirlwind probably would have done better in the PTO since there was alot more low-level duties, and it would have been great ad an interceptor. (that's what it was designed as after all)


----------



## Wildcat (Nov 6, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> The RAAF used them in North Africa though.
> I kind of got mixed up there though...


No worries, it happens 



kool kitty89 said:


> What did the RNZAF have that was better than the Whirlwind? (I wouldn't say the Hurricane was better just had different advantages) The Whirlwind probably would have done better in the PTO since there was alot more low-level duties, and it would have been great ad an interceptor. (that's what it was designed as after all)



Well in '43 the fighter force of the RNZAF in the Pacific was equipped with P-40s'. however these were replaced in mid '44 with the corsair. So I guess its a case of which a/c was better, the Whirlwind or the Corsair? Keeping in mind the RNZAF Corsairs were heavily used in the air to ground role (Infact I believe they never shot down an enemy a/c?) in the Solomons and Bougainville. Still the whole Whirlwind in the Pacific is an interesting proposition. Would have looked great in RAAF colours pounding Japanese positions alongside our Beaufighters


----------



## Graeme (Nov 6, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> Do you know how many were left by the time they were retired in 1943?





kool kitty89 said:


> I wonder why the remaing Whirlwinds weren't sent to commonwealth operators after the RAF retired them in '43. They would hve been one of the best fighters with them if this had been done.



There were only 16 left. By June 1944 they were deemed unservicable and obsolete. They were 'reduced to produce' in 1946 by the Airwork General Trading Company. One survived. Formally P7048, it was registered G-AGOI and used as a company hack for Westland, until it too was eventually reduced to produce in 1947.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 7, 2007)

And thus none survive today. =( 

Only 16 left, okay that's too few to bother with training pilots for, and not enough to be useful. I was thinking if maby 30 or 40 were airworthy it would have been worth it and I doubt it was truly obsolete in a ground role, as its best performance was down low and it outpaced many other fighters while at optimum. Plus the cannons had already prooven effective in the groun role, so good for close suport. (I think it was faster than the P-40 at SL, definitely the E and earlier, and the hurricane too, maby the coarsair, though it was more agile than the F4U I think)


----------



## magnocain (Nov 9, 2007)

you all know deep down that the p-51 was the worst plane of ww2


----------



## magnocain (Nov 9, 2007)

just kidding!

but anyway this is the WORST plane of ww2 not A KIND OF BADest plane of ww2. the Buffalo was pretty bad, but it wasnt the worst plane of ww2.
The hawker furry flew in yuchloslavocava (lol) ww2, and i think it was horribly out of date by then

my 2 cents


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2007)

magnocain said:


> just kidding!
> 
> but anyway this is the WORST plane of ww2 not A KIND OF BADest plane of ww2. the Buffalo was pretty bad, but it wasnt the worst plane of ww2.
> The hawker furry flew in yuchloslavocava (lol) ww2, and i think it was horribly out of date by then
> ...



More like a half a cent.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 10, 2007)

It's hard to tell how good the Buffalo could have been since the highest performing (overall) version, the F2A2, never saw combat. The Finns were verry sucessful with their B239 models, though this was due largely to the skill of the pilots. The F2A-3 used by the Marines was probably the worst model, very underpowered, realitively slow, and overweight. The B339E was about as bad, despite being converted from the F2A-2, it had less power and was much heavier, as well as a reduced armament. So no wonder these two models got a bad reputation, especially when facing zeros.

Though even the F2A-3 had slightly higher performance (slightly faster, more agile, and better climb) than the F4F, but the Wildcat was alot tougher, which was its only distinct advantage aganst Japanese fighters, though it was still generally outmached by Zeros. The USN couldn't realy meet the Japanese on even odds until they had the F6F and F4U available. But still with good pilots, I'd say the F2A-2 would be superior to an F4F-3 or F4F-4 in a dogfight. Faster (344 mph top speed), better climb (~2,500 ft/min), more maneuverable, better visibillity, equal armament to the F4F-3 and longer firing time than the F4F-4 (plus the F2A had 2x nose guns which were more acurate than wing-guns), and somewhat better range. Though the F2A2 was a bit more fregile than the Wildcat it was alot harder to get a bead on and still was tougher than Japanese planes, particular in respect to pilot protection. 

Also, at Midway, remember that the USMC pilots flying the F2A-3s were inexperienced, and tried to engage in WWI style dogfights with the Japanese. I doubt they would have fared much better in Wildcats, or even F2A-2s for that matter. Though they might have done better in P-40s (or maby even P-36s) since they had good maneuverabillity, decent speed and power, good armament, simple and easy to fly, and were quite tough.

As a note on the P-39, in most respects it was superior to the P-40, and both performed rather poorly above 20,000 ft, the British even found their Airacobras more maneuverable at high-speed than the Spitfire iirc (the stick was heavier at low speeds, but was much lighter than the Spit at high speeds). However it was not thet easy to fly and had some nasty stall characteristics, (though the flat spin was only noted when the nose was improperly loaded) though buffeting usualy gave enough warning as long as the pilot was attentive. It was probaby no trickier than the P-38 overall.


----------



## magnocain (Nov 10, 2007)

I would like to point out that with a good pilot (and a ton of luck) a Buffalo could take out a me262 or a p51, even a battleship if it hit it in just (and i mean JUST) the right place. 

my half cent


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 10, 2007)

magnocain said:


> I would like to point out that with a good pilot (and a ton of luck) a Buffalo could take out a me262 or a p51, even a battleship if it hit it in just (and i mean JUST) the right place.
> 
> my half cent


so could a J3


----------



## magnocain (Nov 11, 2007)

Did you know that Erich Hartmann once took out a French dreadnought with a j3 and a 2 by 4? 

all my cents are gone now...ill try to get some more


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 11, 2007)

The biggest problem with the Buffalo, besides the steady decline in performance following the F2A-2 (due to overloading), was that Brewster had management problems which greatly limited the quality, and in particular, quantity of aircraft they were able to produce. This also led to problems with keeping (or, more accurately, not keeping) to production deadlines. Maybe they should have outsoursed production...


----------



## Civettone (Nov 14, 2007)

I know about the production delays. But what quality problems are you talking about??


Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 14, 2007)

There were quality problems and production delays at Brewster. Eventually the government took control of the factory and ousted most of the management.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 14, 2007)

Yup, and probably the biggest advantage of the Wildcat, besides its durrabillity, was the numbers it was produced in. Only around 500 Buffalos were produced in all types, less than 200 being used by the US (more might have been used had orders not been diverted to foreign markets), compared to over 7,700 Wildcats produced.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 15, 2007)

So which were these quality problems which were the result of bad management?


Kris


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 15, 2007)

I think the structural problems like with the landing gear were hampered by the management problems, while they didn't cause it outright, poor management made it difficult to effectively and efficiently redesign the airframe. Though I think the quality problem was not really that bad. The real problem was with production delays, which were experienced in almost every aircraft that Brewster produced, including their F3A Corsairs IIRC. This was the major reason that the Government seized the factory.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2007)

Civettone said:


> So which were these quality problems which were the result of bad management?
> 
> 
> Kris



I think everything from schedule to the overall quality of the aircraft coming off the line were problems at Brewster and I think this was mainly encountered on the Corsair line. When you're building an aircraft and it is being done in jigs there's little one could screw up unless they're untrained or don't care. In the middle of all this there were union problems and their union actually struck in the middle of the war! From Wiki...

_"During WWII it became apparent that Brewster was mismanaged. The company had grown from a relatively minor aircraft parts supplier to a fully-fledged defence giant in only a few years. Jimmy Work had hired Alfred and Ignacio Miranda as the company salesmen. They had been involved on frauds, spending two years in prison for selling illicit arms to Bolivia, and had over-promised Brewster production capabilities to customers. As WWII had swelled the defense industries, the quality of the newly hired work force was inferior in skills and often motivation, and the work was plagued by illicit strikes and even outright sabotage was suspected. The Navy installed a George Chapline as president of the company, easing out Jimmy Work, in the hopes of speeding up production, but then in early 1942 Jimmy Work regained control of the company, just in time to be sued for US$10 million for financial misdeeds. In May 1942 the Navy simply seized Brewster and put the head of the Naval Aircraft Factory in charge.

When the Navy cancelled Brewster's last contract, for assembly of the F3A-1 Corsair, the company was in serious trouble. In October, after reporting a large loss, the management decided to shut down the company, and on April 5, 1946, the Brewster Aeronautical Corporation was dissolved by its shareholders."_


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 15, 2007)

It's just sad what happened to that company. Their designers had some good ideas, but the company's mismanagement and burocracy killed most of them. Who knows what the F2A could have become if Brewster had had the stabillity and management of established firms like Grumman...


----------



## Civettone (Nov 25, 2007)

Thanks for the answer guys!!


Yeah Brewster had some good designs.

Kris


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 26, 2007)

And it took Grumman 3-4 redesigns to the F4F to beat the F2A design.

And even the F2A-3 was still decent with a minimum fuel load (~600mi range) but with the max load for 1600+ mi (~6 hour) patrols it was overweight and under-performing, unless it came into contact with the enemy after burning half its fuel. The F2A-3s at midway probably entered with a full combat load (gross weight ~7000 lbs) and were thus at a disadvantage to begin with. Not to mention the Marines tried to engage Zeros in turn-and-burn WWI style dogfights, plying on the Zero's turf.


----------



## Pflueger (Dec 4, 2007)

My vote goes to the Breda 88, for an AC that held such promise only a few years prior to the war (set world speed record in '37) and for such a studly-looking machine to end its service parked on runways as a bombing decoy is unfathomable.

The other candiates pictured on page 5 of this thread have the look of true clunkers (love the tureted fighter concept) - but not the Breda: the thing looks like an @ss-kicker. How in the world did this experiment go so wrong?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 4, 2007)

Maby we shoul set up a poll for this, voting on the worst of this thread... So it would be the worst of the worst.


----------



## B-17engineer (Dec 9, 2007)

Okay, 
For me it is between the Blackburn BOtha and the Machester. THe vulture engines of the Manchester always caught fire and were so underpowered it isn't even funny!


P.S. how do i get a picture for my name?


----------



## Marcel (Dec 9, 2007)

B-17engineer said:


> Okay,
> For me it is between the Blackburn BOtha and the Machester. THe vulture engines of the Manchester always caught fire and were so underpowered it isn't even funny!
> 
> 
> P.S. how do i get a picture for my name?



The Manchester? Only for it's engines? Remember the Manchester has the same airframe as the brilliant Lancaster, so the plane couldn't be all that bad. The Vultures were not good, but that's only a part of the plane.

For your picture, click on "User CP: somwere on the upside of the website and choose "Avatar" there you can change your picture.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 11, 2007)

Plus the He 177 was probably even worse, engine fire wise. Not just due to overheating (which was somewhat improved later) but also from leaking oil that would catch fire. And the gear-boxes were a mess.


----------



## magnocain (Dec 11, 2007)

I read a book The World's Worst Aircraft, and the buffalo and the battle both had a chapter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 11, 2007)

magnocain said:


> I read a book The World's Worst Aircraft, and the buffalo and the battle both had a chapter.


So did the Gee Bee. An entertaining book with "Osprey" implications. If the author really knew anything about aircraft, he wouldn't of bashed the Buffalo the way he did, or at least go into detail in the differences between the US Navy versions and the export versions.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 13, 2007)

"Worst Weapons" at least has mixed viewpoints on the planes. Like how the Finns like the Brewster and the Russians' sucess with the P-39. And it's pretty accurate. It seems Blazing angels is finally getting more accurate, as even their site mentions the mixed oppinions on the a/c. Blazing Angels 2: Secret Missions of WWII | Ubisoft

Though somthing's wrong with some of their Vampire pics...


----------



## Pflueger (Dec 13, 2007)

At least the Buffalo could successfully take off (even from carrier deck) and was manuverable enough to return to the same carrier deck or runway after completing its mission. It was an even bet whether a Breda 88 would even be able to get off the ground - and once airborne performance was so pitiful that they often were not able to line up the target or even capable of turning around for return to the home airfield. 

P-39s made sizeable contributions to the war effort in europe and the pacific (see Guadalcanal). Battles sucked - but they could at least fly well enough to deliver a bomb load and I believe were mechanically reliable enough to get the grew home most of the time (if they didn't get peppered of course).

I do not know the Blackburn (is my son's favorite English football club though), but sounds like it at least was utile in some miscelleneous/ backwater functions though. Gotta admit that it looks like a real dud.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 13, 2007)

The problem with the P-39 was it's poor altitude performance and being underpowered, and poor low-speed handling. The P-39D-2 had decent power and did somewhat better as did the Q-series, though the turbo really should have been left in. It may have had drag issues, but this mattered less at high altitude, though the real clincher was that the USAAC though that they were immune to bombers due to the oceans surrounding them, so development was to focus on low-altitude strike fighters. Thank god the P-38 didn't go this way, its performance w/out turbos was even worse! As seen in the British-bought ones which were quickly returned.

Another problem with the P-39 was, though it had around the same power for the same weight as the P-40, it was best at high-speed handling (350+ mph) which it needed a powerful engine to take advantage of. (1400-1600 hp) The turbo would have helped here somewhat too. The P-39D-2, N, and Q models had 1,300+ hp engines which helped but not quite enough. With these same engines and a turbo (or an auxiliary supercharger) it would have made a great medium-high altitude fighter, great for the ETO... Oh well...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 13, 2007)

Said it a number of time, I think the Breda 88 takes it.


----------



## Pflueger (Dec 14, 2007)

The Breda 88 was comparable in flight characteristics to the original Wright Flyer (no offense meant to the Wright Bros) = at times capable of becoming airborne for brief moments, when actually able to get airborne incapable of lateral movement.

All the other AC in the thread could at least fly.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 14, 2007)

Particularly the dessert model with the sand-filters and extra equipment. They eneded up as airstrip decoy craft. 

The standard model could fly somewhat, but still poorly. A stark contrast to the distance speed record set by the prototype... (at much lower weight)


----------



## Pflueger (Dec 18, 2007)

Very cool-looking decoy though, eh?

Which is a bit of a paradox: for being a real stinker the 88 has always looked like a [email protected] AC to me. A Botha or a Buffalo would probably not draw near as much attention as an 88 in decoy service.


----------



## milford maniac (Dec 18, 2007)

Hello everyone, this is my first post so here goes. Personally I think that the Me 163 is about the worst aircraft if you can call it one of WW2. For what it achieved in combat compared to the loss of pilots in accidents and explosions to me far out weighs any benefits it would have brought to the Luftwaffe., A waste of time and development when resources were scarce.


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 18, 2007)

Anybody mention the Brewster Buccaneer?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 19, 2007)

It didn't see service in WWII though, did it? Maybe by the Brits, and just barely if that...

The F2A was always a good looking little a/c to me, especially compared to the Wildcat, and I think even an F2A-3 overweight with full fuel load (1,600+ mi) would still outperform the F4F-4 (only ~800 mi), its added guns were not worth the decrease in already low performance and firing time... The FM-2 was great, but came almost as the Hellcat was ready, though it was still the only one usable on escort carriers... Plus the Corsair was available even before then too...

As said the increase in durability of the F4F wasn't worth the poor performance as the 20mm's of the Zero could tear through the easy target and the lighter armored (but still far more than the Zero ad with armored/ self-sealing tanks) F2A-2 (or even F4F-3, with normal fuel load) could dogfight the Zero on far more even terms.

If Brewster had only been able to work out management and production problems it would have worked, but the plane was never available in numbers anywhere near those of the Wildcat...

Remember there were some other fairly young companies (compared to Grumman, in terms of Military a/c design) that could have had problems too, but were lucky enough to be well managed, Northrop, Lockheed, especially McDonnell (first military craft didn't even see service until post-war), and to a lesser extent: Republic (from Siversky) and Vought.


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 19, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> It didn't see service in WWII though, did it? Maybe by the Brits, and just barely if that...



It saw service as a trainer and tower of targets. Hence my point. It was considered so bad, not even the plane starved British ever attempted to use them in combat...noone did, despite there being 771 being built. (examples being ordered by the USN, UK and Dutch...the latter batch being taken over by the USN as SB2A-4's)

One book I own stated it was classified as the worst American production aircraft of WWII. It is thought that many of them, after being test flown in the US were simply put in storage until being scrapped.

Thats bad.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 19, 2007)

They were better in performance, armament, range, and bomb load to the Fairey Battle... (more than twice the armament and bombload)

And somewhat better than the SBD Dauntless in forward armament, range, and speed, though it probably was allot more vulnerable to enemy fire (very important for the bomber role) and probably not fit for the Dive-bomber role nearly as well (much lower max G's), plus had less than 1/2 the SBD's load...

The SB2A was good in its original scout/bomber role, and probably would have made an excellent scout for the navy if it was adapted for carrier service, and with longer endurance, stronger offensive and defensive armaments, and better speed, it would have been much better than the SBD was in this role. (which it served in but wasn't designed for)


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 19, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> They were better in performance, armament, range, and bomb load to the Fairey Battle... (more than twice the armament and bombload)
> 
> And somewhat better than the SBD Dauntless in forward armament, range, and speed, though it probably was allot more vulnerable to enemy fire (very important for the bomber role) and probably not fit for the Dive-bomber role nearly as well (much lower max G's), plus had less than 1/2 the SBD's load...



I suspect, that like the other infamous Brewster (F2A), the real story lay behind the "stats." The quote I pulled from the book is actually about USN fighters of WWII and it had a whole chapter devoted to the Buffalo. (of whch within was a pic and a descriptive caption devoted to Brewsters other attempt to dominate the naval air market...the Brewster Bucanneer)

Given what was written about the Buffalo in terms of stability, quality/mismanagement issues with Brewster in general and given the comment about how after being "test flown" the planes (Bucanneers) being promptly put into storage, the RL preformance was less than optimal vs. what's on the specs sheet. I'm sure it was the "specs" that made the Dutch and UK order them initially.


----------



## 'Lil'tyger (Dec 19, 2007)

the worst allied plane in the pacific theater i think was the "pby catalena" it was just BIG and SLOOOW 8)


----------



## Wildcat (Dec 19, 2007)

Not by a long shot...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 20, 2007)

The initial test stats are what made the RAF so excited about the Airacobra, it was even designated the P-400 for the supposed 400 mph acheived in testing. However with full combat accessories (and nacessities) and without a turbo the craft dropped to around 360 mph (still significantly better than the P-40 of the same period though). She still should hve been capible of ~380 mph if the turbo had been retained... And still did far better than a "castrated P-38" (ie. Lightning Mk I). With the engine improvements of the P-39D-2's engine (1,300+ hp and even more in the N and Q models), 400 mph should have been possible. Hell, even the stock late-model P-39Q (without wing guns) could reach 395+ mph...

As said before, management and quality control were Brewster's biggest problems and are what ruined their aircrafts' development and destroyed the company...

Still, the basic Buccaneer Design would have made a good scout/patroll craft (somewhat similar to the Fw 189), these roles probably beeng the best for it as other US light bombers of equal size had much better bombloads and likely better survivability.


----------



## Heinz (Dec 20, 2007)

Wildcat said:


> Not by a long shot...


damn straight.

RAAF 11, 20 and 43 squadron did a fair bit of damage and got great reconnaissance against the Japanese.

All the thanks to the Cats long range. 

Longest RAAF raid of the war was in the Cats, 18 hours and they could stay up their for 22.

Great aeroplane.


----------



## Graeme (Dec 20, 2007)

'Lil'tyger said:


> it was just BIG and SLOOOW 8)



What's your logic behind this? Big and slow-therefore the worst?


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 20, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> The initial test stats are what made the RAF so excited about the Airacobra, it was even designated the P-400 for the supposed 400 mph acheived in testing.



Yes, the P-39/400 design showed great promise _on paper_. The UK soon found it unsuited for the ETO environment. The Soviets found good use for it though in their environment and in the PTO under similar terms of usage it found a 2nd life. 



> Still, the basic Buccaneer Design would have made a good scout/patroll craft (somewhat similar to the Fw 189), these roles probably beeng the best for it as other US light bombers of equal size had much better bombloads and likely better survivability.



_Would_ have is the key. The RL result was an aircraft so bad it was never flown in combat. Thats why I think it's a good nominee.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 20, 2007)

What's weird is that on the History channel's "Dogfights," they said that the P-400's had more trouble fighting zeros than the F4F... This was on the Guadalcanal episode. The only reason that made sence was that these P-400s had no Oxygen equipment so they stayed at 12,000 ft. Otherwise the P-400 (basicly the same as the P-39D-1 in performance) smoked the F4F-3 (and the P-40s of the same date) in all performance categories. (except if the F4F had a high-alt supercharger, still the performance drop-off at altitude would still have the P-400 favorable to ~20,000 ft, much better at 15,000 ft)


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 21, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> What's weird is that on the History channel's "Dogfights," they said that the P-400's had more trouble fighting zeros than the F4F... This was on the Guadalcanal episode. The only reason that made sence was that these P-400s had no Oxygen equipment so they stayed at 12,000 ft. Otherwise the P-400 (basicly the same as the P-39D-1 in performance) smoked the F4F-3 (and the P-40s of the same date) in all performance categories. (except if the F4F had a high-alt supercharger, still the performance drop-off at altitude would still have the P-400 favorable to ~20,000 ft, much better at 15,000 ft)



They did. It's because they tried to use them in the same way the F4F's were used, only at low and medium altitude where the Zeros could more easily capture alt advantage or maneuver better in the thicker air. The action in question occured on 8/30/42 with the Americans attempting a three tier CAP; A low tier of P-400's hovering over the stranded transport _Burrows_. (below 10K). The 2nd Tier patrolled at 14,000 feet and consisted of 7 x P-400's and the high tier consisted of Wildcats patrolling at 28,000 feet.

The Japanese at this point had switched to using fighter sweeps in an attempt to clear the area of fighters and they came in and made a mess of the P-400 contingent, attacking the middle tier in a climbing attack out of the clouds and downing two P-400's. Two P-400's of the lower tier were bounced and shot down for a total of four x P-400's downed for the day. The Marines got revenge though, the high tier CAP bouncing the Zeros while they were playing with the P-400's and shooting down an estimated 8 of them in trade for two Wildcats written off on force landing.

Nevertheless, the battle severely impacted the morale of the P-400 drivers and from that point on they were used in the ground support role in which they excelled. According to Richard Frank, it's effective ceiling, limited by lack of supercharger and proper oxygen equipment made them unsuited to tackle high flying Japanese bombers and was sucicidally low for fighting Zeros.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 21, 2007)

It actually had a decently high ceiling, though performance dropped above 15,000 ft, and above 20,000 ft it was only good for patrol and cruise, but at least it would have the alt advantage... The Brits considdered the opperational ceiling to be ~24,000 ft, though performance was poor, and this wasn't really possible w/out oxygen equipment.Though the true service ceiling of the P-39D (which was virtually the same a/c as the P-400) was ~32,000 ft. (though it had virtually no performance at this height and top speed would be below 200 mph)


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 21, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> It actually had a decently high ceiling, though performance dropped above 15,000 ft, and above 20,000 ft it was only good for patrol and cruise, but at least it would have the alt advantage... The Brits considdered the opperational ceiling to be ~24,000 ft, though performance was poor, and this wasn't really possible w/out oxygen equipment.Though the true service ceiling of the P-39D (which was virtually the same a/c as the P-400) was ~32,000 ft.



Problem was the Japanese usually flew upwards around 25-30K.  If not for the coastwatchers and radar, the Wildcats too would have been hard pressed to meet them but it gave them just enough time to reach altitude and go after the bombers.

But even if they [the P400's] flew lower, as they did on Aug 30, they were no match for the agile Zeros, hence the move to ground attack support.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 22, 2007)

Were the P-40s better matched to the zero in yout oppinion?


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 22, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> Were the P-40s better matched to the zero in yout oppinion?



compared to the P-39/400? Most definately!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 23, 2007)

Technically the P-39 was higher performing than the P-40, but the P-40 had better stall characteristics and low-speed handeling, so that would be more important in this case aganst the Oscar and Zero. But the P-39 was probably better aganst Bf-109s than the P-40...

The P-40 wasn't good at altitude either though since it had the same single-stage single-speed supercharged V-1710 engine as the P-39. (though some P-39 models had more power, and some P-40s were refitted with single-stage supercharged Merlins iirc) And the P-40 was certainly easier to fly, and a better armament in this case too. (a larger number of machine guns better than the P-39's cannon+ fewer machine guns, especially the 37mm, though the Russians liked it and fount it useful aganst both air and ground targets, and the P-40B/C had the same MG armament, though the P-40 had more ammo, especially for the .50 cals) 

Ith's weird though, I've read more about complaints of the P-39's altitude performance than the P-40's, though they should have been equally bad... 

But I certainly agree, the P-40 was a better fighter for the PTO, and the P-39 was only realy useful in the Eastern front in the ETO where much more took place at low level...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 1, 2008)

Another thing was that the P-39 could and should have carried a turbocharger, while the P-40 couldn't practically do so. If the P-39 had been modified for under-wing tanks, it may have made a good escort fighter too, with a turbo. The P-76 Airacobra with 2-stage supercharged V-1710 (rated for ~1,300 hp at ~20,000 ft, though originally a Continental I-1430 had been planned) had decent high-alt performance too, with ~390 mph at ~22,000 ft.

4,000 were ordered buy the USAAF in early 1942, but it was later cancelled since the low-altitude performance and maneuverabillity were significantly less than the P-39D and to allow B-29 production at the intended factory.

Besides the P-47 (and the P-38 ) was already available by this time in considderable numbers and had the range for escort and excellent high-alt performance (and were considderably faster), so the only advantage over the P-47 would have been fuel efficiency (and low-alt maneuverabillity). 

Though if the turbocharger hadn't been deleted in the first place, it may have been useful earlier, and likely better performing then with the still lower-altitude 2-stage supercharger. It may have had performance in the P-38's level, but with the agility of a single-engined fighter.


Plus most (early to mid war, and the majority of those available) Japanese planes' engine performance dropped off above ~15,000 ft as well, with the Oscar and Zero having top speeds around this level, and Japanese bombers often came in on target ~15,000 ft. The difference was that the Zero and Oscar had much better low speed maneuverabillity and wing loading than the P-39 (and to a lesser extent the P-40) so they fought much better at these altitudes than these American fighters. (the Hawker Hurricane Mk.IIB (also widely used in the PTO) also had similar advantages at altitude, albeit with a slight improvement in altitude power rating due to the 2-speed supercharger, wirth power dropping off around 20,000 ft instad of 13,000-15,000ft. Thogh the P-40 and P-39 were certainly faster than the Hurricane, even above 20,000 ft, (and were generaly better armmed) the Hurricane would accelerate better at most altitudes and would likely outmaneuver the P-39 (and probably the P-40) above 20,000 ft, as would the A6M and Ki-43 since speeds would be considderably limited to well below 300 mph in dogfights at these altitudes.

That said, the P-39 and P-40 woud be good interceptors aganst Japanese Bombing raids and better armmed for this task than was the Hurricane IIB (except maby compared to the P-40B/C's armament) and with decent rares of climb to 15,000 ft, better than the Hurricane. And had considderably longer range than the Hurricane either when comparing drop-tank loaded or bomb loaded. Though the Hurricane was certainly an older design compared to the P-39, the P-40 Tomahawk was basically the same airframe as the P-36 which was at least as old as the Hurricane Mk.I.


----------



## VALENGO (Feb 9, 2008)

Goering said that the war was even worse with the Me 210 troubles.


----------



## Big Jake (Feb 10, 2008)

Hard to decide which aircraft of WW2 was the worst but I would venture that among US aircraft, one of the worst was the SB2C Helldiver dive bomber. As Capt. Eric Brown says in his book Wings of the Navy, "the handling chracteristics of the "Beast" were such that it would never have been allowed near a British carrier deck!" 
Politics played a big part even in WW2 - how can one explain the long production run of the P-40 and the introduction of the SB2C by Curtiss unless that compnay had good friends in Washington? Nothing is new under the sun...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2008)

What do you think was wrong with the P-40? And the SB2C did become a good aircraft once the bugs were worked out of it.


----------



## Soren (Feb 11, 2008)

I think I have a good candidate:

The Polikarpov I-153...


----------



## Captain Dunsel (Feb 12, 2008)

If I may make some suggestions about this topic:

1.	If an aircraft wasn’t used for the purpose for which it was designed, we can’t blame it for being faulty. The P-40 wasn’t designed to be a high-altitude fighter. The Army wanted pursuits to keep the bad guys off their backs whilst they fought the ground war. So, we can’t blame it for being a lousy high-altitude fighter. 

2.	If the aircraft is used for the purpose for which it was designed, but the doctrine for using it is faulty, again, it isn’t the aircraft’s fault. Case in point is the Fairey Battle. When it was used in the Battle of France, it was slaughtered. I hold that the problem was not with the aircraft, but rather with the doctrine of unescorted bombers. After all, how well did unescorted B-17’s do in ’43? Rather than blame the Battles, we could blame the Hurricanes as being faulty because they failed to protect the Battles! Itr's a general rule that if you own the sky, you can fly anything you want. Look at the Germans shovelling incendiaries out of Ju-52's onto Warsaw.

3.	If the plane was used for the purpose it was designed for, but was a failure because the pilots were undertrained, I’d lay that to doctrine, too. 

4.	If the plane was used for the purpose it was designed for, but was a failure because it was obsolete I’d lay that to doctrine, too. The Vindicator, TBD, and Swordfish both soldiered on long past when they should have been retired, because no replacement was available. In fact, IIRC, there were only a handful of TBD’s left after Midway, so they had to be retired.

There were planes that succeeded because they admirably performed jobs they weren’t designed to do. The P-38 was originally designed as a short-ranged, fast-climbing bomber interceptor, but it turned out to be great long-ranged fighter, a job it wasn’t designed for.

So, how would I determine a truly bad aircraft as we’re looking at them?

1.	It failed to do the job it was designed for because of design flaws. Birds like the Me-163, Br-88 and, Blackburn Botha both come to mind.

2.	It wasn’t good for any other reasonable task that came up. I’d ping the Blackburn Botha for this, as it wasn’t even a satisfactory trainer. At least the P-39 was able to be a successful low-level fighter and ground attack plane, even though it failed as an interceptor. I don't consider ground decoys to be a reasonable use of an expensive plane.

3.	It had to serve in at least squadron strength. That leaves out planes like the Zubor.

Okay, my opinion of the worst operational WWII aircraft? The Br-88, closely followed by the Botha. 

CD


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 12, 2008)

Soren said:


> I think I have a good candidate:
> 
> The Polikarpov I-153...



Actually the I-153 was supposed to be a great aircraft from what I read. It was one of the most maneuverable bi-planes ever built and I believe a few of them made it to Spain prior to the end of the Spanish Civil War. Against the Luftwaffe it seems the little bi-plane was just overwhelmed by numbers, technology, tactics and training.



Captain Dunsel said:


> So, how would I determine a truly bad aircraft as we’re looking at them?
> 
> 1.	It failed to do the job it was designed for because of design flaws. Birds like the Me-163, Br-88 and, Blackburn Botha both come to mind.
> 
> ...



That was the premise of this thread - and agree with the Br 88.


----------



## Soren (Feb 12, 2008)

The I-153 failed miserably as a fighter though, being massively outperformed by the 109.


----------



## Marcel (Feb 12, 2008)

The I153 was a generation before the Bf109, but not a bad airplane, better than the german biplanes which it fought in the spanish civil war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 12, 2008)

Marcel said:


> The I153 was a generation before the Bf109, but not a bad airplane, better than the german biplanes which it fought in the spanish civil war.


If I remember right the few that made it to Spain performed well and was even more maneuvable than the early Bf 109s it faced.


----------



## Captain Dunsel (Feb 13, 2008)

> The I-153 failed miserably as a fighter though, being massively outperformed by the 109.



I'd blame it's failure against the 109 on the commanders who committed it to that losing fight, not to the aircraft. There were still Claudes being flown against USN aircraft near the end of the war. They didn't stand much chance because they were obsolete, not because they were lousy aircraft. When the Claude came out, it was a tremendous advancement. The Japanese just kept using them for too long.

BTW, another loser I haven't seen much about is the Bell P-59. That was a failure as a fighter, being no faster than exisiting prop jobs and it had a bad snake at speed, making it a lousy gun platform.

CD


----------



## Marcel (Feb 13, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If I remember right the few that made it to Spain performed well and was even more maneuvable than the early Bf 109s it faced.



It was definitely more manoeuvrable than the Bf109. The 109 was faster though and the Germans used zoom 'n boom tactics which gave them considerable success, even against more manoeuvrable opponents


----------



## Gundrium (Feb 15, 2008)

I notice how NO ONE has even MENTIONED the F3F Brewster 'buffalo' as of yet, the thing was very possibly THE WORST aircraft of the entire war!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 15, 2008)

Gundrium said:


> I notice how NO ONE has even MENTIONED the F3F Brewster 'buffalo' as of yet, the thing was very possibly THE WORST aircraft of the entire war!


It *was* mentioned earlier in the thread - there was also discussion about the export version that went to Finland where it had one of the best, if not the best kill to loss ratio of the entire war!!!!


----------



## Soren (Feb 15, 2008)

The Finnish had even better succes with the 109.


----------



## Soren (Feb 15, 2008)

As for the I-153, very maneuverable yes, but painfully slow. The 109 massively outperformed the I-153. 

The I-153 is one of the very worst a/c of WW2 IMO, being completely useless from start till finish. Heck even the Brewster Buffalo out performed it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 15, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Finnish had even better succes with the 109.



Most of their top aces got most of their kills in the Buffalo or in the Fokker XXI



Soren said:


> As for the I-153, very maneuverable yes, but painfully slow. The 109 massively outperformed the I-153.
> 
> The I-153 is one of the very worst a/c of WW2 IMO, being completely useless from start till finish. Heck even the Brewster Buffalo out performed it.


Again the I-153 was a good fighter in its day, it was just outclassed by modern German fighters, but as stated could hold its own against early 109s - that was proven over Spain.

It would be like having He 51s fight against Spitfires...

BTW - I-153, top speed about 260 mph
Bf 109B had a top speed of about 290.


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2008)

The I-153 got its ass kicked by the 109 over spain FLYBOYJ. 

Anyway we're talking WW2 here and IMO the I-153 was as useless as could be in that war. And I really don't think that just because it was built for the early 30's that this justifies that it can't be called the worst of WW2. Heck if it's that way round why not bring up the Red Baron's Fokker triplane, it kicked ass in WW1, so surely it can't be called crap in WW2. See what I mean ??

The "Crappy'ness" of an a/c in war shouldn't be based on its performance at its introduction date, but rather on its performance in that very conflict, and the I-153 in short sucked as a fighter in WW2.


----------



## claidemore (Feb 16, 2008)

Soren said:


> The I-153 got its ass kicked by the 109 over spain FLYBOYJ.
> 
> Anyway we're talking WW2 here and IMO the I-153 was as useless as could be in that war. And I really don't think that just because it was built for the early 30's that this justifies that it can't be called the worst of WW2. Heck if it's that way round why not bring up the Red Baron's Fokker triplane, it kicked ass in WW1, so surely it can't be called crap in WW2. See what I mean ??
> 
> The "Crappy'ness" of an a/c in war shouldn't be based on its performance at its introduction date, but rather on its performance in that very conflict, and the I-153 in short sucked as a fighter in WW2.



Actually, the 1-153 never flew in Spain. That was the I-15 (Chato)or I-152;both had fixed landing gear, the 153 had retractable gear. 

The I-153 was actually built because of the 'success' of the other two earlier types in Spain which convinced Soviet planners in the 30s that hightly maneuverable bi-planes could still be effective in modern warfare. 
The I-153 was not operational until 1939, and remained in service until 1943. They build 3437 of them, armed initally with 4 x 7.62mm, later with 2 or 4 x 12.7mm or 2 x 20mm. 

It was considered to have done better against the Japanese Ki-27 than either the I-15bis or I-16.

There were 11 Soviet pilots who achieved 'Ace' status flying the Polikarpov biplanes during WWII. Alexander Ardeyev was one of them, with 12 kills flying I-153s. 56 kill ace Rechkalov also got 3 kills in a I-153. 

Definately not a great plane, but also definatley not the worst plane of WWII.


----------



## magnocain (Feb 16, 2008)

What about the Hawker Furry? It was in ww2 and was probily a lot worse than the I-153.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> The I-153 got its ass kicked by the 109 over spain FLYBOYJ.


Did it????
ON THE POLIKARPOV I-153 IN SPAIN



Soren said:


> Anyway we're talking WW2 here and IMO the I-153 was as useless as could be in that war. And I really don't think that just because it was built for the early 30's that this justifies that it can't be called the worst of WW2. Heck if it's that way round why not bring up the Red Baron's Fokker triplane, it kicked ass in WW1, so surely it can't be called crap in WW2. See what I mean ??


The aircraft performed per it's design requirement - it would be like putting the Bf 109 aganist an F-86 and saying the Bf 109 was crap, just the opposite of your example.


Soren said:


> The "Crappy'ness" of an a/c in war shouldn't be based on its performance at its introduction date, but rather on its performance in that very conflict, and the I-153 in short sucked as a fighter in WW2.


I disagree - the I-153 was outclassed, was flown by inferior pilots who deployed inferior tactics- it was a generation behind what it was fighting against - it would be like He 51s fighting Spitfires (as I stated earlier). But had it fought against an air arm whose best fighter was the He 51, I think things would of been very different as it older brother the I-15 did very well against the He51 over Spain.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Actually, the 1-153 never flew in Spain. That was the I-15 (Chato)or I-152;both had fixed landing gear, the 153 had retractable gear.
> 
> The I-153 was actually built because of the 'success' of the other two earlier types in Spain which convinced Soviet planners in the 30s that hightly maneuverable bi-planes could still be effective in modern warfare.
> The I-153 was not operational until 1939, and remained in service until 1943. They build 3437 of them, armed initally with 4 x 7.62mm, later with 2 or 4 x 12.7mm or 2 x 20mm.
> ...



Agree....


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2008)

FLYBOYJ,

That article just reinforces what I said, the Polikarpoc series gots its ass kicked over Spain by the 109.

Moving on..

If any WW2 fighter was used in the Korean war in the 50's it would've been the worst of that conflict FLYBOYJ, the Jet's would massacre it.

The Polikarpov series were useless in WW2 and can therefore be called the worst of that conflict. Heck they did miserably over Spain against the Bf-109C B's.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 17, 2008)

Gundrium said:


> I notice how NO ONE has even MENTIONED the F3F Brewster 'buffalo' as of yet, the thing was very possibly THE WORST aircraft of the entire war!


The Finns would beg to differ, along with a number of USN pilots who flew it in testing.

Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Feb 17, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Actually, the 1-153 never flew in Spain. That was the I-15 (Chato)or I-152;both had fixed landing gear, the 153 had retractable gear.


Wouldn't that then make it an I-16 with a top wing and some struts tacked on?
Of course, I think it pre-dates the I-16, but just saying.


Elvis


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ,
> 
> That article just reinforces what I said, the Polikarpoc series gots its ass kicked over Spain by the 109.


No - it said it might not have ever seen combat - and that was also the point by claidemore



Soren said:


> Moving on..
> 
> If any WW2 fighter was used in the Korean war in the 50's it would've been the worst of that conflict FLYBOYJ, the Jet's would massacre it.


Agree


Soren said:


> The Polikarpov series were useless in WW2 and can therefore be called the worst of that conflict. Heck they did miserably over Spain against the Bf-109C B's.


Are you talking about the I-16? It was outclassed but did hold it's own against the early 109s. US Mercenary Frank Tinker shot down a Bf 109 flying an I-16. Overall I agree the early 109 was a superior aircraft when compared to the I-16 (or I-153) but again the I-15, I-16 and the I-153 fulfilled their role during the period they were intended to be used in, that being the late 1930s. Again the I-153 should be compared with the last of the biplane fighters, the Gloster Gladiator, the CR 42, the Avia and the He 51.

To me a bad aircraft is one that is not only outclassed but can't perform it's intended design role - and the perfect example was the Ba 88


----------



## Graeme (Feb 17, 2008)

Elvis said:


> Wouldn't that then make it an I-16 with a top wing and some struts tacked on?
> Of course, I think it pre-dates the I-16, but just saying. Elvis



The I-15 flew first, followed 2 months later by the I-16.

The I-153 chronologically was Polikarpov's last biplane fighter, whose top wing reverted to the _Chajka_ (Seagull) layout as seen on the I-15. The I-153 has been described as "probably the best of all biplane fighters". 

The I-153 didn't participate in the Spanish Civil War, according to Gerald Howson who believes the confusion arises from one exhibited in a French museum said to have escaped after the war. His research revealed that it was manufactured six months after the war.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 18, 2008)

2 months?!

I thought there was much more time difference between the two.

Thanks for the info, Graeme.





Elvis


----------



## claidemore (Feb 18, 2008)

A brief look at some biplane fighters which served in WWII.

Avia B-534- 380mph, 3x7.92mm, Czech plane, Germany tried to adapt it for carrier service, then used it as a trainer. 

Curtis Hawk II-335mph, 2 x .30 Brownings, used in China
Curtis Hawk III-386 kmh, 2 x .30 Brownings, used in China

Fokker DXVII-335 khm, 2 x 7.92 mg, flew 3 sorties in WWII for Netherlands, engine often needed complete overhaul after only 2 hours use. Good candidate for worst WWII plane. 

Fairey Fox- 365 khm, 2 x machineguns, flew 100 sorties for Belgium, damaged/probably destroyed one Bf109. 

Bristol Bulldog, 360 khm, 2 x mg, Finnland

CR-32 - 360khm, 2 x 12.7mm and 2 x 7.7mm Italy and Hungary
CR-42 - 430 khm, 2 x 12.7mm, Italy, Hungary, Germany, and others, 2nd fastest bi-plane fighter, one of top 3 biplane fighters. 

Gloster Gladiator, 410 khm, 4 x .303, used by RAF/FAA, Finland, and others. Finns claimed 43 kills with Gladiators, RAF used them in France, BoB, Norway, Malta and Western Desert. One of the top 3 biplane fighters. 

Hawker Fury -359 khm, 2 x .303, 7 kills claimed by Yugoslavia and SAAF. 

Japanese biplanes, they had various biplane fighters which saw limited service in China, mostly phased out by the time the war really got going. 

I-15 - 360 khm, 4 x 7.62, service in Spain, USSR

I-152 - 370 khm, 4 x 7.62, Spain, China, USSR

I-153 - 450 khm, 4 x 7.62 or 2 x 12.7or 20mm, China, Finland, USSR, fastest bi-plane fighter ever, one of top 3 biplane fighters. Last kill by a Finnish I-153 was in 1944 against a P39 Airacobra. 

Excellent link about WWII biplanes:

Hkans Aviation page - Biplane Fighter Aces from the Second World War


----------



## Njaco (Feb 18, 2008)

> If any WW2 fighter was used in the Korean war in the 50's it would've been the worst of that conflict FLYBOYJ, the Jet's would massacre it.



Didn't a Corsair or P-51 get the first jet kill in Korea?


----------



## claidemore (Feb 18, 2008)

North Korean Yak 9s shot down a couple P-80s on 29 June 1950. Claimed but not confirmed. 
One confirmed kill for a Yak 9 on July 15 against 36 FBS P80.

Mig 15 didn't fly till November AFAIK.

Far East Air-to-Air Victories


----------



## wingnuts (Feb 18, 2008)

Further to Claidemore's post earlier:

Another biplane used (unsuccessfuly) in WW2 was the Vought Corsair V93S fighter bomber, used by the Royal Thai Air Force. Saw brief action when Japan attacked Thailand on Dec 8th 1941. Hopelessly outclassed by the Japanese aircraft

Curtis Hawk IIIs were also used by the RTAF during the Japanese attack ( they lost 5) and again against USAAF Liberators, B29s and P51Ds but without success as well as Hawk IIIs used as CAP over Thailand

The RTAF was sympathetic to the allies and reluctant to engage the allied aircraft unless they were actually attacking Thai targets. Some RTAF aircraft were actually used to ferry allied undercover agents into SE Asia


----------



## magnocain (Feb 18, 2008)

A hopelessly outdated plane is much better than no plane.
WHAT ABOUT THE HAWKER FURY?


----------



## wingnuts (Feb 18, 2008)

I was not saying the V93S or the Hawk III were the worst, only adding to previously posted info... The Japanese pilots would have gained a lot more combat experience against China and the Soviets that the Thais would have had recently against the French


----------



## Elvis (Feb 19, 2008)

Re: "Hopelessly outclassed aircraft"

...what sank the Bismark?

Brits found that one useful all the way to '43 or '44.

--------------------------------------
Re: Korean Jet Kills

This is the first I've heard about Yak 9's vs. P/F-80's.
Anyone show me some virtual litrature?

I know the first MiG-15 killed was by an F-80.
That fact is often related as the first jet-to-jet battle, ever.
.....apparently not exactly "correct"?


Not doubting anyone, just first I've heard about it.





Elvis


----------



## Wildcat (Feb 19, 2008)

JoeB is the man to see about Korean war claims.


----------



## claidemore (Feb 19, 2008)

Elvis said:


> Re: Korean Jet Kills
> 
> This is the first I've heard about Yak 9's vs. P/F-80's.
> Anyone show me some virtual litrature?
> ...



Yup, JoeB seems to know a lot bout Korean war kills/claims. 

I just googled it when somebody asked about P51 or F4U getting first jet kill in Korea and found a couple links with the Yak9 vs P80. It's listed as either July 15 or 19, a Chinese pilot, and the American pilot was named Odell? KIA I believe. There are some other P80 losses contributed to air to air about the same time, but no corresponding claims from the Yaks and La9's as well as claims by Yaks, but no confirmation from US sources. 
I've never seen such a mess of contradictory figures! 

From what I've read the first Mig 15 kill was not by a P-80 (Lt. Brown), but by a F9F Panther flown by a British pilot. The Mig Brown shot at was hit, but RTB according to Soviet data. 

I'm sure others could shed more light on the subject.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 19, 2008)

That was from some cob-webbed recess of my brain. I thought I remembered a piston AC taking down a jet in the beginning. My bad.


----------



## Gundrium (Feb 20, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It *was* mentioned earlier in the thread - there was also discussion about the export version that went to Finland where it had one of the best, if not the best kill to loss ratio of the entire war!!!!


  .........
................
................
................
Oops! My bad!


----------



## Elvis (Feb 20, 2008)

claidemore said:


> From what I've read the first Mig 15 kill was...by a F9F Panther flown by a British pilot. The Mig Brown shot at was hit, but RTB according to Soviet data.


Hmmm, the way I understand it, if its shot but is able to return to base, that's not a kill.

Have assumed incorrectly all these years?





Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Feb 20, 2008)

magnocain said:


> WHAT ABOUT THE HAWKER FURY?





claidemore said:


> Hawker Fury -359 khm, 2 x .303, 7 kills claimed by Yugoslavia and SAAF.










Elvis


----------



## Gundrium (Feb 20, 2008)

B.T.W, has anyone ever heard of the BV Ae 607? (German) (Pictured here:



) This was one Particuly BAD creft that never quite made it... (GEE, I WONDER WHY?!?!)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2008)

Gundrium said:


> B.T.W, has anyone ever heard of the BV 237 (German)? (Pictured here
> 
> 
> 
> This was one Particuly BAD creft that never quite made it... (GEE, I WONDER WHY?!?!)



How was it a particularly *BAD* aircraft? An aircraft that never was built cant be a bad aircraft.

Blohm Voss was actually very successfull with asymetrical designs. This design might have proven to be a good aircraft.

Now having said that, lets stick to aircraft that actually flew or were in service.



Gundrium said:


> Or, pehaps, the BV p.170? (Pictured here) :



Again lets stick to aircaft that have actually flown. There is no way we will ever know if it was a good or bad aircraft, especially from a drawing.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 22, 2008)

Like I said before, Fisher P-75 Eagle...










Elvis


----------



## fly boy (Feb 25, 2008)

the TBD's at midway were kamakzies just so the SBD could sink them


----------



## Marcel (Feb 25, 2008)

"kamakzies" Qu'est que ce? Ma francais est tres mal.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2008)




----------



## i-kil-you (Feb 25, 2008)

the lancestor sure does


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 25, 2008)

i-kil-you said:


> the lancestor sure does



What are you talking about????


----------



## Njaco (Feb 25, 2008)

Just read about this bomber. First time ever heard of it. Seems it was a problem. 

Consolidated B-32 Dominator

Consolidated B-32 Dominator 

".....In service, the B-32 had numerous deficiencies. The cockpit had an extremely high noise level and the instrument layout was poor. Bombardier vision was rather poor. The aircraft was overweight for the available engine power, the mechanical subsystems were inadequate, and there were frequent engine fires caused by a faulty nacelle design. There were frequent undercarriage failures, which caused the type to be grounded briefly during May of 1945. On the plus side, the B-32 had excellent low-speed directional control, good takeoff and landing characteristics and rapid control response. The B-32 was a stable bombing platform, its manned turrets provided good protection, its subsystems were easily accessible for maintenance, and its reversible inboard propellers gave it excellent ground-handling characteristics....."


Adler, its taken me 10 minutes to stop laughing at your siggy quotes!!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2008)

Actually the B-32 was supposed to replace all B-17s and B-24s in the ETO. It was basically "Plan B" if the B-29 failed.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 26, 2008)

Captain Dunsel said:


> I'd blame it's failure against the 109 on the commanders who committed it to that losing fight, not to the aircraft. There were still Claudes being flown against USN aircraft near the end of the war. They didn't stand much chance because they were obsolete, not because they were lousy aircraft. When the Claude came out, it was a tremendous advancement. The Japanese just kept using them for too long.
> 
> BTW, another loser I haven't seen much about is the Bell P-59. That was a failure as a fighter, being no faster than exisiting prop jobs and it had a bad snake at speed, making it a lousy gun platform.
> 
> CD




I think I mentioned earlier that I was surprised no one had mentioned the Airacomet, though I personally think it's a bad plane per se, just not allowed to develop properly. As it was it did fail as a fighter, though it was the first US jet a/c and provided valuable data and experience with jet technology; in that respect it is more like an experemental testbed than a combat a/c. But the Meteor Mk.1 wasn't much better, with worse climb and similar high speed insibillity and was more underpowered than the P-59A, the Meteor did have the advantage that it had excelent low-alt speed performance with 415 mph near SL while the P-59 had a similar speed gradiant to prop fighters.

The Plane was unfortunatly overengeneered for safety and a high service ceiling with a very large and thick -albeit laminar flow- wing (45.5 ft span, 386 ft2 area). Unfortunaely this wing actually limited ceiling to (a still impressive) ~47,500 ft due to shock-stall (compressibillity) problems. Restrictions were also placed on testing the design due to secrecy issues: preventing the use of NACA wind tunnels and resulting in poor streamlining and aerodynamic problems with the air intakes and nacelle-wingroot interaction.

With smaller thinner wings (say the same wings but scaled down to 85% of the originals (thus ~72% of the area) with a new canopy with better view, more streamlined intakes and nacelles, improoved flaps and controll surfaces, and a strengthened tail it could have been a good fighter. (it could have carried the P-38's armament as well) This may seem like alot of changes, but besides the wings, its just a large number of small modifications, no more than was done with the P-63 also designed by Bell and shared many characteristics with the P-59.

The P-59A/B also served in the useful role of conversion trainer being well suited to this role with friendly handeling and low stall speed it also glided well.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 26, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I think I mentioned earlier that I was surprised no one had mentioned the Airacomet, though I personally think it's a bad plane per se, just not allowed to develop properly. As it was it did fail as a fighter, though *it was the first US jet a/c and provided valuable data and experience with jet technology*


Did the P-59 ever enter service as a fighter?
I've only heard of it as a trainer.
The part I set in bold font is the reason _I think_ that it does not make this list.



Elvis


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 26, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Adler, its taken me 10 minutes to stop laughing at your siggy quotes!!!!



Just wait then. I am starting a quote thread. Everyone is going to be fair game in it!


----------



## Njaco (Feb 26, 2008)




----------



## Negative Creep (Feb 26, 2008)

Another thing about the p-59 was its top speed, only 409 mph, so slower than the P-51, F4U and P-47. Seems a pretty big drawback for something intended as a next generation fighter


----------



## R Pope (Feb 26, 2008)

KK89...Your improvements on the P59 resulted in the P80! That's what the original requirement was for the 80, an improved 59.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 26, 2008)

A I said there were huge handicaps in development due to secrecy with the P-59 program which prevented collaboration with the NACA, or even the use of any decent wind tunnels (issues Lockheed didn't have to deal with, granted their designs were better and they had more background in high speed paper projects- L133 jet project). It was also over-engineered to be safe so the designers could be sure that it would at least work.

Look at the early Meteor, it wasn't much better, but unlike the P-59 the Meteor continued to be developed. On the other Hand the P-59 was abandoned as a combat plane soon after the delivery of the YP-59A's and only minor improvements were made to the Production P-59s. Similarly the Meteor could have been abandoned in favor of the Vampire as was done with the P-80. One major advantage the Meteor did have (besides continual development and interest) was low altitude performance, the Mk.I could do 410+ mph at SL and ~420 mph at 10,000 ft and could maintain this unlike piston fighters which had to use brief WEP usages, while the P-59 performed no better than piston a/c down low, though it did out perform most above 30,000 ft and had better maneuverability at altitude with the low wing loading. (although it would have benefited more to use smaller, thinner, wings at the expense of wing loading to have better speed performance:the P-59 having a wing area of 386 ft2 and fairly thick too!!!)

The speed of the YP-59A was 409 mph @ 35,000 ft with 1,650 lbf I-16 engines, the P-59A improoved this to 413 mph at ~30,000 ft with 1,650 lbf J31 engines, the P-59 with slight airframe improvements and 2,000 lbf J31-GE-5 engines managed to do ~450 mph at optimum altitude (~35,000 ft). And the P-59B even managed a max range of 950 mi ith 2x 125 gal drop tanks and increased internal fuel over earlier versions.

The biggest change needed to make the craft combat worthy would be the wings: scaling them down in all dimensions to ~85% would bring area down to ~270-280 ft2 somewhat thinner (the same airfoil but smaller in all dimensions) and span to ~38-40 ft. This would cut down on drag considerably, increase roll rate, and low altitude speed at the expense of higher wing loading- ceiling may actually improve due to the thinner wings and reduction of shock stall. (though wing loading would still be under 50 lb/ft2 at max load, and under 40 lb/ft2 normal loaded, similar to the Vampire I) Other than that small improvements in control surfaces and flaps, a redesign of nacelle/intake and general streamlining, and a better canopy. (armament was easiliy changed, the P-38's armament being probably the most practical) It would never have been as good as the P-80 and not as versatile , but it could have been much better than it turned out imo. (not mostly Bell's fault, just a bad combination of decisions and cercumstances)

The craft also had the highest thrust/weight of any fighter design of the war with 2x 2000 lbf engines (used on the last few P-59A's and all B's) and a max takeoff weight of 12,700 lbs of the P-59A (13,700 max in the P-59B) and 10,800-11,000 lbs normal loaded it had a thrust/weight of .31 to .37 at takeoff! (compared to ~.28-.32 for the early (Y)P-80A, ~.25-.29 for the Meteor I and III, ~25-.27 in the early Vampire I with 2,700 lbf Goblin I, and ~.28-.31 for the Me 262 and He 162 without over-rev, the He 280 had more with 004A and B engines but it was not matched well at all to these-- overall performance dropped despite the increase of ~650-670 kp in late HeS-8/HeS-001 prototypes to ~820-860 kp per engine of the 004 without over-rev of the 004A as they were bulkier -though diameter was about the same- and weighed twice as much and range went to hell as well)

Yes it only saw operational service as a conversion trainer (and later a drone/target towing a/c) And as it was it was fairly well suited for conversion training with good glider characteristics (good for engine outs which were common in testing) and had friendly handling characteristics.


----------



## Captain Dunsel (Feb 26, 2008)

I understand it wasn't uncommon to deadstick the P-59's after running out of fuel. It certainly was a pretty plane, even if it wasn't a success as a fighter.

As to flyboy's comment about the TBD's being kamikazes at Midway, the problem was that, for varied reasons, they never got the fighter escort they were supposed to get.

Navy air doctrine of the day was that the torpedo-haulers would come in on the deck, whilst dive bombers would come down from above and both would get fighter escort that would both protect the attackers and suppress defensive flak. What's more, the torpedo planes were expected to split up, so as to hit their targets from both sides. Defense against a torpedo plane attack was by turning into the attackers; when they're coming at you from both sides of the bow, turning into one group gives the other group a clear shot at your side. All of this, of course, whilst the dive bombers are dropping down on you from above and the fighters are strafing your decks. 

Unfortunately, the F4F's couldn't stay down low with the slow TBD's, so they got separated en route to the Japanese fleet and weren't there when the Japs CAP struck. 

Do remember that there were more Torpedo 8 birds at Midway: TBF's that flew from Midway, together with 4 torpedo-carrying B-26's (Huh?). Most of them didn't come back home, either, and no one can consider either TBFs or B-26s to be dogs.

CD


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 27, 2008)

And with that huge wing area the P-59 was a good glider, a property appreciated during testing when the fairly unreliable I-A engines would fail (or sometimes the plane would just run out of fuel due to the high fuel consumption)
dead stick glide landings were relatively mild in this plane, particularly when you have unlimited hard pan to land on stretching for miles. (Muroc AAF base)

It was this feature which largely limited the performance of the a/c as well, the thick airfoil caused shock stall problems above ~48,000 ft, and the high drag of this huge (ironically laminar flow) wing prevented the craft from reaching high speeds, particularly at low altitude. (opposed to the Meteor I which could reach ~420 mph at 10,000 ft) Plus there were aerodynamic problems (most noticeably with the intakes and nacelle/wing-root interaction) which could have been solved had Gen. Arnold (for all the good he did for the advancements of high performance a/c) prevented Bell from testing their design in decent wind tunnels and working with the NACA-- due to secrecy issues...


----------



## Flyboy2 (Mar 22, 2008)

Marcel said:


> "kamakzies" Qu'est que ce? Ma francais est tres mal.



Il signifie qu'un avion qui a été exprès conçu rencontre un autre bateau, de cette façon sacrifing le pilote. Espérer qu'ait répondu à votre question.


----------



## Célérité (Mar 23, 2008)

You speack french very well Flyboy2, for Kamikaze it's the same termes in french and in english.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2008)

He seems to speak French much better than English!


----------



## Marcel (Mar 23, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> He seems to speak French much better than English!



I think that was Fly Boy, not Flyboy2  His English is even way worse than mine


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2008)

Yeah I just realized I got him confused with flyboy!


----------



## Njaco (Mar 23, 2008)

opps...I pee'd myself!


----------



## Flyboy2 (Mar 23, 2008)

HAHA! For a second I thought you guys where talking about my English! I didn't think I spoke it that bad!! HAHA


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 23, 2008)

Yep Adler's got fly boy's hillarious quotes right there.


----------



## Marcel (Mar 24, 2008)

Yeah Adler, when are you going to start that Quote thread?


----------



## Flightcommander (Mar 24, 2008)

here is a pic of the worst aircraft of ww2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2008)

Probably this weekend. I am going through and finding quotes at the moment. There are a lot of threads to go through my friend...


----------



## Marcel (Mar 24, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Probably this weekend. I am going through and finding quotes at the moment. There are a lot of threads to go through my friend...



Great, it'll be fun, I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 24, 2008)

Don't forget Triple Ace!


----------



## Flyboy2 (Mar 24, 2008)

feel free to use any of my quotes


----------



## Flyboy2 (Mar 24, 2008)

Flightcommander said:


> here is a pic of the worst aircraft of ww2.



Um, is that a jeep with a rotary wing and a tail section?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 24, 2008)

Are those RNZAF markings?


----------



## Elvis (Mar 25, 2008)

Flightcommander said:


> here is a pic of the worst aircraft of ww2.



...or yet another use found for the most ubiquitous vehicle ever invented! 

Put the words "Flying Jeep" in any search engine and you'll find at least some reference to this experiment.

Odd thing is....I think it actually flew!






Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 25, 2008)

This thing flew too, sort of... The SimCopter:

See: Wings of History Museum - SimCopter
and Simcopter


----------



## Elvis (Mar 29, 2008)

You know, there was a guy down in Longwiew (Washington) named Moult Taylor who made a rather famous version of the Simcopter you aluded to.
It was called The Aero-Car.
He tried very hard for a number of years to get the company going, but it never really..."_took off_" shock: )
The company was resurrected a couple of times, and as of 2002, there were still plans to produce the vehicle.
For those of us here, old enough to remember Bob Cummings TV show, may remember him having a flying car on that show.
That's a Moult Taylor Aero-Car.



Elvis


----------



## Arnold Rothstein (Mar 31, 2008)

keep in mind at midway 6 avengers took part and only 1 came back, without fighter cover you're done


----------



## parsifal (Apr 8, 2008)

Hi everyone

I am going to try something a little off centre. You are assuming that the "worst" is equivalent to the "poorest performer" But this is not necessarily a valid test to apply. 

Consider this....the stringbag was a worse performer than the TBD, and yet it is considered a success, whereas the poor old TBD, with a somewhat better performance was considered an abject failure. The battle, which everyone rails against has a performance similar to the stuka, or better still, the IL2. yet these latter aircraft were generally considered successful, whereas the Battle was dropped like a hot stone. 

Moreover, there is a whole sub-class of aircraft with performance arcs far worse than the models you are toting around. I am not suggesting they are failures, quite the contrary, but on the basis of performance arcs, they are far worse than the ones you are suggesting. An example, the Tiger Moth had no performance to speak of, yet nobody that is sane would suggest that the Moth was a failure. infact it was an outstanding success

I think the criteria for "worst" needs to be tightened up and re-defined, before you can go too far with this debate. For what its worth, I think the "worst" should be defined as those that led to some sort of strategic failure. But even this is dangerous. Consider this, on the basis of strategic failure, a good example might be the Zero Fighter, or, for the Allies, the lancaster bomber. The early success of the zero led to an over-confidence by the Japanese, believing that their A6M was invincible. They did not feel the need to introduce a more defensively oriented fighter, until it was too late. The result was a horrific loss rate as the newer, better, US types overtook the lightly protected zeroes in terms of performance.

In the case of the Lancaster, this otherwise excellent airacraft, along with the slightly less impressive Halibags and Stirlings, were bombers in the old school mold. Big, slow, heavy, lots of crew, bristling with defensive armament. In the bomber offensive these types were shot down in droves. The alternative, more modern (in fact the same philosophy exists in modern, post war bombers) can be found in the mosquito, fast, unarmed, capable of hitting precision targets. it is said that a Mosquito could bomb Berlin, return to England, and bomb the target again, in the same time as it took a stirling to go their just once. And the Mosquito would do it, with a fraction of the lossesand with greater accuracy, for the same weight of bombs. The old style heavies reduced the bomber offensive to an aerial version of trench warfare, un-inspired, and exrtremely costly. Should not these otherwise technical marvels therefore be considered amongst the "worst" aircraft of the war?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 8, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Should not these otherwise technical marvels therefore be considered amongst the "worst" aircraft of the war?


No and I'll tell you why - they were designed to a specification and in many cases met or exceeded that basic specification. When you have an aircraft that not only can't perform it's mission but can't meet its design specification, well that's when you start looking at "bad to worse," and with that said I think the Breda BA.88 takes it.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 8, 2008)

But a difficulty remains, and this gets back to my salient point, ie, that the original question is ill defined .....compare the harm the Ba88 did to Italy, versus the harm the lancaster did to the RAF. Who suffered more from the design failures of theserespective designs. Dont misunderstand me, I am not saying the Lanc was a failure as such. But the Lanc, along with the other heavies did not deliver what they were supposed to do, and failed in a spectacular fashion. I believe that if the British had adopted something like the Mosquito as their Bomber Command mainstay, there would have been measurably greater success than adopting the Lancs.

Similarly, the zero is acknowledged a agood design by most, but it had its limits, and because it was misused, and misunderstood by its owners, it ended up being a strategic disaster, contributing measurably to the ultimate Japanese defeat. 

I am trying to get back to my original criticism....that the question is too nebulous to be answered properly 

Let me finish on one last point, from the point of view of technical failure for an operational type, i agree one is hard pressed not to select the Breda. But the Me 210 is not so flash either (although, the hungarians, who produced them under licence, thought they were good aircraft, just shows how your attitude can change when you are desperate).


----------



## ccheese (Apr 8, 2008)

For a pre-production aircraft that took the speed record away from France,
the production models were pure "junque". In all respect they were unable to
do the job they were designed for. I agree with Joe....

Charles


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 8, 2008)

parsifal said:


> But a difficulty remains, and this gets back to my salient point, ie, that the original question is ill defined .....compare the harm the Ba88 did to Italy, versus the harm the lancaster did to the RAF. Who suffered more from the design failures of theserespective designs. Dont misunderstand me, I am not saying the Lanc was a failure as such. But the Lanc, along with the other heavies did not deliver what they were supposed to do, and failed in a spectacular fashion. I believe that if the British had adopted something like the Mosquito as their Bomber Command mainstay, there would have been measurably greater success than adopting the Lancs.


I don't know - Despite being shot down by the dozens I wouldn't call the Lancaster's deployment a failure by any means, especially by the technology of that day. The Mossie could not saturate a city the way the Lancaster could, perhaps only if they were built ten times their original production number - the call of the day was to put as many bombs as possible over a target and the Lancaster did that better than any other heavy bomber in the ETO.

As far as the success or failure of the strategic bomber - in "The Best Bomber of WW2" thread that was discussed in depth. IMO Stategic Bombing in its day did work, could it been carried out more effectively? Yes, no doubt about it. Could an aircraft like the Mossie had replaced the stategic bomber? I doubt it....


parsifal said:


> Similarly, the zero is acknowledged a agood design by most, but it had its limits, and because it was misused, and misunderstood by its owners, it ended up being a strategic disaster, contributing measurably to the ultimate Japanese defeat.


The Zero had limitations that were never fully addressed thorough out its career and it suffered for it. 1941 - Mid 1942 it was supreme in its environment, after that it was downhill. 


parsifal said:


> I am trying to get back to my original criticism....that the question is too nebulous to be answered properly
> 
> Let me finish on one last point, from the point of view of technical failure for an operational type, I agree one is hard pressed not to select the Breda. But the Me 210 is not so flash either (although, the hungarians, who produced them under licence, thought they were good aircraft, just shows how your attitude can change when you are desperate).


True about the Me 210 and how a desperate situation may dictate - at least the aircraft was able to fulfill a role - on at least one mission the Breda couldn't even remain airborne with it's designed payload - to me it doesn't get any worse than that!


----------



## parsifal (Apr 10, 2008)

I have one to add for consideration, the Loire 210. The french are an excellent ground to look for the wars worst....The Loire was a new design, introduced into servce in August 1939, and withdrawn from service in October 1939, after 5 of the 20 delivered had fallen out of the sky with catastrophic wing failures. It must surely be one of the shortest service histories of any aircraft in any air force

Loire 210 - float-equipped fighter


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 14, 2008)

Mustangs with Allison engines to use as bomber escort...

bf109 E between 24,000 and 25,000 feet where the auto trans would switch pitches, leaving a nice puff of black smoke for enemy aircraft to spot..

shorty stirling...lost a lot of crews


----------



## drgondog (Apr 14, 2008)

bf109 Emil said:


> Mustangs with Allison engines to use as bomber escort...
> 
> bf109 E between 24,000 and 25,000 feet where the auto trans would switch pitches, leaving a nice puff of black smoke for enemy aircraft to spot..
> 
> ...


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 14, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> and with that said I think the Breda BA.88 takes it.



_Fitted with sand filters, the engines overheated and could not put out the promised power rating. An attack on Sidi Barani in 9/40 had to be cancelled when the Ba.88s could not make altitude, as the engines could not generate the power necessary to gain sufficient altitude. By mid 11/40, most surviving Ba.88s had been stripped of useable equipment and were left as decoy targets around airfields.

It's funny to know that the first war flight of this plane had a tragicomic end. Immediately after the take off (with a small load of bombs) it was unable to climb and turn (!) due to the ridicolous power installed and high wing load. So the pilot was able to land only because the nearest airstrip was exactly disposed on the same line of the take-off airport!_

Comando Supremo: Breda BA.88

Breda Ba.88 Lince - ground attack aircraft
*
Very nice looking plane though!!*

,


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 14, 2008)

drgondog said:


> bf109 Emil said:
> 
> 
> > Mustangs with Allison engines to use as bomber escort...
> ...




The P-51A more so, as its V-1710-81/99 engine was a relatively high altitude rated engine. With 1,480 hp at 10,400 ft at high speed. (added ram effect) Climb power was lower with lower crit alt. (little ram effect) But you had to be careful at low alt due to the possibility of overboost, due to the high supercharger blower ratio. (depending on octane rating and ambient air temp)

In fact the overall configuration of the P-51A was the same as the B save for the engine mounting, intake (nose top, not chin), and plumbing for intercooler. (hence the A was quite a bit lighter than the B along with the heavier merlin, armament was the same) Speed didn't drop to 400 mph until 23,000 ft where power was at ~900 hp. At 10,400 ft (crit alt for 1,480 hp) top speed was 415 mph; at 17,500 ft (crit alt for 1,125 hp Mil power) top speed was 408 mph. Even at 25,000 ft speed was still a decent 395 mph with only 836 hp, I believe this was considered the combat ceiling.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51a-1-6007.jpg
Mustang (Allison Engine) Performance Trials

Range was slightly better than the early P-51B (of same fuel load).

In a pinch it probably could have worked as a high alt escort. But the P-51B became available shortly after, not to mention there were alternatives. (the P-47 worked, but needed alot of fuel -300+ gal of drop tanks- and later D models with increased internal fuel by 65 gal with ~400 gal of drop tanks were still competitive for range with the 'Stang; the P-38 worked, but there were the cockpit heating and engine system problems with early models, and it wasn't till the J that it really became a capable high alt fighter, and until the lat J and all L models that the high speed control problems were remedied along with the boosted ailerons.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 14, 2008)

shorty stirling...lost a lot of crews

*So did the B-17, B-24, B-26, Lancaster, Ju 88, He 111 He 177 and just about every 'superior' bomnber pressed into service in a hostile environment. Was the Short Sterling less survivable than the Betty?[/*QUOTE]

The Stirlings fatal flaw was its low ceiling. Made it AA fodder. Consider this, the effective ceiling of the 88 mm, which accounted for something like 85% of german AA had an effective ceiling of 26000 ft. I think the effective ceiling of the Stirling was below 15000 (Have not checked) this means that a stirling is in the kill zone of a flak battery for a lot longer, closer to the shooter and therefore easier to hit. 

But it still seems very rich to brand the Stirling the worst. Despite its shortcomings (no pun intended, the manufacturer was a company by the name of Short) it still was used to good effect, and bore the brunt of the early bomber offensive. it was the first four engined bomber on the RAF, and gave quite "stirling" service

You could only find 95% of all aircraft built during WWII that were 'worse' than a 51A

The RAF used the Mustang I for low level Recce up to the end of the war and scored quite well against 109s and 190s on the deck

Wasnt the A-36 also quite useful in ground support role??? Cewrtainly not deserving of the title for worst of the worst
[/QUOTE]


----------



## Waynos (May 18, 2008)

The Fairey Battle was a more advanced and cabable bomber than the Ju-87. It wasn't the plane at fault, it was the operational doctrine.

I think building a fighter and not fitting it with forward firing guns was a pretty dim move so I would nominate the Defiant, even the Brisfit of WW1, designed to the same basic concept, had a forward firing gun.

(apologies if this has been covered in the thread already)


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 18, 2008)

The Roc was worse than the Defiant. At least the Defiant had decent performance, but with the Roc it was like mating the problem of the Defiant with the performance of the Skua.

But the get worse, have a red through the old posts on the thread, there are a lot worse, the Roc was in the top 3 choyces consistantly though.


----------



## Waynos (May 18, 2008)

Cheers, I will. Yes, the Defiant was pretty awful, but to deliberately make an equivalent that is asthmatic as well as ill concieved takes the cake. I understand that Boulton Paul built all the Roc's as well.

I actually think that with fixed forward firing guns the Defiant could have been quite useful, not in a Spitfire/P-51 sort of way, but useful nonetheless. Whereas the Roc of course wouldn't ever have been any better, I read once that it was never very far away from stalling and in a strong wind was in danger of going backwards.


----------



## pbfoot (May 18, 2008)

Waynos said:


> Cheers, I will. Yes, the Defiant was pretty awful, but to deliberately make an equivalent that is asthmatic as well as ill concieved takes the cake. I understand that Boulton Paul built all the Roc's as well.
> 
> I actually think that with fixed forward firing guns the Defiant could have been quite useful, not in a Spitfire/P-51 sort of way, but useful nonetheless. Whereas the Roc of course wouldn't ever have been any better, I read once that it was never very far away from stalling and in a strong wind was in danger of going backwards.


Sorry but the Defiant was even pretty lame as a night fighter


----------



## Waynos (May 18, 2008)

But it still didn't have forward firing guns.

I have seen s design from Boulton Paul that looks like a slightly larger Defiant with a Centaurus engine and four 20mm cannon in the wings, plus turret, I'd like to have seen that given a chance.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 18, 2008)

Do you mean deleting the turret and adding wing guns, or keeping the turret and adding wing guns?


Actually considdering the added weight and drag of the turret, gunner, and supporting structure for it, in addition to being a larger a/c than the Spit or Hurricne, it's interesting that the Defiant managed the performance it did with the same engine.

Given the larger internal space, it may have been interesting to delete the turret, add a standard wing armament, and develop it into a long range single engine single-seat fighter. Or maybe as a fighter-bomber.

Either way the Defiant is still a cool looking a/c, particularly the tail.


----------



## Wildcat (May 18, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Given the larger internal space, it may have been interesting to delete the turret, add a standard wing armament, and develop it into a long range single engine single-seat fighter. Or maybe as a fighter-bomber.



Boulten Paul did make a prototype, the P.94, which was basically a Defiant minus the turret and 12x .303 MG's in the wings. I don't know much about it, but I believe it did show some promise, however with Hurricanes and Spitfires in production, it seems it was not needed at the time.


----------



## Elvis (May 19, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Wasnt the A-36 also quite useful in ground support role??? Cewrtainly not deserving of the title for worst of the worst


That was its main mission.
I understand it did okay, but I think the Brits found other aircraft more suitable.
However, they did have them, so they did use them.
The problem with using the 51/36 in the ground attack role comes from one of its most distinguishing features.
That big scoop under the airplane.
51's were pressed into the ground attack role in Korea and it was found that in some cases, schrapnel flying up would hit or enter the scoop, damaging the radiator....not a good thing to happen to an airplane with a water cooled engine.



Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 19, 2008)

But to the airframe its self the Brits seem to have though the Mustang I/I-A quite rugged. (and I'd immagine the Typhoon would have similar vulnerability with the huge chin mounted radiator, and decidedly better n belly landings)

Service of Mustang I/IA With RAF


> Tactical reports from RAF army cooperation units were laudatory. The Mustang I and IAs were able to take an incredible amount of battle damage.



and North American A-36 Mustang


> The A-36 was fairly rugged and easy to maintain in the field. The A-36 could consistently stay within 20 feet of the deck and could easily maneuver around trees, buildings, and other obstacles while strafing. The A-36A was able to take a considerable amount of battle damage and still return to base. Nevertheless, a total of 177 A-36As were lost in action.



And I don't the A-36 was much used by the RAF, nearly all went to the USAAF iirc. The RAF had the Mustang I/IA's.



And for some reason the Allison engined Mustangs (and the P-40) seem to be considdered more rugged than the Merlin powered counterparts, but that would have nothing to do with the scoop. (the only thing I can think that makes the V-1710 less vulnerably is the considerably smaller parts count, but I don't know a whole lot on the structural differences of these engines)


But on the radiator its self there is a whole lot of empty space around the rasiator, so the actual vulnerable spots aren't that large. (however the lengths of cooling plumbing for this location would increase vulnerability, compared to the P-40 or P-39's placement)


----------



## Waynos (May 19, 2008)

Yes, I meant keeping the turret and giving the pilot some guns. I realise this would make the plane even heavier which is why I was thinking of B-P's own Centaurus powered project.

Moving on to the next couple of posts, maybe the fact that the Typhoon intake was immediately behind the propeller helped in batting away any debris?


----------



## starling (May 19, 2008)

i would say the b17.give me a liberator anyday.yours,starling.


----------



## Waynos (May 19, 2008)

Boeing or Saab? (sorry, being facetious) I don't know how you could nominate the B-17 as the worst plane of the war, when bombers like the Amiot 143 existed.


----------



## starling (May 19, 2008)

sorry guv,i was comparing the b17 against the b24.wrong thread me thinks.i just imagine the ball turret gunner being stuck in his turret,with the landing gear shot up,yuck.i wonder how many runways had red streaks up the middle.yours,starling.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2008)

starling said:


> sorry guv,i was comparing the b17 against the b24.wrong thread me thinks.i just imagine the ball turret gunner being stuck in his turret,with the landing gear shot up,yuck.i wonder how many runways had red streaks up the middle.yours,starling.



First of all the B-17 is far from the worst aircraft of WW2.

Also why would you choose a B-24 over a B-17?


----------



## Marcel (May 19, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Also why would you choose a B-24 over a B-17?



It's better looking?........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2008)

24 is a higher number than 17...


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 19, 2008)




----------



## parsifal (May 19, 2008)

who thinks the B-17 is the worst a/c of wwii???? you have got to be kidding me!!!!!


----------



## wad_ster (May 19, 2008)

The B-17 was not one of the worst Aircraft of WW2 The only things bad with it is the Bomb load wasn't that good and their was too many poeple in it


----------



## Elvis (May 19, 2008)

starling said:


> ...comparing the b17 against the b24...i just imagine the ball turret gunner being stuck in his turret,with the landing gear shot up,yuck.


You know, that was one of the _vigenettes_ in the very first episode of the old TV Show "Amazing Stories".
Guy's a ball turret gunner in a 17 during WWII, but before the war, he wanted to be a cartoonist.
He found out that if he believed in the pictures he drew, hard enough, they'd actually come to life.
Anyway, his turret gets stuck after the plane takes some schrapnel and it also damages the landing gear. So much so, that it won't come down.
One of the crew tells him to draw the airplane and then draw big tires under it and see if he can make them appear.
Long story, short, big fat cartoon wheels come out and saves the plane and crew from crash landing.
I believe Kiefer Sutherland played the pilot of that plane.
Great show. Too bad its still not on.

----------------------------------------

KK89,

Exactly my point. 






Elvis


----------



## Kruska (May 20, 2008)

Hello Elvis,

  Hmmmm….. could explain why the Allies won the war, let me check with my “contact” in Roosevelt’s former super secret organization. 

Worst a/c?

from what I read it could have been the Me210? Didn’t proof to be reliable, flyable and wasted precious recourses in all fields. Maybe even contributed mainly to the hindrance of developing a/c such as a Ta154 or Ta152 in time?

Regards
Kruska


Regards 
Kruska


----------



## buzzard (May 20, 2008)

Naw, the B-17 wasn't the worst...the Spitfire was, or maybe the Mustang...or was it the FW-190? Anyway, it wasn't the B-17.


----------



## Elvis (May 20, 2008)

Kruska,

LOL! 
Yeah, its the little things that you never hear about. 





Elvis


----------



## Sonofsheep (May 20, 2008)

i completely understand when you say blackburn, but if you really think about it the blackburn could fly. the breda could only fly in a single direction. im sorry fellas but the blackburn atleast was airworthy


----------



## i-kil-you (May 20, 2008)

What would you say is the worst aircraft of ww2 is


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 20, 2008)

They through that discussion and it was only with the sand filters that the Bs.88 was totally useless, but either way it was still pretty bad.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2008)

i-kil-you said:


> What would you say is the worst aircraft of ww2 is



That is the title of the thread. You don't have to repeat the title. That is called spamming.


----------



## Njaco (May 21, 2008)

> the breda could only fly in a single direction.



You're right! Why didn't they put a reverse in it like all the others?


Kruska, I'm with you on the 210. Even the first flight, the pilot deemed it a death trap. At least until they lengthened the fuselage and change the tail alittle. Always wondered if it was a sick Luftwaffe joke sending them to Bulgaria.


----------



## Marcel (May 21, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is the title of the thread. You don't have to repeat the title. That is called spamming.



 at least he's not selling chinese crap


----------



## Kruska (May 21, 2008)

Njaco
Kruska said:


> Hello Njaco,
> 
> sorry but it was Hungaria,
> 
> ...


----------



## buzzard (May 21, 2008)

How about Brewster's Helldiver rival, the SB2A Buccaneer/Bermuda? They made over a thousand of these clunkers, and not one* ever flew a combat mission 

Bad as the Me210 was, at least it did something...

* The Brits may have used a few in the CBI, but I haven't seen any records that confirm the rumours. Anyone know anything?


----------



## Njaco (May 21, 2008)

Right Kruska, it was a quick post and I had brain-lock.

Its interesting how the Germans didn't like the 210 yet the Hungarians were able to use it effectively per se. Somewhat like the Buffalo and the Finns.

Are you sure about the production numbers? "Me 210/410 In Action" sqdrn/Signal has that along with the 210 the license also allowed production of Bf 109, Ju 52 and Ar 96. Total production of the 210 was 270 aircraft of which 110 were delivered to the Luftwaffe. Doesn't seem to be 2 out of 3 so maybe it was 2 out every 3 total types built in Hungary?


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 21, 2008)

At least the SB2A (Bermuda) served as target tugs, same as many Roc's, and Battle's ended up as.

I wonder why performance was so poor in reality. (in addition to the USN already having no need due to the SBD)


----------



## Waynos (May 22, 2008)

Brewster should get a special mention for being consistently crap, at one point during WW2 the US Navy marched into their factory and shut them down, that this should happen to a defence contractor in the middle of a war is amazing.


----------



## Kruska (May 22, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Right Kruska, it was a quick post and I had brain-lock.
> 
> Its interesting how the Germans didn't like the 210 yet the Hungarians were able to use it effectively per se. Somewhat like the Buffalo and the Finns.
> 
> Are you sure about the production numbers? "Me 210/410 In Action" sqdrn/Signal has that along with the 210 the license also allowed production of Bf 109, Ju 52 and Ar 96. Total production of the 210 was 270 aircraft of which 110 were delivered to the Luftwaffe. Doesn't seem to be 2 out of 3 so maybe it was 2 out every 3 total types built in Hungary?



Hello Njaco,

Brain Lock/Freeze? Don’t you know that you are supposed to fit the straw to your mouth and not through your nostrils when you enjoy your ice blended mocca? 

Well I would think that Squadron Signal might be more correct on this issue then WIKI. What makes me wonder is, what kind of changes the Hungarians undertook in order to be so satisfied with their Me210.

Maybe it is like you said, really very comparable with the Finns and the Buffalo – meaning that the Hungarians might not have been so spoiled by their own air force’s aircrafts as the Germans.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## fly boy (May 22, 2008)

tbd and buffalo


----------



## parsifal (May 22, 2008)

Well done flyboy, so you do speak english


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2008)

I am just going to start deleting spam posts.


----------



## Njaco (May 22, 2008)

Here are some changes effected by the Hungarians.

Me 210A-0 was re-engined with 1475 hp DB 605B engines without MW 1 Methanol injection. It was used as a pattern aircraft with lengthened fuselage and wing leading egde slots. Other than engines, the variants produced by Hungary were essentially the same as modified by Messerschmitt.

One modification was a Me 210Ca-1 into an assault aircraft with MG 17 mg replaced by a single 40mm 39M type AA cannon and 3 150mm Nebelwerfer rocket tubes mounted under each wing. Only 4 were actually produced.

Pretty interesting stuff. One group, 102 Gyorsbombazo osztaly between Aug 44 and march 45 flew 800 missions and shot down 20 to 25 Soviet aircraft. Pretty good for a ground attack unit.

Maybe standards were different between the two air forces and the 210 didn't fit what Germany was looking for. From what I've read the 210 was a pretty poor aircaft and I'm surprised that anyone even tried to fly it operationally.


----------



## Kruska (May 22, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Pretty interesting stuff. One group, 102 Gyorsbombazo osztaly between Aug 44 and march 45 flew 800 missions and shot down 20 to 25 Soviet aircraft. Pretty good for a ground attack unit.



Hello Njaco,

Yes pretty interesting, would you have a link were I could backtrack on this Hungarian operational experience with the 210?

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Njaco (May 22, 2008)

Unfortunately no, I was quoting from that book, "Me 210/410 in Action." Only reference I have that mentions any Hungarian 210s.


----------



## Trautloft (May 27, 2008)

those who are interested in pics and so, and other types of Hungarian Air Force used(like horrible Caproni bombers) or the Ju-86 in a bomber role, visit the topic i made earlier

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/hungarian-aircraft-8284.html


----------



## Njaco (May 27, 2008)

Thanks, Traut, I thought there might be a thread.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 19, 2008)

There were a lot of bad ones: How about the Me 163 Komet-- more deadly to its own pilots than to its enemies? How about the He 177 Greif-- they should have called it "Greif" because it caused so much-- and they actually made over 1000 of them! Then there is the fact that the Oscar was built way beyond its usefulness, and the Betty, which was so flammable, the Fw 200 which was exceeding fragile, and the "Lightning" given to Britain without turbochargers! The Manchester, Whitley, Hampden, and Blenheim were all miserable, and what about the Morane Saulnier MS 406? The Soviet MiG-1 and 3 were difficult mounts, with poor armament, though one nearly succeeded in shooting down Erich Hartman before his career could even take off.

So much of this is in the perspective of the pilot (or others!), or in the needs of the theater. Who'd have thought the Buffalo and P-39 would be prized mounts on the eastern front? What made the P-38 so great in the Pacific, but poor over Europe? Another problem we face are unfair statistics. For instance, if you look at the loss/victory ratio for the P-38 over Europe, you find it approximately 1:1, which was the worst of any US fighter in theater, other than the P-40 and P-39 operating in the Med. At the same time, though, how many of those lost were lost to Flak? How many were lost on dive-bombing and ground attack sorties? Also, we don't see from that 1:1 statistic how that the P-38 did really poorly at first, until pilots began to develop good tactics to use against the FW 190 and Bf 109? The P-38 was just about the only twin engine fighter that could still fly by day in prime enemy territory and hope to come back again alive.

At first, pilots thought the P-47 was terrible, but some changed their minds as they went on.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2008)

Oreo said:


> There were a lot of bad ones: How about the Me 163 Komet-- more deadly to its own pilots than to its enemies? How about the He 177 Greif-- they should have called it "Greif" because it caused so much-- and they actually made over 1000 of them! Then there is the fact that the Oscar was built way beyond its usefulness, and the Betty, which was so flammable, the Fw 200 which was exceeding fragile, and the "Lightning" given to Britain without turbochargers! The Manchester, Whitley, Hampden, and Blenheim were all miserable, and what about the Morane Saulnier MS 406? The Soviet MiG-1 and 3 were difficult mounts, with poor armament, though one nearly succeeded in shooting down Erich Hartman before his career could even take off.



I sould not call the He 177 the worst. It was a sound design (if it had not had coupled engines), but had problems with the engines which were later corrected. Hense over 1000 of them being built.

The Fw 200 was fragile on landing sometimes but it was a very successful aircraft, so I dont think that should be included in the worst aircraft.


----------



## Ki-43-I Hayabusa (Jul 20, 2008)

@ Oreo.
The Ki-43 was in the early years of the war the toughest opponent for the american fighters. Slower as a P-40 and underarmed, but in the hands of a good pilot a deadly weapon. And even obsolete in the closing years, there are some JAAF-Pilots who shot down B-17s, B-24s, Mustangs and Thunderbolts with her two Machine-guns! I think it was McGuire who lost his life in a low-level fight against Ki-43?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2008)

Ki-43-I Hayabusa said:


> @ Oreo.
> The Ki-43 was in the early years of the war the toughest opponent for the american fighters. Slower as a P-40 and underarmed, but in the hands of a good pilot a deadly weapon. And even obsolete in the closing years, there are some JAAF-Pilots who shot down B-17s, B-24s, Mustangs and Thunderbolts with her two Machine-guns! I think it was McGuire who lost his life in a low-level fight against Ki-43?


I believe the pilot who engaged McGuire was flying a "Frank."


----------



## Ki-43-I Hayabusa (Jul 20, 2008)

Thanks, i don`t know that.


----------



## Old Wizard (Jul 20, 2008)

The Curtis Helldiver has got to rank up there with the worst.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 20, 2008)

Neel Kearby was shot down by Ki-43's: Seversky Aircraft and Republic Aviation


----------



## csisco (Jul 20, 2008)

It WAS obsolete and outdated when WWII started. BUT, it could hold it's own against simmillar Japanese Claude fighters used by the Japanese over China and the Philipines, before the Zeros entered full service. Not sure about it ever shooting down a Zero though?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2008)

Old Wizard said:


> The Curtis Helldiver has got to rank up there with the worst.


The Curtiss Helldiver had many bugs when it was first deployed but once they were worked out it was a very good aircraft. I met someone who flew it and he had high praise for it.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 21, 2008)

csisco said:


> It WAS obsolete and outdated when WWII started. BUT, it could hold it's own against simmillar Japanese Claude fighters used by the Japanese over China and the Philipines, before the Zeros entered full service. Not sure about it ever shooting down a Zero though?


True, but if it weren't for the Peashooter, I think it would've been very possible that we'd have entered World War II with something hardly removed from the aircraft of the previous war.
If nothing else, I think it should be understood, that the P-26 helped the US military think beyond the "standard" of 1918.




Elvis


----------



## parsifal (Jul 21, 2008)

HE 177 did eventually overcome most of the bugs that bedevilled it at the time of its introduction. According to Green, it suffered catastrophic fires in the engine nacelles early on. According to green, he describes the problem as follows "_the tendency on the part of the coupled engines to ignite, became increasingly seriousas the test program progressed. There were several reasons forn the inflammability of the DB 606, one of which was the common exhaust manifold on the two inner cylender blocks, which became excessively hot and caused the usual accumulation of oil and grease in the bottom of the engine cowling to catch fire. also, when the pilot throttled back., there was a tendency for the injection pump to deliver more fuel than was required, in addition to which the engine pump connections were found to leak. Finally, to save weight no firewall had been provided, and the power plant was fitted so close to the mainspar that there was insufficient space to safely run the fuel, oil, and electrical connections. This sardine tin arrangement (as it was dubbed at rechlin) frequently led to fuel rich environment from the many leaking connections, and sparks from the electrical cabling._"

Ther were often internal failures in the engines, with conrods literally bursting through the sides of the engine crankcasings, with fuel and lubricants spilling onto the red-hot exhaust pipe collector.

In addition there were structural failures in the wings, brought about by a certain weakness in the wings. A report from Rechlin stated that the strength of the wings was at least one third less than designed for, brought about by the uneven rigidity in the individual wing members, and a consequent deformation of the wing under load. This forced the He 177 from being able to safely undertake one of its intended roles, namely that of divebomber role 9except very shallow dives. 

Eventually (ie early 1944) these problems were solved, mostly in the A-5 subtype, and the he 177 did provide some useful service in the anti-shipping role, and in operation Steinbock. Its perceived failure was not so much the design issue so populalry quoted, as rushed and inadequate testing regime, before acceptance into service. By the time the bugs had been addressed, the bad reputation of the type had already been established.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 22, 2008)

I think the Helldiver wasn't a bad plane at all. It deffinetly wasnt as good as the SBD but it still could get the job done. Some Helldivers had bomb hits on the Yamamoto


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 25, 2008)

csisco said:


> It WAS obsolete and outdated when WWII started. BUT, it could hold it's own against simmillar Japanese Claude fighters used by the Japanese over China and the Philipines, before the Zeros entered full service. Not sure about it ever shooting down a Zero though?



Claude is a more advanced plane of P-26, Claude is a "modern" fighter only with fixed gear, the structure of P-26 it's of old generation


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 25, 2008)

And the performance of the A5M showed it.
(similar to the Fokker D.XXI and Ki-27, albeit with an open canopy -preferred by pilots-)
In fact retracting gear was considdered, but the increase in speed caluculated was not though worth the loss in maneuverability. (which was already fairly low by contemporary Japanese standards)


----------



## Marcel (Jul 27, 2008)

I'll throw in a new one, Fokker T.V. Meant as an aircruiser, something like a fighter. Ended up as a bomber without decent bomb racks. Burned like a lighter, underarmed, underpowered and hardly manoeuvrable.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 28, 2008)

Good point Marcel. Wasn't a good plane at ALL


----------



## airboiy (Aug 6, 2008)

the buffalo was a good aircraft, just a bit slow. however, the worst aircraft is the komet.


----------



## fly boy (Aug 8, 2008)

i know that the tbd did get mauled but it is worth it considering that the four flattops at midway got sunk


----------



## Flyboy2 (Aug 8, 2008)

The komet was a horrible aircraft. In reality the 623 mph speed of the Me-163 was too great for accurate firing and the two 60 round cannons did not allow the pilot a lot of flexibility in combat. Finally the rocket motor only allowed seven and a half minutes of flight. One pass, and that was all. On landing, the rocket fuel often caused an explosion that usually destroyed the aircraft. The Me-163 killed more pilots than enemy bombers. It was just to far ahead of its time


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 8, 2008)

Flyboy2 said:


> On landing, the rocket fuel often caused an explosion that usually destroyed the aircraft. time



While I agree that the Me 163 was very far from the greatest aircraft, I think you will find that it did not explode as often as you think.

Was it dangerous? Hell yes it was, and many pilot died flying it.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Aug 9, 2008)

Really.. ok my mistake. I was under the impression that it was like a flying bomb... how many where lost because of landing incidents


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 9, 2008)

For italians craft i think Breda Ba 88


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2008)

I do not have that information.

In the end more Me 163 were lost than the bombers they were trying to shoot down. I believe they only shot down about 11 bombers. It really was not the greatest the plane.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Aug 9, 2008)

Yeah, i think it was just to far ahead of its time... The wing design really was amazing. Lippish delta i believe its called and wasn't that same design used on the F4D Skyray? One amazing thing i think is that it could climb to combat altitude in 2 minutes. Even if the plane wasn't very effective, thats still pretty darn good.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 10, 2008)

Too bad it wasn't adapted, or redesigned around a jet engine. (or if Lippish had decided to develop one of the similar jet based projects instead)

They could have used a viable single engine jet fighter earlier in the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2008)

Flyboy2 said:


> Yeah, i think it was just to far ahead of its time... The wing design really was amazing. Lippish delta i believe its called and wasn't that same design used on the F4D Skyray? One amazing thing i think is that it could climb to combat altitude in 2 minutes. Even if the plane wasn't very effective, thats still pretty darn good.



The Lippisch Delta was not used in the Me 163. It was a swept wing design and not a delta wing.

The aircraft you are thinking of is the Lippisch P.13.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Aug 10, 2008)

Ok, my bad.... Thanks though


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 10, 2008)

And I believe data from the P.13a (and the DM1 test glider) went to Convair, contributing to the XP-92/XF-92 designs. 
DM1

Also, don't confuse the P.13a and P.13b ramjet delta winged fighters with the completely unrelated Lippisch P.13, a push-pull piston engined high speed bomber. Lippisch P.13 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




But in the case of the F4D, Flyboy2 seems to have been half right. While the Me 163 didn't used the "Lippisch Delta" the F4D did draw from the Me 163, as it too is a tailless swept wing a/c and not a true delta. (albeit with a much higher sweep and low aspect ratio, making the F4D resemble a delta)

Lippisch Aerodyne Research


> German work on delta wing planforms, directed by Dr. Alexander Lippisch, led to a US Navy proposal in 1947 for a short-range carrier-based interceptor fighter using a similar layout. Project studies were initiated by the Douglas design team led by Ed Heinemann with the object of producing a fighter optimized for a high rate of climb and capable of intercepting enemy aircraft before they reached their targets. These studies led to a design which, rather than being a pure delta, was a tailless aircraft with a sweptback wing of extremely low aspect ratio, following Dr. Lippisch's own evolution of this layout for the Messerschmitt Me-163 target-defence interceptor.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Aug 11, 2008)

Alright, thanks for the clearing that up


----------



## namvet68 (Aug 11, 2008)

My pick is the American F2A Buffalo. This plane should never have been allow into the playing field of WWII.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Aug 11, 2008)

I think we've already done that haven't we?


----------



## maverick61 (Aug 18, 2008)

Bolton paul defiant.what use after 1940.


----------



## Vraciu (Aug 18, 2008)

Me 163 Komet, all russian planes 1941-1943.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 20, 2008)

The Ilyushin Il-2 wasn't a bad plane......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 20, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> The Ilyushin Il-2 wasn't a bad plane......



Then why did you bring it up in the "Worst Aircraft" thread?


----------



## Marcel (Aug 20, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Then why did you bring it up in the "Worst Aircraft" thread?



 I think he answered Vraciu.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 20, 2008)

Marcel said:


> I think he answered Vraciu.



Then he needs to start using the quote button!


----------



## moomoo2 (Aug 21, 2008)

The ME210 was crap, couldn't fly level or turn and stalled all the time. it had such a bad rep that the Hungarian improved C variant had to be called the 410 just to make it look new. So crap actually it was replaced in production by the 110


----------



## moomoo2 (Aug 21, 2008)

namvet68 said:


> My pick is the American F2A Buffalo. This plane should never have been allow into the playing field of WWII.



The Finnish loved the Buffalo, they just learned to fly it to its strengths and did just fine. It can' be that crap


----------



## Vraciu (Aug 22, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> The Ilyushin Il-2 wasn't a bad plane......



For German fighters was excellent! They can shot down Il-2 so easy...


----------



## Marcel (Aug 22, 2008)

Vraciu said:


> For German fighters was excellent! They can shot down Il-2 so easy...



I don't think so. The a/c was quite effective. Maybe not the best, but definately a good close support a/c. I think the quality of the russian pilots contributed more to the a/c being shot down than the quality of the plane.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 22, 2008)

The Il-2 was pretty much a sitting duck aganst enemy fighters. And as long as they had decent cannon it wasn't too hard to deal with. (and even with machine guns alone the belly mounted oil cooler was a big target) It needed decent fighter support to survive.

Certainly not the worst a/c though.

I think that's pretty much down to the Ba.88, Roc, Me 210, and maybe a couple others.


----------



## Juha (Aug 22, 2008)

KK
I would not call the oil cooler of Il-2 as a big target. And it wasn't so easy to hit under fuselage oil-cooler when Il-2 was hedge-hopping. Il-2 wasn't invulnerable, there was a couple effective ways to deal it, but one needed deflection shooting and the other usually meant use of lot of ammo. Normal 109 was a bit weakly armed on Il-busting, R/6s had enough firepower for the job as had 190As. Of course for a good shooter normal 109 was usually enough but sometimes even them were frustrated seeing smoking Il-2 still staying airborne after they had shot their ammo at it.

Juha


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 22, 2008)

I wouldn't want to try to take one down in a Hurricane Mk.I or a Hawk 75 though. 
Did the Finns have success against them in Brewsters?


And the oil cooler would be vulnerable to ground fire too. (It seems odd though, they go through the trouble of burrying the radiator behind the engine, but put the oil cooler on the belly)


----------



## Juha (Aug 22, 2008)

KK
I cannot remember how it was with B-239 but Hawk 75As seemed to have shot down (I mean really shot down not merely claimed) 5 Il-2s, but it was hard and difficult, usually they were only capable to damage Il-2s.

IIRC oil cooled was in armoured tunnel so it was vulnerable only to fire from more to less straight ahead or from more to less straight from behind. Maybe VVS calculated that Il-2s flying near front line were more likely to reach own area when hit into oil cooler that when hit into radiator and so recoverable for repairs and further use.

And worst a/c candidates, Breda Br. 88, Saro Lerwick and Blackburn Botha

Juha


----------



## Vraciu (Aug 22, 2008)

Quality of Russian planes in 1941/1942 was as poor as quality of crews of those planes.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 22, 2008)

Vraciu said:


> all russian planes 1941-1943.




how, really all of them?


----------



## Vraciu (Aug 23, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by Vraciu
> all russian planes 1941-1943.
> 
> 
> how, really all of them?



Yes, all of them.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 23, 2008)

Vraciu said:


> Yes, all of them.



so such aircrafts like Pe-2, La-5FN, Yak-9, Tu-2 are the worst planes of WW2 as well?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 23, 2008)

The Yak-1, Yak-7, LaGG-3, La-5, and MiG-3 weren't too bad either.


----------



## Vraciu (Aug 25, 2008)

They were building by poor, analphabetical Russians and quality of them 1941/1942 was horrible.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 25, 2008)

Vraciu said:


> They were building by poor, analphabetical Russians


say what?


> and quality of them 1941/1942 was horrible.



actually it varied from a very poor to excellent, depending on plant.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 25, 2008)

> They were building by poor, *analphabetical* Russians



I think he meant illiterate.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 25, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I think he meant illiterate.



Yep, I think so too. And I'm wondering what kind of illitaracy exactly he meant here. And who were the workers at the Soviet aircraft plants according to his opinion. Some kind of peasants I believe.


----------



## Phantom Rocks (Aug 26, 2008)

any1 heard of the BV-141, that is one hopeless plane.


----------



## moomoo2 (Aug 26, 2008)

Phantom Rocks said:


> any1 heard of the BV-141, that is one hopeless plane.



The BV-141 wasn't a bad plane, ugly but not bad. It was a very efficient aerodynamic design and had an amazing field of view.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 26, 2008)

Phantom Rocks said:


> any1 heard of the BV-141, that is one hopeless plane.



Please explain why you think so.

The Bv 141 was actually a very stable and maneuverable aircraft. It was perfect for observation. For its role as well, it had decent performance.

Just because an aircraft is not beautiful to look at, does not make it a bad aircraft.


----------



## lm2f (Aug 27, 2008)

I have read on wikipedia that the crew suffered from increased motion sickness as the result of not being on the central axis, definitely not the most comfortable aircraft to ride in


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 28, 2008)

Well the same problem would occur in the P-82 "Twin Mustang" and similar a/c. (Bf 109Z and other german Zwilling a/c, albeit you wouldn't be likely to make rapid maneuvers in the He 111Z)


----------



## wids7777 (Aug 30, 2008)

what about that Brewster Buffalo?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 30, 2008)

wids7777 said:


> what about that Brewster Buffalo?



Go to the beginning of the thread - it's been discussed about 20 times.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 30, 2008)

The finnish model of the brester buffolo the b-239 achived the highest kill ratio of world war two. 26-1. But it was largely upgraded and much superior to the englesh or american variants.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 30, 2008)

Read "Bloody Shambles." The Commonwealth Buffaloes really didn't do as bad as expected considering the conditions and the odds aganist them.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 30, 2008)

The duch used the buffolo efectivly during the japenesie take over of the duch east indeas, They acheved a 2-1 kill ratio over japepenes planes such as the zero and nate.


----------



## JoeB (Aug 30, 2008)

Re: Buffalo covered several times, one time I gave the results from "Bloody Shambles" counted up combat by combat for RAF and KNIL (ie. Dutch)...well maybe it was another thread on the Buffalo. Anyway to repeat, these are losses recorded by each side, only in combats where both sides' specific accounts are known, but that's most combats in the period (beginning of war to end of major Japanese conquests in April, by which time RAF/KNIL Buffalo's had been wiped out anyway).

Buffalo v Type Zero Fighter:12.5 Buffalo's lost for 4 Zeroes
Buffalo v Type 1 Fighter ('Oscar'): 14 Buffalo's lost for 4 Type 1's
Buffalo v Type 97 Fighter ('Nate'): 13.5 Buffalo's lost for 1-1/3 Type 97's
Buffalo v Type 0 Observation Seaplane ('Pete') acting as fighter: 2 Buffalo's lost for no Type 0
Overall 1:4.5 against the Buffalo in fighter-fighter combat.

The fractions are prorating where more than one Allied or Japanese type was present in a particular combat. RAF/KNIL Buffalo's also downed a small handful of non-fighters, 5 that can be confirmed. 

OTOH other Allied types with generally better reputations fared as poorly in that theater and period. For example the Hurricane with same air arms, same general period, actually had a worse record, particularly against the two modern Japanese types, Zero and Type 1. Whereas strangely, the Buffalo did worst against the obsolescent Type 97, where the Hurricane's record was almost 1:1.

USMC F2A's had just one air combat, flying from Midway, losing 13 F2A and 2 F4F for 1-2 Zeroes and perhaps 2 Type 97 Carrier Attack Planes ('Kate').

"Worst airplane" I don't know, but the Buffalo didn't do well v the Japanese, that's no myth.

Joe


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 31, 2008)

A lot of FInnish Aces flew the Buffalo and had Numerous kills


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 31, 2008)

I think one of the B-239 airfrmaes holds the record for the most kills acheived by a single plane. (it was used by multiple pilots)



> The top-scoring Buffalo pilot was Hans Wind, with 39 kills in B-239s. [15] Wind scored 26 of his kills while flying BW-393, while Eino Luukkanen scored seven more in the same aircraft. After evaluation of claims against Soviet actual losses, *BW-364 is credited with 42½ kills in total, possibly making it the fighter aircraft with the greatest number of victories in the history of air warfare.* BW-393 is credited with 40 victories.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 31, 2008)

The b239 was capable of holding its own against any fighter it came up against in the early war period. But it was becoming outdated by 1942 because of lack of armerment and speed. Never the less that didint stop them as finland only operated 44 b239 during world war two. B239 pilots destroyed 477 enemy aircraft for the lose of only 19 of there own. All of there kills were acheved between 1941-1944. The russians didint always have there most advanced planes in the theature but later on the had yak 9s and La-5fns in the theature, wich were a force to contend with. Even thought other planes were superior to the b239 in the hands of a compitant pilot it was a threat to any plane allied or axis it encontered up to the arival of the me262 and late model mustangs and p-47s who had a huge speed advantige, The buffolo was just plane NOT the worst plane of world war two.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 1, 2008)

maybe best "B239 pilots claimed 477 enemy aircraft"


----------



## parsifal (Sep 6, 2008)

I]


JoeB said:


> "Worst airplane" I don't know, but the Buffalo didn't do well v the Japanese, that's no myth.
> 
> Joe


[/I]
Joe

I know this is not the time or the place to post this thread, but the question of admitted losses is something that i find very interesting. 

I tend to agree with your point about claims made being exaggerated. On a slightly different tack, I have a new book "Japanese Army Operations In The South pacific Area - New britiain and papua Campaigns 1942-3" Its an English translation of the the Official Japanese history, which you might know is still being completed. 

I also have detailed refeneces for the RAAF and the USAAF in that period, so i should be able to compare admitted losses for both sides and get a clearer picture of the actual losses

As as an example, I have looked at some raids over Lae On March 19th and 22 by the RAAF..

At the time the Japanese admitted the loss of 7 fighters on the ground and 2 in the air, to a force identified as hawker hurricanes and Hudsons in the japanese accounts. The japanese claimed to have shot down three aircraft 9although the report is vague on this)

In fact the attackers consisted of nine P-40s of the newly arrived P-40s of 75 sqn (which on the 4march had acomplement of 25 aircraft, and two hudsons from 32 sqn. The Australians reported the loss of twelve Japanese aircraft, including 5 damaged, and two shot down in air combat. Two RAAF P-40s were lost in this battle.

Just concentrating on the air combat losses for a minute, it seems on this occasion, the claims by both sides are accurate. Allied losses were 2 (3 claimed by the japanese) and Japanese losses were 2 in the air (2 claimed by the RAAF). On this occasion, the RAAF was more accurate in its reports. 


The next day, 23 March, Rabaul launched a retalitory raid on Port Moresby. Japanese intruders amounted to 19 bombers and three Zeroes. They were intercepted by 75 sqn (strength unknown (but i believe about 12-15 were available). The RAAF reported the attack as 26 Bombers and 4 fighters.

In the nsuing battle, two P-40s were lost, and two zeroes were lost. the losses admitted by both sides appear to correlate, that is each admited the loss of two fighters each. 


I will continue to make the comparisons, as i read through the japanese account. it is very interesting.


----------



## JoeB (Sep 6, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I][/I]
> 1. ... I have a new book "Japanese Army Operations In The South pacific Area - New britiain and papua Campaigns 1942-3" Its an English translation of the the Official Japanese history, which you might know is still being completed.
> 
> 2. As as an example, I have looked at some raids over Lae On March 19th [22nd]
> ...


1. Yes, that's an excerpt from Vols 14 and 28 of Senshi Sosho (War History Series), the Japanese official history of WWII. It's available online:
Australian War Memorial - AJRP Essays

That 102 vol history was actually completed more than 20 years ago, but not much of it has ever been translated. Also it's out of print, various vols sell used for reasonable and unreasonable prices. I have a couple (vols. 24 and 34) the ones mainly relevant to the "Bloody Shambles" period and campaigns. The Japan Defense Agency has said it will re-publish the whole series on CD-ROM eventually ('early 2010's' I've heard), but again untranslated.

Note that vols 14 and 28 are both entitled "Army Operations in Southwest Pacific...", so the description of the Navy's air ops (75th Sdn's was strictly facing the JNAF), are not the most detailed available and those translated excerpts seem to skip certain periods. There may be more in Navy centered volumes like No. 49, and AIUI there's also lots of more detailed Navy air unit documents for that period in the JDA archives; remember that's the principal source about the 202nd Air Groups's ops over Darwin in 1943 rather than any Senshi Sosho vol.

A good book however which uses a different original source is "Seek and Strike-75 Squadron RAAF 1942-2002" by David J. Wilson. Wilson used the files of comms intercepts in the US National Archives which describe the losses reported via radio by the Japanese units in Papua back to Rabaul, for certain days, not complete unfortunately. Also 'standard' works like Hata/Izawa shed some light on this period.

2. March 22 1942: the comms intercepts in Wilson plus other source (Hata/Izawa) make clear one Zero was lost with pilot (PO3C Keiji Kikuchi, 4th Air Group) to defensive fire of a Hudson in strike after the P-40's. The 4th also reported (to Rabaul, intercepted and decoded by the Allies) the loss of 1 bomber and 5 Zeroes (8 more damaged) on the ground; and two pilots WIA, not clear if in air or on ground. But there's no mention of a second a/c's aerial loss, so that discrepancy with the Army's summary is something to be worked out with more research. With the actual Vol 18 we could see what source is footnoted in the Army summary.

3. March 23: I don't see where the Vol 18 excerpt mentions any Zero losses. But one was lost, PO3C Kyoichi Yoshii, 4th Air Group, to AA fire while strafing per Wilson.

For the whole period of 75 sdns first tour, sources SS=Senshi Sosho 18 translated excerpts, HI=Hata/Izawa JNAF book, W=Wilson
Kittyhawk air combat losses per W: 3/22 2; 3/26, 3/28, 4/6 2, 4/10, 4/11, 4/13, 4/17, 4/18, 4/24 3, 4/28 2: total 16
Kittyhawk claims: 15 Zeroes in air official, but only 12 mentioned case by case in W. 3 bombers, plus many of both types 'probable'/'damaged' plus ground claims.

Zero aerial losses to Kittyhawks: 3/22 (not in W); 4/5 (SS lost over Moresby but no pilot KIA in HI); 4/17 (SS, 1 pilot KIA in HI, 2 'a/c' lost per 25th Air Flotilla Diary per W), 4/28

Other Zero combat losses: 3/22 (to RAAF Hudson); 3/23 (to AA); 4/7 (to USAAF A-24 per W and pilot KIA, but not mentioned in SS).

2-5 lost to Kittyhawks. But as mentioned W's source for 3/22 seems the most original, 4/5 v 4/7 seems a possible date mixup, and one of the '2 a/c' 4/17 probably a non-fighter. So 5 is unlikely IMO, making the overclaim ratio probably >3:1. But that's not out of line for that theater and period. As we saw in 1943 over Darwin the ratio was around 6:1 (Spits credited with 33 Zeroes, v. 4 Zeroes and 1 Type 1 actually lost). In same general period as 75th Sdn in NG in 1942, USAAF 49th FG P-40's defended northern Australia and credited w/ 37 Zeroes, actually downing 10-11. So that's the ballpark to expect.

Joe


----------



## slaterat (Sep 10, 2008)

Canadian WWI Ace William "Bill" Barker is credited with destroying 46 enemy aircraft and balloons in his Sopwith Camel B6313. Its generally credited as the highest scoring airframe of all time and all by the same pilot, quite an amazing record.

slaterat


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 10, 2008)

But BW-364's 42½ kills were credits confirmed after cross checking with enemy loss records, can the same be said for William Barker's B6313?


----------



## parsifal (Sep 10, 2008)

Joe

I have found another series of battles that is possible to make a comparison. On the 26th and 27th December 1942, ther were a series of battles between the japanese qand the Allies over Buna. it is is interesting to compare the claims made by each side and compare that with the actual losses

26-12-42:
15 fighters of the 1st squadron, 11 sentai JAAF, flew aggressive patrols over the Allied airfield. according to the Japanese account the airfield itself was attacked , with a large number of "large aircraft" destroyed . There was a fierce aerial combat, in which the japanese claimed 4 P-40s for the loss of two Zeroes.

The Allied account is quite differnt to this. A special transport Flight had been established at Gona Mission station, 15 Hudsons drawan from No1 OTU, plus 11 civil aircraft. According to the RAAF sources, three Zeroes were shot down by the Hudsons, for the loss of one Hudson, to US army ground fire. According to the Australians there were no losses to the aircraft on the ground.

There are numerous errors in the accounts given by both sides. Firstly 11 sentai was an army unit, so there is no possibility of the Japanese aircraft engaged being zeroes. Secondly the Japanese claims are equally bogus, they claimed 4 P-40s shot down, when in fact no p-40s were in the area at the time. There is a report from the RAAF of Wirraway A20-103 being attacked by a "zero" (all Japanese fighters appear to be "zeroes" it seems), but far from being shot down, the claim is that the rear gunner of the wirraway shot down at least one "zero". Both sides appear to have grossly overclaimed, as usual. For the air combat (less AA) the Japanese admitted losses were 2 fighters (probably Oscars), whereas the Allies claimed at least four, all up. On the japanese side, once again the error rate between claim and actual losses inflicted is even higher. The Japanese claimed 4 P-40s shot down, when in fact no p-40s, or indeed any Allied aircraft were admitted by the allies 

I am inclined to believe the Australians on the issue of the losses on the ground. The attacks to capture the Japanese beacheads were in absolute full swing at the time. The loss of a large number of the transport fleet would have completely stalled the Allied attack. Since ther was no easing on the pressure being applied, it seems illogical to me that there were any significant losses to the transports on the ground. 

There were no reported losses to any fighter units at that time.

27-12-42

The Japanese mouinted yet another sweep over the beacheads, this time with 42 fighters and 12 bombers. 31 fighters were from the 11 Sentai, JAAF, whilst 11 fighters and 12 bombers were Navy carrier based planes. It was claimed in the japanese accounts that the force engaged 16 p-38s (I think from the USAAAF) The Japanese claimed 3 confirmed kills and four probables. for the loss of one Army fighter, and a Val D/B.

The allies say that there were twelve P-38s engaged, and that one was damaged. The allies for their part claimed to have shot down 9 zeroes (no mention of army fighters, and "at least two Val D/B".

Seems nobody can report losses and victories correctly at all.


----------



## JoeB (Sep 10, 2008)

parsifal said:


> 1. 26-12-42:
> 15 fighters of the 1st squadron, 11 sentai JAAF, flew aggressive patrols over the Allied airfield. according to the Japanese account the airfield itself was attacked , with a large number of "large aircraft" destroyed . There was a fierce aerial combat, in which the japanese claimed 4 P-40s for the loss of two Zeroes.
> 
> According to the RAAF sources, three Zeroes were shot down by the Hudsons, for the loss of one Hudson, to US army ground fire. According to the Australians there were no losses to the aircraft on the ground.
> ...



1. The combat reported by the Japanese does actually correspond to one reported by USAAF: 9th FS P-40's intercepted 'Zeroes' which were attacking Dobodura a/f and claimed 7 for the loss of 1 P-40. Since the Japanese say the Type 1's were lost to P-40's that's probably what happened. The Type 1 and Zero would never be reliably told apart for the duration of the war (right through 1945 Allied aircrew reports of meeting combinations of Zekes and Oscars was common whereas the situation Dec 27 '42, where both types were present in a single combat, was actually unusual). Also remember that awareness that the Type 1 even existed occurred gradually over 1942 whereas the Zero's existence was known prewar. The 'nickname' system, where the Type 1 was 'Oscar', wasn't standardized until 1943.

2. Often true, though in some air arms/periods/theaters claims were more accurate than those examples. I think the important point is just how unpredictable real opposing losses are if all you have is one side's accounts. 
Without at least some examples of contemporary claim accuracy of the same air arms in same theater, to give context, you can't tell much at all from claims (including 'official victories'). Just applying some standard discount factor doesn't help.

Re: Kool Kitty and particular Finnish Buffalo's score: Let's say we're sure a combat where some Buffalo's claimed 5 Soviet fighters, corresponds to a combat we see in Soviet records where they lost 2 fighters. How do you say which of the particular Buffalo's (or pilot's) credit are verified? You could do it proportionally (I would) or you could say the particular plane's credit is 'verified' in that case because it *could* be true (as I've seen in various articles of that kind trying to check individual pilot scores v other side's records, but I don't think is really valid). What's the source of that individual plane score? 

Joe


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 10, 2008)

Great info !


----------



## slaterat (Sep 12, 2008)

Joe B wrote



> OTOH other Allied types with generally better reputations fared as poorly in that theater and period. For example the Hurricane with same air arms, same general period, actually had a worse record, particularly against the two modern Japanese types, Zero and Type 1. Whereas strangely, the Buffalo did worst against the obsolescent Type 97, where the Hurricane's record was almost 1:1.



I'm not so sure of that. A fair comparison would be between Buffaloes and Hurricanes defending Singapore.

From Bloody Shambles p384


> When losses could be tallied and claims assessed it was decided that since the outbreak of the (Pacific) war, 122 Buffaloes and 45 Hurricanes had been lost to date, including those destroyed in accidents or by bombing or shelling on the ground. Reportedly Hurricanes had been credited with about 100 victories over the island and the Buffaloes about 30.



AAA also made the rather dubious claim of 100 kills over Singapore, which should almost be entirely ignored. Actual Japanese losses were at least 102 aircraft.
From these numbers one can see that Buffaloes suffered three times the losses for about 1/3 the kills of the Hurricane. The exchange rate against the Japanese for the Buffalo is about 5 losses for 1 kill, For the Hurricane it's a positive ratio of about 1 loss for 2 kills. This makes the Hurricane a rather staggering 10 times more effective than the Buffalo during the defence of Singapore.

Slaterat


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 12, 2008)

But did the Buffalos suffer proportionally higher non-combat losses than the Hurricanes?


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 12, 2008)

and JoeB was talking real kills and not claims


----------



## BIG BIRD (Sep 12, 2008)

I don't know were kool kitty89 got his info but he said that the buffolos kills were verified by the opposition. Untille some one can pull out some hardcore evidince I personily agree kool kitty89. Becouse of armore protection in world war 1 it would only take a couple of bulletes to make a plane unfliyble so thought of going throught most of world war 1 ,not to mention a couple foucker scourges, without taking some hits, that dosent sound right.


----------



## JoeB (Sep 12, 2008)

slaterat said:


> Joe B wrote
> I'm not so sure of that. A fair comparison would be between Buffaloes and Hurricanes defending Singapore.
> 
> From Bloody Shambles p384
> ...


That's a misreading of that source I'm afraid. My numbers are the cumulated results of actual outcomes given in that book combat by combat. Yes the book also summarizes the losses *to all causes* of each type Hurricane and Buffalo, Japanese losses *to all causes* and *claims* of the Hurricanes and Buffalo's, but you're basically saying the vague and general info given on that page contradicts the actual results combat by combat given in the same book! That doesn't work  

Nor is there any reason to just consider Singapore, again the book (the 2 vols) given the same detailed results for all the campaigns in that period, and the bigger the sample, the less subject to statistical noise. And I'm counting just fighter-fighter results becuase that's the most direct comparison of which fighter was more effective, kills of non-fighters often followed from success in dominating the enemy fighters. The Japanese fighters downed far more Allied non-fighters than the Allied ones did Japanese non-fighters, in this period.

If you want to go over the combats date by date, page by page in the book lets do so. My figures are subject to errors in my addition or reading, and errors in "Bloody Shambles": I've found a few of both in the past. Still, I have reasonable confidence in both. The Hurricane's fighter-fighter performance, counting bottom up for each combat but only including combats where both sides' losses are known (that's most though). It includes Malaya, DEI, Burma and Ceylon, including a few Dutch Hurricane kill/losses, *Per "Bloody Shambles"*, to compare to the Buffalo results in post #1130:
Hurricane v Type Zero Fighter: 35 Hurricanes lost for 6 Zeroes, 5 combats
Hurricane v Type 1 Fighter ('Oscar'): 20 Hurricanes for 4 Type 1's, 8 combats
Hurricane v Type 97 Fighter ('Nate'): 8 Hurricanes for 5-1/11 Type 97's, 8 combats
Overall 1:4.17 against the Hurricane in fighter-fighter combat, only slightly better than the Buffalo, and worse v the modern Japanese fighters. Even excluding the 'unfair' 3:27 result v Zeroes in 2 combats over Ceylon in April, the Hurricane went 1:4 v the modern types in 11 combats, the Buffalo went 1:3.3 in 13 combats.

Joe


----------



## Old Wizard (Sep 12, 2008)

It's likely they were using standard 1930s RAF fighter tactics which would partly explain their rather poor showing.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 12, 2008)

BIG BIRD said:


> I don't know were kool kitty89 got his info but he said that the buffolos kills were verified by the opposition. Untille some one can pull out some hardcore evidince I personily agree kool kitty89. Becouse of armore protection in world war 1 it would only take a couple of bulletes to make a plane unfliyble so thought of going throught most of world war 1 ,not to mention a couple foucker scourges, without taking some hits, that dosent sound right.



Sorry, the original info was from wikipedia, and there doens't seem to have been a sourse specified. I've been looking around online but haven't found anything solid.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 12, 2008)

I also very seriously doubt the 102 claimed losses for the Japanese. During the whole 4 month opening period of the war, the japanese only lost about 250 aircraft in combat. The allies, in contrast lost over 1000. Thats an exchange rate of 4:1. Malaya was run perhaps even worse than the "average" air battles so it would not be an over-estimation to look at an excahnge rate of about 5:1 for tis particular campaign. Since there were roughly 300 aircraft in the theatre, Japanese losses could be estimated to be in the order of 60 aircraft.

To achieve 102 kills against the Japanese, one would have to argue that the air campaign over Malaya was handled in an above average way. I sweriously doubt that. Burma, maybe, Malaya, no way.

For the record, incidentally, there were less than 50 Zeroes deployed over Malaya at the beginning. Since the japanese expected the major aerial resistance over the Philipinnes, the majority of the land based zeroes (about 100) were deployed into Formosa. This did change after the rapid demise of the USAAAF in the early part of the campaign


----------



## Von Frag (Sep 16, 2008)

Been lurking here for quite sometime, and decided to add my 2 cents worth.

Sorry if this has been gone over already concerning the Buffalo, but the one thing that has yet to be brought up, is pilot experience. While the Russians had good pilots, most at the time of the continuation war were not, hence the success of the Finns flying the Brewster. Conversely, the Marines at Midway were mostly green, right out of training. I can't say for sure how well the Commonwealth pilots over Singapore were trained, but I have read that training was a problem. Add to this that in both cases they were up against some of the best trained pilots in the world with alot of experience, the outcome is not hard to predict.

Von Richtofen said it best, "it is not the crate, but the man in the crate that makes the difference".


----------



## slaterat (Sep 20, 2008)

parsifal wrote


> I also very seriously doubt the 102 claimed losses for the Japanese. During the whole 4 month opening period of the war, the japanese only lost about 250 aircraft in combat.



Actual Japanese losses over Singapore were at least 102 aircraft, that's from Japanese sources. The 3rd Composite Air Division suffered total losses from all causes of 331 aircraft form the start of the war to the fall of Singapore.

Bloody Shambles p385.

Joeb wrote



> That's a misreading of that source I'm afraid. My numbers are the cumulated results of actual outcomes given in that book combat by combat. Yes the book also summarizes the losses *to all causes* of each type Hurricane and Buffalo, Japanese losses *to all causes* and *claims* of the Hurricanes and Buffalo's, but you're basically saying the vague and general info given on that page contradicts the actual results combat by combat given in the same book! That doesn't work



I beg to differ. The summaries are the actual results.The 102 figure is admitted combat losses of the JAF and the JNAF 22nd Air Flotilla. Trying to reconcile them with the day to day combat results is impossible, the daily records are incomplete. Many ORBs were destroyed and rewritten much later. You have stated previously that you only count daily combats for which records exist for both sides, by definition that is incomplete. I don't believe that using only fighter vs fighter stats is accurate either as the prime role of the defenders would be to break up the bomber formations first/ save your own a$$ later.



> Nor is there any reason to just consider Singapore,



The choice of Singapore is obvious as you have Buffaloes and Hurricanes operating side by side against the same enemy in the same conditions. This keeps the impact of extraneous factors to a minimum. Similar to your comparison of Corsair vs Hellcats. 

In Singapore the Hurricane proved far superior to the Buffalo.

I've gotta run right now will be back later to continue http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_confused.gif


----------



## Elvis (Sep 21, 2008)

Re: Kool Kitty's Finnish Buffalo kill ratio.

This is a direct quote from the November 1996 issue of Aviation History magazine's article on the exploits of the Finns versus the Russian's during their conflict of 1941-1944, entitled "Brewster Buffalo Finland's unlikely Acemaker".

"_The success of fighter aircraft is usually based upon the records of high-scoring aces as well as the ratio of victories vs. losses in combat. The bent-wing Chance Vought F4U / Goodyear FG Corsairs enjoyed an 11-to-1 victory-to-loss ratio, while Grumman F6F Hellcats boasted a 19-to-1 ratio. But the rather obscure and maligned U.S. World War II Brewster naval fighter scored an amazing victory-to-loss ratio of 26-to-1 when flown by the fighter pilots of Finland against the overwhelming Soviet air force between 1941 and 1944. *Finnish Brewsters shot down 496 enemy aircraft with a loss of only 19 Brewsters in aerial combat.*
The highest scoring Hellcat ace, David S. McCampbell, shot down 34 planes. The highest scoring Corsair ace, Robert M. Hanson, destroyed 25 aircraft in aerial combat. However, the highest scoring Brewster ace, Finland's Hans H. Wind, shot down 39 enemy aircraft. This is not intended to cast asperations on the Corsairs and Hellcats, nor on their valiant pilots; it is merely meant to recount the relative merits of the Brewster and its outnumbered Finnish air force pilots._"

(note: End of first paragraph highlighted by me, but not in article, to draw attention to the numbers mentioned)

As for Brewsters in the Pacific theatre, I heard most were shot up still sitting on the ground.
I take it that is not correct?



Elvis


----------



## steelDUST (Sep 21, 2008)

The worst? I'd say it's the Polikarpov I-15. 2,200 were lost in the first week of German invasion of Russia in June 1941.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2008)

steelDUST said:


> The worst? I'd say it's the Polikarpov I-15. 2,200 were lost in the first week of German invasion of Russia in June 1941.



The I-15 was one of the best bi-plane fighters built in the 1930s. It did very well over Spain. Can you say "Obsolete?" That was the problem with the I-15 and many other Soviet aircraft at the start of WW2. They performed as advertised, they were just overtaken by newer equipment.


----------



## Captain Dunsel (Sep 21, 2008)

Slaterat, my only question with comparing Hurri's with Buffalos at Singapore is that of pilot experience. How well trained were the Hurri pilots vice the Buffalo drivers?

CD


----------



## parsifal (Sep 22, 2008)

_


slaterat said:



Actual Japanese losses over Singapore were at least 102 aircraft, that's from Japanese sources. The 3rd Composite Air Division suffered total losses from all causes of 331 aircraft form the start of the war to the fall of Singapore.

Bloody Shambles p385.

Click to expand...

_


slaterat said:


> At the outbreak of the Pacific War, the JAAF consisted of five hikoshidans (air divisions) with a total of about 1,500 aircraft. One of these was assigned to home defense, another to Manchuria, and a third to China, leaving two to go on the offensive in the South Pacific. The 5th Hikoshidan took part in the invasion of the Philippines, its heavy bombers flying from Taiwan to hit targets in northern Luzon, while its fighters and light bombers operated from airfields seized in the opening days of the war. When U.S. and Filipino forces were driven back upon the Bataan Peninsula, most of the 5th Hikoshidan returned to Taiwan for reassignment (most were initially sent back to China, from where they had been drawn in the first place).
> 
> Meanwhile, the 3rd Hikoshidan operated against British Commonwealth forces in Malaya, along with three sentais (squadrons) detached from the 5th. They were based in French Indochina until fighting began, afterward moving to bases seized in Thailand and Malaya.
> 
> ...


----------



## ratdog (Sep 24, 2008)

what about the CR 42 built by good ol Mussolini? it was outdated before the great war


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 25, 2008)

??? The CR.42 may have been obsolete (as all biplane fighters were), but it was one of the best biplane fighters in service. (allong with the I-153, Gladiator, and a couple other contenders)

And where did you get the idea it was outdated by WWI standards???


----------



## Marcel (Sep 25, 2008)

ratdog said:


> what about the CR 42 built by good ol Mussolini? it was outdated before the great war



But was a great a/c in it's class


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 25, 2008)

ratdog said:


> what about the CR 42 built by good ol Mussolini? it was outdated before the great war



The CR 42 took on Hurricanes and other allied aircraft - it performed its mission and while outdated still had use - it was one of the best and last biplanes built, far from being the "worse" aircraft of WW2.


----------



## ratdog (Sep 25, 2008)

ok so it was outdated as were some if not most of the foreign aircraft of wwII so what about the LWS-4 Zubr it was underpowered, prone to stress fractures, and couldn't carry even 800kg's. not to mention it was an ugly mother too.


----------



## JoeB (Sep 25, 2008)

slaterat said:


> 1. The summaries are the actual results.The 102 figure is admitted combat losses of the JAF and the JNAF 22nd Air Flotilla.
> 
> 2. Trying to reconcile them with the day to day combat results is impossible, the daily records are incomplete. Many ORBs were destroyed and rewritten much later.
> 
> ...


1. The 102 is 92 losses to all causes of the Japanese Army's 3rd Air Division and 10 known losses to all causes of the Navy's 22nd Air Flotilla. That should be fairly clear from the quote in BS p. 385, but it's clearer still if you look back to the original sources of those figures, which are volumes 24 and 34 of Senshi Sosho ('War History Series'), the Japanese official history.

2. Right, impossible to go from total losses to all causes on summary level to air combat losses on summary level, because the latter info is simply not provided on summary level. That's why we go to detailed descriptions in the *SAME BOOK* and build from the bottom up. Again your approach basically says to read two pages of a big two volume book which has the combat by combat information. That makes no sense.

3. 21 out of 28 combats reported in the book have a detailed RAF/Dutch and Japanese description. I'm not reconciling anything to the summary of total losses to all causes, simply saying here are the air combat loss results from a balanced sample of 21 combats for which we know the air combat losses of each side in each of those combat. There's no reason to believe the other 7 combats had very different results. Your approach depends on (mis)reading 'losses' as 'combat losses', then trying to guess which of the supposed 'combat losses' were 'air combat losses'. I don't see any doubt which of those methods is more valid.

4. Again, go through though 21 engagements, you have the book. When did the RAF fighters prevent Japanese bombers performing their missions or inflict serious losses on them? Seldom. Which is no surprise since there are few cases in air combat history where one side's fighters were battling enemy fighters at a ratio of 1:4+ but managed to inflict serious damage on escorted non-fighters, and this wasn't one of them. Adding their few non-fighter victories improves the Hurrican/Buffalo 1:4+ ratio a bit, but adding the more numerous Allied non-fighter victims of the Japanese fighters' ratios increases their ratio from 4+:1 by more. 

There's a big hint here, the title of the book we're talking about: "Bloody Shambles"  

Joe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2008)

ratdog said:


> ok so it was outdated as were some if not most of the foreign aircraft of wwII



You wanna try and explain that?

Lets see, while you are at it, explain in detail how each of these foreign aircraft was outdated:

Bf 109
Fw 190
Me 262
Ar 234
Ju 88
He 162
Hs 129
Do 215
Fw 200
Do 217
He 177
Ju 188
Ju 288
Ju 290
Ju 390
Me 264
Do 335
Ta 152
Ta 183
He 219
Ho 229
Ju 388
P.1101
Fi 282
Ar 232
Bv 222
Go 244
Me 163
G.55
C.202
C.205
Re.2005
Re.2001
SM.79
Aichi B7A
Mitsubishi J2M
Kawasaki Ki-61
Kawasaki Ki-100
Nakajima Ki-84
Kawanishi N1K
Il-2
LaGG-3
La-5
La-7
Mig-3
Yak-1
Yak-3
Yak-9
Lancaster
Mosquito
Meteor
Vampire
Sea Fury
Tempest
Spitfire

You might want to actually do some research.


----------



## ratdog (Sep 25, 2008)

i meant as in they were outdated before the war you are putting planes like f-190 and meteor they were designed and built while it was going on im talking about planes that were outclassed out gunned or worse when the war started.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 25, 2008)

ratdog said:


> ok so it was outdated as were some if not most of the foreign aircraft of wwII so what about the LWS-4 Zubr it was underpowered, prone to stress fractures, and couldn't carry even 800kg's. not to mention it was an ugly mother too.



Now that's when you have a "bad" aircraft - when it doesn't perform to its design requirement.



ratdog said:


> i meant as in they were outdated before the war you are putting planes like f-190 and meteor they were designed and built while it was going on im talking about planes that were outclassed out gunned or worse when the war started.


 There were plenty of aircraft as you described - some out gunned, some out dated, but most performed to their design requirement. To call them "bad" isn't necessarily correct - even some very obsolete aircraft performed well (Buffalo in Finland, Swordfish, even the F4F) and pilot skill also had a play. When you had aircraft that were not only dated but couldn't perform to begin with (LWS-4, Breda Ba 88 ) then you have a point.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 25, 2008)

ratdog said:


> i meant as in they were outdated before the war you are putting planes like f-190 and meteor they were designed and built while it was going on im talking about planes that were outclassed out gunned or worse when the war started.



I think you need to be clear by what you meant by "foreign aircraft" being outdated.

If you meant non-US aircraft that would be wrong as the best operational fighter we had was the P-40 which had performance slightly pooer than the BF 109E or Spitfire I. (similar in speed, but poorer in climb, albeit range was significantly longer) The only other fighter the USAAC that came close was the P-36 which was outdated and underarmed in its operational configuration. 
Of course there's also the USN/USMC to consider with the F2A and F4F which had decent performance by contemporary standards but not superior to that of the Spitfire I of Bf 109E.


And BTW the Fw 190 was in development (and entered flight testing) prior to the start of the war.


----------



## ratdog (Sep 25, 2008)

by prior to the war you mean what, before we entered after pearl or before Germany's Reich started to invade Poland and other European countries and Britain got involved?


----------



## Venganza (Sep 26, 2008)

I have to agree with Ratdog on the Zubr (Bison). The Polish built some good airplanes (the P.7 and P.11 in their day, the Los, which could have turned into a very good bomber if the war hadn't ended its development) - however, the Zubr wasn't one of them. One of the priceless nuggets about the wretchedness of the Zubr is that the rectractable landing gear was so unreliable that it had to be fixed on service planes. If only looks could kill, the Zubr would've been a worldbeater. It was like the Medusa; anything looking at it should have turned to stone, it was so ugly.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 26, 2008)

ratdog said:


> by prior to the war you mean what, before we entered after pearl or before Germany's Reich started to invade Poland and other European countries and Britain got involved?



By prior to the start of the war I mean the Fw 190 V1 (the first prototype) flew on 1 June 1939, 3 whole months before Germany invaded Poland.


And, technically speaking the P-40 didn't enter service until mid 1940. And the F4F didn't enter service until December of 1940. (and scored its first kill on Christmas day with the FAA)

So, technically speaking, the best frontline fighters in US service when war broke out in Europe were a handful of of F2A-1's, and the P-36.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 26, 2008)

QUOTE=JoeB;403267]1. 
2. _Right, impossible to go from total losses to all causes on summary level to air combat losses on summary level, because the latter info is simply not provided on summary level. That's why we go to detailed descriptions in the *SAME BOOK* and build from the bottom up. Again your approach basically says to read two pages of a big two volume book which has the combat by combat information. That makes no sense._


Joe

Are we on the same wavelength here? I am saying that total losses to the Japanese over Malaya in December-January 1942 are not possible to be 331 (which is the figure quoted by Slaterat....he says that there were 102 losses to combat, and 331 to all causes). If this were the case, the whole air division would simply cease to exist in two months. it was not receiving regular, or significant reinforcement until after March, so to lose 331 aircraft means that the air force no longer exists by theend of January. This, in my opinion is patently untrue. 

I approach the problem a bit differently (and admittedly a bit less accurately) than eityher you or slaterat. I look at the history of the units involved, and the strengths of those units at those times. The case in point are the strengths of the units sent to Burma, in late 1941. Basically 48% of the 3rd Air divs forces were detached for use over burma, This 48% had dropped from a starting strength of 172 at the beginning of the war in December, to a strength of 153 aircraft (+/- 2 or 3 aircraft) by the start of 1942. In other words, half the force had suffered only 20 losses in the time frame we are talking about.....does that accord to what you are thinking???

4. _Again, go through though 21 engagements, you have the book. When did the RAF fighters prevent Japanese bombers performing their missions or inflict serious losses on them? Seldom. Which is no surprise since there are few cases in air combat history where one side's fighters were battling enemy fighters at a ratio of 1:4+ but managed to inflict serious damage on escorted non-fighters, and this wasn't one of them. Adding their few non-fighter victories improves the Hurrican/Buffalo 1:4+ ratio a bit, but adding the more numerous Allied non-fighter victims of the Japanese fighters' ratios increases their ratio from 4+:1 by more_. 

I am the first to challenge the size of the losses being touted here. i thik its a total crock. However, the Allies were not outnumbered 4:1 by Japanese fighters at the beginning of the camapign. There were 26 Zeroes, and 35 (or 41, the records confuse me) Oscars, and about 60-80 Nates. The Nates lacked the range to be effective, or get into the battle until later, and were mostly transferred to Burma anyway, so it was down to the Zekes and the Oscars really. The Zekes I believe were reinforced at the beginning of jauary, by about 60 Zeroes drawn from the Tainan air corps in Formosa

Even today, it irks many westerners to admit that they, the western powers, were completely outclassed by an oriental power. Contrary to popular opinion, the Japanese did not massively outnumber the Allies in the far east. They outnumbered them, but not by much. They massively outclassed them qualitatively, and were shooting down the allies at a massively lopsided rate, until well into 1942


----------



## Marcel (Sep 26, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You wanna try and explain that?
> 
> Lets see, while you are at it, explain in detail how each of these foreign aircraft was outdated:
> 
> ...


Wait a minute, what about the Fokker G.1  (I couldn't resist, you know)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 26, 2008)

ratdog said:


> i meant as in they were outdated before the war you are putting planes like f-190 and meteor they were designed and built while it was going on im talking about planes that were outclassed out gunned or worse when the war started.



So do you think that most of the foriegn countries were sending up fighters built in the 1930s?

Come on now, do some research. Even aircraft like the Bf 109 and Spitfire were constantly evolved and made better so they were not "outdated" as you call it.

I mean did Germany only put up 5 Fw 190s and use a 5,000 Bf 109Bs throughout the whole war? Think about it...

How did the US put up more "Non Outdated" aircraft than Germany, England, Russia, etc.?

Come on, please explain...



ratdog said:


> by prior to the war you mean what, before we entered after pearl or before Germany's Reich started to invade Poland and other European countries and Britain got involved?



WW2 did not start when the US entered the war...

Again please explain how these aircraft (first flown before the war) were outdated.

Bf 109
Spitfire
Fw 190


----------



## Waynos (Sep 26, 2008)

Give him a break guys, his line about 'foreign' aircraft being outdated got my goat too, as if the Bf 109 and Spitfire were left trailing in the technological wake of the Brewster Buffalo and Curtiss Hawk, but c'mon, he was spot on with the Zubr.

Also show him the Blackburn Roc (worst naval fighter in history?) and Botha (test pilot quote: "that thing is bloody lethal, but not to the Germans, I never want to see it again") to make him feel better about foreign planes.

btw, its a long thread, did anyone mention the Blackburn Botha? if you like bad aeroplanes, and haven't already read it, give Bill Gunston's 'Back to the Drawing Board' a go. Very entertaining, but a surprisingly high proportion of Blackburns in there. At least they made the Buccaneer as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 26, 2008)

He will be alright. He started a discussion and it will be discussed.


----------



## ratdog (Sep 27, 2008)

no ww2 did not start when we entered the war but it just feels that way seeing that im american and what i mean, yes i should be more descriptive in posts Adler, is that they were not in production and equipping squadrons when the war started and notice i said 

"some if not most," not all, of them were bad. i have to admit though even if they were outclassed threefold it is mainly the pilot that is the one who flies it


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 27, 2008)

I'd say, comparatively speaking, US frontline fighter a/c at the outbreak of the war were about average compared to those of the European powers. 

However, a couple points of merit worth mentioning: as the US aircraft were expected to be operational in a variety of environments they were already equipped with the necessary components for tropical/dessert conditions and would not suffer performance degridation due to bulky tropicalized filters etc. Additionally the range of the US fighters was considerably greater than their European counterparts. (in particular, the Brewster F2A had ther greatest range of any single engine fighter in the world at its time of introduction)


And if you want to get into aircraft in service at the time of the US's enterance into the war, by that time the Fw 190A-2 was in service.



Admittedly the Zubr was a good addition to note. (and one that I don't think has been brought up before)

So I think the list is pretty much:

-Ba.88
-Blackburn Roc
-Blackburn Botha
-LWS-6 Zubr

According to
LWS-6 Å»ubr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LWS-4 is incorect if you're refferring to the bomber. (the LWS-4 was a light fighter project)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 27, 2008)

ratdog said:


> no ww2 did not start when we entered the war but it just feels that way seeing that im american and what i mean, yes i should be more descriptive in posts Adler, is that they were not in production and equipping squadrons when the war started and notice i said



I am American too. The difference is I do not let personal bias judge my quest for knowledge. 



ratdog said:


> "some if not most," not all, of them were bad. i have to admit though even if they were outclassed threefold it is mainly the pilot that is the one who flies it



There you are are wrong again. The word "most" is very wrong. And this phrase is very very wrong as well:

_"even if they were outclassed threefold it is mainly the pilot that is the one who flies it"_

Please explain how the Fw 190, Bf 109 and Spitfire were outclassed *threefold*, and against what aircraft they were outclassed *threefold* by.

Where do you obtain your information from? You got yourself into this, now back it up.


----------



## ratdog (Sep 27, 2008)

again i never said all, the main countries in the war had some very nice aircraft at the beginning and throughout example: Britain, Germany, Japan, and the US. but what about the other small output eurasian countries? not all of their ideas were up to par at the beginning.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 27, 2008)

well, you should be careful even about that. If you look at just two that i can think of, the Rumanian IAR 80, and the Yugoslavian IK-3 and IK-5, you are going to find very competitive aircraft. These countries were labouring under severe productive penalties....the biggest problem was engine development, but they nevertheless wrung the very best out of the resources they had available.

I f you look at the other minor Axis partners, you will find the Finns very successfully re-engined their MS 406's to the so-call3ed Morane-Lagg configuration.

The hungarians undertook a major overhaul of the Italian fighter they had purchased a licence for, and in the process turned it from a leaky flying coffin, to a competitive little early war fighter. They also produced a satisfactory level bomber, and modified the me 210 that they were producing to make it airworthy as well. Similar stpories exist for the Bulgarians, the Swiss, the Swedes, all of whom were able to produce competitive types.

In the case of the Rumanians and the hungarians, they provided somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the air resources for the southern fron in Russia throughout 1943. Not bad for a couple of back woodsy little twirpy nations IMO. 

Your position is clearly untenable. You should retract what you have said, and move on to learn something in this place


----------



## JoeB (Sep 27, 2008)

parsifal said:


> QUOTE=JoeB;403267]1.
> 
> 
> 1. Are we on the same wavelength here?
> ...


1. Basically are, I believe
2. If all we had were total loss reports or unit strengths then your analysis method would be necessary. But, we instead we have a good numbers of cases, most combats in the period, where the authors of "Bloody Shambles" clearly report the air combat losses, only, of each side. In fact they usually go beyond that to report eg. this a/c crashlanded wheels up, etc. so we're not relying on somebody else's filtering (maybe an official total didn't count wheels up wreck as a 'loss', but I would). Given all that rich case by case data, that's the way to analyze it IMO. And the results are highly consistent, the Japanese fighter units in SEA Dec '41-Apr '42 end of campaign, were hardly every bested by RAF or Dutch units, seldom by USAAF either, although the AVG v Japanese Army fighters was a different story.
3. I wasn't clear. The *fighter v fighter kill ratio* of Japanese Army and Navy fighters v RAF/Dutch Buffalo's in those campaigns was >4:1. As you said, the initial Japanese numerical advantage was modest. In retractable undercarriage monoplane fighters (Zero and Type 1) the Japanese were outnumbered by the Allies (RAF, USAAF, KNIL throughout SEA) Dec 8 1941, though including the fixed gear Type 97 they had a moderate numerical advantage. After the war started their advantage increased in large part because of losses they inflicted on the Allies. For an extreme example, the USAAF P-40 force in the Philippines outnumbered the Zero force able to reach the PI from Formosa Dec 8, but within a few days it was heavily outnumbered itself, due to losses (on the ground mainly though was also bested in the air by the Zeroes 2~3:1) and establishment of Type 97's at based in northern Luzon. But again back to the 21 combat sample, most of those particular combats didn't feature a lot more Japanese than Allied fighters. Even if you outnumber somebody overall, formations of similar size will still often meet.

Joe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 27, 2008)

ratdog said:


> again i never said all, the main countries in the war had some very nice aircraft at the beginning and throughout example: Britain, Germany, Japan, and the US. but what about the other small output eurasian countries? not all of their ideas were up to par at the beginning.



You said "if not most", and that is not really correct either. The majority of them fielded airforces that were made up of aircraft from other countries. Romania built great aircraft and also used German built aircraft such as the 109 and 190. Hungary, Slovakia, Switzerland, Bulgaria all used German built aircraft. The French had decent aircraft, but were knocked out of the war too early. Spain used German built aircraft for the most part. The Netherlands and Belgium can not be compared, they were knocked out two early, but when they were in the war, the aircraft they used were not necessarily outdated and certainly not *"threefold"*. Finland used German built aircraft. Yeah Polish aircraft were outdated, but they were knocked out in 1939...

So again I ask you this:

What Foreign Airforces were outclassed *"threefold"* by the USAAF during WW2?

The sooner this question is answered the sooner we can all move on. 



parsifal said:


> well, you should be careful even about that. If you look at just two that i can think of, the Rumanian IAR 80, and the Yugoslavian IK-3 and IK-5, you are going to find very competitive aircraft. These countries were labouring under severe productive penalties....the biggest problem was engine development, but they nevertheless wrung the very best out of the resources they had available.
> 
> I f you look at the other minor Axis partners, you will find the Finns very successfully re-engined their MS 406's to the so-call3ed Morane-Lagg configuration.
> 
> ...



Very well said and thought out post.


----------



## ratdog (Sep 27, 2008)

not necesarily by the us many of the countries germany invaded had no chance of surviving the onslaught that was going to occur same thing about manchuria and other small south pacific countries, they stood no chance against japan. some countries did their very best as parcifal said they wrung out all they could with limited production capabilities. and some of the aircraft i think of are just in a case of going up against better pilots or they could be just outdated, as in flying planes from early 30s.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 27, 2008)

ratdog said:


> not necesarily by the us many of the countries germany invaded had no chance of surviving the onslaught that was going to occur same thing about manchuria and other small south pacific countries, they stood no chance against japan. some countries did their very best as parcifal said they wrung out all they could with limited production capabilities. and some of the aircraft i think of are just in a case of going up against better pilots or they could be just outdated, as in flying planes from early 30s.



That still does not answer the question of how "Most foreign aircraft were outdated and outclassed threefold".

What aircraft were outclassed threefold?

What were they outclassed threefold by?


----------



## Marcel (Sep 27, 2008)

ratdog said:


> not necesarily by the us many of the countries germany invaded had no chance of surviving the onslaught that was going to occur same thing about manchuria and other small south pacific countries, they stood no chance against japan. some countries did their very best as parcifal said they wrung out all they could with limited production capabilities. and some of the aircraft i think of are just in a case of going up against better pilots or they could be just outdated, as in flying planes from early 30s.



Most of the small countries in Europe (The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Poland etc.) were overpowered by sheer numbers. As for my own country, I think you're right that the D.XXI was somehow outdated (not threefold), but still proved to be quite able against the Bf109 and Bf110. I believe the G.1 belongs amongst the best twin engined fighterplanes of 1940. Problem was that there were only 23 of them and 28 D.XXI's. The Luftwaffe came with about than 240 fighters.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 27, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I f you look at the other minor Axis partners, you will find the Finns very successfully re-engined their MS 406's to the so-call3ed Morane-Lagg configuration.



It was called the "Mörkö Morane" Mörkö meaning Goblin I belive. (but uther translations give "Ogre" and "Ghost")


----------



## ratdog (Sep 27, 2008)

and maybe not threefold but generally outweighed


----------



## wingnuts (Sep 28, 2008)

I think experience had as much to do with it as the quality of the aircraft, The German and Japanese pilots had either more experience or were trained by those with recent experience... gained in Spain in in Germany's case or in China or against the Soviets in the Japanese case. 

Some UK, US and European pilots may have flown in Spain and China but their national airforces were slow to adopt the lessons and tactics learned.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 29, 2008)

ratdog said:


> and maybe not threefold but generally outweighed



Define outweighed.


----------



## ratdog (Sep 29, 2008)

more likely lose a fight than win it


----------



## Elvis (Sep 29, 2008)

wingnuts said:


> I think experience had as much to do with it as the quality of the aircraft, The German and Japanese pilots had either more experience or were trained by those with recent experience... gained in Spain in in Germany's case or in China or against the Soviets in the Japanese case.
> 
> Some UK, US and European pilots may have flown in Spain and China but their national airforces were slow to adopt the lessons and tactics learned.


Not to beat a dead horse, but I think this is the exact reason why the F2A didn't fare so well in the PTO.



Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 29, 2008)

In the specific US pilot combat experience, I think it would also have to do with the fact that only the overweight F2A-3 ever saw combat. (in addition to the situation they were used in)


----------



## JoeB (Sep 29, 2008)

wingnuts said:


> I think experience had as much to do with it as the quality of the aircraft, The German and Japanese pilots had either more experience or were trained by those with recent experience... gained in Spain in in Germany's case or in China or against the Soviets in the Japanese case.
> 
> Some UK, US and European pilots may have flown in Spain and China but their national airforces were slow to adopt the lessons and tactics learned.


True in some match ups, but in case of Buffalo and Hurricane's similar poor performance v Japanese Army and Navy fighters in 1941-42, the RAF had been at war already 2+years. Again see the references, "Bloody Shambles" and more detailed books from Allied side like "Buffaloes over Singapore". The British units were a mixture of men with combat experience in Europe, including some who were already aces, and those less experienced. They may have had less combat experience on average than their Japanese opponents but it wasn't 100% v 0%. Whereas USN and USMC F4F units did have zero combat experience starting against Japanese units with some previously combat experienced pilots, but they did a lot better v Japanese fighters in 1942, on average. Or the AVG which also did better: only 1 of the 100 original AVG pilots had prior combat experience ('Ajax' Baumler, who flew for the Republians in Spain). But the AVG members were mostly pretty experienced peacetime military pilots, not the same as the mass-produced wartime pilots in 1942 RAF units. So there are surely many factors even just about pilots skill. Then there's for example leadership and morale within units, it wasn't just about skill or experience.

Joe


----------



## parsifal (Sep 29, 2008)

In the case of the RAF, I think it was their combat experience that in fact worked against them. The lessons learnt in Europe, when fighting the Luftwaffe , were precisely what NOT to do against the japanese.

Against the Luftwaffe, the best tactic was to dogfight, reduce the combat to a tight turning engagement. I know that there is a lot of material in other forums that attests to the equal ability of the 109 in a turning fight, but the facts are that the RAF found the best tactics to employ against the Luftwafffe fighters in the period up to 1942 was to turn as much as possible.
Against the Zero , or any Japanese SE fighter really, this was about the worst thing you could do.

In addition, for the hurricane reinforcements for Singapore, it is important to note that only 24 trained pilots were accompanying the 50+ planes being sent out as reinforcements. It was expected that the survivors of the buffalo squadrons would provide the balance for the wing (three squadrons). This never occurred, and no pilot conversion training was ever undertaken. More than half the hurricanes were in fact destroyed on the ground, having never flown. They were destroyed in bombing raids against Palembang, wher the majority of them were initially deployed


----------



## Elvis (Sep 29, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> In the specific US pilot combat experience, I think it would also have to do with the fact that only the overweight F2A-3 ever saw combat. (in addition to the situation they were used in)


 ... 

Crap, that's right. I'd forgotten about that.
Thanks for the reminder.



Elvis


----------



## Chriss1958 (Oct 7, 2008)

Probably the ugliest aircraft of all time, ever!

 F.F.G Berlin B.9

You know how car designs go rounded then angular?? Well this one falls into the angular design spec.


----------



## wingnuts (Oct 7, 2008)

Chriss1958 said:


> Probably the ugliest aircraft of all time, ever!
> 
> F.F.G Berlin B.9
> 
> You know how car designs go rounded then angular?? Well this one falls into the angular design spec.



I've seen worse!.... Form follows Function ... from what I just read (see URL) it was an experimental aircraft to test out the prone pilot position, it seems it was quite sucessful in doing what it was designed to do.

Berlin B9 Luft '46 Prototypes entry


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 7, 2008)

There are several threads dedicated to ugly aircraft, try the forum's google search feature. (I believe you'll fine ones far worse than that)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 8, 2008)

Chriss1958 said:


> Probably the ugliest aircraft of all time, ever!
> 
> F.F.G Berlin B.9
> 
> You know how car designs go rounded then angular?? Well this one falls into the angular design spec.



Since when does ugly mean worst? Wrong thread...


----------



## Captain Dunsel (Oct 9, 2008)

I do get a chuckle out of the Berlin's registration code, though. 

CD


----------



## Airframes (Oct 9, 2008)

Agree Captain! The aircraft itself is almost as ugly as one of my ex-girlfriends!


----------



## blkstne (Oct 10, 2008)

My vote would have to go for the P-39. Underpowered plane we gave to the Russian who used it as a tank buster.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 11, 2008)

We've been through this many thimes (a couple thime son this thread alon iirc, along with the F2A).

First off, the Russians never used it as a tak buster, the low velocity 37 mm M4 cannon being a rather poor ant-armor weapon. (and was generally loaded with HE ammunition) It was used for ground attack, in the sense that most WWII fighters were (strafing, or fighter-bomber). However the Russians generally used it as a fighter. (often as top cover in escorting Il-2's)

The later models (P-39N and later, allong with some late M models) were equipped with engines with better high altitude performance (military power rated for ~17,500 ft rather than ~14,500 ft, with WEP at ~10,500 ft rather than ~5,000 ft) which was the perfect performance range for the medium altitude operations of the Eastern front.

With the older P-39's (D-2 onward) WEP ranged from ~1470 hp (at ~5000 ft) to ~1570 hp (at ~3000 ft) with 1150 hp mil power at ~14,500 ft. (for climb these were ~3,000 ft lower) 
The later models (P-39M/N/Q) with higher supercharger speed (V-1710-85 with 9.6:1 supercharger gear, up from 8.8:1) had WEP of 1480 hp at 10,500 ft and mil power of 1,125 hp at 17,500 ft. (again with climb ~3000 ft lower)

Ther early P-39's: the P-39D/D-1 and P-400 were not (at least initially) rated for WEP and military rating was the maximum allowable power. (at 1,150 hp)


In US service the P-39 seem to have been mainly used for ground attack though. At least on paper the P-39 is superior to the P-40 in all performance aspects, armaent is debatable, and range was a bit better for the P-40. (depending on which models you compare, and the modifications used on the P-39) The P-40 also has more room in the cockpit. (the P-39 was har to fit in for anyone over ~5'8") 

But the P-40 has a much better immage than the P-39 with the US, for whatever reason. (probably the most significant being the P-40's better stall characteristics)


In any case it was certainly not the worst, and was a fairly capable fighter by contemporary standards.


----------



## JoeB (Oct 11, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> We've been through this many thimes (a couple
> 
> First off, the Russians never used it as a tak buster, ...generally used it as a fighter. (often as top cover in escorting Il-2's)
> 
> ...


I agree with all that. I'd add on stall characteristics that the fatal accident rate of the P-39 was a lot higher than the P-40; 47 per 100k flying hours v 17for whole war. A stat in that case backs up the image. 

In performance some in the USAAF believed the P-40 had advantages, but that's mainly back to image I guess. Two planes around the same size powered by similar variants of the same engine: no fundamental performance difference would be expected and none shows up on paper at least.

On armament, a lot of the P-39's poor reputation in air combat w/ USAAF was gained in a pretty short period in 1942 when the case ejection chute of the 37mm would often hang up and cause a jam. The Soviets didn't enounter this problem in their P-39 ops mostly from 1943; I've never seen it mentioned in their accounts: apparently it had been fixed. They loved the 37mm, though as you mentioned, for air-air, to kill even a bomber with one hit. They removed and later had Bell delete at the factory the wing armament, just relying on the 37mm and pair of synchronized .50 cals. And even besides, (or because of?) the early reliability problems of larger caliber WWII aircraft guns on USAAF fighters, the USAAF/USAF just continued to like small caliber high ROF, the Soviets continued to like big caliber (eg. 1950 F-86's still had .50's and MiG-15's 2*23mm and a 37).

I agree the P-39 is no candidate for worst fighter, different arrangement and armament concept from P-40 but otherwise pretty similar plane. Each was mediocre to fairly good depending which foreign contemporary you compare it to, not terrible.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 11, 2008)

Stated earlier - the P-39 had CG points through the lateral and vertical axis. Power on stall could be a hand full, especially for a low time pilot.

Chuck Yeager loved the P-39, he said it was one of his favorite planes to fly.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 11, 2008)

I haven't read about this specifically mentioned on the P-39, but the US 20 mm was genuinely unreliable, the M1 version would have been the one used on the P-400/P-39D-1 (and optionally on the D-2 irc). Some sourses say the M2 version was worse, others that it was better but still much less reliable than the British Hispano Mk.II. So, with the ejection chute fixed, the M4 37 mm cannon would be more reliable.

On the issue of the power of the 37 mm shell, it should be noted that the German 30 mm mine shell carried ~60-85% more HE filler than the 37 mm did. (73 or 84 g opposed to the 37 mm's ~45 g)


----------



## parsifal (Oct 12, 2008)

The Russians did extremely well with the P-39 and the later P-63. To name just a few, aces that scored more than ten, and many with more than twenty kills on the type included K Vishnevski, A I Pokryshkin, N Livitskiy, DB Glinka, BB Glinka, I Drusov, II Babak, and GA Rechkalov


----------



## D.H firemoth (Oct 21, 2008)

The worst aircraft has to be the rocket-powerd Komet. It was a very advanced aircraft for its time and had grate advantage over speed, but was so dangerous to operate that more Komets were lost in accidents than in actul combat aswell as its looks its just a eye-sore


----------



## B-17engineer (Oct 21, 2008)

I honestly dont think the Komet could possibly be the WORST. It wasnt horrible. It shot down a Mosquito in a dogfight when it only has 7-8 minutes of fuel. That takes a a great pilot and a darn good plane


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 21, 2008)

The main problem was the dangers imposed by the rocket engine and fuel. There was high explosion danger if the tanks were breached by combat damage, rough landing, manufacturung faults, or corrosion. Additionally the hydrogen peroxide (T-stoff) was highly corrosive an could disolve flesh.

As to actual combat capability, full power endurance may have been short, but a good pilot could maximize combat time by conserving energy and using the engine as little as possible. (get to altitude, glide as much as possible using minimal power both in trasition to target, loiter, and in combat, and use full power as much as possible when engine is used as that will give the best specific fuel consumbtion -the engine becomes less efficient at lower throttle levels)


Excellent airframe design though, would have been good if adapted to a jet. (wich would have been relatively simple with the HeS-30 -006- had it not been cancelled)


----------



## Waynos (Oct 22, 2008)

_Excellent airframe design though, would have been good if adapted to a jet. _

every DH 108 built ended up crashing too, or am I being glib kk?


----------



## D.H firemoth (Oct 26, 2008)

55% of the komets were lost in takeoff and becouse of the C and T another %35 were lost in landing 5% were shot down by allied aircraft and the last 5% got to go home


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2008)

D.H firemoth said:


> 55% of the komets were lost in takeoff and becouse of the C and T another %35 were lost in landing 5% were shot down by allied aircraft and the last 5% got to go home


Despite the operational dangers of the Komet, it performed as designed. I'd like to see your sources for these statistics you posted.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 26, 2008)

I agree Joe, those statistics seem to be rather off. He is implying that 95% of all Me 163s were destroyed.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 27, 2008)

> After the war the records of the Komets were assessed, and the sad balance was made. It turned out that *80 percent* of Komet losses were due to take-off or landing accidents. *15 percent* of the losses were due to compressibility in dives, or due to fires in the air. Only *5 percent* of the losses were due to combat. Only one unit was able to engage the enemy on a more or less regular basis. I/JG 400 claimed 9 bombers, and lost 14 aircraft in doing so.


From WW2 Warbirds: the Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet - Frans Bonn


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2008)

Marcel said:


> From WW2 Warbirds: the Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet - Frans Bonn



Yes 80 percent of the Me 163s that were lost, were lost in accidents.

It does not say that 80 percent of all Me 163s were lost.

See what I am saying?

JG 400 which lost 14 Me 163s had 91 Me 163s as far as I know.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 27, 2008)

Yes, I think the guy didn't read the line "of the losses"


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 27, 2008)

BTW those figures applied to the 14 lost make 11 Me 163's lost to accedents, 2 to dives/fires/mechanical failure, and 1 lost to enemy fire.


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 27, 2008)

parsifal said:


> In the case of the RAF, I think it was their combat experience that in fact worked against them. The lessons learnt in Europe, when fighting the Luftwaffe , were precisely what NOT to do against the japanese.
> 
> Against the Luftwaffe, the best tactic was to dogfight, reduce the combat to a tight turning engagement. I know that there is a lot of material in other forums that attests to the equal ability of the 109 in a turning fight, but the facts are that the RAF found the best tactics to employ against the Luftwafffe fighters in the period up to 1942 was to turn as much as possible.
> Against the Zero , or any Japanese SE fighter really, this was about the worst thing you could do.



I agree with that completely. One of the biggest keys to the early success of the Japanese fighters is the tactics that the Allies used!


----------



## D.H firemoth (Oct 28, 2008)

I was watching the history channel when it listed the loss rete of them. The next time its on I will record and post it on.


----------



## D.H firemoth (Oct 28, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes 80 percent of the Me 163s that were lost, were lost in accidents.
> 
> It does not say that 80 percent of all Me 163s were lost.
> 
> ...



Their was only 46 of the komet and their is 7 that survived


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2008)

D.H firemoth said:


> I was watching the history channel when it listed the loss rete of them. The next time its on I will record and post it on.


Evidently the sources used for the history channel were wrong, and it won't be the first time. I bet if one was to pull the Unit history of the squadrons operating the Me 163 I think it will be clear their total attrition rate was a lot lower than 80%.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2008)

D.H firemoth said:


> Their was only 46 of the komet and their is 7 that survived



Wow!

Were did you get those numbers? They are wrong.

Aprox. 400 Me 163s were built with a little less than 300 actually seeing combat.

Your number of 7 surviving is wrong as well. Aprox 30 were shipped out of Germany in 1945 to various countries for testing.

There are 10 examples in Musueums around the world today (which is more than your claim of 7 surviving):

Preserved Axis Aircraft

I think you might want to actually research the Me 163 a bit.

Facts:

Aprox. 400 were built.

About 300 saw combat.

95% did not get shot down or destroyed in the war.

10 examples, not 7 have survived in museums today.

Just because 10 survive today, does not mean that only 10 were not shot down in the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Evidently the sources used for the history channel were wrong, and it won't be the first time. I bet if one was to pull the Unit history of the squadrons operating the Me 163 I think it will be clear their total attrition rate was a lot lower than 80%.



As I already have shown. JG 400 had 91 aircraft and 14 were lost.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> As I already have shown. JG 400 had 91 aircraft and 14 were lost.


So I figure just over 15%? That's not that bad considering.....


----------



## Marcel (Oct 28, 2008)

How many sorties did they make?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2008)

Marcel said:


> How many sorties did they make?



That I do not know. 

I know that they were not very succesful for varying reasons. JG 400 lost 9 aircraft (out of 91) and claimed 14 bomber kills.

And an edit to my post above: 279 Me 163s saw combat out of aprox 400 that were built.


----------



## Elvis (Oct 31, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I haven't read about this specifically mentioned on the P-39, but the US 20 mm was genuinely unreliable, the M1 version would have been the one used on the P-400/P-39D-1 (and optionally on the D-2 irc). Some sourses say the M2 version was worse, others that it was better but still much less reliable than the British Hispano Mk.II. So, with the ejection chute fixed, the M4 37 mm cannon would be more reliable.
> 
> On the issue of the power of the 37 mm shell, it should be noted that the German 30 mm mine shell carried ~60-85% more HE filler than the 37 mm did. (73 or 84 g opposed to the 37 mm's ~45 g)



KK,

Would you happen to know how the M4 37mm cannon featured on the P-39's the P-63's compared to the 30mm cannon that was featured on the Sturmovik?


Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 1, 2008)

I don't know of any 30 mm used on the Il-2, I believe the standard cannon was the 23 mm VYa cannon (early versions using the lighter 20 mm ShVak).

And in tank buster versions, a pair of 37 mm NS-37's replaced the 23 mm weapons.

If you meant the NS-37, it was considerably heavier than the M4 (170 kg to 96 kg) but fired moderately heavier projectile at a high velocity (890 m/s opposed to ~600 m/s) at 250 rpm to the M4's 140.

The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Gun Tables ( a decent quick refrence, but not completely accurate you could also check Tony William's site: WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS )


----------



## D.H firemoth (Nov 1, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Wow!
> 
> Were did you get those numbers? They are wrong.
> 
> ...



Soz I ment of the one's that have shot down bombers so dont get me wrong its not a bad aircraft


----------



## r2800doublewasp (Nov 21, 2008)

The TBD was very advanced when it came out back in 1937.


----------



## r2800doublewasp (Nov 21, 2008)

The Breda Ba. 88! It was so bad the Italians stripped them and used them as decoys almost immediately after they left the production line. Also some were just scrapped. Brand New!


----------



## moomoo2 (Nov 22, 2008)

I'm not saying that its a bad aircraft as such, but the JU52 at one point in the war around 1942 they were losing more of them than they could replace. Something like 500 lost in a couple of months as opposed to 400 being built. It was a bit of a deathtrap i think. Does anyone have any more info on this?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 22, 2008)

moomoo2 said:


> I'm not saying that its a bad aircraft as such, but the JU52 at one point in the war around 1942 they were losing more of them than they could replace. Something like 500 lost in a couple of months as opposed to 400 being built. It was a bit of a deathtrap i think. Does anyone have any more info on this?


Despite losses, the Ju 52 performed well and met or exceeded its design expectancy. The Breda BA.88 didn't come close to doing that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2008)

moomoo2 said:


> I'm not saying that its a bad aircraft as such, but the JU52 at one point in the war around 1942 they were losing more of them than they could replace. Something like 500 lost in a couple of months as opposed to 400 being built. It was a bit of a deathtrap i think. Does anyone have any more info on this?



I would not call it a bad aircraft because of that. It performed very well. Any transport is going to b a sitting duck unless is properly escorted or you have complete aerial superiority.


----------



## wingnuts (Nov 23, 2008)

moomoo2 said:


> I'm not saying that its a bad aircraft as such, but the JU52 at one point in the war around 1942 they were losing more of them than they could replace. Something like 500 lost in a couple of months as opposed to 400 being built. It was a bit of a deathtrap i think. Does anyone have any more info on this?




The JU5/3m "Tante Ju" was used used by BEA in the UK after the war and in many places around the world up to the 1960s... Swissair used them up to the 1980s....as well as those in the Spanish and other airforces. 

Many were lost during the invasion of Crete and on the Eastern Front when being used for tasks they were never designed for. 

Rather than the worst I think it could be classed as one of the best aircraft of the period. Many still airworthy today.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2008)

Spain as a matter of fact continued to build them until 1952. It was a very rugged and sound aircraft. Not spectacular in performance but a very well built and sound aircraft.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 25, 2008)

The Ju 52 was certainly a valuable aircraft, and far from the "worst a/c type of the war.

However, it had its limitations.

Durng the Stalingrad airlift ther were many Ju52 casualties, some were due to the activities of the VVS and some to flak, however, according to Hayward ("Stopped At Stalingrad - The Luftwaffe and Hitlers defeat in the East 1942-3") more than half the casualties were due to engine failures with many engine failures due to icing. The casualty rate to non-combat reasons amongst the He111 units also used in the airlift was much lower (although the payload of the He 111 was also much lower when used as a transport). The He 111 also enjoyed a much longer range, such that after the capture of the main supply airbases at Morozovskaya, Tatinskaya and Salsk, the Ju52, with their shorter range than the Heinkels, could no longer airlift to Stalingrad

The heavy losses suffered over Tunisia highlighted the extreme vulnerability of the type, but also the fact that the german were often forced by the military circumstances they faced to take big risks. As the war progressed these big risks showed as heavy casualties. 

The Germans suffered heavy casualties to their transport fleets in both the airborne ops they undertook, many of which, at Crete at least were destroyed as the Ju 52s landed , under fire, to discharge the Gebirgjagers sent in to rescue the paratroopers pinned at Maleme. 

The losses in the transports had other bad effects on the Germans. The Ju52s were actually flown by elite pilots, working in the Bomber training schools using the Ju52s for that purpose. There were so many casualties suffered over Stalingrad in these crews, that the Germans were forced to curtail all their blind flying training for bombers, and cut back on bomber production generally, simply because for many months they could not train the crews needed to put the bombers into the air. Later the decision was taken to abandon bomber production in favour of fighters, but in early 1943 this decision had not yet been taken. It was forced on the germans as a result of the near total paralysis of the bomber training schools, brought about, in turn, by the losses to the transports over Stalingrad....


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

Have to agree. The 52 was good - well, let's say more than adequate, the tactical usage horrendous.


----------



## Boss Calamari (Dec 5, 2008)

The Ju-252 was supposed to replace the ju-52, but there wasn't time to change production orders because of the war condition.


----------



## r2800doublewasp (Dec 6, 2008)

I gotta to go with (like I said before) the Breda BA 88. The Ba. 65 was also horrendous, but you got to factor in its age.


----------



## Elvis (Dec 6, 2008)

wingnuts said:


> Rather than the worst I think it could be classed as one of the best aircraft of the period. Many still airworthy today.


+1.
Couldn't have said it better myself.


Elvis


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 2, 2009)

For crippling losses over a comparatively short period of time

The Douglas Devastated?


----------



## parsifal (Jan 2, 2009)

The TBD was outclassed in its battles, unquestionably, and its losses refelct that. To that extent I agree with you. But from a purely performance POV, ther is the French PL-7, and perhaps even the british Swordfish and Albacore. The fact that the british devised operational techniques to overcome those shortcomings does not hide the fact of the poor outright performance of these types. I am a BIG fan of the Swordfish, and its operations BTW


----------



## Waynos (Jan 3, 2009)

No, you are right. I can see what you are saying. the losses of the Devastator are not a sign that the plane itself was bad. I'm sure the FAA would much rather have had Devastators than Swordfish, probably the pilots would have prefered it to the Barracuda too.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 3, 2009)

Waynos said:


> No, you are right. I can see what you are saying. the losses of the Devastator are not a sign that the plane itself was bad



The losses of the Devastator were a sign that the plane was old.
Fast, sleek and with a number of features considered modern for 1935, monoplane structure, hydraulic wing-fold mechanism, all-metal construction.

1940 arrived and with the new decade came the inevitability that the TBD was losing its edge, the US Navy did set about looking for a replacement but in all honesty, without any real sense of urgency - rather scary considering the wars that were brewing in Europe and Asia; the TBD was state of the art 5 years ago, it will be now... right?

Wrong. Things had moved on. Considerably. The TBD was by now under-protected, under-powered and asked crews to deliver a torpedo that seemed to have a lot of trouble going off once it hit the target, that is IF it hit the target and didn't plough 11 - 14 feet under it as the test warhead used in trials was nowhere near as heavy as the real warhead carried on operations.

US Navy intransigence can certainly carry the can for most of the shortcomings of their own strike capability but trying to preserve the reputation of a platform on the basis that it was a little long in the tooth before it came to be used in anger is misguided; if the plane carrying you into battle is no longer up to the task then it's a bad plane.

It's also going to get you shot down, in the same way that over 90% of the TBD force deployed at Midway were.

I'm sure there's an argument for Swordfish and Barracuda crews wanting them in preference but that wasn't really the question.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> The losses of the Devastator were a sign that the plane was old.
> Fast, sleek and with a number of features considered modern for 1935, monoplane structure, hydraulic wing-fold mechanism, all-metal construction.
> 
> 1940 arrived and with the new decade came the inevitability that the TBD was losing its edge, the US Navy did set about looking for a replacement but in all honesty, without any real sense of urgency - rather scary considering the wars that were brewing in Europe and Asia; the TBD was state of the art 5 years ago, it will be now... right?
> ...


The Devastator actually did well in the Battle of Coral Sea where it did help sink the Shoho. There was no doubt the aircraft was obsolete but the losses at Midway were also due to a tactical situation - the whole Japanese carrier task force fighter CAP converged on the unescorted Devastators. The TBD attack was planned with the assumption that these aircraft would of had fighter protection during their torpedo runs. Cmdr Thach and his fighters never rendezvous with the TBDs and their fate was sealed. Their sacrifice was not in vain however, as their attack not only forced the Japanese to delay launching their strike force, but also drew the defending fighters down to low altitudes, allowing the later arriving dive bombers, to attack without opposition and sink three carriers.

Also remember this - the much touted and advanced Grumman Avenger made its combat debut at Midway. Six Avengers of VT-8 were stationed at Midway and sent out to attack the Japanese as well - only one survived.

The TBD was at the end of its line at Midway but IMO the losses suffered by the aircraft wasn't only due to its obsolescence - simply it was at the wrong place at the wrong time and I also believe that if the newer TBM were placed in the same position, they probably would not of fared any better.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 3, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> The losses of the Devastator were a sign that the plane was old.



Old doesn't equal bad, what we are talking about are the worst aeroplanes of WW2, planes like the Breda 88 or Blackburn Botha which were new, but crap, even dangerous and not in a good way.



> I'm sure there's an argument for Swordfish and Barracuda crews wanting them in preference but that wasn't really the question.



No, the question is the worst plane of WW2, and if there were crews who would have preferred it to their own mounts then it can't have been the worst, can it? And I wouldn't even nominate the Swordfish as the worst, it did its job very well despite its obsolescence. Ironically the Swordfish is only a year older than the TBD, to me that is incredible.

I would say that any 'worst' aircraft would have to be one that was dangerous to its crews because it was a badly flawed design, not because people were shooting at it.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 3, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Old doesn't equal bad, what we are talking about are the worst aeroplanes of WW2...
> 
> ...I would say that any 'worst' aircraft would have to be one that was dangerous to its crews because it was a badly flawed design, not because people were shooting at it.



Well, yes
we're talking about the worst aeroplanes of WWII, the problem is that the original thread on this topic doesn't provide any constraints in how we define 'worst'.

I'm not suggesting I'm right, I'm saying that's how I interpreted it; old was bad for a bunch of torpedo bomber crews at Midway.

I have to say that your own views are entirely valid and probably more appropriate to the thread than mine but when I read it, what popped into my head is what you see above.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2009)

At least aircraft like the Devastator and Buffalo were able to get airborne and somewhat fight. A Breda Ba.88 could barely get airborne.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 3, 2009)

Yes Colin, I am sorry if I came across as a bit preachy, I know I can do that without meaning to.

To me the TBD is a similar case to the Fairey Battle. A sound aeroplane, but totally in the wrong place at the wrong time (that time being 1939!)


----------



## cormallen (Jan 16, 2009)

Hi Folks

I believe that some of the TBD losses were due to its very poor torpedo that required it to fly especially slow and low. The torp had been designed when biplanes were the usual carriers and the launching specs were rather easier to meet... 

The japanese Kates could attack in fairly fast long dives so their attacking speed was much higher, reducing their vulnerability to both ships AA and any fighters around. 

In terms of real flight performance most of the early war, largish, single engined attack aircraft - Battle, Devastator, B5N, Stuka, Dauntless etc - were all fairly similar... They could succeed (sometimes dramatically - Midway) if the opposition was weak, overwhelmed or just in the wrong place (Midway again...) but could equally die horribly when things went against them! (StuKa in BoB, TBD at Midway, Battle in france...).

regards alan


----------



## flakhappy (Jan 22, 2009)

It surely had some fine qualities that are easy to overlook, but those of us who had to fly in them thought the Curtiss C46 was the most unstable aircraft in the world, especially on base leg and final approach, when the flaps went down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 22, 2009)

flakhappy said:


> It surely had some fine qualities that are easy to overlook, but those of us who had to fly in them thought the Curtiss C46 was the most unstable aircraft in the world, especially on base leg and final approach, when the flaps went down.


Did you fly C-46s or just fly in them because I've heard just the opposite.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 22, 2009)

Ive read that the C-46s could not get over the Hump in Burma, due to altitude issues. Not sure if that is true, and wanted confirmation from someone better informed if possible


----------



## ONE_HELLCAT (Jan 22, 2009)

From what I know, C-46s weren't the highest flying planes, but they could make it across the Hump. I've never ridden in one, but I've been around the "China Doll" a lot, and it looks like it would be pretty stable. Though I've never talked to its pilots.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2009)

One of my instructors in college flew one. He did say it did not have the altitude like the C-47 but carried more. He never mentioned anything about it being unstable, just that it was a big airplane that made you work.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Feb 3, 2009)

I'm gonna have to go with the Brewster Buffalo. I know that the Finn's had a lot of success with them against Russia, but everywhere else they were literally coffins for their pilots. The losses that they suffered at Midway kinda prove it (though experience between the Japanese and American pilots was also a pivoting factor). I even heard that the Brewster Company went bankrupt during the war too.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 3, 2009)

Not merely bankrupt, which would be nigh on impossible for an arms manufacturer in the middle of a world war, but the US Navy marched in and closed them down.

I would also like to nominate the Curtiss Seamew, regarding which here is a quote from Lieutenant-Commander William Menzies RN;

"I do not know if I was the first Royal Navy pilot to fly this thing, but I was the first of my squadron to do so, taking delivery at Roosevelt Field, Long Island and flying them to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. I have forgotten hown many Seamews were ferried to Yarmouth and how many we broke in the process, but we finally had enough and refused to fly them anymore.

I had thought that someone has done a high pressure sales job and sold us the rubbish that had been refused by the US Navy but now I know that both navies were suffering simultaneously I feel a bit better about the ten years the Seamew took off my life expectation"

from Bill Gunstons 'Back to the Drawing Board'


----------



## Marcel (Feb 4, 2009)

Ferdinand Foch said:


> I'm gonna have to go with the Brewster Buffalo. I know that the Finn's had a lot of success with them against Russia, but everywhere else they were literally coffins for their pilots. The losses that they suffered at Midway kinda prove it (though experience between the Japanese and American pilots was also a pivoting factor). I even heard that the Brewster Company went bankrupt during the war too.



The buffalo was actually quite a good aircraft. Most of it's pilots were inexperienced (see KNIL) pilots, hence the losses. The Zero was simply better at the time, although I read a report of a Dutch KNIL pilot who stated that the B339 was as good as the Zero.
The British version (and the later US for that matter) had added armour which made the a/c simply too heavy.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Feb 4, 2009)

Marcel said:


> The buffalo was actually quite a good aircraft. Most of it's pilots were inexperienced (see KNIL) pilots, hence the losses. The Zero was simply better at the time, although I read a report of a Dutch KNIL pilot who stated that the B339 was as good as the Zero.
> The British version (and the later US for that matter) had added armour which made the a/c simply too heavy.



True, it'd might have better luck over in the European Theater, but the added weight didn't help it against the zero. It also didn't help that the Japanese had more experience with their zeros. And, if I can recall, defensive team tactics weren't introduced in the opening phases of the Pacific war, which would've helped the buffalo's survival rate increase.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 4, 2009)

> The buffalo was actually quite a good aircraft.



In what way? It was very badly designed with a fat fuselage, narrow wing (of too small area), weak undercarriage and feeble engine. It was overweight (in all its versions) and very difficult to handle. The relative success of the Finns is not a vindication of the plane, but a testament to the skill and determination of the pilots it was foisted onto.

To quote Bill Yenne "Brewster was pioneering a new field, it is just that they didn't do a very good job"

To put its crapness into a kind of perspective, the prototype was ordered more than a month after the first flight of the Spitfire and it flew as the Spitfires were entering series production, now go compare. The Brewster Buffalo was a shameful little beast.

I was just imagining the commander who might have had to send out Blackburn Botha's on a bombing run escorted by Buffaloes, eeeeuuuwww, not a happy thought! Thank god it never came to pass.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 4, 2009)

> The Brewster Buffalo was a shameful little beast.


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 4, 2009)

Waynos said:


> The Brewster Buffalo was a shameful little beast


Just one question for you Wayne

Brewster Buffalo vs Polikarpov I-16

who's your money on?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2009)

I think you guys should read "Bloody Shambles." The Buffalo didn't do as bad as you might think in RAF and RAAF service in the South Pacific.

There were plenty of aircraft that were a lot worse.


----------



## Marcel (Feb 5, 2009)

Waynos said:


> The Brewster Buffalo was a shameful little beast.


KNIL Buffalo's example:


> Harry Simons, who as a pilot for the Kon. Ned. Ind. Luchtvaart Mij. (KNILM) [the NEI civilian airline] was called up as a fighter pilot on the Buffalo, reported that he found the Buffalo a good aircraft provided it was fitted with the 1200 hp engine. He stated: “Although it may sound strange, I still remember the agile maneuverability of the Buffalo *and in principle it was a very good aircraft as long as it had 1200 hp.* The armament with two light and two heavy machineguns, was on the light side.





> Captain Piet Tideman, commander of 3-Vl.G.V: “Coming to an evaluation of the Brewster fighter, especially compared to the Zero by which it was opposed - I think that my views are not directly in line with what is generally said about the Brewster. Generally it is said that that it was far inferior to the Zero. (.....) On the contrary, the Brewster was a good, sturdy, fast fighter with two half-inch armour-plates behind the seat. She would take a hell of a beating. My view is that our drawback during the fighter actions was not an inferior aeroplane, but that we had too few of them and also our armament was too little and too light.


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 5, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think you guys should read "Bloody Shambles." The Buffalo didn't do as bad as you might think in RAF and RAAF service in the South Pacific.
> 
> There were plenty of aircraft that were a lot worse.



lol I don't have any real problems with the Buffalo, Joe
it doesn't rank up there among my all-time favourites and it was certainly no electric performer; like most early or pre-war designs, fighter requirements got up and ran away from it but mostly, it was there when it was needed.

Just winding Wayne up...


----------



## Juha (Feb 5, 2009)

Hello Waynos
have you source to the claim that Brewster Buffalo was very difficult to handle? First time when I heard that. Rather narrow undercarriage and fat body made it sometimes difficult to land with side wind, but otherwise?

Some comments on Buffalo >Brewster Buffalo: British flight tests

And if FAF considered Brewster B-239 as its best fighter from early 40 to early 43 (When we got Bf 109G-2s) so clearly there were worse fighters than B-239.

Juha


----------



## Marcel (Feb 5, 2009)

Juha said:


> And if FAF considered Brewster B-239 as its best fighter from early 40 to early 43 (When we got Bf 109G-2s) so clearly there were worse fighters than B-239.
> 
> Juha



Likewise the B339 with 1200 hp engine.


----------



## Murray B (Feb 8, 2009)

steelDUST said:


> The worst? I'd say it's the Polikarpov I-15. 2,200 were lost in the first week of German invasion of Russia in June 1941.



How can you say that about an aircraft that is the basis of the very first jet?
The story is at:I-15bis

They write, "In December 1939 test pilot P. Loginov started testing a I-15bis biplane fitted with two Merkulov DM-2 ramjets fitted under the lower wings."

Just look at it:






See the low upper wing and the sleek design? This aircraft is the first jet and the first jet to exceed 300 milliMach. Notice how the cross sectional area is reduced at the cockpit near the waist. Is this the first example of the area rule? If so, then isn't this aircraft at least 40 years ahead of its time?


----------



## Waynos (Feb 8, 2009)

Hello Juha. You have me with the 'difficult to handle' remark. When I rechecked my source on this it does not say that, I misquoted.

It actually says it was underpowered with a painfully inadequate wing area and sluggish to handle, not difficult. Sorry about that one. I stand by my 'shameful little beast' comment though. even the link you provided gives enough material to support that comment.
As Marcel highlighted in his reply, 'in principle it was a very good aircraft'. Its just that in reality it was bloody awful.  In principle the Westland Whirlwind was an absolute world beater well ahead of the P-38. But in reality it never had a chance.

To quote my source again (Bill Yenne) 'within three months every Buffalo in the far east had been lost, handing the Japanese air superiority on a silver platter'. And let us not forget the British Buffaloes were only in the Far East in the first place because we dare not fly it against the Germans. The only US Buffaloes to see action were those of VMF-221 at Midway in June 1942 and in a 30 minute battle 13 of the 19 aircraft launched were lost were ALL the British and American pilots hopeless? Or might their mount have had something to do with it?. If not, why was the Buffalo quickly discarded by both countries in favour of other types? It was not that technology had overtaken it, because that had happened before it even flew. And let us not forget that Brewster then repeated the trick with the Brewster Bermuda dive bomber, if anything an even more deserving candidate for the worst of the war.


----------



## Juha (Feb 8, 2009)

Waynos
Hurricanes did not manage much better in Singapore or in Dutch East India, did they? If you read the report of S/L Harper, CO of 453 Sqn and later of 21/453 Sqn, you’ll see that almost all pilots of 453 were straight from flying schools, the exceptions were the S/L, a BoB veteran, and the 2 F/Lts who had very little experience on operations. There was no workable early-warning system when they were deployed in Malaya, so rather hopeless situation. JAAF could always bounce them and time to time attack them while they were taking off or landing. 
Dutch seemed to think that their B-339s were better than Hurricane Mk II Trops, And B-239s had one of the best kill-loss ration achieved during WWII and as I wrote Finns thought that Brewster B-239 was their best fighter from early 40 to early 43. Not so bad for 'shameful little beast' and remember Dec 1941 to May 42 Japanese did well everywhere, also against Hurricanes and P-40s.

III/JG 1 lost 12 out of 20 Bf 109G-5s/-6s to P-51s of 4th FG on 22 Apr 44 and III/JG 1 leaders were clearly experienced men like Grislawski, Burckhardt and Kaiser, 133, 58 and 68 kills respectively. One cannot draw too much from one fight. But I agree that F2A-3 was overburdened by its massive fuel load.

Juha


----------



## Marcel (Feb 8, 2009)

Waynos said:


> It actually says it was underpowered with a painfully inadequate wing area and sluggish to handle, not difficult. Sorry about that one. I stand by my 'shameful little beast' comment though. even the link you provided gives enough material to support that comment.
> As Marcel highlighted in his reply, 'in principle it was a very good aircraft'. Its just that in reality it was bloody awful.



I think you're still only talking about the British Buffalo's. A British pilot who tested the Dutch B339's marked them as much better aircraft than their own. In one of my quotes, a Dutch pilot even denies that the Buffalo was inferior to the Zero. 
Mark the differences between the British and Dutch versions. Different engines (Dutch ones had more horsepower), and the Dutch fighters much lighter, so climbing performance and manoeuvrability was much better then the British and US versions. The B239 of the Finns was actually much lighter as well. According to Dutch sources the B339 was actually quite manoeuvrable.

The US version at Midway was even heavier than the British one. And still with the 1100 hp engine.

The Dutch just had too few....



> In principle the Westland Whirlwind was an absolute world beater well ahead of the P-38. But in reality it never had a chance.


 Actually I think the Whirlwind is one of the more overrated a/c of WWII. I don't see it as a "worldwinner" anymore then other a/c.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 8, 2009)

there is no doubt the Buffalo used by the allies in the tropical climates of the far East were an heroic failure. The RAAF using the type in Malaya did fight very valiantly but it was a hopeless fight by any measure. The training of the pilots and their general pre-conception of the Japanese did not help. The Allied air forces applied their "dogfight" tactics to the Japanese, and learnt the hard way that dogfighting an Oscar, Nate, Claude or Zero was something you just could not do. 

The lions share of the aerial victories achieved by the Japanese were done by the very few Oscars and Zeroes that participated. Against these aircraft, the Buffalo was hopelessly outclassed in nearly every performance category.....handling, top speed, climb, service ceiling, to name just a few. The poor old Buffalo was a "manouvre" fighter, but against a zero, or an Oscar, in this type of fight it was heavily outclassed.


This is a quote from a book of mine about the RAAFs experience with the type

"Due to the rapid wastage of aircraft, Nos 21 and 453 were temporarily merged as No 21/453 sqn. The unit had 16 Bufaloes on strength. Lessons learnt in the combat were now applied to the Buffalo in an attempt to give it a more competitive performance Since nothing could be done about the defective fuel pressure systems, combats at altitudes above 6000 metres required the pilo6t to maintain a continous hand pump in order to keep flying. It was nearly impossible to operate the hand pump, and engage in combat at the same timeArmament was reduced in an effort to save weight and the R/T sets removed. Subsequent combats proved the inadequacy o these measures , as the Zero continued to outmatch the Buffalo in nearly every respect

I dont consider the buffalo to be the worst in war, but is was not a shining example of American engineering either. The pilots did their best with it, but by 1942 it simply was not competitive against the Japanese

Six Bufflaoes survived the Asian debacle, and continued to provide the AD component for Perth until well into 1943


----------



## Marcel (Feb 8, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I dont consider the buffalo to be the worst in war, but is was not a shining example of American engineering either. The pilots did their best with it, but by 1942 it simply was not competitive against the Japanese


Well, Parsifal, in fact any fighter that the Allies had in 1941-42 in the PTO had a hard time against the Zero. Not the Hurricane, P40, P39, Wildcat, you name it did very well these first months. The Buffalo was no exception. Still this a/c got a worse reputation than the rest, only because of Midway. I don't believe the a/c deserved such a judgement if the others don't. I still don't believe the Buffalo was that bad. They were with too few and bad tactics did the rest. There is a reason why the Finns had soo much success with them. They couldn't have had that if the a/c was bad.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 8, 2009)

I think this over-simplifies the issue. There were three main issues that enabled the Japanese to post such one sided victories over all opponents at this time, the first was the excellent standard of their pilots, who were the masters of dogfighting. The second was the superior performance of their spearhead fighters compared to most of their allied opponents, and the third was the superior mobility of their ground support echelons, that enabled the Japanese air formation to relocate far more efficiently than their opponents. 

There were several types that displayed superior performance to the zero/oscar threat, principally the P-40, F4F and to a lesser extent the Hurricane (incidentally the brits were shipping out clapped out MkI at the end of 1941, not the more modern Mk IIs). However, at best these aircraft were only approaching the performance of the Japanese aircraft and not exceeding them. When used or placed in situations where the Japanese could still outnumber them, and/or faulty tactics were still used, the results were still in favour of the Japanese. However, where the defenders could be deplyed into situations where they could not be bushwhacked by numbers, and where proper tactical handling of the fighters was employed, the results were more promising.

With this in mind, the British Hurricane defence of Singapore should come as no surprise as a failure....the pilots were too few to man all the aircraft, the Japanese already had the airbases supressed, and the wrong tactics were used (again) 

In Burm and China, however, the AVG, flying P-40s displayed a remarkable ability to outfly the Japanese. The group was the only allied formation that knew not to dogfight with the Japanese, and the distances separating the Japanese from their targets was such that the AVG could, and did react to the Japanese in good time. 

The USN Wildcats also fared quite well, even from the very beginning because they could choose the moment and location of their targets, and strike in overwhelming local superiority of numbers. The Zero was never able to completely best the Wildcat at theis time in quite the same way as it did the Buffalo.

The Dutch did enjoy better success with the Buffalo than either the brits ofr the Americans, but more in the sense that the type was able to survive a little longer.....ther is little or no evidence to support any claim that the loss rates for the Japanese were much higher in the NEI than they were in any of the other campaigns....in other words, the Dutch got more time to shoot at the Japs, but faioled to make any appreciable difference. I believe this stems from the poor quality of the Buffalo, since it was impossible for the Japanese to "outflank" the Dutch, and the Dutch were able to generally dive on the Japanese (due to the better performance at altitude). 

But while the Dutch Buffalo was "less bad" than the British version, it could not escape its fate as an outclassed and obsolete aircraft. The Dutch may have done better than anyone in the Far East, but this does not demonstrate the superiority of their equipment....


----------



## Marcel (Feb 8, 2009)

parsifal said:


> The Dutch did enjoy better success with the Buffalo than either the brits ofr the Americans, but more in the sense that the type was able to survive a little longer.....ther is little or no evidence to support any claim that the loss rates for the Japanese were much higher in the NEI than they were in any of the other campaigns....in other words, the Dutch got more time to shoot at the Japs, but faioled to make any appreciable difference. I believe this stems from the poor quality of the Buffalo, since it was impossible for the Japanese to "outflank" the Dutch, and the Dutch were able to generally dive on the Japanese (due to the better performance at altitude).
> 
> But while the Dutch Buffalo was "less bad" than the British version, it could not escape its fate as an outclassed and obsolete aircraft. The Dutch may have done better than anyone in the Far East, but this does not demonstrate the superiority of their equipment....


The Dutch only had 72 Brewsters ordered and less were on strength when the Japanese attacked. That is a very small number considering the huge land they had to defend. I would say that's the reason why they didn't make an impact, not the performance of the a/c. Furthermore, early-warning systems were non-existent in the Dutch EI, so the Dutch had very little warning and had no time to get altitude. I don't understand where you get the idea that they usually could dive on their opponent. This was no BoB with Radar posts.

As for the equipment being superior to the British version, British Brewsters were all fitted with the 1100 hp Cyclone G-105A. the majority of the ML-KNIL aircraft had 1200 hp and the British had also been fitted with additional equipment bringing the weight of the aircraft to 2955 kg, about 265 kg (10%) more than the Dutch aircraft. Because of this for instance the rate of climb (at sea level) of the British version was just 3000 ft/min, very poor compared to the 4700 ft/min of the Dutch aircraft.


----------



## Juha (Feb 8, 2009)

Hello Parsifal
my points are
a) Hurricanes, which according to Shore’s et al’s Bloody Shambles were Mk IIBs, which can be checked from serials, BE-BM range which means sixth Hawker production group, produced from late 41 to early 42, and powered by RR Merlin XXs, so Mk IIs and new ones, did mot better than Buffalos. In fact if we take along the Ceylon debacle, Hurricanes did it worse than Buffalos against newer Japanese fighters, see Joe B’s message in this thread on 12 Sept 08, even if as later comer Hurri pilots at least have some truthful info on the capabilies of Japanese fighters and had not to rely on completely false beliefs of clear inferiority of Japanese equipment which were the base of early tactics of Commonwealth pilots in FE. 
b) USN F4Fs clearly did better than Buffalos against Japanese fighters, but their pilots had lot more experience and they had the big advantage of proper early warning. IIRC Wake was the exception, it had not radar.
c) Buffalo Mk I and F2A-3 were probably the worst models of the Brewster fighter, being clearly overweight. F2A-1, B-239, F2A-2 and Dutch B339 were better and has to take in consideration when trying to value Buffalo.

Juha


----------



## JoeB (Feb 8, 2009)

I agree with much of what's been said lately. In general Buffalo's did poorly against the Japanese air arms in 1941-1942. But, most Allied fighter types and units were doing poorly v the Japanese. 

An exception to that is US experience where the Marine F2A's were badly defeated by Zeroes in their only air combat flying from Midway, where the F2A's stablemate in the US Naval air arms, the F4F, established the best record of any Allied fighter v the Zero in 1942. F4F's didn't consistently enjoy local numbers over Zeroes, that's not correct. Neither side enjoyed consistent numerical superiority. So it's understandable why the US Naval air arms' impression was of a big difference between those planes' combat effectivness, though the difference in result isn't provably all due to the planes, some of it was surely other factors.

In South East Asia theater the Buffalo generally did poorly against all Japanese opponents. Numbers posted earlier in this thread counting combat by combat showed that the Buffalo's record was actually worse v the Army Type 97 (later 'Nate') than v. the Zero and Type 1. The Buffalo did about as badly v Zero and Type 1 as the Hurricane did but worse than the Hurricane v the Type 97 (Hurricane v Type 97 was a little better than 1:1 in favor of Type 97, USAAF P-40's similarly, the Type 97's big problem was v. AVG P-40's where it went 1:3 in a pretty large sample of combats).

I don't agree that KNIL fighter-fighter results were noticeably better than British/CW or USAAF units in the same theater same time. Their Buffalo results alone, counting same way as usual (each side's losses, only in combats where both side's accounts are known, no reliance on claims) were 1 Type 0 Fighter and 1 Type 0 Observation Seaplane (later 'Pete') acting as fighter downed by Dutch Buffalo's for the loss of 10 Dutch Buffalo's to Zero's and 2 to the 'Petes', in 5 combats. And overall KNIL Buffalo/CW-21/Hawk/Hurricane results v Japanese fighters were poor also, but so were those of the other Allied fighter arms operating alongside them in the Dutch East Indies at the time.

I don't think you can absolutely nail down some special inferiority of the Buffalo from the combat results. But OTOH statements like 'it didn't do so badly' are not in line with reality, v the Japanese. It did quite badly v Japanese fighters, almost without exception. But it was in a period where other Alllied fighter types were generally doing poorly v Japanese fighters too, though there were exceptions to that rule.

Joe


----------



## Marcel (Feb 8, 2009)

JoeB said:


> I don't think you can absolutely nail down some special inferiority of the Buffalo from the combat results. But OTOH statements like 'it didn't do so badly' are not in line with reality, v the Japanese. It did quite badly v Japanese fighters, almost without exception. But it was in a period where other Alllied fighter types were generally doing poorly v Japanese fighters too, though there were exceptions to that rule.
> 
> Joe



I agree with you Joe. I didn't say they didn't do so badly, but I said the a/c itself was not as bad as most people think. The reasons for the a/c doing badly against the Japanese is much more complicated:
A> inexperienced crew
B> Bad tactics
C> The Japanese were the attacking one, having the initiative while:
D> there was no early warning, thus allied fighter pilots were late to react (altitude dis-advantage)
E> There were far to few to make up a good defence, especially since there was no early warning

In this case any a/c would have done bad.

I'm not so sure about your numbers though. I thought I had others. I'll come back to that later.


----------



## Valo300 (Feb 10, 2009)

redcoat said:


> Actually the TBD wasn't as bad as it is made out to be. In fact it was better than most torpedo bombers of the era.
> It just gets a bad rep due to Midway ,when in fact *any* torpedo bomber attacking, against the odds they were facing, would have suffered the same fate.


I suspect that fast torpedo armed fighters like the P38 would've fared *much* better at Midway than the TBD. 

Slow and lumbering is no way to fight a war.



Lightning Guy said:


> And the TBD was that bad. Consider that clean it's top speed was a mere 206mph. When carrying a torp it was hard pressed to make 125mph.


What ingress/egress speeds would a torpedo armed P38 manage in comparison in an operational approach?

Double? More? And probably a good deal longer range than the TBD on top of it?

I honestly never saw the USN's fascination with specialized torpedo and dive bombers. Multi-role single fighters just offer so much more.

So anyway, yeah, TBD is a good pick for worst plane IMO. Certainly among the worst of the US made planes anyway.


----------



## Captain Dunsel (Feb 10, 2009)

1. We didn't have the engines to power the kinds of planes you're talking about at the beginning of the war. You need enough horsepower to lug that torpedo or heavy bomb, and do it fast enough to evade enemy fighters. 
2. We didn't have carriers big enough to handle big planes like the P-38, with it's evil ARMY engines.

As I said before, the TBD was a good plane, fitting in with the doctrine of the day. It was near the end of it's service life, and it was slower than its SBD and F4F contemporaries. Amongst other things, that made it hard to provide proper escorts for both SBD and TBD formations at the same time. Early in the war, we thought we had enough F4F's (we didn't) and that the SBD could act as an anti-torpedo plane fighter (it was too slow to catch the Kates). 

Don't blame the TBD; it was a good plane for its day. It just wasn't used as well as it could have been, and it was saddled with a lousy torpedo. 

CD


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2009)

Well Said Captain Dunsel! There's a difference berween "bad" and "obsolete." The TBD actually did well in the Coral Sea, but make no doubt it was obsolete by 1942.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Feb 10, 2009)

Valo, don't forget six TBF Avengers from Midway attacked the IJN carriers, all but one were shot down, the last one having the gunner killed. The TBD was obsolete by the time Midway came, but the TBF would've fared little better.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2009)

Also remember that dropping a torpedo from an airplane was no easy task and you had to limit your speed during the drop. Any torpedo bomber was a sitting duck during the run.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Feb 10, 2009)

That's true, if I can recall, when the Yorktown was attacked, a lot of Kates were shot down from the American CAP and AA guns.


----------



## Valo300 (Feb 10, 2009)

Captain Dunsel said:


> 1. We didn't have the engines to power the kinds of planes you're talking about at the beginning of the war. You need enough horsepower to lug that torpedo or heavy bomb, and do it fast enough to evade enemy fighters.


Incorrect, the early P38s could be torpedo armed.



Captain Dunsel said:


> 2. We didn't have carriers big enough to handle big planes like the P-38, with it's evil ARMY engines.


But we had the deck space to handle much larger single role obsolete torpedo bombers? 

Hmmm.



Captain Dunsel said:


> As I said before, the TBD was a good plane, fitting in with the doctrine of the day.
> CD


It was a piece of junk, really.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Feb 10, 2009)

Actually Valo, the P-38 wasn't smaller then the TBD. The P-38's wingspan is 52 ft, while the TBD is 50 feet. The lenght of the P-38 is 37 ft, and the TBD is 35 feet. The P-38 was also heavier the TBD, operational at 17,500 pounds to the TBD's 9,444 pounds. If you want the proof to my claims, here are the links. 
Lockheed P-38 Lightning - USA
USN Aircraft--Douglas TBD-1

That said, the TBD did well at Coral Sea, any torpedo bomber would've gotten chewed up at Midway, the TBF did.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 10, 2009)

Were p-38s even operational in early 1942? It would have been necessary for them to be ready by about January or February 1942, in order for them to be deployed at Midway. The reason is that as a new type, it would take time to work the type up to operational readiness.

Personally I am extremely doubtful of the P-38s performance and capability as a torpedo bomber. It was done with the beaufighter, but these aircraft were never as accurate as dedicated torpedo bombers and used torpedoes far superior to anything the US developed during the war. Its not quite true to say that torp bombers were limited in their approach speeds, more it was a function of the torpedo design. Later war Japanese torpedo bombers (eg the B7 Grace) had approach speeds at least 50 knots faster than their American counterparts, this wasnt so much because of the superior performance of the japanese aircraft, as the superior design of their torpedoes. the Jap aerial torps could , in a pinch withstand launch speeds of up to 300 knots for their main torpedo type and much higher for their later war types(for example, the type 4 - a further modification of the Type 91 Mod 3 Strong. This version was strengthened to permit a launch speed of 400 knots. By comparison, the Bliss-Levitt Mk XIII torpedo in service at the outbreak of the war was prone to problems and often failed in combat. It had to be released from under 100 feet and less than 120knots airspeed - and even then was as likely to disintegrate or dive to the bottom as it was to go where aimed. Even the later war designs by the Us were nowhere near as capable as the Japanese torpedoes in service. Having a P-38 as the launch vehicle would not alter that restriction…..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2009)

The P-38 started flying operational sorties in the PTO December 1942. And agree about the American torpedoes, especially early in the war, putting it bluntly, they were junk.


----------



## Captain Dunsel (Feb 10, 2009)

1. The TBD also had folding wings, so it took up a lot less hangar space.
2. Torpedo-carrying P-38's would have had to really slow down to drop their fish, otherwise the Bliss-Leavitt's would have broken up on hitting the water. 
3. Don't underestimate the rivalry between the Army and the Navy. The Navy wanted nothing to do with the Army's liquid-cooled Allisons. Instead, the Navy preferred the lighter, more reliable radials. It was hard, too, to get the Army to accept the R2800 for the P-47, because it was pushing the Allison so much.
4. Could our industry have spooled up quickly enough to build enough Allisons, assuming we could get the Navy to use them?
5. Doctrine called for simultaneous attacks by accurate divebombers at the same time as coordinated hammer-and-anvil attacks from at least two directions by torpedo planes. Dive bombers have to be able to dive slowly, lest the plane be unable to pull out because of excessive speed.

We don't know how well the P-38 would have done with arresting gear, too. It also wouldn't have worked on the smaller and jeep carriers, where even F4U's and F6F's didn't fit.

I'm not claiming the TBD was a great airplane; it was ahead of it's time and modern when built, but by Midway, it was obsolescent. Had the squadrons at Midway had proper air cover, more might have survived to be quietly retired later. 

CD


----------



## Waynos (Feb 11, 2009)

Compared to the Fairey Swordfish the TBD was bang up to date!


----------



## Venganza (Feb 11, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Compared to the Fairey Swordfish the TBD was bang up to date!



Luckily for the Swordfish the Germans (and Italians) didn't have any operational aircraft carriers. Just goes to show how the situation can make the plane. Change the situations, and the TBD cripples the Bismarck and destroys the Italian fleet at Taranto and the Swordfish gets slaughtered at Midway.

Venganza


----------



## parsifal (Feb 11, 2009)

Venganza said:


> Luckily for the Swordfish the Germans (and Italians) didn't have any operational aircraft carriers. Just goes to show how the situation can make the plane. Change the situations, and the TBD cripples the Bismarck and destroys the Italian fleet at Taranto and the Swordfish gets slaughtered at Midway.
> 
> Venganza




I have to disagree with that...the swordfish differed from the TBD fundamentally in a number of ways. From very early it was configured to operate at Night, and always had such docile flying characteristics as to enable it to fly in very rough weather conditions. US Carriers could not operate in the Arctic effectively, whereas the Swordfish on british jeep carriers did so on a routine basis. 

If it had been TBDs operating from the british carriers in 1941 against the Bismarck, and the italians at taranto and matapan, none of these operations could have come off. Simply because the TBD was not equipped to operate at night, and the Swordfish was, and also because the Swordfish could operate in conditions that would leave the American aircraft grounded.

It would have been intersting to see the Axis carriers trying to operate against night capable british aircrews. i think they wouldnt have stood a chance to be honest, for that very reason


----------



## Venganza (Feb 11, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I have to disagree with that...the swordfish differed from the TBD fundamentally in a number of ways. From very early it was configured to operate at Night, and always had such docile flying characteristics as to enable it to fly in very rough weather conditions. US Carriers could not operate in the Arctic effectively, whereas the Swordfish on british jeep carriers did so on a routine basis.
> 
> If it had been TBDs operating from the british carriers in 1941 against the Bismarck, and the italians at taranto and matapan, none of these operations could have come off. Simply because the TBD was not equipped to operate at night, and the Swordfish was, and also because the Swordfish could operate in conditions that would leave the American aircraft grounded.
> 
> It would have been intersting to see the Axis carriers trying to operate against night capable british aircrews. i think they wouldnt have stood a chance to be honest, for that very reason



Parsifal, no disrepect meant towards the Stringbag, one of my all time favorite planes. You make some valid points about the good flying characteristics of the Swordfish. I've read about escort carriers in the North Atlantic, not the most hospitable of places, heaving up and down with the waves, and the only plane that could take off was the Swordfish, with that 3-bladed Fairey-Reed biting into the wind and that huge wing area giving the plane enough lift to take off. I still think my point is a valid one in general - change the situation, and a "bad" plane can become a good one and vice-versa. The TBD could have been equipped to fly at night, and could have been given the rockets and radar that the later Swordfish were. It might not have been the success that the Stringbag certainly was, but history might have treated it a little more kindly (which isn't saying much - it might as well have had the nickname "Disaster" instead of "Devastator").

Venganza


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I have to disagree with that...the swordfish differed from the TBD fundamentally in a number of ways. From very early it was configured to operate at Night, and always had such docile flying characteristics as to enable it to fly in very rough weather conditions. US Carriers could not operate in the Arctic effectively, whereas the Swordfish on british jeep carriers did so on a routine basis.
> 
> If it had been TBDs operating from the british carriers in 1941 against the Bismarck, and the italians at taranto and matapan, none of these operations could have come off. Simply because the TBD was not equipped to operate at night, and the Swordfish was, and also because the Swordfish could operate in conditions that would leave the American aircraft grounded.
> 
> It would have been intersting to see the Axis carriers trying to operate against night capable british aircrews. i think they wouldnt have stood a chance to be honest, for that very reason


 While there is no argument about the Swordfish's combat record, even comparing it technically to the TBD, it was a half generation behind. 

Equipping an aircraft to fly at night is very simple to do and in reality I don’t see what the TBD lacked to enable it to operate at night (the minimum needed is a landing light and nav lights and it did have those). As far as flying in rough weather conditions, I would want to see what kind of navigation equipment I had on the aircraft, but even if I was equipped with GPS in the early 1940s, I'd pass on the open cockpit. I don’t think the Swordfish had anything on it that special that made it a better adverse weather (IFR) machine than the TBD, except those that were used for ASW work, I know they had radar onboard.

I can't see any condition that would prevent a TDB from flying when compared to the Swordfish.

Jeep carrier ops - the Swordfish would probably have it because of its landing speeds and distance but I think the adverse weather condition operations are a mute point, except if you're the poor sod who has to fly in an open cockpit.

The Swordfish, despite being obsolete was in the right place at the right time. It was the perfect aircraft in the theaters it operated from and one cannot forget that it carried far better quality torpedoes than the US. Had it served in the Pacific IMO it would of suffered as badly as the Vickers Vildebeest did in Malaya, or perhaps the Japanese would of had a harder time shooting at it because it was actually slower!


----------



## parsifal (Feb 11, 2009)

No argument that performance wise the Devastator was superior to the Stringbag. I can only regurgitate what i have read about the exceptional handling characteristics of the swordfish in rough weather. I dont actually know what the Devastator could do in rough conditions, but I expect it would be less than the Stringbag (perhaps due to the monoplane configuration, as opposed to the biplane config???).

It was the Stringbags obvious obsolescence that made it unique. Because of its poor performance, the british realized that it simply could not operate in a conventional daytime role. So they began to train their aircrews, from a point pre-war, in the techniques of attacking a pinpoint target using flares and ASV radar (the radar occurred later, but the Stringbag was unique in that in 1941 it was the only carrier aircraft in the world, as far as I know that possessed this capability) The combination of slow speed, special equipment (like flares, and radar), and highly specialised crew training (the British in 1939 were training the grand total of 16 carrier pilots *per year*), enabled them to do things with these archaic aircraft that no-one else in the world could do at that time.

With the TBD, its a case of coulda, shoulda but didnt. The US never attained the night capability that the brits possessed, at any stage of the war. They acquired night fighter capability at the end of the war (with their F6F-5N and the Corsairs converted for the purpose) , but not the night strike capabilities (I'll stand corrected if you have contrary evidence, but as far as I know, they didnt) As far as rough weather conditions are concerned, the American skill in this area does seem to have improved in this area, as the CVE operations in the Atlantic attest. However, I would just point out that the majority of their Hunter Killer groups operated in the more southerly latitudes (where I assume the weather is less severe). Richard Woodman "Arctic Convoys - 1941-5" John Murray Publishers (2004), advises that the Americans were simply unable to operate in the Arctic because of the limits on their training in this area, and to some extent on the fitouts to their aircraft types...I cant comment further than that, but thats what he says. British Carriers provided the aircover to these Murmansk convoys from '43 onward, and were able to operate in the most appalling conditions.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2009)

parsifal said:


> No argument that performance wise the Devastator was superior to the Stringbag. I can only regurgitate what i have read about the exceptional handling characteristics of the swordfish in rough weather. I dont actually know what the Devastator could do in rough conditions, but I expect it would be less than the Stringbag (perhaps due to the monoplane configuration, as opposed to the biplane config???).


Again this "rough weather" handling is rather vague - usually the larger and heavier plane will handle "rough weather" better if we're talking flying through turbulence. I think the TBD will have that hands down as it out weighs the Swoardfish by over 2000 pounds when fully loaded. If we're talking IFR operations (flying in the soup) the only advantage I could see is if the Swoardfish aircraft in question had radar. 


parsifal said:


> It was the Stringbags obvious obsolescence that made it unique. Because of its poor performance, the british realized that it simply could not operate in a conventional daytime role. So they began to train their aircrews, from a point pre-war, in the techniques of attacking a pinpoint target using flares and ASV radar (the radar occurred later, but the Stringbag was unique in that in 1941 it was the only carrier aircraft in the world, as far as I know that possessed this capability) The combination of slow speed, special equipment (like flares, and radar), and highly specialised crew training (the British in 1939 were training the grand total of 16 carrier pilots *per year*), enabled them to do things with these archaic aircraft that no-one else in the world could do at that time.


And agree, it excelled in its ASW role


parsifal said:


> With the TBD, its a case of coulda, shoulda but didnt. The US never attained the night capability that the brits possessed, at any stage of the war.


Are we talking operational or aircraft specific - you said the aircraft couldn't fly at night and I beg to differ. Now if the operator chooses not to operate the aircraft in night time sorties, that's a whole other story - bottom line the TBD could be flon at night.


parsifal said:


> They acquired night fighter capability at the end of the war (with their F6F-5N and the Corsairs converted for the purpose) , but not the night strike capabilities (I'll stand corrected if you have contrary evidence, but as far as I know, they didnt) As far as rough weather conditions are concerned, the American skill in this area does seem to have improved in this area, as the CVE operations in the Atlantic attest. However, I would just point out that the majority of their Hunter Killer groups operated in the more southerly latitudes (where I assume the weather is less severe). Richard Woodman "Arctic Convoys - 1941-5" John Murray Publishers (2004), advises that the Americans were simply unable to operate in the Arctic because of the limits on their training in this area, and to some extent on the fitouts to their aircraft types...I cant comment further than that, but thats what he says. British Carriers provided the aircover to these Murmansk convoys from '43 onward, and were able to operate in the most appalling conditions.



Again I see nothing there addressing the hardware - remember we operated in the Aleutian Islands through 1943. Although not pretty, the mission went on.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 11, 2009)

I dont know about the rough weather either, but I have read that the Stringbag could land an take off in a sixty foot swell. A sea state o that magnitude means that the deck is heaving and broaching pretty heavily, with a lot of green coming over the bowws....the launches had to be timed ust right so as to avoid pushing the aircraft into that broaching ocean....if that anecdotal info is correct, its is pretty amazing to me and Ill bet there werent that many aircraft around that could do the same. Id have to think that heavier in those conditions is a disadvantage....wouldnt heavier mean longer to get air under your wings????


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I dont know about the rough weather either, but I have read that the Stringbag could land an take off in a sixty foot swell. A sea state o that magnitude means that the deck is heaving and broaching pretty heavily, with a lot of green coming over the bowws....the launches had to be timed ust right so as to avoid pushing the aircraft into that broaching ocean....if that anecdotal info is correct, its is pretty amazing to me and Ill bet there werent that many aircraft around that could do the same. Id have to think that heavier in those conditions is a disadvantage....wouldnt heavier mean longer to get air under your wings????


I'd think I'd attribute that more to pilot skill than the aircraft, but as stated earlier, the Stringbag would have better slow speed characteristic than the heavier TBD, no doubt.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 20, 2009)

parsifal said:


> No argument that performance wise the Devastator was superior to the Stringbag. I can only regurgitate what i have read about the exceptional handling characteristics of the swordfish in rough weather. I dont actually know what the Devastator could do in rough conditions, but I expect it would be less than the Stringbag (perhaps due to the monoplane configuration, as opposed to the biplane config???).
> 
> It was the Stringbags obvious obsolescence that made it unique. Because of its poor performance, the british realized that it simply could not operate in a conventional daytime role. So they began to train their aircrews, from a point pre-war, in the techniques of attacking a pinpoint target using flares and ASV radar (the radar occurred later, but the Stringbag was unique in that in 1941 it was the only carrier aircraft in the world, as far as I know that possessed this capability) The combination of slow speed, special equipment (like flares, and radar), and highly specialised crew training (the British in 1939 were training the grand total of 16 carrier pilots *per year*), enabled them to do things with these archaic aircraft that no-one else in the world could do at that time.
> 
> With the TBD, its a case of coulda, shoulda but didnt. The US never attained the night capability that the brits possessed, at any stage of the war. They acquired night fighter capability at the end of the war (with their F6F-5N and the Corsairs converted for the purpose) , but not the night strike capabilities (I'll stand corrected if you have contrary evidence, but as far as I know, they didnt) As far as rough weather conditions are concerned, the American skill in this area does seem to have improved in this area, as the CVE operations in the Atlantic attest. However, I would just point out that the majority of their Hunter Killer groups operated in the more southerly latitudes (where I assume the weather is less severe). Richard Woodman "Arctic Convoys - 1941-5" John Murray Publishers (2004), advises that the Americans were simply unable to operate in the Arctic because of the limits on their training in this area, and to some extent on the fitouts to their aircraft types...I cant comment further than that, but thats what he says. British Carriers provided the aircover to these Murmansk convoys from '43 onward, and were able to operate in the most appalling conditions.


I think you are confusing the skills and training of the operators with the qualities of the AC. With the same British operators and all of their training the TBD would have had many advantages over the Swordfish.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 22, 2009)

Captain Dunsel said:


> 3. Don't underestimate the rivalry between the Army and the Navy. The Navy wanted nothing to do with the Army's liquid-cooled Allisons. Instead, the Navy preferred the lighter, more reliable radials. It was hard, too, to get the Army to accept the R2800 for the P-47, because it was pushing the Allison so much.
> 
> CD


Its my understanding that the Navy liked radial engines so much because they were capable of making lots of power in a more compact and lighter-weight design, compared to a more "normal" engine lay-out.

You have to remember, each and every carrier on the high seas is really a floating "_company town_".

What's a "company town", you ask? Its any town that centralizes its prosperity around a single business.
I grew up near such a town. Port Gamble, Washington, which was built around the Pope Talbot lumber mill.

What you have with an aircraft carrier is an entire "town" built around a floating airport.
The whole reason for its existence is to utilize and maintain that airport and the vehicles that use it, just like any "company town".

The problem with any ship is that you have limited space in which all the "support industries" can exist, so efficient use of that space quickly becomes a #1 priority.

If my "airport" can house 50 airplanes with inline engines, and each airplane is 40 feet long, think how many more it can house if they're powered by equally powerful radial engines that cut the length of that airplane by 9 feet (Its ok, I did the math for you  ).
That's roughly an extra 14 planes my airport can now house.
If a flight is 5 planes, that's two more flights (maybe one fighter and one bomber?), plus extra room for another repair / maintenance facility.
This means fewer planes down for a lesser amount of time.

Folding wings aside, I think you start to see the Navy's high regard for the radial engine powered airplane, considering how they were utilizing said planes.

I think it always had more to do with a more efficient use of space in a limited space area, than any reliability issues that may exist between air-cooled radial engines and liquid-cooled inline engines.




Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Mar 22, 2009)

I wanted to touch on another debate that I saw happening, although I hope I'm not a day late and a dollar short on this one.

This was the debate between the TBD and the P-38.

Aside from everything else that I read (granted, I only went back a page), there's a design / structure / balance issue here that I saw no one address.

Ok, so you've got a cross, "+" (TBD), and a square "[]" ( P-38 ). 

If you have to load a torpedo that's 13.5' long and about 2100 lbs. onto one of those shapes, which would it be?

At first you'd think, "oh, the square would work much better, structually, because it can spread the load over more points, more equally and it has more surface area to support that load.

...however....

If you do that on a P-38, then you have to support part of the torpedo with the horizontal stabilizer and rig some kind of quick release sling to hold it in place.
Even if you made that a four line affair, with each line attaching at the fore and aft parts of the booms, is that really practical?
...and then you have all that darn "string" hanging out from under the plane after the torpedo's dropped. 
If you're going to use the plane as a fighter after dropping the torpedo, I'm sure you wouldn't want that flopping around in the wind.
So you're left with the other "logical" place to set the torpedo - _under the fuselage_.

...and where's the fuselage on a P-38?

My point exactly.
Seems like it would make, not only for a rather unwieldly airplane, from a balance standpoint, because the fuselange (or most of it anyway) actually sticks out _ahead_ of the wing.
This places the torpedo (especially the heaviest part) _ahead_ of the wing, meaning the pilot would seem to have to constantly pull back on the stick, to keep the plane on a level attitude. It would also be much better to place the load out on the wing, where the natural lift tendency would work more to your favour, but then, the torpedo would laying across the plane that then how are you supposed to deliver it.
Additionally, from a structural standpoint, placing all that weight on one "axis" (if you will) of the square would seem to make the point of using the square moot to begin with.

With the cross, you actually have more "points" from which to support the torpedo and its easier to position its weight under the central line of the airplane, making balance of the added weight less of an issue.
Thus, you actually have less plane that better supports your load, making for a more practical application of the shape.



Elvis


----------



## parsifal (Mar 29, 2009)

something further I recently uncovered. The two squadrons emabarked on Victorious Nos 800 (with 6 Fulmars) and 825 (with 9 Swordfish) were actually land based units hastily embarked without adequate deck landing qualifications (they had received their basic carrier qualifications, but were not actually cleared at the time of emabarkation). A further squadron of land based Albacores located in the orkneys could have been embarked but the station commander (an RAF man) refused to release them.

These essentially untrained crews launched the first of their raids at midnight on the 24th May. To quote my source " All nine swordfish found their quarry and despite their lack of training and experience the squadron succeeded in scoring a single hit amidships . All nine aircrew made it back to the carrier safely, despite the appalling weather conditions".

During the preceding battle with the Hood and the Prince Of Wales, the weather had been a force 5 gale. The subsequent strikes by Ark Royal were undertaken in force 6 conditions, so my guess is this strike was delivered in some sea state of between 5 and 6....in other words attrocious.....


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 29, 2009)

However, the specialist training and equipment of the Stringbag crews didn't always pay off - at 1550 on 26th May 1941, 14 Stringbags from HMS Ark Royal launched 11 torpedoes at a radar contact the believed to be Bismarck. My source implies that visibility was so poor that visual verification of the contact was impossible. The contact was in fact the Town class light cruiser HMS Sheffield, which had failed to inform Ark Royal that she had been detached to shadow Bismarck. Sheer luck saved the cruiser - of the 11 torpedoes launched, two exploded on contact with the water, three as they crossed the cruisers wake, and the remainder were evaded by Sheffield combing their tracks. I'm not sure which is the scarier prospect - that the Swordfish tried to kill one of their own cruisers, or that had the target really been Bismarck, equipment malfunction might have given her a temporary stay of execution. 

Source is Correli Barnett's _Engage The Enemy More Closely: The Royal Navy In The Second World War_, p.307.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 5, 2009)

The premature detonations witnessed by the Sheffield did assist however. Sheffield passed on her observations to Somerville, who wqas already preparing another strike. The defective magnetic pistols that had caused this malfunction were quickly replaced with contact pistols. The change allowed the second strike to be a success


----------



## JoeB (Apr 18, 2009)

Back to an earlier theme of the thread, re: the Buffalo, a post on another forum (by me  ) giving details, I don't think are all found in published works, of the only air to air combat of US Buffalo's, VMF-221 F2A-3's and F4F-3's based at Midway intercepting the Japanese carrier strike against the island, morning of June 4 1942. 'Worst' is always subjective and relative to the conditions, the opponents etc. But this gives an idea why the Buffalo had such a bad reputation in the US naval services albeit based on just one combat, even in that one combat it seems to have done worse than its F4F stablemate when you look at the details:


VMF-221 attacked in two groups, 7 F2A-3's (plus one turned back with engine trouble) and 5 F4F-3's in the first, 12 and 1 in the second (USMC official history). Both managed to attack the Japanese formation from above. They were however, outnumbered: 36 Zeroes, 9 from each of the 4 Japanese carriers were escorting 18 Type 99 Carrier Bombers each from Akagi and Kaga, and 18 Type 97 Carrier Attack Planes each from Soryu and Hiryu. 

13 F2A's and 2 F4F's were shot down, 14 MIA/KIA, 1 bailed out WIA two returned WIA. Only two of the surviving a/c were immediately ready for further operations but the damaged ones were apparently all repaired as only the 15 outright losses were written off*. They were credited with 6 ‘Aichi 99’, a ‘bomber’ and 4 Zeroes destroyed, an Aichi 99 ‘probable’, and an Aichi 99, a bomber and 2 Zeroes damaged (USMC official credits list). 5 of the outright victories were credited to F2A's, 6 to F4F's (including 3 of the 4 Zeroes, so this combat didn't so negatively affect the *F4F's* record v the Zero, see actual Japanese losses below). AA of the 6th Defense Battalion claimed ‘at least 10’ a/c (USMC official history), and other VMF-221 details: Brewster Buffalo: VMF-221 at Midway

The tactical operations records of the 4 carrier groups survived (???????????(???) | Japan Center for Asian Historical Records(JACAR) National Archives Japan) and give details, for the Zeroes:
Akagi: claimed 11 ‘Grumman’ including two ‘probable’, one Zero holed once; another piloted by PO1C T. Kikuchi 30 times, but all returned (Kikuchi fought from PH until killed in the Battle of Marianas, claimed 5 incl 2 probs v RAF Hurricanes in one combat at Ceylon, 4 incl 2 probs in this action and 3 shared credits in defense of the carriers later than morning).
Kaga: claimed 9 ‘Grumman’, 2 ‘small a/c’ and a floatplane; PO1C’s Yukuo Tanaka and Hiromi Ito: ‘war death’.
Soryu: claimed 4 ‘Grumman’ incl. 2 prob, no damage to Zeroes though one pilot wounded (pretty clearly stated so, though not clear how, the flight also intercepted B-17’s later and of course the ship was hit later)
Hiryu: claimed 18 ‘F4F’ incl. 4 prob, no damage to Zeroes

For the attack a/c:
Kaga lost one Type 99 Carrier Bomber no cause given, just crew= ‘war death’.
Two Soryu Type 97 Carrier Attack planes ditched, no cause given; they claimed 3 of 30-40 F4F-3’s (specific subtype given!), including a probable.
Hiryu lost 4 Type 97’s, one ‘suicide crash’ (outright losses were usually ‘suicide crash’, ‘missing’, or just ‘war death’) due to enemy a/c, one suicide crash due to AA, one ditched from enemy a/c, one ditched from AA. They also claimed 3 a/c downed.

So altogether the strike lost 2 Zeroes, a Type 99 and 6 Type 97’s (some reputable sources give slightly lower total but that’s what the original logs appear to say), at least some to AA.

One sided outcomes in favor of Zeroes against Allied fighters were quite common through the middle of 1942, but the land based Zero units had most of those opportunities.

*F2A-3 Bureau Nos: 1518, 1520, 1522, 1524, 1525, 1528, 1537, 1541, 1542, 1548, 1559, 1563, and 1569. 
F4F-3: 3989 and 4006 (source: list of USN ‘overseas’ a/c losses)

Joe


----------



## parsifal (Apr 18, 2009)

great post Joe, and clearly demonstrates why the Zero had such a fearsome reputatiohn at this time. I agree completely with your summation.....the buffalo could not undertake its mission effectively against a Zero environment


----------



## Elvis (Apr 22, 2009)

+1, although it should be noted that of all the versions of the Buff that existed, the "-3" was the worst.
Woefully overweight and "out-of-balance", it would be interesting to have seen how an earlier "-2" or "-1" would've faired in a similar conflict.



Elvis


----------



## Doughboy (Apr 24, 2009)

The Brewster Buffalo.Brewster Buffalo - Google Search


----------



## Elvis (Apr 24, 2009)

Doughboy,

Are you pointing me to something in particular?
Please post the link to something besides a general Google search result.



Elvis


----------



## r2800doublewasp (May 4, 2009)

I agree about the Breda 88 it was so bad they were used as target decoys on the air fields


----------



## Airbone Bunny (May 13, 2009)

I also vote for the Breda 88, what a piece of junk!!! 


I don't know how reliable is wikipedia, but the information on the Breda 88 is quite telling:

_Two Gruppi (Groups) were equipped with the Breda Ba.88 on June 1940, operating initially from Sardinia against the main airfield of Corsica, with 12 aircraft on 16 June 1940 and three on 19 June 1940. The crews soon found that the Bredas were extremely underpowered and lacked agility, but the lack of fighter opposition resulted in them being able to perform their missions without losses.

Later, 64 aircraft became operational serving 7imo Gruppo in the North African Theatre with 19imo stationed in Sardinia, but their performance remained extremely poor resulting in the 7imo Gruppo being grounded from the end of June until September, when the Italian offensive against British forces started. Of three aircraft used, one was not even capable of taking off, and another could not turn and was forced to fly straight from their base at Castelvetrano to Sidi Rezegh.

With anti-sand filters fitted, a maximum horizontal speed of 250 km/h (155 mph) was reported in some cases and several units were even unable to take off at all. These machines were fitted with "Spezzoniera" Nardi dispensers (with 119 kg/262 lb bomblets), 1,000 rounds for the three 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine guns and 500 rounds for the 7.7 mm (0.303 in) Bredas. Although the weapons were not loaded to full capacity and the aircraft was lightened by eliminating the rear machine gun, observer, bombs and some fuel, lessening the weight did not substantially affect the aircraft's performance. Every attempt to reduce weight didn't achieve positive results.

Just five months after the start of the war, on 10 June 1940, Bredas were phased out as bombers and given new tasks as decoys on airfields. This was a degrading end for the new, (theoretically powerful) Breda Ba.88 [1]. This action forced the Regia Aeronautica to use totally outdated aircraft in North Africa, such as the Breda Ba.65 and Fiat C.R.32. As an additional problem, Regia Aereonautica remained without any suitable heavy fighter, a notable weakness for a major air arm_


----------



## Negative Creep (May 14, 2009)

The Axis Aircraft Guide I have says the Ba.88s in Libya had to abort an attack after they could not gain enough height and reached only half their claimed speed. Many that weren't decoys went straight to the scrappy apparently!


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 14, 2009)

Breda 88 without a doubt.

Not sure if it's the same book, but "The Hamyln Concise Guide to Axis Aircraft pf WWII", page 28 states:

"...which represented perhaps, the most remarkable failure of any operational aircraft to see service in WWII"


----------



## airboiy (May 18, 2009)

I personoly think the Fiat CR.42 Falco was a piece of [email protected] After all, biplane with a rotary engine is dead against even the P-40, which was slow but powerfully tough in its own right, no matter what.


----------



## trackend (May 18, 2009)

airboiy said:


> I personoly think the Fiat CR.42 Falco was a piece of [email protected] After all, biplane with a rotary engine is dead against even the P-40, which was slow but powerfully tough in its own right, no matter what.




The Stringbag was a bi plane but did'nt do too bad with a toss up between the Bag and the SBD in the naval tonnage/kill ratio war.


----------



## airboiy (May 18, 2009)

trackend said:


> The Stringbag was a bi plane but did'nt do too bad with a toss up between the Bag and the SBD in the naval tonnage/kill ratio war.



Of course it was...it was a solid design, born out of neccesity (or so I heard).

P.S.-Was the "stringbag" was produced by the same company that produced the Spitfire or the Hurricane?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2009)

airboiy said:


> I personoly think the Fiat CR.42 Falco was a piece of [email protected] After all, biplane with a rotary engine is dead against even the P-40, which was slow but powerfully tough in its own right, no matter what.



Hmmmm.....

In certain if not many combat situations, the CR.42 could out maneuver a number of modern WW2 monoplanes INCLUDING the P-40. The CR.42 was far from a "piece of crap" as the aircraft performed as designed; the only real handicap is its design was outdated. Operationally the aircraft worked as advertised.

I suggest you study how these aircraft were flown operationally and understand how they could be flown to their maximum advantage. In essence the CR.42 was one of the best bi-plane fighters ever built abet being one of the last.

An aircraft is a "piece of crap" when it can't perform to its design specification. The Breda 88 is one at the top of the list. All major WW2 combatants had dogs of their own.


----------



## airboiy (May 18, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hmmmm.....
> 
> In certain if not many combat situations, the CR.42 could out maneuver a number of modern WW2 monoplanes INCLUDING the P-40. The CR.42 was far from a "piece of crap" as the aircraft performed as designed; the only real handicap is its design was outdated. Operationally the aircraft worked as advertised.
> 
> ...



Oh...but I thought that agility was as good as nothing when your dealing with enemies who are tougher and have better armament...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2009)

airboiy said:


> Oh...but I thought that agility was as good as nothing when your dealing with enemies who are tougher and have better armament...


Tougher? In what way? Faster? Longer combat duration? More agressive? That involves pilot skill, not the aircraft. You could have all the armament in the world and if you can't hit anything, what good is it? The Finns used Buffalos and had one of the best kill ratios of the war against more modern aircraft but yet there are some on here who thing the Buffalo was one of the worse fighters of WW2. There comes a time where equipment will make a difference but pilot skill will also be a deciding factor.

Again, if the equipment doesn't work as advertised, its one thing. If you're trying to use obsolete equipment that works as advertised, that's another.

From Wiki..

*"The manoeuvrability of the Falcos concerned the British. "A RAF Intelligence report in late October 1940 circulated to all pilots and their squadrons, with copies to Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, and the War Cabinet, declared: 'The manoeuvrability of the CR.42s, in particular their capacity to execute an extremely tight half roll, has caused considerable surprise to other pilots and undoubtedly saved many Italian fighters from destruction.'"*

and....

_*"On 11 and 23 November 1940, CR.42s flew two raids against Great Britain as part of the Corpo Aereo Italiano. German Luftwaffe aircraft had difficulty flying in formation with the slower biplanes. Even if slower, with open cockpit, no radio, armed with only two machine guns (a 12.7 mm/.5 in and a 7.7 mm/.303 in Breda-SAFAT) the Falcos could easily out-turn the Hurricanes and the Spitfires and proved difficult to hit. "The CR 42 turned to fight using all the aeroplane's manoeuvrability. The pilot could get on my tail in a single turn, so tightly was he able to pull round." [7] As the RAF intelligence report stated, the Falcos were able to half-roll extremely tight, when attacked. "As I fired he half rolled very tightly and I was completely unable to hold him, so rapid were his manoeuvres. I attacked two or three more and fired shorts bursts, in each case the enemy aircraft half-rolled very tightly and easily and completely out-turned me. In two cases as they came out of their rolls, they were able to turn in almost on my tail and opened fire on me." [8]

Against English monoplanes, the CR.42 were not always outclassed. "I engaged one of the British fighters from a range of between 40 to 50 metres (130–165 ft). Then I saw a Spitfire, which was chasing another CR.42, and I got in a shot at a range of 150 metres (500 ft). I realised that in a manoeuvered flight, the CR.42 could win or survive against Hurricanes and Spitfires, though we had to be careful of a sweep from behind. In my opinion, the English .303 bullet was not very effective. Italian aircraft received many hits which did no material damage and one pilot even found that his parachute pack had stopped a bullet." [9]. During the winter, the CR.42s were transferred back to the Mediterranean theatre."*_

and finally....

"The fighter was widely used in Africa Orientale (North Africa). "At the beginning of the war in Italian North Africa there were 127 CR.42 of 13° Gruppo (2° Stormo) in Castel Benito, 10° Gruppo e 9° (4° Stormo) in Benina, including reserve aircraft." Initially, the Falco was pitted against their contemporaries, Gloster Gladiators and Hawker Harts of the South African Air Force. The experienced Italian pilots, most of them veterans from Spanish Civil War employed the exceptional manoeuvrability of the CR.42 to "force the Hurricane pilots to adopt the tactic that Messerschmitt pilots had used against them: to avoid dogfights and to attack them with sudden dives." [10] It was "in Africa that this Italian machine performed best".[1] The *Falcos proved to be able to shot down not only the Gladiators but even the Hurricanes and Spitfires*. In April 1941, with delivery of the first 14 CR.42 Bombe Alari (Wing Bombs), the CR.42 started to be used mainly as a fighter-bomber, performing well due to its strong construction and radial engine. On 19 June 1942, the last 82 CR.42 came back to Italy. When production was stopped in 1942, a total of 1,784 CR.42s were built. By 1943, when Italy surrendered, only around 60 of the aircraft were in flying condition."


----------



## airboiy (May 18, 2009)

I didn't realize that the pilot aspect was so critical...I apoligize for my lack of knowledge.

I've known that bip's were manuerverable, but not like that! 

I meant that the CR.42 was the worst plane because it didn't have a radio or closed cockpit, and of the speed. The engine probably could have been replaced with a better, faster engine. That would have made the plane deadlier.


----------



## Marcel (May 18, 2009)

airboiy said:


> I meant that the CR.42 was the worst plane because it didn't have a radio or closed cockpit, and of the speed. The engine probably could have been replaced with a better, faster engine. That would have made the plane deadlier.



Could be said about many a/c at the start of WWII.


----------



## airboiy (May 18, 2009)

True


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2009)

airboiy said:


> I didn't realize that the pilot aspect was so critical...I apoligize for my lack of knowledge.
> 
> I've known that bip's were manuerverable, but not like that!
> 
> I meant that the CR.42 was the worst plane because it didn't have a radio or closed cockpit, and of the speed. The engine probably could have been replaced with a better, faster engine. That would have made the plane deadlier.


Actually the radio is a requirement set forth by the operator. The open cockpit was a result of the dated design as such the speed being restricted by the configuration.

As far as the engine - probably the best asset. Radials are a lot more robust and could take more punishment and even a more powerful engine doesn't always mean better performance.


----------



## trackend (May 18, 2009)

airboiy said:


> Of course it was...it was a solid design, born out of neccesity (or so I heard).
> 
> P.S.-Was the "stringbag" was produced by the same company that produced the Spitfire or the Hurricane?



Fairey was the company that produced the stringbag or rather the Swordfish airboiy, it gained its name as a jack of all trades carrying everything from mines,bombs rockets,torpedoes,smoke laying equipment A.S. Radar and more.

An interesting item regarding the CR42 Ray Sturtivants The Swordfish Story gives an account by a pilot claiming a kill on a CR42 without firing a shot. 
Because the Swordfish was so slow it was a sitting duck for most fighters 
(in the case of the CR42 over130mph slower), so the only thing it had was its unbelievable manouverability due to its very slow stall speed(around 50 knots).
Standard practice was to dive pull up and do a vertical wing over then dive again and repeat the procedure getting lower to the ground each time until the last pull up was made at less than 50 feet and hopefully the chase plane had to climb away giving the bag a slim chance to hedge hop away at sea level. On this occasion the pilot of the CR42 was so intent on trying to keep the stringbag in his sights that, on the third pass he over cooked it and plunged straight into the sea.

At the moment Duxford is restoring a CR42 and I hope to get a chance to see it fly, IMO it was a great little bi plane fighter and a much better performer than the Gladiator


----------



## Elvis (May 18, 2009)

airboiy said:


> Was the "stringbag" was produced by the same company that produced the Spitfire or the Hurricane?



Nope, it was made by Fairey.
Warbird Alley: Fairey Swordfish


Elvis


----------



## Elvis (May 18, 2009)

FlyboyJ,

Re: Your comments on the (lack of) defficiency of the CR.42.

I read that and had a bit of a chuckle.
Reads very much like your comments on the Polikarpov I-15 from a few months ago. I often wonder if you feel as if no one is reading, sometimes. 
As you've stated many times in the past, the only "bad" aircraft was one that didn't meet its design qualifications...and then ya' gotta wonder why it was ever produced in the first place. 



Elvis


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2009)

Elvis said:


> FlyboyJ,
> 
> Re: Your comments on the (lack of) defficiency of the CR.42.
> 
> ...


Well I'm glad someone is reading my stuff!



Elvis said:


> As you've stated many times in the past, the only "bad" aircraft was one that didn't meet its design qualifications...and then ya' gotta wonder why it was ever produced in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> Elvis



Simple Elvis - because at the time these aircraft were considered contemporary enough to build, even though designers of the day knew their operational life was probably limited. But the bottom line was to fulfill a role, and as for the manufacturer? To make money.

In many cases "old school" technology was also used because of the mechanics available to work on the equipment. I read somewhere this is one minor reason Hawker went with tube and fabric on a good portion of the Hurricane.


----------



## airboiy (May 19, 2009)

Thanks, Elvis, for the info.

Flyboyj, your right about the radials, but weren't they ineffecint due to their design?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2009)

Actually radials are very efficient and don't require a cooling system. They require large amounts of air to flow around them to keep them cool and don't lend themselves well for streamlining.


----------



## Njaco (May 19, 2009)

> ...and then ya' gotta wonder why it was ever produced in the first place.



Elvis, aerial tactics weren'as advanced in the 30s when these planes were designed for the most part and mostly just theory. Dive-bombing, carpet bombing, fighter formations, etc. were for the most part theory and it took WWII to put into practice - trial and error - what worked. So designs that were developed with - for want of a better word "theory" behind it, may have turned out to be unrealistic. The Bf 110 was designed as a heavy fighter/destroyer but as the war progressed and its liabilities were glaringingly shown, its mission changed to night-fighter, etc.

WWII proved to be a test-bed for the ideas of Douhet and others from the 20s and 30s including aircraft design.


----------



## Elvis (May 19, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well I'm glad someone is reading my stuff!


LOL! You're welcome! 




FLYBOYJ said:


> Simple Elvis - because at the time these aircraft were considered contemporary enough to build, even though designers of the day knew their operational life was probably limited. But the bottom line was to fulfill a role, and as for the manufacturer? To make money.


_Ahhhhhh_...and now I know.
Thanks for the revelation. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Airboiy,

You're welcome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Njaco,

Really? 
I had always understood that the Me110 was originally designed as a long-range bomber escort and when its defficiencies as a fighter became _glaringly_ obvious, its role was changed to that of a multi-purpose Attack Bomber, not unlike our own A-20 (and later, A-26) and B-25.
This was why the 410 project came about. It was supposed to be a "better Me110".

This is how I've always understood it, anyway.





Elvis


----------



## airboiy (May 20, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually radials are very efficient and don't require a cooling system. They require large amounts of air to flow around them to keep them cool and don't lend themselves well for streamlining.



So they're as aerodynamic as a warthog's behind...interesting...[sits alone in thought]...I wonder-what about an engine with two radials across from each other and a shaft in between?


----------



## trackend (May 20, 2009)

airboiy said:


> So they're as aerodynamic as a warthog's behind...interesting...[sits alone in thought]...I wonder-what about an engine with two radials across from each other and a shaft in between?




The gear train would be interesting I 've never seen a differential fitted on a plane
I'll back your design AB but you can be the test pilot.


----------



## airboiy (May 20, 2009)

trackend said:


> The gear train would be interesting I 've never seen a differential fitted on a plane
> I'll back your design AB but you can be the test pilot.



Differential, huh? I didn't know that is what it was called

I'l be able to be a test pilot!?! WOOOHOOO!! Now you're talkin'! But you're payin' for the kegs 'o beer!

Sorry about the poor drawing...I did it on microsh!t (I mean microsoft) paint.


----------



## Njaco (May 20, 2009)

> Really?
> I had always understood that the Me110 was originally designed as a long-range bomber escort and when its defficiencies as a fighter became glaringly obvious, its role was changed to that of a multi-purpose Attack Bomber, not unlike our own A-20 (and later, A-26) and B-25.
> This was why the 410 project came about. It was supposed to be a "better Me110".
> 
> This is how I've always understood it, anyway.



I apologize as I'm going off memory, but the long-range bomber escort may not have been so much a priority in the Luftwaffe at that time as 1) they believed the He 111 was faster than fighters or something similar 2) they really had no long-range bombers and weren't concerned so much 3) bombers were mainly to support the Army in Blitzkreig so that Stuka was emphasized. The Bf 110 was the fighter but it was IIRC to destroy enemy bombers and not so much as escort. But like you said, once deficiencies appeared the role was changed.

and there may be many things wrong with this post as I can't seem to get my head clear this morning!


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 20, 2009)

airboiy said:


> So they're as aerodynamic as a warthog's behind...interesting...[sits alone in thought]...I wonder-what about an engine with two radials across from each other and a shaft in between?



The one problem I could see is air cooling. With the radials perpendicular to the air flow, the air is hitting all cylinders. With it being parallel, the cylinders in front would get they air flow, but the ones in the rear would not or would just get the hot air flowing off of the font ones. I would think this would lead to cooling issue


----------



## Vincenzo (May 20, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> The one problem I could see is air cooling. With the radials perpendicular to the air flow, the air is hitting all cylinders. With it being parallel, the cylinders in front would get they air flow, but the ones in the rear would not or would just get the hot air flowing off of the font ones. I would think this would lead to cooling issue



would be usefull you see a pics of 2 row radial


----------



## Elvis (May 20, 2009)

I don't know about this one.
Sounds like a recipe for destruction, if you ask me.
You're better off going with a multi-bank arrangement, like what they actually did.
Less moving parts, simpler design and it achieves the same objective.


Elvis


----------



## airboiy (May 21, 2009)

How 'bout putting intake tubes right behind the prop that lead cool air to the back cylinders? would that satisfy everybody?

Hey Elvis, isn't everything a recipe for disaster if you look at it the right way?


----------



## Elvis (May 21, 2009)

Airboiy,

Tubes for the back cylinders?
I don't understand. Can you draw me a picture?

Also, don't forget, by incorporating drivesahfts and a gear arrangement, you're also increasing weight, and that will have to be balanced out with some other aspect of the plane.
That's another "plus" or the multibank arrangement. It's lighter in weight.



Elvis


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 21, 2009)

Airboiy;

The best way to cool an air cooled recip engine is by getting airflow around the cylinders, and the best way to do that is with baffling. Engineers calculate how the baffling should go around the engine and determine airflow that will sufficiently cool the engine.

While your concept has merit, you have to determine a few things. Can this configuration work? Can it be assembled cost effectively? Will it be easy to produce? Will it be reliable? Will it be easy to maintain? Will it be cost effective to maintain? And finally, will it have a cost effective service life?


----------



## airboiy (May 22, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Airboiy;
> 
> The best way to cool an air cooled recip engine is by getting airflow around the cylinders, and the best way to do that is with baffling. Engineers calculate how the baffling should go around the engine and determine airflow that will sufficiently cool the engine.
> 
> While your concept has merit, you have to determine a few things. Can this configuration work? Can it be assembled cost effectively? Will it be easy to produce? Will it be reliable? Will it be easy to maintain? Will it be cost effective to maintain? And finally, will it have a cost effective service life?



Ah, the logistics of the problem...my worst weakness!8)

Hey Elvis, here's the pic of the "tubes" I designed.


----------



## Elvis (May 22, 2009)

Ah, ok.
Yeah, I have to side with FlyboyJ on this one.
Baffling would do a better job, because airflow could be directed over the whole engine(s), as opposed to just a few cylinders.
They'd also be lighter in weight and cheaper to produce than actual "tubes".
On top of all that, how would you exhaust the air? That exhaust HAS to be just as effective as the intake, otherwise you run across a "pressurazation" condition that would limit the amount of incoming air.
This was a problem that drag racers and auto designers dealt with for years, concerning "hood scoops", which is essentially the same idea that you're proposing with your "cooling tubes".

That's the great thing about a radial's typical positioning. You get even airflow around all the cylinders and the "cooling baffles" (aka, the engine cowling) is simple, cheap-to-produce and serves a double purpose very effectively, in that it helps direct airflow around the engine effectively and also works to streamline the airplane.

Sorry, but while your idea is quite interesting, I really think a typical multi-bank arrangement is just a more effective design.

If the designers worry is streamlining, he could opt for liquid cooled type of engine, or a multi-bank radial with a smaller diameter (such as the P&W Wasp Jr. vs. their original Wasp).



Elvis


----------



## airboiy (May 26, 2009)

The exaust tubes would be an extention of the cooling tubes. BTW, what's "baffling"? I've heard it but never understood it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 26, 2009)

airboiy said:


> The exaust tubes would be an extention of the cooling tubes. BTW, what's "baffling"? I've heard it but never understood it.


Its a series of sheet aluminum strategically placed around the cylinders so airflow cools the engine.

This is what baffling looks like on a GA aircraft engine


----------



## airboiy (May 26, 2009)

Thanks, Flyboyj, for the pic!


----------



## Elvis (May 26, 2009)

An even more common example are the older VW Beetles that had the air-cooled engines ('38-'02).
If you look under the engine, you can see some "tin" plates under the cylinders.
That's baffling, used to ensure the most airflow from the fan is always going across the cylinders.


Elvis


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 26, 2009)

Elvis said:


> An even more common example are the older VW Beetles that had the air-cooled engines ('38-'02).
> If you look under the engine, you can see some "tin" plates under the cylinders.
> That's baffling, used to ensure the most airflow from the fan is always going across the cylinders.
> 
> ...



Yep - just about the same thing.


----------



## airboiy (May 27, 2009)

Ok, I now know what you mean, Elvis! Thanks guys for the info!


----------



## Elvis (May 27, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep - just about the same thing.


In the infamous words of "The Fonz", _Correctamundo!_. 



Elvis


----------



## Cromwell (May 27, 2009)

I heard recently that Ford experimented with a flat alloy 3 cyl radial 2-stroke, with plastic pistons - air cooled !

Apparently, it was a) very light weight b) powerful c) economical - much more so than the usual 4-cyl upright 4-stroke.

I am not a thermodynamacist but there was something about the interplay between the heat stored by the plastic pistons and the heat conduction of the alloy cylinders and crankcase that made it burn much more completely than usual 2-stroke engines.

I think the plastic used was also 'self -lubing' if you can have such a thing.





Elvis said:


> An even more common example are the older VW Beetles that had the air-cooled engines ('38-'02).
> If you look under the engine, you can see some "tin" plates under the cylinders.
> That's baffling, used to ensure the most airflow from the fan is always going across the cylinders.
> 
> ...


----------



## Elvis (May 27, 2009)

I know big 3 automakers were experimenting with small 2-stroke engines for automotive use about 15-20 years ago (back when they all had money. Remember the good ol' days?).
Your "plastic" comment suggests this time period.

...because when "The Flivver" was flying...






...there was no such thing as plastic. Bakelite, yes, but not plastic (and notice the powerplant).





Elvis


----------



## Elvis (May 27, 2009)

Now there was also some experiemental versions of the Flathead V8 that Ford tried to make for aircraft use, by creating the block and heads from aluminum (thus lightening the weight) and pressurizing the cylinders via mechanical forced induction.
It can be seen here, gracing the cover of the October 1952 issue of Hot Rod magazine.






Other "special duty" parts included on the engine, that can seen in the pic are; magneto ignition, an oil filtering system featuring cooling fins and tubluar exhaust manifolds (and if you're sharp, you'll notice the tensioner is on the wrong side of the belt).
Only a few were made and I don't think any ever made it into an actual airplane.



Elvis


----------



## Cromwell (May 27, 2009)

The Swordfish was built by Fairey - the same people that made the Firefly (great plane) and the Albacore (not so good) and the Barracuda (mixed reports)

See

Aeroplane VE-Day Souvenir Issue May 2005

Also


Fairey Swordfish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Fairey Barracuda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





airboiy said:


> Of course it was...it was a solid design, born out of neccesity (or so I heard).
> 
> P.S.-Was the "stringbag" was produced by the same company that produced the Spitfire or the Hurricane?


----------



## Cromwell (May 27, 2009)

Did that thing Actually Fly !?! 

The tailplane looks totally inadequate




Elvis said:


> ...because when "The Flivver" was flying...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2009)

That little Ford plane flew quite well until it spun and killed its pilot/ designer

http://www.airventuremuseum.org/collection/aircraft/Ford-EAA Chapt _159 Flivver.asp


----------



## airboiy (May 28, 2009)

Ouch! I guess that's not back to the drawing board!


----------



## Elvis (May 28, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That little Ford plane flew quite well until it spun and killed its pilot/ designer
> 
> Ford-EAA Chapt #159 Flivver


Yep.



Excerpt from Air Venture Museum's Ford Flivver article said:


> The original Ford Flivver was short lived in that Henry Ford’s personal pilot, Harry Brooks, attempted a non-stop flight from Dearborn, Michigan to Florida with the improved second model of the Flivver in February of 1928. For some unknown reason, the Flivver spun into the ocean near Melbourne, Florida and Harry Brooks was lost. Henry Ford felt so discouraged he cancelled the Ford Flivver project and the prototype Flivver 268 was placed in the Ford Museum in 1928.





Elvis


----------



## airboiy (May 29, 2009)

Poor chap...but still, he knew the risks, just like all pilots. There is always a chance that something will go wrong, leading to disaster. However, it's the courage in pilots that makes them face the unknown every time they lift off the ground.


----------



## The PIPE (Jun 10, 2009)

Dear Fellow WW II Av-Fans:

The PIPE Here, with my very FIRST post at WW2aircraft.net...!!!

For a long, LONG time, I've been fascinated by what I started out calling "Stuck-Ugly" (it got "stuck" with an "ugly" appearance), and then came up with a somewhat more appropriate sobriquet...which I believe im Deutsch translates as "Grauerlicher-Greif"...or GRUESOME GRIFFIN...

...none other than the "welded-engine" bomber, the Heinkel He 177, WAS the worst aircraft of WW 2 !

Like "acesman" at http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/worst-aircraft-ww2-continued-626-8.html#post49516 , "V-1710" at http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/worst-aircraft-ww2-continued-626-24.html#post117412 , and maybe "DerAdlerIstGelandet" at http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/worst-aircraft-ww2-continued-626-24.html#post117578 have more-or-less said already...

...that Gruesome Griffin was just about the worst aircraft in service during the war...from its fire-prone, "welded-together" DB 606 and 610 engines (as Fat Hermann [Goering] derisively put it on at least two occasions), all-too-light elevator controls (as verified by good ol' Eric Brown of the British Royal Navy, one of the greatest test pilots of all time)...an almost TOTAL lack of servicability due to lack of support from not only Heinkel, but the Luftwaffe's mechanic training program, lack of trained pilots, etc, etc...and add to that the oft-noted diving attack requirement from the RLM, which Ernst Heinkel disagreed with from the beginning, and which WAS finally rescinded by Goering in September 1942...that whole He 177 program for a "heavy bomber", the ONLY one that the Luftwaffe was to ever have, was always a disaster in continuous "happening", AND waiting to happen, ALL at the same time...!!!

Just about the single BEST book I've YET read about the Gruesome Griffin, her high-altitude stablemate the He 274, the _never-built, PAPER ONLY design_ known as the He 277, and the...FOR REAL..."most-built" (but NOT by much) truly "four engined" version of the whole Griffin program, the He 177B (for which FOUR prototypes were built, and three of those FLEW in test flights...NO KIDDING) is the book by *Manfred Griehl and Joachim Dressel* on the He 177 and her "relatives"...!!!

The Griehl/Dressel book totally SHOOTS DOWN the "cover story" urban legend of the He 277 actually being built (those WERE really He 177Bs!!!) and provides the evidence for this...from dates when the "He 277" design's work would have been "approved", versus actual Heinkel documents shown in the book that read "He 177B-5" dated as late as February 1944...and the three-view G.A. drawing in the Griehl-Dressel book of the "He 177B-5" is basically a DEAD RINGER for the actually built, AND flown, He 177 V101 "truly" four engined prototype example.

The entries at Wikipedia for both the 177 AND 277 (respective links there at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_177 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_277 ) reflect the updated knowledge found (possibly for the very first time) in the Griehl-Dressel volume, which has a newer publishing year (1998 ) than ANY other book on the He 177 "family" of aircraft, and these two authors HAVE published a goodly number of other WW II German aircraft book titles...so my feeling is that what we were all reading, about the "He 177B cover designation" for the He 277 is almost entirely an "urban legend", and from the text and photos in the book (especially of the factory drawings' general arrangements) that a REAL quartet of He 177B prototypes WERE built, with three of them flying...but the US 15th Air Force got to them before Herr Heinkel could do anything more about it, destroying the third and fourth He 177B prototypes in Vienna-area bombing in very early 1944, with the only photographic image remaining of ANY of the four engined He 177s bieng that nose-on, "lonely" looking one of the He 177 V101, sitting on a foggy German airfield all by itself.

Thanks to the "Wings of the Luftwaffe" book by Eric Brown, I found out about the Gruesome One's flying habits...and the Griehl/Dressel book FINALLY pulling the wool from in front of our eyes concerning the *He 177B* being a *real plane* (the He 277 REMAINED a paper-ONLY entity!)...I found out a lot more, than I've ever known before on the Gruesome One, and on an "urban legend" that grew up in many, MANY WW II aviation history books surrounding the entire effort to TRY getting a real four engined heavy bomber for the Luftwaffe, and NOT something with "welded-together" engines...!

Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2009)

I don't think the He 177 can be considered the worst. Overall it was a very capable design and would have proven a very advanced and great heavy bomber. It had great performance for an aircraft of its type and it could carry a heavy bomb load as well as good defensive armament.

Its problems were in its coupled engines. This was a very big mistake and caused problems such as catching fire and so forth. The reason the engines were coupled was because of a design spec that the aircraft had to be capable of dive bombing.

This problem however was fixed later on, and the He 177 did serve just fine once it was corrected. Therefore I do not believe the He 177 can even be a contender. Sure it had teething problems (big teething problems as a matter of fact) but all aircraft have them as well.


----------



## Juha (Jun 13, 2009)

IMHO one can argue that He 177 was one of the worst a/c, not as a plane but as from POV of war economy, over 1000 was produced with enourmous cost in resources and in training, the plane being very complicated when compared the older German bombers. So much alternative production was lost, some units spent long time in training when they were needed desperately at fronts. And the achievements of the units flying the type were rather limited. B-29 also had many problems and was also a very costly program but in the end it produced results otherwise unachiavable. But soon after the problems of He 177 were mostly solved and while factories were churning out them the change in strategic situation became so obvious that even German High Command noticed that and many He 177s went straight from factory to different dispersal fields all over Germany. Not only plane which suffered that destiny but the timing was critical to Germany.

But as I wrote, the plane itself was better than its popular reputation in Anglo-American world.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2009)

Juha said:


> IMHO one can argue that He 177 was one of the worst a/c, not as a plane but as from POV of war economy, over 1000 was produced with enourmous cost in resources and in training, the plane being very complicated when compared the older German bombers. So much alternative production was lost, some units spent long time in training when they were needed desperately at fronts. And the achievements of the units flying the type were rather limited. B-29 also had many problems and was also a very costly program but in the end it produced results otherwise unachiavable. But soon after the problems of He 177 were mostly solved and while factories were churning out them the change in strategic situation became so obvious that even German High Command noticed that and many He 177s went straight from factory to different dispersal fields all over Germany. Not only plane which suffered that destiny but the timing was critical to Germany.
> 
> But as I wrote, the plane itself was better than its popular reputation in Anglo-American world.



I certainly agree with you there. From and economic and resources stand point, I think it was a waste. Aircraft wise though, I think the wrap that it gets is a myth. The bugs were eventually worked out of her.


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 14, 2009)

*Did we list the NATTER already ?*


I would NOT have voluntarily got in the cockpit of one of these things if it was the last thing I did - which it probably would be in truth.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 14, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I certainly agree with you there. From and economic and resources stand point, I think it was a waste. Aircraft wise though, I think the wrap that it gets is a myth. The bugs were eventually worked out of her.


Right and then it became more reliable than the other German bombers. But the lack of fuel and emphasis on fighters finished it off.
Just imagine that the Americans had cancelled the expensive and troublesome B-29 project at the end of 1944. It would now have been regarded as the similar He 177.

Then again, at least they didn't use the B-29 on such a massive scale before the bugs were ironed out as they did with the He 177 (supplying the 6th Armee at Stalingrad?).




Cromwell, I disagree on the Natter. By 1945 the Natter was just about the best the Germans had in the pipeline. They no longer had the possibility to train pilots and didn't have the fuel for the aircraft. Now here's an incredibly simply semi-guided heavily armoured rocket fighter which required no trained pilots. Flying faster than any fighter it could and would come in range of enemy bombers, release a volley of very powerful Föhn of R4M rockets (like succesfully used on the Me 262 in the last weeks) which would have meant a certain success. 
They were very easy to build and with the engines and pilot recuperated could be build in great numbers, as long as the methanol supply kept up. An ideal stopgap until the arrival of the Enzian and later the Wasserfall.

Or can you come up with better ideas for 1945? 

Kris


----------



## Juha (Jun 15, 2009)

Hello Civettone
IIRC the only time when Natter was lauched manned the pilot died during the lauch, broken neck IIRC, so no guidance after that.

Juha


----------



## Elvis (Jun 16, 2009)

Civettone said:


> By 1945 the Natter was just about the best the Germans had in the pipeline.
> *They no longer had the possibility to train pilots and didn't have the fuel for the aircraft.*
> 
> Kris


I believe the need to put "basically trained" pilots in the air as quickly as possible is what prompted the "Volksjager" competition, and to that end, I understand the Heinkel He162 met this need (not to say the Natter didn't also address that need).






...and if any of that is incorrect, please feel free to "educate" me.


Elvis


----------



## Juha (Jun 17, 2009)

Hello Elvis
Eric Brown thought/thinks that He 162 definitely was not a plane for a beginner.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 17, 2009)

The He-162 was definitely not a plane for a beginner as applying too much rudder too quickly at high speed would see the a/c come apart. The effectiveness responsiveness of the He-162's rudder was extreme.

That having been said the He-162 was the most exciting a/c Eric Brown flew, it was extremely aerobatic, possessing great turn performance roll rate, and Brown enjoyed flying it so much that he used to fly it a lot for fun after the war.


----------



## Elvis (Jun 17, 2009)

..._stupid history channel_...

Thanks for your input guys. I'll try to remember that one in the future.


Elvis


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 20, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Elvis
> Eric Brown thought/thinks that He 162 definitely was not a plane for a beginner.
> 
> Juha



The combined wood-metal structure used in the wings used to peel apart if over stressed 

Maybe this was due to slave labour sabotage, or poor glue / attachment technology or just simply bad design I am not sure.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> The combined wood-metal structure used in the wings used to peel apart if over stressed
> 
> Maybe this was due to slave labour sabotage, or poor glue / attachment technology or just simply bad design I am not sure.


There were issues in the bonding process used on this aircraft, but if done correctly wood/ metal bonding is actually stronger than riveting in many cases.


----------



## Von Frag (Jun 21, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> The combined wood-metal structure used in the wings used to peel apart if over stressed
> 
> Maybe this was due to slave labour sabotage, or poor glue / attachment technology or just simply bad design I am not sure.



The glue intended for the 162 and the Ta-154 was no longer available after the Tego (sp?) works was bombed. Or was Tego the bonding glue? I don't remember. The substitute glue they used ate away at the wood causing both a/c to sometimes break up in flight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 21, 2009)

Von Frag said:


> The glue intended for the 162 and the Ta-154 was no longer available after the Tego (sp?) works was bombed. Or was Tego the bonding glue? I don't remember. The substitute glue they used ate away at the wood causing both a/c to sometimes break up in flight.



I remember reading something like that as well.


----------



## Elvis (Jun 21, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I remember reading something like that as well.


Me 3.
I understand it was a high acidity level in the glues they were using later in the war.
Bonded like steel but evenutally would eat away at the wood, causing failure of the bond...or rather, the pieces that were bonded together.


Elvis


----------



## Civettone (Jun 27, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Civettone
> IIRC the only time when Natter was lauched manned the pilot died during the lauch, broken neck IIRC, so no guidance after that.
> 
> Juha


Sure but that was an accident which had nothing to do with the design or concept of the aircraft/rocket. They just forgot to securely close the cockpit hood. Poor pilot was probably knocked unconscious...



Elvis said:


> I believe the need to put "basically trained" pilots in the air as quickly as possible is what prompted the "Volksjager" competition, and to that end, I understand the


Right. But what the nazi's didn't understand is that there is no value in a 'basically trained pilot'. At least not when used to perform combat in such a Volksjäger design. 

Not only would the Volksjäger pilot have been hunted down and shot down by slower aircraft piloted by much more experienced pilots, the He 162 design was chosen based on a lie, that is that the design was already underway while the original design (P.1073 IIRC) was quite different from the later He 162. It seems to me that the original winner of the competition, the Blohm Voss P.211 project would have made a better aircraft for novice pilots. Best choice would have been the Lippisch P.20 though...

Kris


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2009)

Civettone said:


> ...the He 162 design was chosen based on a lie, that is that the design was already underway while the original design (P.1073 IIRC) was quite different from the later He 162. It seems to me that the original winner of the competition, the Blohm Voss P.211 project would have made a better aircraft for novice pilots. Best choice would have been the Lippisch P.20 though...
> 
> Kris


The He162 won the competition in the long-run because it required fewer man-hours for construction and it used the Bf109 main-gear.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 3, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> The He162 won the competition in the long-run because it required fewer man-hours for construction and it used the Bf109 main-gear.


If you've seen the B&V P.211 plans you'll realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to build a fighter with even less manhours!  The simplicity of that design is simply staggering!! That's why initially it won the competition. Then Heinkel started lobbying ...

http://www.luft46.com/bv/bv211-1.gif

Kris


----------



## Venganza (Jul 6, 2009)

Civettone said:


> If you've seen the B&V P.211 plans you'll realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to build a fighter with even less manhours!  The simplicity of that design is simply staggering!! That's why initially it won the competition. Then Heinkel started lobbying ...
> 
> http://www.luft46.com/bv/bv211-1.gif
> 
> Kris



Gott in Himmel! - that is one simple little plane! If it'd been any simpler, they could've just strapped the pilot to the engine, and have him hold and fire a sub-machinegun.

Venganza


----------



## Civettone (Jul 7, 2009)

Venganza said:


> Gott in Himmel! - that is one simple little plane! If it'd been any simpler, they could've just strapped the pilot to the engine, and have him hold and fire a sub-machinegun.
> 
> Venganza


hahahah 


Kris


----------



## river (Jul 12, 2009)

Hi,

Didn't the Japs have a small jet plane... looked like the V1 but with with a pilot and a warhead at the front. IIRC it was called the Cherry Blossom? I'll have to check my books.

Agree with the Botha (which I'm sure was a shortened version of "Don't (or why) bother?"). Didn't Blackburn also make a plane called the Skua, which also wasn't a great aircraft.

seeyuzz
river


----------



## Juha (Jul 12, 2009)

You mean Baka. At least the Bettys carrying it to launching range were very vulnerable to USN fighter. Yes, Botha was a total waste of effort. Skua, while not a great plane, was reasonable dive bomber and sunk a CL of KM

Juha


----------



## Elvis (Jul 13, 2009)

I think "Baka" was _our_ name for that plane.
The Japanese referred to it as "Okha", which does translate to "Cherry Blossom".










Elvis


----------



## cherry blossom (Jul 16, 2009)

As noted above Baka was a US name and means stupid in Japanese. Now you can see how I chose my username as I expected to ask many stupid questions and to be shot down well short of my objective. 

However, I doubt if the Ohka was the least effective aircraft of ww2. With a 1.2 ton warhead it was likely to cause damage if it hit (sinking at least one destroyer and leaving another damaged beyond economic repair) and was quite hard to intercept after launch. It would have been very effective off Guadalcanal! There was a problem that it was hard to build up an expert force of pilots. To address that the designers came up with a version with a water warhead. After practising flying this, the water could be released and the much lighter Okha could then be landed as a glider.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 16, 2009)

cherry blossom said:


> As noted above Baka was a US name and means stupid in Japanese. Now you can see how I chose my username as I expected to ask many stupid questions and to be shot down well short of my objective.


Bah-dump-bump. 

It should also be noted that "Baka" is a descriptive used for a person.
You might _reprimand_ someone (for lack of a better word) by saying, "Baka!", but a "rube goldberg" type of item, while it might be thought of as a "stupid" way to achieve an operation, would not be called "Baka".

Thus, I think the term "idiot" works better as a definition for "Baka", rather than "stupid".


Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Jul 16, 2009)

...and Cherry Blossom, my apologies if it seems I'm playing "Semantics Police".
I do have some experience with the Japanese language and thought that clarification was in order.
I wish no harm and call no foul on your part.


Elvis


----------



## Civettone (Jul 21, 2009)

Also, it could also have been ground launched. That way it would have been hidden (in caves for instance) and be used against invasion forces. Its short range would have been sufficient and at such low altitude it would have been to fast for any interceptor. As such it could have been a magnificent weapon.

That being said, the solution was to be found in Germany: a manned V 1 (Reichenberg). The Ohka should have been powered by a pulsejet engine. The Japs did build their own pulsejet flying bomb but that one carried a too small payload. A Reichenberg copy would have been the best solution!

Kris


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 21, 2009)

A manned V-1 would have been pretty scary if used in Kamikaze (Göttlichewind?) attacks on US Bombers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2009)

Actually the Okha did sink at least one ship


----------



## Civettone (Jul 22, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> A manned V-1 would have been pretty scary if used in Kamikaze (Göttlichewind?) attacks on US Bombers.


That's an excellent point. The Germans actually tried to develop a fighter with a pulsejet engine, the Me 328, as an escort fighter. But also later they decided to go for an as-cheap-as-possible-fighter with pulsejet propulsion. 

However, there is one major reason why that would not have worked. Pulsejet engines perform well at low altitude. For instance, I don't recall what the V 1 operational ceiling was but I think it was around 4 km or so...

As a side note, an attack aircraft with pulsejet engines would have been a great possibility. Junkers actually developed a couple of those.
Kris


----------



## Elvis (Jul 22, 2009)

...and to this day, people still work with the pulsejet engine...

Pulse Jet Engine


Elvis


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 22, 2009)

Civettone said:


> That's an excellent point. The Germans actually tried to develop a fighter with a pulsejet engine, the Me 328, as an escort fighter. But also later they decided to go for an as-cheap-as-possible-fighter with pulsejet propulsion.
> 
> However, there is one major reason why that would not have worked. Pulsejet engines perform well at low altitude. For instance, I don't recall what the V 1 operational ceiling was but I think it was around 4 km or so...
> 
> ...


Still, I always wondered why the Germans never decided to just make a cheaper version of the Komet and have people crash them into B-17s. You could even have an ejector seat so the pilot could bail out (and probably be shot to pieces by the .50s of the other bombers but you don't have to tell him that) just before impact.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 22, 2009)

Clay,

I beleive that tactic was actually touched on, in an episode of either "Dogfights" or "Battle 360", on the History Channel.
I also remember reading something about this tactic in a magazine some years ago ("Air Combat", maybe?).
The German's learned it from the Russians, who called the manuver "Turan" ("Turran"?).
In that episode, they used Me-109's as the "crash vehicle" of choice.
The idea was to fly into the tail or a wing, thus disabiling the controllability of the bomber, but to do it in such a way, where the pilot could still eject from the fighter, after crashing it.


Elvis


----------



## imalko (Jul 22, 2009)

Just a side note...Russian aircraft ramming tactic was called "Taran", but it didn't necessary included ramming into enemy planes. Very often Soviet pilots used the propeller in attempt to cut off enemy plane's rear fuselage or damage vertical tail surfaces.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 22, 2009)

whatever you think of the Russians, those pilots carrying out the Taran attacks were some of thebaravest people I can think of.....deliberate ramming attacks of enemy aircraft. You gotta take your hat off to that


----------



## Focke Wulf Meister (Jul 23, 2009)

Worst plane of WWII? I'm assuming we're talking about aircraft that actually saw combat.

In that case, I'd have to go with the Messerschmitt Me 323 Gigant. 

The Me-323 was a powered variant of the Me-321 combat glider. It was the biggest aircraft of the war, and as such, one of the slowest. The aircraft was a virtual sitting duck in the air and could only be used with comprehensive air superiority. Even though the aircraft was known as the "Elastoplast Bomber" it was highly resiliant. Still, none of the 213 production aircraft survived past the summer of 1944. Multiple incidents of large formations of Me-323s being downed have been reported. In one incident 14 of the transports were destroyed resulting in 120 deaths. The loss of all 213 aircraft is one of the most complete destructions of one type of aircraft in history.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 23, 2009)

Focke Wulf Meister said:


> Worst plane of WWII? I'm assuming we're talking about aircraft that actually saw combat.
> 
> In that case, I'd have to go with the Messerschmitt Me 323 Gigant.
> 
> The Me-323 was a powered variant of the Me-321 combat glider. It was the biggest aircraft of the war, and as such, one of the slowest. The aircraft was a virtual sitting duck in the air and could only be used with comprehensive air superiority. Even though the aircraft was known as the "Elastoplast Bomber" it was highly resiliant. Still, none of the 213 production aircraft survived past the summer of 1944. Multiple incidents of large formations of Me-323s being downed have been reported. In one incident 14 of the transports were destroyed resulting in 120 deaths. The loss of all 213 aircraft is one of the most complete destructions of one type of aircraft in history.


I don't think that a lack of air superiority makes the Gigant one of the worst aircraft of the war. It was designed as a heavy transport and performed it's tasks well, especially considering that the design started out as a heavy transport glider (another impressive feat).

If you base an aircraft's shortcomings on that, then the Lancaster and B-17 would fall into this category, as they suffered terrific losses early in the war, before long range escorts made the flights into Luftwaffe airspace survivable.


----------



## Focke Wulf Meister (Jul 23, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> I don't think that a lack of air superiority makes the Gigant one of the worst aircraft of the war. It was designed as a heavy transport and performed it's tasks well, especially considering that the design started out as a heavy transport glider (another impressive feat).
> 
> If you base an aircraft's shortcomings on that, then the Lancaster and B-17 would fall into this category, as they suffered terrific losses early in the war, before long range escorts made the flights into Luftwaffe airspace survivable.



I beg to differ. While the Lancaster and B-17 took terrific losses, they also inflicted much more damage than 323s. How many enemy aircraft were downed by Lancasters and B-17s compared to the Me-323? 

Did the enemy have to continually develop new aircraft to take on the waves of Lancasters and 17s? Yes. Granted, much of that was due to the advancement of their escorts. But, did the allies have to develop new aircraft to deal with the 323 threat? No. The 323s were six-engine target practice.

Were every one of the thousands of Lancasters and B-17s built destroyed during the war by enemy fire, as was the case for the hapless 323? No. 

I would much rather take my chances in a formation of 17s or Lancasters than in a formation of 323s.8)

I'm just sayin'...


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 23, 2009)

I hear ya', but the Gigant was a transport. It carried troops, armor and supplies as well as evacuated wounded. In those terms, it performed exceptionally well.

If you want to look at losses, check out the massacres of the Ju52 transports in the MTO. There were instances where unlikely adversaries like the Sunderlands and even B-25s were slaughtering them by the handfull.


----------



## Focke Wulf Meister (Jul 23, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> I hear ya', but the Gigant was a transport. It carried troops, armor and supplies as well as evacuated wounded. In those terms, it performed exceptionally well.
> 
> If you want to look at losses, check out the massacres of the Ju52 transports in the MTO. There were instances where unlikely adversaries like the Sunderlands and even B-25s were slaughtering them by the handfull.



I'll give you that. Ju52s were true target drones without fighter escort. 

My second choice for worst WWII aircraft was the Douglas TPD Devastator. It was only "devastating" if you were unlucky enough to be flying it on a one-way Midway torpedo run. What a deathtrap. God bless those Navy aircrew that flew those pieces of crap into the teeth of the Imperial Japanese Navy.

And thank GOD and GRUMMAN for the TBF Avenger!


----------



## river (Jul 23, 2009)

Hi,



Focke Wulf Meister said:


> I beg to differ. While the Lancaster and B-17 took terrific losses, they also inflicted much more damage than 323s. How many enemy aircraft were downed by Lancasters and B-17s compared to the Me-323?



Using that logic I guess the C47 would be another useless, defenseless transport that did less for the war than the bombers and fighters?

river


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2009)

The C-47 was probably the *best and most important aircraft of WW2*. It flew in all theaters, carried much needed material and personnel, and set the benchmark in design and systems configuration for all future multi engine transport aircraft. It was easily flown, carried an effective cargo load and was a workhorse for not only the US but all the allies. Have you ever heard of a small operation called D-Day and the role the C-47 played in transporting troops and gliders in to Nazi controlled Europe???? The C-47 was operated in the most extreme conditions, some were held together with beer cans and bailing wire, and yes - it was also used as a makeshift bomber!!!!

*With out the C-47 hordes of bombers and fighters would have just sat on the ground, waiting for parts and fuel.*​

I suggest research the contribution of the C-47 and keep the testosterone out of the equasion. 

*Just because an aircraft doesn't drop bombs or shoot guns doesn't mean an aircraft is not effective in its role or that it a sitting duck*​


----------



## imalko (Jul 23, 2009)

I think that River was just being sarcastic about Focke Wulf Meister's posts. I don't believe he seriously thinks that C-47 was useless...


----------



## Condora (Jul 23, 2009)

R Pope said:


> The Battle, and even the Roc, were pretty good AIRPLANES, they just weren't very good WARPLANES. The Breda 88 was just plain lousy, it could barely fly, and Benito's bunch still put it into mass production. The last run of them went directly from the factory to the scrap heap!
> As for limited production planes, I still vote for the Curtiss Caravan.



As a matter of fact, the Breda was an acceptable AIRPLANE - even beat a speed record -, UNTIL someone decided to add weapons to it: it just couldn't cope with the weight.

My vote would go to the turret-fighters (Roc, Battle...), if good old Marcel Bloch (Dassault) had not given me a winner: Bloch's MB.150.

A fighter that could not fly off the ground...

As for the C-47 dispute, didn't it get a version with guns on it, as it happened to the Hercules, etc.?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2009)

imalko said:


> I think that River was just being sarcastic about Focke Wulf Meister's posts. I don't believe he seriously thinks that C-47 was useless...


I realized that and edited my first post


----------



## Condora (Jul 23, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Sure but that was an accident which had nothing to do with the design or concept of the aircraft/rocket. They just forgot to securely close the cockpit hood. Poor pilot was probably knocked unconscious...
> 
> Right. But what the nazi's didn't understand is that there is no value in a 'basically trained pilot'. At least not when used to perform combat in such a Volksjäger design.
> 
> ...



Hey guys, give the poor fellows some slack: I expect that people like Galand KNEW that, but since the beginning of the war, Germany was on erzatz-materials, everything from paper to fuel was sinthetic stuff. 
The same happened to manpower - they didn't have the time to train proper pilots.
One of the reasons german aces had a bigger score than the pilots they were fighting, was that they were doing it non-stop since 1939. And then Germany started losing good pilots because they were exhausted...

I still believe that WW II was a victory of numbers, not quality:
The best admiral was japanese (Yamato), the best generals were german (Rommel), the best tanks were german (only a single russian model could challenge them), the best subs were german, some of the best naval units were either german or japanese... and although I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, the Axis' planes were at least as good as Allied planes.

At least give them that...


----------



## river (Jul 23, 2009)

Hi,



imalko said:


> I think that River was just being sarcastic about Focke Wulf Meister's posts. I don't believe he seriously thinks that C-47 was useless...



LOL, indeed I was. Maybe I'll use the "sarcasm being deployed" icon next time. 

Aye, the C47 was a great plane. It's versatility and longetivity makes it perhaps the greatest aircraft of all time.

However, while its role as transport was important, the greatest transport mechanism in the war were ships (Liberty ships?), landing vessels and the ground transport logistics. Machines of war were delivered, fueled, loaded with bombs and ammo, and armies fed by this mechanism. It would of been more difficult to wage a war without the C47, but certainly impossible without the land-sea logistics in place.

river


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2009)

Focke Wulf Meister said:


> The Me-323 was a powered variant of the Me-321 combat glider. It was the biggest aircraft of the war, and as such, one of the slowest. The aircraft was a virtual sitting duck in the air and could only be used with comprehensive air superiority. Even though the aircraft was known as the "Elastoplast Bomber" it was highly resiliant. Still, none of the 213 production aircraft survived past the summer of 1944. Multiple incidents of large formations of Me-323s being downed have been reported. In one incident 14 of the transports were destroyed resulting in 120 deaths. The loss of all 213 aircraft is one of the most complete destructions of one type of aircraft in history.



I would not consider it the worst for that. Why? What you just described is transport aircraft. Any transport that is unprotected by fighter escort is going to have that same result. Should all transports be considered the worst aircraft?

No they did their job. The Me 323 did what it was designed to do. Be a heavy transport. Therefore it certainly was not the worst.



Focke Wulf Meister said:


> I beg to differ. While the Lancaster and B-17 took terrific losses, they also inflicted much more damage than 323s. How many enemy aircraft were downed by Lancasters and B-17s compared to the Me-323?



You are comparing apples to oranges. How can you expect a transport to inflict damage?

Did the Gigant do its intended job or not? Yes it was a heavy transport. Without fighter escort it is a sitting duck, just like the C-47, Ju 52, etc..

Are they in the catagory of worst aircraft? Of course not...



Focke Wulf Meister said:


> Did the enemy have to continually develop new aircraft to take on the waves of Lancasters and 17s? Yes. Granted, much of that was due to the advancement of their escorts. But, did the allies have to develop new aircraft to deal with the 323 threat? No. The 323s were six-engine target practice.
> 
> Were every one of the thousands of Lancasters and B-17s built destroyed during the war by enemy fire, as was the case for the hapless 323? No.
> 
> ...



You are comparing apple and oranges again. Did the Luftwaffe have to develope new aircraft to take on the C-47? NO

Did the allies have to develop new aircraft to take on the Ju 52? No 

So again I ask you. How can a transport that does its intended task, be considered the worst.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 23, 2009)

for transports, I think you would have to look at the los rate per ton of goods delivererd. You would have to divide this analysis into three categories, sorties into enemy controlled space and sorties into uncontrolled space and sorties into friendly controled space. The statistical sample would need to be large to undertake this properly.

The aircraft with the highest attrition rate in a given situation might be considered the worst at that task. I can think of a number of transports that failed pretty miserably to be honest, and make the Gigant look fine. The Condor for example was pressed into service in Stalingrad, and suffered repeated structural and engine failures that I am aware of. There was a French transport which I forget the name of which also suffred from these weaknesses

The Gigant is not the worst aircraft of WWII, its not even the worst transport of WWII


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 23, 2009)

Elvis said:


> Clay,
> 
> I beleive that tactic was actually touched on, in an episode of either "Dogfights" or "Battle 360", on the History Channel.
> I also remember reading something about this tactic in a magazine some years ago ("Air Combat", maybe?).
> ...


That doesn't surprise me, but it's still different and less intensive than a government driven program in rockets manned by the Hitler Youth. (They were crazy enough)


----------



## Focke Wulf Meister (Jul 23, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No. The C-47 was a much more useful aircraft than the 323. The 47 had a much more lengthy service life and saw action on multiple TOs and multiple wars. The same cannot be said for the 323. 

And, unlike the 323, no where near all of the C-47s produced were lost in combat. 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2009)

Focke Wulf Meister said:


> No. The C-47 was a much more useful aircraft than the 323. The 47 had a much more lengthy service life and saw action on multiple TOs and multiple wars. The same cannot be said for the 323.
> 
> And, unlike the 323, no where near all of the C-47s produced were lost in combat. 8)



I think you are missing the point of what makes an aircraft the worst. If an aircraft was able to do what it was designed to do, then it can not be the worst. 

You do not provide air support for *ANY* transport, they are going to be shot down in droves.

The fact that a transport can not defend itself and is shot down in droves because of that, does not make it the worst. Sorry...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2009)

Focke Wulf Meister said:


> No. The C-47 was a much more useful aircraft than the 323. The 47 had a much more lengthy service life and saw action on multiple TOs and multiple wars. The same cannot be said for the 323.
> 
> And, unlike the 323, no where near all of the C-47s produced were lost in combat. 8)



The 323 met or exceeded its design requirements, in other words it flew as advertised. The fact that it was shot down in large numbers means nothing, that was an operational problem with the LW.

Left untouched, the 323 could deiver large amonts of cargo and had many innovations seen today.


----------



## Focke Wulf Meister (Jul 23, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The fact that it was shot down in large numbers means nothing, that was an operational problem with the LW.



I'll bet it meant something to the poor bastards who were in those 323s. 

So, we're to judge "the worst plane of WWII" in a vacuum? What is the criteria of "worst" in this debate anyway? Flight characteristics, armament, flight worthiness, maneuverability, length of service, numbers manufactured vs. number destroyed, combat effectiveness, payload, etc.?

The question is so broad, it is open to wide interpretation. 

Did the limited number of 323s employed do their job? To an extent, yes. But, every freakin' example of the aircraft was either blown out of the sky or destroyed on the ground. How effective is the platform if it can't survive to fight another day?


----------



## Elvis (Jul 23, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Did the Gigant do its intended job or not? Yes it was a heavy transport.


I'm surprised FlyboyJ didn't mention this in his prior post, as I believe he was the first poster in this thread to bring up this idea, but I believe we all agreed, early on in this thread, that the "worst" airplane of WWII (or any war) would be the one that DID NOT meet its design objective.
DerAdler is quite correct in the quote above and considering that the Gigant not only met its design objective, but did it on a more _grand_ scale than any other single transport used during the war, makes it a candidate, not for the "worst" aircraft of WWII, but THE BEST.

...however, that's a whole other thread. 


Elvis


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2009)

Focke Wulf Meister said:


> I'll bet it meant something to the poor bastards who were in those 323s.
> 
> So, we're to judge "the worst plane of WWII" in a vacuum? What is the criteria of "worst" in this debate anyway? Flight characteristics, armament, flight worthiness, maneuverability, length of service, numbers manufactured vs. number destroyed, combat effectiveness, payload, etc.?
> 
> The question is so broad, it is open to wide interpretation.



The worst has to be an aircraft that did not do what it was designed to do, not because of bad tactics, pilots, etc. 

An aircraft can not be faulted for bad decisions in use or operational problems.



Focke Wulf Meister said:


> Did the limited number of 323s employed do their job? To an extent, yes. But, every freakin' example of the aircraft was either blown out of the sky or destroyed on the ground. How effective is the platform if it can't survive to fight another day?



Again that has nothing to do with the design of the aircraft or its capabilities. I repeat any transport that is left unprotected is going to be chewed up. That includes any transport.

Using your logic all of these aircraft must be considered the worst:

C-47
C-46
Ju 52
Ju 390
Fw 200
Ju 290
C-54
L-10

Unprotected they would all be blown out of the sky or destroyed on the ground. How effective is the platform if it can't survive to fight another day? (these are your words, repeat them when thinking of the aircraft above).


----------



## Focke Wulf Meister (Jul 23, 2009)

Thank you, Elvis, for informing me of your guys' criteria and meaning of "worst". That clears things up tremendously.

Have a great day.


----------



## river (Jul 23, 2009)

Hi,



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> C-47
> C-46
> Ju 52
> Ju 390
> ...



C54!!!!

Were there many about in WW2?

I love the C-54/DC-4. I dunno why, but I think they're a gorgeous airplane. I wish we had more in Australia (only got 1 and I think it is being restored by HARS - who have the Constellation)

river


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2009)

Focke Wulf Meister said:


> I'll bet it meant something to the poor bastards who were in those 323s.



It meant that the LW was not able to provide fighter cover to protect their transports!


----------



## Focke Wulf Meister (Jul 24, 2009)

Now that I know the criteria for "worst", here are my candidates:
*
Worst Bomber: Breda Ba.88 Lince*

Two Italian groups were equipped with the Breda Ba.88 in June 1940, operating initially from Sardinia against the main airfield of Corsica. The crews found that the Bredas were extremely underpowered and lacked agility, but the lack of fighter opposition resulted in them being able to perform their missions without losses.

Later, 64 aircraft became operational serving 7imo Gruppo in the North African Theatre with 19imo stationed in Sardinia, but their performance remained extremely poor resulting in the 7imo Gruppo being grounded from the end of June until September, when the Italian offensive against British forces started. Of three aircraft used, one was not even capable of taking off, and another could not turn and was forced to fly straight.

Five months after the start of the war, on 10 June 1940, Bredas were phased out as bombers and given new tasks as decoys on airfields.

Nice plane, Moose. 

*
Worst Interceptor: Messershmitt Me163 Komet*

The rocket used two propellents (both quite unstable and corrosive), that when they came in contact with each other, exploded, thus powering the rocket. HTP hydrogen peroxide mixed with hydrazine hydrate makes quite a bang! Do not try this at home. The stuff burned off very rapidly, giving just a few minutes of flight. As there were no wheels, the Me 163 landed on a skid, which was a bumpy proposition. Any residual fuels left in the tanks would then combine and explode; several aircraft were lost in just this manner. Even by itself, the HTP was highly corrosive, especially to any organic materials, so the pilots had to wear protective suits of synthetic materials. But sometimes it seeped into the cockpit, or worked through the seams of the overalls. On occasion, an Me 163 would just blow up while sitting on the ground.

Production Me 163Bs were not ready for operational use until July 1944. The Luftwaffe planned to have small units of Komets dispersed to intercept Allied bomber formations, but only 279 Me 163Bs were delivered by the end of the war. The sole operational Komet group, JG 400, scored nine kills while losing 14 of its own aircraft.

Now, that is a kill ratio you can be proud of, Herman. Nice.

*
Worst Fighter: PZL P.7a*

During the battle for Poland in 1939, pilots flying the P.7a claimed shooting down seven German aircraft (two He 111s, two Do 17s, one Hs 126 and two Bf 110s), suffering combat losses of 22 aircraft. How embarrassing for the Luftwaffe. You actually lost planes to this hunk of junk?

*HM: Boulton Paul P.82 Defiant*

Contemporary with the Royal Navy's Blackburn Roc (a disaster in its own right), the concept of a turret fighter was somewhat similar to the World War I-era Bristol Fighter. In practice, the Defiant was found to be vulnerable to the Luftwaffe's more agile, single-seat Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters; crucially, the Defiant did not have any forward-firing guns. Sounds like an F-4 Phantom. _(Unlike the Brits, we Americans finally deduced adding a forward-firing gun to our Double Ugly would be a good idea.)
_

*Worst Ground Attack Aircraft: Me 210*

The Me 210 was designed to replace the Bf 110 in heavy fighter role. The first examples of the Me 210 were ready in 1939, but they proved to have poor flight characteristics. 

A large-scale operational testing programm throughout 1941 and early 1942 did not cure the aircraft's problems. The design eventually entered limited service in 1943, but was almost immediately replaced by its successor, the Messerschmitt Me 410 Hornisse ("Hornet"). The Me 410 was a further development of the Me 210, renamed so as to avoid the 210's notoriety. The failure of the Me 210's development programme meant that the Luftwaffe was forced to continue fielding the outdated Bf 110, to mounting losses.

Surprisingly, no Japanese or Russian aircraft on my list. Hmmmm...

Anyway, that's my two cents...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2009)

Actually there was nothing wrong with the PZL P.7a - in its day it was one of the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world. It was obsolete by the start of WW2 - that was its only problem.

Breda Ba.88 was the worse WW2 aircraft IMO.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 24, 2009)

The Defiant had one moment of glory as a day fighter in 1940. After that it was releagated to the Night Fighter role, wher it enjoyed a modicum of success.

For the record, the Polish fighter groups shot down more German planes than they had in their own inventory at the beginning of the war. The P-7 was one of those fighters. They shot down more aircraft than you credit them for. Total Luftwaffe losses in the Polish campaign are in fact disputed, but are somewhere in the vicinity of 350 a/c.

Polish pilots were the best trained in Europe at that time. Their record in the BoB attests to that


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I believe that over 1000 of them saw service in WW2.



Focke Wulf Meister said:


> Now, that is a kill ratio you can be proud of, Herman. Nice.



I believe the word is Germans or German, not Herman...


----------



## Waynos (Jul 24, 2009)

parsifal said:


> The Gigant is not the worst aircraft of WWII, its not even the worst transport of WWII



Correct. That title would have to go to the Junkers Mammut. A tank tranporter that could not carry tanks as the floor wasn't strong enough.


----------



## Condora (Jul 24, 2009)

Well, FW Meister, you suggested the use of categories, I name these:

* Worst Plane Misuse: Breda Ba.88 Lince*
I agree with you, BUT the Ba.88 was not a bad airplane. It just wasn't suited for large loads, as the bombs a bomber has to carry. If somebody decided to use a B.17 as a fighter, the result would be the same.
It was a fast plane, had good range, maybe the italians should have used it as a reconnaissance plane.
But they had decided it would take bombs...

* Worst Fighter: Bloch MB.150*
A fighter which just isn't able to even FLY, is quite useless. 'Nough said.
(nobody else as even HEARD of this plane? It's a sure winner in this class!)

* Worst Concept: The turret figher*
Didn't somebody tell those guys that a fighter having a second crewmember waving a machine gun around had been dropped halfway through WW I?

* Worst Bomber: Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe*
Who was the genius that decided it should be a fast bomber? Oh, right... THAT guy.

I do not agree on a Ground-attack Award, the were few purpose-built airplanes during WW II, and they did their job quite well.


----------



## Condora (Jul 24, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Correct. That title would have to go to the Junkers Mammut. A tank tranporter that could not carry tanks as the floor wasn't strong enough.



I didn't know about that one, it would fit perfectly as * Worst Transport*...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2009)

Condora said:


> Well, FW Meister, you suggested the use of categories, I name these:
> 
> * Worst Plane Misuse: Breda Ba.88 Lince*
> I agree with you, BUT the Ba.88 was not a bad airplane. It just wasn't suited for large loads, as the bombs a bomber has to carry. If somebody decided to use a B.17 as a fighter, the result would be the same.
> ...


The Ba.88 with military equipment installed could not complete its mission. It could not sustain climb on one engine and performed poorly, again when configured for its military mission.


Condora said:


> * Worst Fighter: Bloch MB.150*
> A fighter which just isn't able to even FLY, is quite useless. 'Nough said.
> (nobody else as even HEARD of this plane? It's a sure winner in this class!).



Nuff said


----------



## Focke Wulf Meister (Jul 24, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually there was nothing wrong with the PZL P.7a - in its day it was one of the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world. It was obsolete by the start of WW2 - that was its only problem.



Actually, I believe you stated in an earlier post that if an aircraft could not effectively perform its primary role or function, it was NOT considered a good wartime aircraft.

The PZL P.7a was a fine plane - it maneuvered and handled very well. I believe it was the first all-metal monoplane fighter to be mass-produced with state-of-the-art construction. With the P.7, he Polish Air Force became the first air force entirely equipped with all-metal fighters.

But, it was designed as a "fighter". In peacetime, 1933 to 1938, it performed well. However, in its wartime role, it failed. Period. No buts, no ifs. It was a failure. Although it was being phased out in favor of the P.11, there were still a number of them being used as fighters in the Polish Air Force when hostilities broke out in September 1939. And in that role as fighter, it failed. 

It is irrelevant that the aircraft was "obsolete" at the start of WWII. The Russians used "obsolete" aircraft to great effect in the war. The Germans used the "obsolete" Me-110 in daytime attacks on U.S. bomber formations to good effect fairly late into the war. The Japanese used "obsolete" fighters and bombers to considerable effect as kamikazes. The Italians used "obsolete" aircraft throughout much of the war to much better effect than the Polish did with the PZL7.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

Amazingly, even the Philippinos managed to score some victories in the P-26.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2009)

Focke Wulf Meister said:


> Actually, I believe you stated in an earlier post that if an aircraft could not effectively perform its primary role or function, it was NOT considered a good wartime aircraft.
> 
> The PZL P.7a was a fine plane - it maneuvered and handled very well. I believe it was the first all-metal monoplane fighter to be mass-produced with state-of-the-art construction. With the P.7, he Polish Air Force became the first air force entirely equipped with all-metal fighters.
> 
> But, it was designed as a "fighter". In peacetime, 1933 to 1938, it performed well. However, in its wartime role, it failed. Period. No buts, no ifs. It was a failure. Although it was being phased out in favor of the P.11, there were still a number of them being used as fighters in the Polish Air Force when hostilities broke out in September 1939. And in that role as fighter, it failed.


I suggest you look up the word* obsolete* Any fighter from any country a generation behind the Bf 109 would have been handed the same losses -Period!





Focke Wulf Meister said:


> It is irrelevant that the aircraft was "obsolete" at the start of WWII. The Russians used "obsolete" aircraft to great effect in the war. The Germans used the "obsolete" Me-110 in daytime attacks on U.S. bomber formations to good effect fairly late into the war. The Japanese used "obsolete" fighters and bombers to considerable effect as kamikazes. The Italians used "obsolete" aircraft throughout much of the war to much better effect than the Polish did with the PZL7.


It depends how and where obsolete aircraft are used - the obsolete aircraft you talk about had very specialized roles that enabled them to somewhat survive. Place them in the right situation and they were dead meat.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 24, 2009)

Focke Wulf Meister said:


> The Me 210 was designed to replace the Bf 110 in heavy fighter role....The failure of the Me 210's development programme meant that the Luftwaffe was forced to continue fielding the outdated Bf 110, to mounting losses.


I realize you were commenting on the Me-210, but FWIW, its always been my belief that the Bf-110 was a good airplane throughout the war, it was simply placed in the wrong application.
It was originally meant as a long range fighter-escort, but obviously failed as a pure fighter.
Had it been pressed into the ground-attack / light bomber role from the get-go, it would probably be more _favourably_ remembered.

JMHO.



Elvis


----------



## parsifal (Jul 24, 2009)

I fail to see how equating "obsolete" to "worst" is a valid measure. And even if this is viewed as a measure of "worst", the P-7 just isnt the worst. There are scores of aircraft that just didnt perform their mission profiles because of that.....here are a few. The Hawker Hind/Audax (in service with the Persians, not one even got airborne whilst the country was being invaded), the Fury (in service with the Yugoslavs, did not even get airborne, Fairey Fox III. Belgian airforce, failed to halt the German advance even a little, over 100 were lost in less than 48 hours, Avions Hurricane, Belgian Airforce, failed to get airborne, totally destroyed on the ground, systemic gun failures. There are dozens of stories like this, the P-7, by comparison got airborne, shot down enemy aircraft, and was latterly used to distract enemy fighters and aircraft rather than as a true fighter. The Polish air force resisted better and for longer than nearly all the other minor nation air forces of the war yet it is continualy held up as having not been responsible for a fercious defence. The PAF destroyed alamost as many German aircraft as the French did, in its 3 weeks of existence (more or less) as compared to the first threee weeks of the FAF first three weeks of effort in May 1940. 

Moreover, comparing an I-15 to a the P-7 is not a balanced comparison. The P-7 final production was in 1932, BEFORE even the first flight of the I-15. The I-15, and its derivatives were under production right up to the war....the I-153 did not enter production until May 1939!. In a sense the I-15 was a design 10 years younger, yet it does not show in the technology of the two types....a P-7 would have done quite erll against any of the I-15 derivatives. In fact, the Rumanians did use quite a number of P-7s in the opening phases of Barbarossa, though they were rapidly withdrawn because of spares issues, they continued in the training role and as emergency point defence aircraft until 1943, not bad for an aircraft by then more than ten years old.......

The P-7 was perhaps the oldest fighter to see extensive service, and that did show, but it gave some return of value, and in my opinion that amounted to excellent value, given that it had also served for nearly ten years before that.

The P-7, incidentally when it was introduced was considered revolutionary and a world beater. Try comparing apples to apples, and look at the P-7 in the context of its contemporaries......you will find its performance and abilities to be superior to nearly all of them


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I fail to see how equating "obsolete" to "worst" is a valid measure. And even if this is viewed as a measure of "worst", the P-7 just isnt the worst. There are scores of aircraft that just didnt perform their mission profiles because of that.....here are a few. The Hawker Hind/Audax (in service with the Persians, not one even got airborne whilst the country was being invaded), the Fury (in service with the Yugoslavs, did not even get airborne, Fairey Fox III. Belgian airforce, failed to halt the German advance even a little, over 100 were lost in less than 48 hours, Avions Hurricane, Belgian Airforce, failed to get airborne, totally destroyed on the ground, systemic gun failures. There are dozens of stories like this, the P-7, by comparison got airborne, shot down enemy aircraft, and was latterly used to distract enemy fighters and aircraft rather than as a true fighter. The Polish air force resisted better and for longer than nearly all the other minor nation air forces of the war yet it is continualy held up as having not been responsible for a fercious defence. The PAF destroyed alamost as many German aircraft as the French did, in its 3 weeks of existence (more or less) as compared to the first threee weeks of the FAF first three weeks of effort in May 1940.
> 
> Moreover, comparing an I-15 to a the P-7 is not a balanced comparison. The P-7 final production was in 1932, BEFORE even the first flight of the I-15. The I-15, and its derivatives were under production right up to the war....the I-153 did not enter production until May 1939!. In a sense the I-15 was a design 10 years younger, yet it does not show in the technology of the two types....a P-7 would have done quite erll against any of the I-15 derivatives. In fact, the Rumanians did use quite a number of P-7s in the opening phases of Barbarossa, though they were rapidly withdrawn because of spares issues, they continued in the training role and as emergency point defence aircraft until 1943, not bad for an aircraft by then more than ten years old.......
> 
> ...


Parsifal - you know what "obsolete" means!


----------



## parsifal (Jul 25, 2009)

apologies if I warmed this up a bit


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2009)

parsifal said:


> apologies if I warmed this up a bit


No worries - you hit the nail on the head


----------



## Elvis (Jul 25, 2009)

parsifal said:


> The P-7 was perhaps the oldest fighter to see extensive service


Thanks for the idea for a new thread! (a search shows that question has not been asked yet).


Elvis


----------



## Civettone (Jul 26, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I fail to see how equating "obsolete" to "worst" is a valid measure. And even if this is viewed as a measure of "worst", the P-7 just isnt the worst. There are scores of aircraft that just didnt perform their mission profiles because of that.....here are a few. The Hawker Hind/Audax (in service with the Persians, not one even got airborne whilst the country was being invaded), the Fury (in service with the Yugoslavs, did not even get airborne, Fairey Fox III. Belgian airforce, failed to halt the German advance even a little, over 100 were lost in less than 48 hours, Avions Hurricane, Belgian Airforce, failed to get airborne, totally destroyed on the ground, systemic gun failures. There are dozens of stories like this, the P-7, by comparison got airborne, shot down enemy aircraft, and was latterly used to distract enemy fighters and aircraft rather than as a true fighter. The Polish air force resisted better and for longer than nearly all the other minor nation air forces of the war yet it is continualy held up as having not been responsible for a fercious defence. The PAF destroyed alamost as many German aircraft as the French did, in its 3 weeks of existence (more or less) as compared to the first threee weeks of the FAF first three weeks of effort in May 1940.
> 
> Moreover, comparing an I-15 to a the P-7 is not a balanced comparison. The P-7 final production was in 1932, BEFORE even the first flight of the I-15. The I-15, and its derivatives were under production right up to the war....the I-153 did not enter production until May 1939!. In a sense the I-15 was a design 10 years younger, yet it does not show in the technology of the two types....a P-7 would have done quite erll against any of the I-15 derivatives. In fact, the Rumanians did use quite a number of P-7s in the opening phases of Barbarossa, though they were rapidly withdrawn because of spares issues, they continued in the training role and as emergency point defence aircraft until 1943, not bad for an aircraft by then more than ten years old.......
> 
> ...


Excellent post! Claiming that any aircraft which was used once obsolete, is inherently a bad aircraft simply doesn't hold water! 
I mean, some AFs used the P-51 until the 70s, that doesn't make it a bad fighter.

Kris


----------



## Condora (Jul 27, 2009)

I recall that in Malta the "obsolete" Gloster Gladiators (just 4, I believe), kept in check the Italian Air Force, and later the Luftwaffe. The main difference between Gladiators and PZL P.7, as far as I know, was that Gladiators could wait for the enemy to get there, short on fuel, but the P.7 had the BF.109 arriving from close across the border... and the P.7 endurance was very bad.
I read someplace that german pilots just avoided a decision for a while, until the P.7 HAD TO land, and then shot them. Giving credit to that information, maybe the score would be something like:
P.7 6 kills and no losses while dogfighting;
BF.109 6 losses on dogfight, 22 kills when they were trying to land...​
What's the better plane, if this was the case?


----------



## Waynos (Jul 27, 2009)

The gladiator was far newer than the P-7. It entered service only in 1937, same year as the Bf 109 and Hurricane


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 27, 2009)

for history of Gladiator in Malta
Hkans Aviation page - Gloster Gladiators and Fiat CR.42s over Malta 1940-42


----------



## Condora (Jul 27, 2009)

Waynos said:


> The gladiator was far newer than the P-7. It entered service only in 1937, same year as the Bf 109 and Hurricane



Both were early-30s warplanes, and already outdated when they were developed.

We have to remember that in those days, without Internet, no worldwide fast network of comunication system being used, concepts took a lot of time to travel around the globe.
Now, we have airplanes taking 10 years (sometimes longer) to be developed and introduced. Back in the first half of the XXth century, a plane could be created in just a few months (see P.51). It could be lucky enough to use the latest discoveries, or it could be hindered by it's design team not having heard of the latest concepts.

Poland sure could get no aircraft design updates from Germany or Russia, maybe that's why they were a bit stuck with small developments on the same design. And there's also the political aspect, a nation's whose military leaders still use horse-mounted troops, does not seem very open to change.

I think the Gladiator case was more a case of political influence: "there will be no war", and "let's bet on all horses, one is sure to win!"


----------



## Waynos (Jul 27, 2009)

Condora said:


> Both were early-30s warplanes, and already outdated when they were developed.
> 
> We have to remember that in those days, without Internet, no worldwide fast network of comunication system being used, concepts took a lot of time to travel around the globe.
> Now, we have airplanes taking 10 years (sometimes longer) to be developed and introduced. Back in the first half of the XXth century, a plane could be created in just a few months (see P.51). It could be lucky enough to use the latest discoveries, or it could be hindered by it's design team not having heard of the latest concepts.



Pardon? The successes enjoyed by the Gladiator can not be used to castigate the PZL P-7 on the grounds of obsolescence. The P-7 entered service FIVE YEARS before the Gladiator, this is a fact. The P-7 was NOT outdated when it was developed. it was one of the most advanced fighters in existence, a very different story to the Gladiator and the botch job that was F.7/30 (an advanced and far sighted requirement that was badly mismanaged in the execution). What the hell has the internet got to do with any of it????

Polands problem was not that it did not have modern technology, it was as modern as anybody. Below are pictures of the P.37 bomber and P.50 fighter which show Polands capability by 1939.












The problem was one shared also by France in that they had modernised and expanded their air force a tad too early. This left them from 1937 onwards with hundreds of aircraft that were approaching obsolescence thanks to the rapid advanced made in aviation over the previous two short years. Having made the effort to expand and modernise previously, the further effort to then replace it all was just too much. Fortunately for Britain our own expansion coincided almost exactly with this time frame so most aircraft acquired by the RAF were still fairly modern when war broke out with even more even more advanced types like the Beaufort/Beaufighter, Mosquito, Halifax etc just round the corner.


----------



## Condora (Jul 27, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Pardon? The successes enjoyed by the Gladiator can not be used to castigate the PZL P-7 on the grounds of obsolescence. The P-7 entered service FIVE YEARS before the Gladiator, this is a fact. The P-7 was NOT outdated when it was developed. it was one of the most advanced fighters in existence, a very different story to the Gladiator and the botch job that was F.7/30 (an advanced and far sighted requirement that was badly mismanaged in the execution). What the hell has the internet got to do with any of it????
> 
> Polands problem was not that it did not have modern technology, it was as modern as anybody. Below are pictures of the P.37 bomber and P.50 fighter which show Polands capability by 1939.
> 
> The problem was one shared also by France in that they had modernised and expanded their air force a tad too early. This left them from 1937 onwards with hundreds of aircraft that were approaching obsolescence thanks to the rapid advanced made in aviation over the previous two short years. Having made the effort to expand and modernise previously, the further effort to then replace it all was just too much. Fortunately for Britain our own expansion coincided almost exactly with this time frame so most aircraft acquired by the RAF were still fairly modern when war broke out with even more even more advanced types like the Beaufort/Beaufighter, Mosquito, Halifax etc just round the corner.



As I recall, the only fault I pointed out to the P.7, was about range. And that, because it ahd to fight the germans planes still with range to spare. If you read what I said, I mention that the Gladiators had their adversaries short on fuel, as did the Hurricanes/Spitfires during the Battle of Britain, or more recently the Harriers in the Falklands. 
That allowed them to get some leverage against faster, or more modern, aircraft.

On "Internet", I did not get the point through, and you say *EXACTLY* what I mean:
You have two airplanes developed during a 5 year period, which are BOTH obsolete by the time the war starts. And yet, with just half a dozen years they are BOTH brand new. The F.16 has been flying for what, three DECADES? And still a valid piece of hardware.
Airplanes got developed much faster, and were bought in greater quantities than today. They also got "old" much faster, and that's why the Gladiator was already outdated when it got into service.

Where does that leave Poland? With a single - talented - aircraft manufacturer, which already had a P.50 prototype... too little, too late (it still had bad range, and it was not very fast).

The french, I disagree that they "had just" gotten new aircraft - they got careless, and only started working on it seriously AFTER the war started. And then had the bad luck that a few of the new models were not very good.

The british had some airplanes that were not any good, BUT the main difference is that you have a lot of manufacturers, all delivering aircraft with difference concepts, engines, since the 20s. Poland had PZL, I think I could cite all french manufacturers by heart, but I'm sure I would forget some british ones if I tried to.
Besides, they did some things very right: when they had a winner, they stuck to it! The engine that was going to be THE one to replace the Kestrel, was the Peregrine. The Merlin was just an after-thought.
But as soon as they saw the Merlin's advantages, they bet on it instead.

So, at the time you have a lot of different british models, being replaced gradually, and you have the french with outdated aircraft, and the new ones either do no fly, are not easy to build, or are just refused because they want a couple of mph more.
Both countries could have benefited from the experience of the Schneider Trophy and Spanish Civil War, but the french didn't. I think the main reason was they had a lot of political trouble at home, and a conservative command.

Poland had some nice airplanes, from a nice - and only - aircraft manufacturer. 
"Nice guys finish last"

I don't make the rules, just take notice of them...


----------



## Elvis (Jul 27, 2009)

Just read something on the Gladiator the other day...wish I could remember where I saw it.
Anyway, according to that quip, it pre-dates the more modern designs by at least two years and at that time, the more modern designs were still basically "ideas" floating around in their inventors heads.
So at the time the Gladiator had been pretty much worked out on paper, that _was_ the most modern fighter the Brits had yet to come up with.
Of course, by the time the Gladiator was ready for service, those more modern designs were already in the R&D stage, so the Glad ends up being accepted as a stop-gap measure until the modern designs could be formally inducted.
Hopefully, this gives you an indication of just how rapidly aircraft technology was moving at that time (they don't call it the "Golden Age" for nothing).
Remember, modern monoplane designs were actually still fairly "cutting edge", even as late as 1939.
Look at the P-26.
Boeing originally presented the Army with an all-metal monoplane design that featured a one-piece wing and retractable landing gear (and this was in 1932!), however the "brass" didn't like the idea of a front-line fighter exhibiting such "experimental" qualities and only accepted the design if it were altered to a two-piece wing and fixed landing gear, since those designs had been proven reliable back in WWI, and how a "proper" airplane should look.

Anyway, if I'm not mistaken, hadn't the P.7 already morphed into the P.24 by the time the Gladiator came into service?


Elvis


----------



## Waynos (Jul 28, 2009)

I don't mean to take your post apart or anything but you wrote so much it just makes more sense if I reply to chunks of it in turn, se here I go with my take



Condora said:


> As I recall, the only fault I pointed out to the P.7, was about range. And that, because it ahd to fight the germans planes still with range to spare. If you read what I said, I mention that the Gladiators had their adversaries short on fuel, as did the Hurricanes/Spitfires during the Battle of Britain, or more recently the Harriers in the Falklands.
> That allowed them to get some leverage against faster, or more modern, aircraft.



I agree about the range issue, in fact every interceptor acquired by the RAF suffered from short range until we swapped the F-4 Phantom to that role, from strike, in the 1970's (lend lease P-51's excepted).It was almost 'traditional' for us. I was replying to you making the point that both the Gladiator and the P-7 were out of date when they entered service, the Glad was, the P-7 was not, having debuted in 1932.



> On "Internet", I did not get the point through, and you say *EXACTLY* what I mean:
> You have two airplanes developed during a 5 year period, which are BOTH obsolete by the time the war starts. And yet, with just half a dozen years they are BOTH brand new. The F.16 has been flying for what, three DECADES? And still a valid piece of hardware.
> Airplanes got developed much faster, and were bought in greater quantities than today. They also got "old" much faster, and that's why the Gladiator was already outdated when it got into service.



OK, but isn't that all as obvious as saying that planes fly, or fighters should carry guns? It was surely a superfluous point to make?



> The french, I disagree that they "had just" gotten new aircraft - they got careless, and only started working on it seriously AFTER the war started. And then had the bad luck that a few of the new models were not very good.



France began its programme in 1932, aircraft deliveries under this began in 1934, hence the French industry was committed to producing types desiged then. Switching production to more modern types is not an easy thing to do when you have orders to meet. This simply meant that the more modern types were delayed, unfortunately until it was too late. The French had some turkeys, I grant you, as did everyone, but they also had some excellent types that really could have done with appearing 12 months earlier than they did. This is not the military reason for the Fall of France of course, but just a problem their industry faced. another one was that it was nationalised which made it much harder for the French to have anyone designing a Spitfire or Mossie in the background, for example. It was not carelessness, it was the inflexibility in the industry and the commitments made previously that stopped the more modern types appearing sooner. 

I have tried to think of a particular example to illustrate the point I'm making, and while it may not be ideal, I think this will do it;

in 1933 you have two broadly comparable designs, the Hawker Fury monplane and the Dewoitine D.500.
They are almost identical in most important respects. The French order the D.500 into production, the UK, with a minimal air force and no interest in changing things do not. So, in 1934 Hawker, with nothing else to do, have refined the FM into the IM (later the Hurricane) so when the Govt wakes up and requests fighters urgently Hawker are ready to build hundreds of Hurricanes, over in France Dewoitine has to finish its production order before moving on to the latest D.520, which delays the switch. 

I know that is an over simplification of the real situation, its just an illustration of what I'm saying wa the general situation.



> The british had some airplanes that were not any good, BUT the main difference is that you have a lot of manufacturers, all delivering aircraft with difference concepts, engines, since the 20s.



I agree that the number of manufacturers was also a great help, as it meant more factory space, but the concepts being delivered were no more advanced at any given time than equivalent French ones. The main benefit to British rearmament was that, unlike France, very few of them ever got a production order and those that did were very small in number, ie LOTS of vacant factory space exactly when it was needed most.

Look at a bomber in widespread service in 1939 like say the Amiot 143, compared with the BP Overstrand or Fairey Hendon. A bomber command committed to hundreds of them would have been seriously in the **** come 1939 (much moreso than it actually was).



> Poland had PZL,



I agree their industry was nowhere near big enough. I was just pointing out the levelof modernity reached.



> Besides, they did some things very right: when they had a winner, they stuck to it! The engine that was going to be THE one to replace the Kestrel, was the Peregrine. The Merlin was just an after-thought.
> But as soon as they saw the Merlin's advantages, they bet on it instead.



That was FAR from the case, but belongs in a different discussion.



> So, at the time you have a lot of different british models, being replaced gradually, and you have the french with outdated aircraft,



Yes. You have a starved industry suddenly given new life and across the channel a nationalised one with new desigs in the wings, but production commitments to old models getting in the way.




> I don't make the rules, just take notice of them...




Er.....ok, if you like.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 28, 2009)

Elvis said:


> Just read something on the Gladiator the other day...wish I could remember where I saw it.
> Anyway, according to that quip, it pre-dates the more modern designs by at least two years and at that time, the more modern designs were still basically "ideas" floating around in their inventors heads.
> So at the time the Gladiator had been pretty much worked out on paper, that _was_ the most modern fighter the Brits had yet to come up with.
> Of course, by the time the Gladiator was ready for service, those more modern designs were already in the R&D stage, so the Glad ends up being accepted as a stop-gap measure until the modern designs could be formally inducted.
> ...



Hi Elvis. Theres a fascinating story behind the Gladiator and its creation if you look into it. It was designed as a private venture to meet F.7/30 (meaning 1930!) after about SIX different other protoypes, including the first Supermarine Spitfire, had all spectularly failed to meet the requirement. For 1930 it was a very good requirement, requesting as it did 4 guns, 250mph and night fighter capability amongst other things, its just that by the time the govt had decided to ask Gloster to build the Gladiator in any numbers, in 1935, its time had already passed, with the first ones not reaching the squadrons until 1937, which was ridiculous.

A knock on effect of this (and a tie in with my previous post regarding the French experience) is that production of the Gladiator so delayed the appearance of Glosters own 8 gun monoplane, the F.5/34 (which ended up flying in 1938 - 2 years late) , that it never stood a chance of being produced itself, when maybe the govt should have gone with that one in the first place?


----------



## Degs (Jul 28, 2009)

What about this pile. 
Apart from a couple of days when the luftwaffe thought they were chasing hurricanes it was a washout who wants to get stuck in the back with a hydraulic powered turret to get out of on the way down !


----------



## Condora (Jul 28, 2009)

Same system here, I just cut out the longer text.



Waynos said:


> OK, but isn't that all as obvious as saying that planes fly, or fighters should carry guns? It was surely a superfluous point to make?



Uh... nope, I think we have to remember present-day "rules" do not apply.
For instance, now we are only mentioning "guns", period ("yeah, 20mm guns!").
In those days, people were arguing over using 2, 4, 6 or 8 machine-guns. Half a decade later, cannons were being added to the machine-guns.
Evolution was very fast from the late 20s until the late 40s: some young pilot could have started his carreer by flying the "brand-new" Hawker Fury biplane, change to a Hurricane or Spitfire, then a P.51, and be flying a Meteor or Vampire after the war.
Sometimes, current-day pilots get to fly aircaft older than themselves.



Waynos said:


> France began its programme in 1932, aircraft deliveries under this began in 1934, ( loong paragraph...) over in France Dewoitine has to finish its production order before moving on to the latest D.520, which delays the switch.



Well, we agree on the french government and military politics getting in the way.
Where I disagree from you, is on the importance it had (finishing previous contracts before starting new orderes): France WANTED to make new orders, but as they were being finicky over details, they delayed the modernisation process.

Yes, nationalisation of the industry played it's part, but... just an example: between Dewoitine's D.500 and D.520, there were OTHER prototypes presented, which were valid airplanes, but refused by the French Air Force, always on some minor detail.
Almost as someone wanted to show his power to refuse, for personal dislike, or just "because he could".

Just another thing: the range problem I was mentioning was more on the PZL airplanes - the P.50 looked good, but had the same range the P.7 or P.11 did.
But yes, british planes also had that problem.


----------



## ozona39 (Jul 28, 2009)

what was one of the worst but could have been one of the best P-39:

in april 1939 during aircorps trials the 39 prototype did 398 mph could reach 20k ft. in 5 minutes which was 1 minute faster than the p-38 undergoing trials @ the same time. early in 39 spits 109's were performing in the 300 - 355mph range. shortly after the trials the 39 went over 400 mph, then the idiots @ naca (nasa's preedecessor) fixed the plane turned it into the dog it became. by the time of u.s. entry into the war it would have been even better. it's a shame merlin engines were wasted on the p-40 it would have been most interesting to see what a merlin would have done for the 39 especially @ high altitude.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 28, 2009)

The P-39 was much liked by the Russians, and they did quite impressive things with it. A very high percentage of their aces gained their ace status in the aircobra.

It is not one of my favourites either, but I dont think it is anywhere near the worst. It performed a lot of good things at a time when other fdesigns were just a bunch of protoypes.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 28, 2009)

I read over and over and over again that the P-39 was ruined because it didn't have a (two-stage) supercharger. Though it's true that this meant its performance dropped considerably at altitude, it honestly doesn't meant anything at lower altitudes. There were several aircraft which had single-stage and -speed superchargers and turned out ok. I mean, have you ever heard anyone complain about the Zero not having one?? 

The British didn't like them because they were unable to intercept bombers at high altitude... But in most cases: Mediterranean and definitely Eastern Front and the Pacific air combat took place at low altitude! And even in the West, most happened at low altitude. 

So let's keep that in perspective when discussing the P-39. The claim that it sucked because of its lack of a (two-stage) supercharger is just about the most overstated claim on the internet!

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Jul 28, 2009)

My vote would perhaps go for the Fairey Fulmar ... but surprisingly, it was rather succesful in the Mediterranean. Damn!


Kris


----------



## Civettone (Jul 28, 2009)

As a side note, has anyone ever looked at those last biplanes and compared them with the first low-wing fighter aircraft? 
Just think away those wings and you'll see that they were in fact more modern than you might think. 




Just see how Gloster went from Gladiator to F.5/34. They differed just a couple of years. 






Or take a look at the PZL P.24 versus IAR.80








Note with this last comparison: the images give a distorted view: the IAR.80 was much longer because of the longer engine. In fact the fuselage and entire back section was identical in size.

Kris


----------



## Tzaw1 (Jul 28, 2009)

> In fact the fuselage and entire back section was identical in size.


Because back section and tail of IAR 80 was from PZL P.24E builded in Rumania


----------



## Waynos (Jul 28, 2009)

Condora said:


> Uh... nope, I think we have to remember present-day "rules" do not apply.



I agree, I just meant that it didn't need saying, or at least I was surprised that you felt it did. No-one with any interest in our subject with more than a couple of years reading at most would make that error, would they? Maybe I just took it personally (in a 'why would you think you need to tell me that?' sort of way), lets forget that part, agreed?



> Well, we agree on the french government and military politics getting in the way.
> Where I disagree from you, is on the importance it had (finishing previous contracts before starting new orderes): France WANTED to make new orders, but as they were being finicky over details, they delayed the modernisation process.



Not disputing any of that, politics always makes a mess of engineering, nevertheless, I feel that an idle factory is much more likely to produce a new type more quickly than one which has aircraft in various stages of construction lying all over the place. The French also failed to build up a momentum of production as quickly as the British, truth be told, all the reasons we have both given will have played a significant part as there is rarely a single reason for anything.



> Just another thing: the range problem I was mentioning was more on the PZL airplanes - the P.50 looked good, but had the same range the P.7 or P.11 did.
> But yes, british planes also had that problem.



Agreed, but as a defending fighter against a neighbouring country range would not have been that crucial unless the Poles actually managed to turn the fight back on Germany, which of course they never did. Likewise, the short range of the Hurricane and Spitfire was not an issue at all during the Battle of Britain (the range of the Spitfire was deliberately reduced during initial development when smaller fuel tanks were requested than those which R J Mitchell had included) so the short range (of any fighter) would not come as a shock, but would be what was requested. If the ministry then gets the request wrong (and how often has that happened!) its not the plane or the designers fault, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Waynos (Jul 28, 2009)

Despite its outward appearance as a sort of 'Gladiator Monoplane', the F.5/34 was a completely different aeroplane and was Glosters first foray into stressed skin metal airframes (and was much more modern than the Hurricane). I think its a great shame that Gloster was sidelined between the Glad and the Meteor as both the F.5/34 and the twin engined F.9/37 would have been very useful aircraft. I am actually struck by the similarity of the Gloster with the PZL P.50, they are different aircraft, but the concept would seem identical. 

Last thought before closing, take the radial off the front of the F.5/34, remove the cone from the rear fuselage and leave it open, fit a whittle engine, though you will have to make the fuselage slightly fatter, and what does it remind you of now?


----------



## Elvis (Jul 29, 2009)

You know, there's something about that F.5/34 that looks strangely familiar.

Let's take a look at that plane again...






...yeah, definately something very familiar about it...if only I could remember where I've seen one of those before....









































..._Ooooohhh Yeeeeaaaaaahhhh_


 (  )






Elvis


----------



## Condora (Jul 29, 2009)

Waynos said:


> I agree, I just meant that it didn't need saying, or at least I was surprised that you felt it did. No-one with any interest in our subject with more than a couple of years reading at most would make that error, would they? Maybe I just took it personally (in a 'why would you think you need to tell me that?' sort of way), lets forget that part, agreed?



OK by me. I just say it because sometimes it sounds like although everybody knows that, but does not... I lack the word... *grok* it? 
If someone told me when I was a kid that a lot of people would have, not one TV set, but one per room, and a car for each person in the house, I would not bellieve him and think he was crazy. I was normal not having a telephone. You "know" that, but for someone who did not live it, it will be hard to REALLY understand the difference.
Maybe it is just a feeling I get, and it is not right... never mind.



Waynos said:


> Agreed, but as a defending fighter against a neighbouring country range would not have been that crucial unless the Poles actually managed to turn the fight back on Germany, which of course they never did. Likewise, the short range of the Hurricane and Spitfire was not an issue at all during the Battle of Britain (the range of the Spitfire was deliberately reduced during initial development when smaller fuel tanks were requested than those which R J Mitchell had included) so the short range (of any fighter) would not come as a shock, but would be what was requested. If the ministry then gets the request wrong (and how often has that happened!) its not the plane or the designers fault, wouldn't you say?



Yes for the most, but I still believe a defending fighter shouldn't be as short on fuel as the attacking planes.
Radar was not a common piece of hardware those days, neither was radio, so the defending fighters had to rely on "looking for them bogies" the hard way. Even with eyeball-phone line help before they'd scamble, they still would have to search a lot, and lose some advantage they could have against the enemy.
Th brits had RADAR and radio-equiped aircraft, they could use their limited range much better.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 1, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Despite its outward appearance as a sort of 'Gladiator Monoplane', the F.5/34 was a completely different aeroplane and was Glosters first foray into stressed skin metal airframes (and was much more modern than the Hurricane). I think its a great shame that Gloster was sidelined between the Glad and the Meteor as both the F.5/34 and the twin engined F.9/37 would have been very useful aircraft. I am actually struck by the similarity of the Gloster with the PZL P.50, they are different aircraft, but the concept would seem identical.
> 
> Last thought before closing, take the radial off the front of the F.5/34, remove the cone from the rear fuselage and leave it open, fit a whittle engine, though you will have to make the fuselage slightly fatter, and what does it remind you of now?


Good post, I didn't think about the fuselage being stressed skin. 

Perhaps it wasn't the best example for my point I wanted to make, it was just the first which popped up. My point was simply that we need to look beyond the traditional biplane vs single-wing planes. Aircraft development happened gradually and changing wings was just one example of evolution. I-153 vs I-16 is also a good example. 

Kris


----------



## Waynos (Aug 2, 2009)

I agree there. The older Grumman Helldiver also shared features like an enclosed canopy and retractable u/cart with monoplanes whilst itself being a biplane, while on the other hand the Dewoitine D.500 monoplane fighter had an open cockpit and fixed gear. Yes, the dividing line between the Fury and Hurricane generation is a very blurry and squiggly one.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 2, 2009)

Yeah.


The Grumman F-3F and F-4F also come to mind.

Kris


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 2, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Yeah.
> 
> 
> The Grumman F-3F and F-4F also come to mind.
> ...


The F4F does NOT deserve that. I hate the plane in a lot of ways but the Japanese Zero still could not achieve total air superiority against it. Was the Zero one of the worst planes of the war? We won some air battles with the Wildcat, it was tough enough to let us use the Thach Weave, which is a pretty scary maneuver since one guy has to have a Zero on his ass.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 2, 2009)

There is no way the F4F falls under the worst category. It performance against the Zero and other adversaries proves it was quite capable of holding it's own.

The kill ratio the Wildcat achieved overall confirms that.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 3, 2009)

I think, GG and Clay, you have misinterpreted civettones posts. If you read back over the preceding few posts we were discussing the evolution from biplane to monoplane, one of those digressions from the main topic that always happens in long threads. Examples used were Gladiator to F.5/34 and Fury to Hurricane, F3F to F4F is another example of that evolutionary changeover, it was not offered as an example of the worst of anything.


----------



## Condora (Aug 3, 2009)

That kind of "small evolutions on a basic design" has been kept only by Dassault and the russians, most of the other manufacturers change their products a lot, since the 50s.
The designer's touch has almost vanished, in them old days one could tell which manufacturer had designed some aircraft. Now, sometimes you cannot even tell the country of origin...


----------



## Civettone (Aug 5, 2009)

Waynos said:


> I think, GG and Clay, you have misinterpreted civettones posts. If you read back over the preceding few posts we were discussing the evolution from biplane to monoplane, one of those digressions from the main topic that always happens in long threads. Examples used were Gladiator to F.5/34 and Fury to Hurricane, F3F to F4F is another example of that evolutionary changeover, it was not offered as an example of the worst of anything.


exactly! thanks wayons for clarifying that. appreciate it!


Kris


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 5, 2009)

OOps..my bad, didn't see the comparison going on... 

The thread has changed a little since I was last in here 

Thanks for the headsup, Waynos!


----------



## Elvis (Aug 6, 2009)

Waynos said:


> I think, GG and Clay, you have misinterpreted civettones posts. If you read back over the preceding few posts we were discussing the evolution from biplane to monoplane, one of those digressions from the main topic that always happens in long threads. Examples used were Gladiator to F.5/34 and Fury to Hurricane, F3F to F4F is another example of that evolutionary changeover, it was not offered as an example of the worst of anything.


Yeah, that's how I read it, too.
However, the F4F was also a biplane.
It was the F4F-*2*, and all succeeding versions of that model, that were the monoplanes.


Elvis


----------



## Waynos (Aug 6, 2009)

Elvis said:


> Yeah, that's how I read it, too.
> However, the F4F was also a biplane.
> It was the F4F-*2*, and all succeeding versions of that model, that were the monoplanes.
> 
> ...



That was a subtlety that had completely passed me by, thanks for that Elivis.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 6, 2009)

I have to admit that I don't remember that. Really interesting!







Kris


----------



## Elvis (Aug 6, 2009)

Waynos said:


> That was a subtlety that had completely passed me by, thanks for that Elivis.


You're welcome.
Actually, if someone wanted to be a _real_ stickler, they could say I was wrong, as well.
Technically, the biplane was the *X*F4F*-1*.
From what I understand, it was basically a slightly upgraded F3F, with some structural differences and a more powerful engine.
By this time, though, the US Military was hip to the advantages of the monoplane design, and seeing how other nations were started to use it, they figured it was high time they jumped on the bandwagon as well.
The designer (sorry, name escapes me at the momment) was told to go back and redesign the plane and the XF4F-2 was the result.
Quite an amazing little plane, when you get into the whole story.
I think Joe Baugher dedicated a few pages to it at his website.
Great read!


Elvis


----------



## PJay (Aug 26, 2009)

I haven't read all the posts. I'd suggest the Fairy Barracuda should be considered. It's main virtue was any fighter pilot trying to shoot it down missed because they were laughing too hard.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 26, 2009)

The Roc Blackburn was pretty bad.... no forward armament. What was with this plane and the Boulton Paul Defiant? No foward armament just, huge turrets ?


----------



## Elvis (Aug 27, 2009)

PJay said:


> I haven't read all the posts. I'd suggest the Fairy Barracuda should be considered. It's main virtue was any fighter pilot trying to shoot it down missed because they were laughing too hard.


 LOL! 

After a comment like that, I HAD to look this one up






Aviation Trivia called it "_one of the ugliest mass produced aircraft in the world_..." 



Elvis


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 27, 2009)

The Barracuda was not a pretty airplane, but it was far from the "worse." It suffer from some density altitude problems that diminished its performance in the Pacific, but for the most part fulfilled the role it was designed for.


----------



## PJay (Aug 27, 2009)

True it was made to work, apparently it's low speed handling was exemplary.
But, Christonaraft how can anyone design something like that given that they could see what other aircraft looked like? I wonder if the designers ever met?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 27, 2009)

PJay said:


> True it was made to work, apparently it's low speed handling was exemplary.
> But, Christonaraft how can anyone design something like that given that they could see what other aircraft looked like? I wonder if the designers ever met?



I fly airplanes - I could care less if an airplane I had to go into combat with looked like the Bride of Frankenstein's nostrils - as long as it did the job and got me home safe.


----------



## Negative Creep (Aug 28, 2009)

The Barracuda didn't have any forward armament either, which I've always found a bit odd


----------



## Waynos (Aug 28, 2009)

There probably wasn't much point. It can't really manouvre, and there's no benefit to firing a 303 at a ship.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 29, 2009)

All things consider, I think that I would vote for the Roc to be the worst fighter aircraft of WW2...


Kris


----------



## airboiy (Sep 15, 2009)

Am I the only one that thinks an aircraft is bad if it can't fly?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 15, 2009)

airboiy said:


> Am I the only one that thinks an aircraft is bad if it can't fly?



Why would you be the only one to think that? I think you might be missing the point of the thread.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Sep 19, 2009)

> B-17engineer:The Roc Blackburn was pretty bad.... no forward armament. What was with this plane and the Boulton Paul Defiant? No foward armament just, huge turrets ?



Both the Defiant and the Roc were designed in the belief that they would not face fighter opposition; their sole purpose was to shoot down bombers by positioning themselves on the flanks or underneath bomber formations. Part of the specifications for the Defiant reads:


> The speed of modern bombers is so great that it is only worthwhile to attack them under conditions which allow no relative motion between the fighter and its target. The fixed-gun fighter with guns firing ahead can only realise these conditions by attacking the bomber from dead astern...



When the Defiant did encounter Bf 109s this flawed concept cost lives. Boulton Paul did experiment with turning the prototype Defiant into a single-seat fighter without turret, and with wing bays for twelve .303 Brownings. This, the P.94, had a top speed of 360 mph and might have developed into a reasonable fighter.

As for the Roc? 

Has anyone mentioned the Bristol Buckingham? Although it did not reach operational service it would seem that this was fortunate. The Air Ministry canned the design for its poor cockpit layout (shades of the Blenheim), weak armament and the bomb aimer's position which was in a gondola under the fuselage. By the time the prototype flew it was outmoded by the Mosquito which was faster, far more manoeuverable and had a higher operational ceiling. Even as a fighter-bomber, the Mosquito could carry a heavier bomb load. Possibly the Buckingham was not THE worst aircraft of WW2, but it was a clunker nevertheless. 

Its cousin,  the Brigand, was later noted for its ability to shoot itself down, propellers which fell apart, dive brakes which failed and, finally, corroded wing spars which led to a couple of wings falling off. After the corroded spars were discovered the RAF cut its losses and relegated the Brigand to scrapyards or sold them to Pakistan.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 21, 2009)

NZTyphoon said:


> Has anyone mentioned the Bristol Buckingham? Although it did not reach operational service it would seem that this was fortunate. The Air Ministry canned the design for its poor cockpit layout (shades of the Blenheim), weak armament and the bomb aimer's position which was in a gondola under the fuselage. By the time the prototype flew it was outmoded by the Mosquito which was faster, far more manoeuverable and had a higher operational ceiling. Even as a fighter-bomber, the Mosquito could carry a heavier bomb load. Possibly the Buckingham was not THE worst aircraft of WW2, but it was a clunker nevertheless.


Gee, sounds like the Bristol _Buckingham_ was _Kind of a Drag_.

.........

D sorry folks, just couldn't pass that one up )




Elvis


----------



## Civettone (Sep 22, 2009)

IIRC it had 10 MGs and a range of over 5000 km !

And on the Roc ... which bombers were slow enough for it to intercept ? The Gotha B.IV of WW1 ?
Kris


----------



## Juha (Sep 23, 2009)

Hello Cris
Roc, IMHO awful plane, might have been able to catch Do 18, probably the plane, a flying boat, it was designed to fight against. I believed a long time that Rocs never entered into aerial combat but some years ago read an article, in which a pilot or gunner, have forgot which, tells how he fought an unconclusive combat with a He 115. And in last year read from another article that a Roc, flying with 2 Skuas, claimed a Ju 88 off Dunkirk during the evacuation.

Juha


----------



## Vitamin J (Oct 3, 2009)

Vitamin J said:


> I'd have to say the Primary British Fighter that was used in Japan along with the P-40 Tomahawk,The Brewster Buffalo. They were useless agaist the Japanese. cause it was just like the Japanese planes, no armor.... 5 shots with .30 Calibur and PLOP! Fallin like a lead brick....I pray I don't get reincarnated in the past as a British pilot in Japan.[-o< I would never man one of those flying piece of sh**s
> I've seen pictures of P-40's still flying with 70-80 bullet holes.



Sorry it's a little late... What i meant to say was that the P-40 was stationed with the brewster in burma...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 3, 2009)

Vitamin J said:


> I'd have to say the Primary British Fighter that was used in Japan along with the P-40 Tomahawk,The Brewster Buffalo. They were useless agaist the Japanese. cause it was just like the Japanese planes, no armor.... 5 shots with .30 Calibur and PLOP! Fallin like a lead brick....I pray I don't get reincarnated in the past as a British pilot in Japan.[-o< I would never man one of those flying piece of sh**s
> I've seen pictures of P-40's still flying with 70-80 bullet holes.



Read "Bloody Shambles." British Buffaloes did not do as bad any many thought and were defeated maily because of the numbers they had to fight aganist.


----------



## Vitamin J (Oct 3, 2009)

Well, I guess I should blame the pilots, a change in armor, engine or armament 
cause the buffalo did do decent in the hands of the finnish against the russians. (DECENT?!?! ARE YOU SMOKIN' SOMETHIN' SONNY? THEY HAD THE BEST KILL TO LOSS RATIO IN THE WAR!)
Grammy stay out of this!:agrue:
Did the engine, armament or the armor change when they where handed over to the finnish?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 3, 2009)

Vitamin J said:


> Did the engine, armament or the armor change when they where handed over to the finnish?



All of the above.

Except the changes came after the Finns got their planes 

The Finns got 42-43 out of the first 50 built. Everybody else got the newer but heavier versions. Some with questionable, rebuilt engines according to some accounts, or that certain model Cyclone engines had cooling troubles in tropical climates.

They did better than popular legend has it but they did have a number of problems that made them a second best choice to the Wildcat. Short of a total redesign there was no way to fix ALL the problems.


----------



## Elvis (Oct 5, 2009)

The engine change happened because of the sale to Finland.
Brewster had convinced the U.S. Government that the next version of the Buffalo (what became the F2A-2) was going to be much better than the F2A-1's, and so were allowed to sell the remaining unassembled B-239's, along with the Navy's inventory of F2A-1's to Finland, who had been in contact with Brewster about a possible sale of Buffalo's to them.
Brewster, looking at furthering their business, began to shop for overseas contracts at that time, which is how their end of the deal with the Finns started in the first place.
As part of the agreement, those aircraft that were already in the USN's inventory were "de-navalized" and the engine was replaced with an export version of the R-1820 that Wright was already selling overseas.
Those 3-5 paritally completed planes still sitting at the Brewster factory were simply completed as export aircraft and boxed up for the journey to Norway.
As Shortround mentioned, there is some speculation that some of these engines were originally fitted to C-47's and were refurnbed before installation into the Buffalo's (in turn, the C-47's got the new, updated version of the R-1820's that they had been fitted with, prior to the engine swap).
IIRC, a total of 44 B-239's were sent to Finland.
None of the B-239 / F2A-1's were armoured.
Armour, self sealing tanks, more guns and extra fuel capacity were the stuff of 339's and 439's. (-2's and -3's).


Elvis


----------



## Clay_Allison (Oct 5, 2009)

> Armour, self sealing tanks, more guns and extra fuel capacity were the stuff of 339's and 439's. (-2's and -3's).



Ironically, denavalization and being stripped bare of those accessories was what made perform better.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 5, 2009)

The Planes supplied to the Finns never had armour, self-sealing tanks or extra tankage. As built they had one cowl .30 and one cowl .50 with a .50 in each wing. Finns may have changed to four .50s. Later palnes were burdened with haigher ammo capacities.
The planes supplied to the Finns also had lower powered engines than most of the later planes. The first order for Buffaloes was in June of 1938 with the last US Navy order in January 1941. 2 1/2 years later.


----------



## Elvis (Oct 6, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Ironically, denavalization and being stripped bare of those accessories was what made perform better.


Don't mean to sound as if I'm jumpin' all over ya', but that's kinda like sayin' a Playboy centerfold would look better if she were stipped bare.
(  )
To put it another way, "denavalization" and "stipped bare" were kinda one in the same thing, in this case.
The arrester hook was removed. The survival gear was removed. The US Navy's telescopic gun sight was replaced by an older type ring-and-bead sight (which the Finns turned around and removed, then put their own telescopic gun sight on). There was a change with the radio antenna and possibly the radio, too, although I don't remember exactly what the change was.
No Armour on the F2A-1. That's why it handled so well. It was quite light. I think the loaded weight was just under 5100lbs (and something like 3800lbs. empty).
---------------------------------------------------------------



Shortround6 said:


> The planes supplied to the Finns also had lower powered engines than most of the later planes.


Actually, that engine was lower powered than ALL oif the later versions.
The R-1820-G5 was simply an export version of the R-1820-34 that the F2A-1 was already supplied with.
Both engines were listed at 950HP.
The -34 gave way to the -40, I believe, which made 1200HP.
The -G5 was improved via the -G105 (1100HP) and later, the -G205 (1200HP).
Only the -G5 was ever fitted to the Buff, however.
I think the difference between the export engines and the American engines was in that the export engines used an older style cylinder head.
If there were other changes, I'm not aware of them.



Elvis


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 6, 2009)

I bought "America's Hundred-Thousand" last week.

I would highly recomend it to anybody interested in WW II warbirds. Granted it is a single source but on the Buffalo (a 33 page chapter) there is a lot of information.

The book goes into considerable detail on weights of ALL US fighters. THE weight difference between A F2A-1 and a Finnish 239 was about 40lbs in favor of the 239. I would guess for the reasons that Elvis has stated.

The "Improved" F2A-2 jumps the empty weight (no guns, radios etc) from around 3,785 for the -1 to about 4150lbs. Primarily due to the new, higher powered engine. Elvis is also correct in the G-5 model of the engine fitted to the F2A-1 and the Finnish 239s. It had a two speed supercharger but was a direct drive engine (no reduction gear) that swung a 9 ft propeller. The F2A-2 switched to the -40 as Elvis said but the -40 was a geared engine and swung a 10'3" propeller. The weight of the reduction gear and the larger propeller make up a good amount of the weight difference. THE F2A-2 were built without armor although it was added later.

THe Belgian, Dutch and British planes used R-1820-G105A engines which used a different reduction gear ratio than the -40 engine and slightly different propellers, ( British used a Hamilton Standard instead of Curtiss). In these planes armor and some crude fuel tank protection began to be added. 

THe F2A-3 was the real porker of the bunch. Because of the fuel tank construction, the fuel tanks were built intergral with the wing torsion box, it proved very difficult if not impossiable to fit them with self sealing fuel tank liners. This lead to the US Navy and Brewster fitting a 20gal protected tank in each wing and a 40gal protected tank in the fuselage to replace the capacity of the left wing tank. THe left tank stayed, after all it was little more than a few fittings, it was to be used only for ferry flights and other extreme circumstances. The right fuel tank stayed in operation becasue it was fitted with the reserve fuel tap system. Extra ammo was also provided in this model for the guns. About 500rds of .50 cal ammo over the earlier models. A larger, heavier communications suite (by about 35-50lbs) didn't help things either. 

THere were a number of other reasons, some rather minor/some not, why the Brewster was less suitable for combat than some other fighters. putting them all together ment that unless the Brewster had a major redesign it ws better to put it on the shelf and go with something else.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I bought "America's Hundred-Thousand" last week.




Great book. I too would recommend it to anyone. I bought a year ago to use as a reference for an Embry-Riddle term paper I was writing.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 6, 2009)

With regard to the RAAF Buffaloes, I do know efforts were made to improve the performance of the type. They did this by attempts to reduce weight, principally reducing the armament, removing the armour and radios, and even flying with reduced fuel. There was some improvement in performance as a result of this, but the reports received back from the front line units was that the type was nearly useless against the front line types. 

The Japanese gained air superiority over Malaya with just 25 Zeroes, and a similar number of Oscars. I forget how many Nates were involved, but many of these were transferred to Burma after December 23rd. Post war allies revionist histories have tried to portray the Japanese as heavily outnumbering the Allies. This might be true in terms of the overall numbers, but in terms of the critical fighter numbers, the Japanese achieved enormous things with just a handful of aircraft. A big part of that success was the near total failure of the Buffalo to achieve anything meaningful at all. this might be an affront to American sensibilities, but it is the cold hard truth I am afraid.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Oct 6, 2009)

> To put it another way, "denavalization" and "stipped bare" were kinda one in the same thing, in this case.
> The arrester hook was removed. The survival gear was removed. The US Navy's telescopic gun sight was replaced by an older type ring-and-bead sight (which the Finns turned around and removed, then put their own telescopic gun sight on). There was a change with the radio antenna and possibly the radio, too, although I don't remember exactly what the change was.
> No Armour on the F2A-1. That's why it handled so well. It was quite light. I think the loaded weight was just under 5100lbs (and something like 3800lbs. empty).



By "stripped bare of those accessories" I mean extra guns, all armor, and self-sealing tanks. I realize that they might have been "already bare" of most of those things.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 6, 2009)

parsifal said:


> With regard to the RAAF Buffaloes, I do know efforts were made to improve the performance of the type. They did this by attempts to reduce weight, principally reducing the armament, removing the armour and radios, and even flying with reduced fuel. There was some improvement in performance as a result of this, but the reports received back from the front line units was that the type was nearly useless against the front line types.
> 
> The Japanese gained air superiority over Malaya with just 25 Zeroes, and a similar number of Oscars. I forget how many Nates were involved, but many of these were transferred to Burma after December 23rd. Post war allies revionist histories have tried to portray the Japanese as heavily outnumbering the Allies. This might be true in terms of the overall numbers, but in terms of the critical fighter numbers, the Japanese achieved enormous things with just a handful of aircraft. A big part of that success was the near total failure of the Buffalo to achieve anything meaningful at all. this might be an affront to American sensibilities, but it is the cold hard truth I am afraid.



With 50 "fighters" of both Zero and Oscars along with the Nates deployed, the Japanese still outnumbered the RAAF and Dutch fighters in most given battles. I believe this was mentioned in "Bloody Shambles" and JoeB has given details of some of these airbattles. There is no doubt the Buffalo was outclassed by its opposition, there were a small handful of pilots who did achieve some success, this with American sensibilities aside.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 6, 2009)

Something to remember about these battles is that while on occasions the Buffaloes might have posted kill to loss ratios of 2:1 or higher it may not have been against fighters. While shooting down bombers counts as a kill is does not mean that the kill to loss ratio reflects the actual fighter vrs fighter capability of hte Buffalo. I will leave it to those who have better access to the combat reports to decide if there is anything to this theory.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 6, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Something to remember about these battles is that while on occasions the Buffaloes might have posted kill to loss ratios of 2:1 or higher it may not have been against fighters. While shooting down bombers counts as a kill is does not mean that the kill to loss ratio reflects the actual fighter vrs fighter capability of hte Buffalo. I will leave it to those who have better access to the combat reports to decide if there is anything to this theory.


I believe you might be correct. If I get a chance I'll go through Bloody Shambles for some of the documented airbattles over Malaya.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 6, 2009)

Parsifal,

You state "The Japanese gained air superiority over Malaya with just 25 Zeroes, and a similar number of Oscars. I forget how many Nates were involved, but many of these were transferred to Burma after December 23rd. Post war allies revionist histories have tried to portray the Japanese as heavily outnumbering the Allies. This might be true in terms of the overall numbers, but in terms of the critical fighter numbers, the Japanese achieved enormous things with just a handful of aircraft. A big part of that success was the near total failure of the Buffalo to achieve anything meaningful at all. this might be an affront to American sensibilities, but it is the cold hard truth I am afraid."

Can you please cite sources for your so-called "truth"? Here are some facts from Japanese and UK original sources as pertaining to the start of the Malayan campaign:

Total number of Ki-43s deployed = 59 
Total number of Ki-27s deployed = 108
Total number of Buffalos deployed = 63 (15 per Sqn for 243, 488 and 453 Sqns, and 18 for 21 Sqn).

The Zeros only appeared very late in the campaign but, even if we take your figures, that adds another 25 fighters against the dwindling number of defenders, most of whom were lost in flying accidents or destroyed on the ground rather than shot down in combat by fighters. Also, a large number of Nates continued operations over Malaya - basing in Thailand enabled the IJAAF to retask fighters between Burma and Malaya with relative ease (interior lines of communication etc) and, even late in the Malayan campaign, Nates were actively involved in defending recently-captured airfields in southern Malaya. 

The Commonwealth fighter squadrons in Malaya were outnumbered by almost 4 to 1 in fighters alone. THey had no comprehensive early warning system, were equipped with mediocre aircraft and staffed with pilots who were mostly fresh out of the training system. What on earth do you expect could the Commonwealth fighter defences have done with these sorts of resources when faced with the elite of the IJAAF (and yes, the Ki-43 units were the best which is why they got the Ki-43s first)? Even Spitfires would have failed under these conditions so to roast the Buffalo as, in large part, a victim of circumstance, is hardly fair.

I will agree that the Buffalo was far from a war-winner but given the odds, I still think the Commonwealth units in Malaya did a remarkable job (and that includes the ground crews). More could have been done had AHQ Far East concentrated its fighter strength on neutralising the Japanese-held airfields in Thailand but they were playing a waiting game in hopes of reinforcement and by the time they realised no reinforcements were coming it was too late.

By the way, I'm not American so no sensibilities affronted here!

Kind regards,
Mark H


----------



## Juha (Oct 6, 2009)

Finns installed armoured seat to their B-239s, IIRC they also put some self-sealing to the tanks nearest to the pilot later, but that I must check from a/c papers. And Finns also installed reflector gun sights to their Brewsters fairly early.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Oct 6, 2009)

Hi Buffnut and welcome

Good general references in English are virtually impossible to locate, and because nearly all the post war accounts of losses and actions are based on one or two wartime allied intelligence reports, they need to be treated with a great deal of circumspection. This probably means that virtually everything you have read is innaccurate and wrong ( I apologise for the assumption I make there....perhaps yopu can read Japanese and have consulted their official histories)....

To help you understand what I am on about, have a look at this quick summary....it describes the problem better than I can

http://www.warbirdforum.com/jaaf.htm

Reasonable sources do exist, however, to get a basic idea of the initial order of battle, you should look here

Imperial Japanese Army, 8.12.1941

Dr Niehorster is reasonably accurate, and as you can see only 35 Oscars were available to 3rd hikoshidan, grouped in the 64th Chutai (Wing). If your figures are referring to the total commitment over some time period, that may explain the discrepancy, but ther were definately not fifty (or so) Ki-43s available to the 3rd air fleet (or indeed the entire JAAF) at this time. Those 35 represented the entire strength of the type, and as such that 35 could never be used as a total force. For the first month of the war, the japanese were lucky to have more than 20 serviceable at any given time. 

The page I sent you to does not cover the IJNs contribution to the battle. Still using Niehorster resources, I direct you to this page 

22nd Naval Air Flotilla, 11th Air Fleet, Imperial Japanese Navy, 7.12.1941

As you can see, the 22nd flotilla had deployed to Indochina before the war, and this unit included the Yamada detachment with 25 aircraft. given that only the zeroes of this unit were capable of reaching Malya from Indochina, that no fighters were deployed into Burma until after 23rd December, and that only one wing was deployed into Malaya itself (until after December), it was this small force of zeroes that decimated the allied forces. They were most definately ther from the beginning, incidentally, Japanese records are very clear about that....

Ther are good sources for Japanese strengths, losses and deployments, but they are in Japanese, mostly. A few are beginning to be translated, but they are meeting voracious criticism, because they completely upturn the traditional histories based on those faulty intell reports that I mentioned.

Some examples that I know of include: Dai 22 Koku Sentai sento shoho (Battle Reports of the 24th flotilla) and the Daitoa senshi minami taieiyo sakusen (greater East Asia war operations summary) being amongst them. Several Japanese sources have been translated, but the process is occurring slowly


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 6, 2009)

Hi Parsifal,

Thanks for responding. From the ORBAT charts you kindly shared, it seems we are in broad agreement over the number of Ki-27s available for the invasion of Malaya and Thailand (approx 108 in total). The main discrepancy lies in the 59th Sentai which was in the process of re-equipping from Ki-27s to Ki-43s in Nov-Dec 41. The ORBAT you provided lists that unit as only having Ki-27s when, in reality, it had a mixed complement of aircraft. Therefore, my figure of 59 Ki-43s is probably not too far off the mark, although I agree not all would have been available simultaneously.

I firmly disagree that the IJN's Zeros were the only fighters capable of reaching Malaya. They were not involved in any way in the early invasion effort into southern Thailand and northern Malaya. It was the IJAAF Ki-43s that spearheaded efforts to gain air superiority over northern Malaya operating from 2 newly-created airfields on the island of Phu Quoc. These operations (known as "aerial exterminating action") included bomber escort, air interception and airfield strafing missions and were pivotal to the success of the Japanese landings on the east coast of the Kra Isthmus. (See Yokoyama, Hisayuki (2004), ‘Air Operational Leadership on the Southern Front’ in Bond, Brian and Tachikawa, Kyoichi eds., British and Japanese Military Leadership in the Far Eastern War 1941-1945 (London and New York: Frank Cass) for more information on these tactics). The Ki-43s and Ki-27s operating from Phu Quoc and the nearby airfield(s) of Kampong Trach and Tani Kep were speedily redeployed to Thai airfields as soon as they were taken by the IJA, enabling them to sustain pressure on the RAF in Malaya.

Thanks for an interesting discussion...

Kind regards,
Mark H


----------



## Juha (Oct 6, 2009)

On the self-sealing fuel tanks nearest to the cockpit in B-239s of FAF. I have digiphotos on the papers of 3 B-239s. The set of one didn't include repairs and maintenance cards, one can see from the cards of the two others, that the work is ordered in Aug 40, but is done only to one in Dec 43, installation of reflector sight was ordered Dec 40, and done rather soon after that, back and head armour was ordered March 41 and done rather soon after that.

Juha


----------



## Elvis (Oct 7, 2009)

Juha said:


> On the self-sealing fuel tanks nearest to the cockpit in B-239s of FAF. I have digiphotos on the papers of 3 B-239s. The set of one didn't include repairs and maintenance cards, one can see from the cards of the two others, that the work is ordered in Aug 40, but is done only to one in Dec 43, installation of reflector sight was ordered Dec 40, and done rather soon after that, back and head armour was ordered March 41 and done rather soon after that.
> 
> Juha


Its my understanding that one of the first things the Finns did to the B-239's was to chznge out the gun sight.
I just don't know if the work was doine in Norway, where the planes originally landed, or whether that work occurred in Finland, upon those planes arrival.
I forgot about the armoured seats. Thanks for the reminder.


Elvis


----------



## proton45 (Oct 7, 2009)

buffnut453 said:


> Hi Parsifal,
> 
> Thanks for responding. From the ORBAT charts you kindly shared, it seems we are in broad agreement over the number of Ki-27s available for the invasion of Malaya and Thailand (approx 108 in total). The main discrepancy lies in the 59th Sentai which was in the process of re-equipping from Ki-27s to Ki-43s in Nov-Dec 41. The ORBAT you provided lists that unit as only having Ki-27s when, in reality, it had a mixed complement of aircraft. Therefore, my figure of 59 Ki-43s is probably not too far off the mark, although I agree not all would have been available simultaneously.
> 
> ...




According to the book, "Japanese Army Air Force Fighter Units And Their Aces", the 59th was equipped with the Ki-43 in June of 1941...and by December of 41 had a total of 21 battle worthy Ki-43lb's ready for combat. While the 64th sentai had 35 (equipped in Aug 41). I can't find any reference to any combat claims made by the Ki-27 for either of these units made after June 41, and August 41 respective...

Available fighters for the combined Malaya-Burma campaign...

1st Sentai 42 Ki-27
11 Sentai 39 ki-27
77 Sentai 27 ki-27
4th Chutai 9 "" 
=117 Ki-27

This number is in addition to the 56 battle ready Ki-43's of the 64th 59th


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 7, 2009)

Thanks Proton45. I had forgotten about that reference. I don't think we need get overly excited about the level of precision in these numbers - I think we can fairly safely say that there were 55-60 Ki-43s and 108-120 Ki-27s. Irrespective, this is far more than Parsifal's "approx 25" fighters and my previous post refutes his claim that 25 Zeros did all the damage in the fight for air superiority over Malaya - they weren't even committed to operations over the Malay peninsula until mid-Jan 42.

The history of the Ki-27 units over Malaya is very, VERY sparsely documented. We know that they flew CAPs over the invasion convoys from Phu Quoc Island during the early stages of the campaign, and there are references to them performing airfield fighter defence in Thailand and in southern Malaya but there are few details beyond this. We know a number were used in Burma but that was much later in December after the airfields in northern Malaya had been abandoned by the RAF and taken over by the IJAAF. The activities of the Ki-27 units is one area where I wish further research was focussed - there are just too many aircraft available to assume they only did airfield defence, and I can't see any commander letting his fighters sit on the ground in the middle of a campaign.

Kind regards,
Mark


----------



## Juha (Oct 7, 2009)

Hello Elvis
The B-239s were shipped to Bergen in Norway, then moved by rail to Trollhättan in Sweden, where they were assembled and test flown, then flown to Finland. Finns got them without USN equipment, ie without weapons; anyway Finns bought new ones from US, dials, sights etc. That was a bit surprise to Finns who had thought that they have bought complete a/c. Finns bought from GB Aldis telescope sights, and these were put to planes first. As I wrote earlier, in Dec 40 it was ordered to change the Aldis to Revi 3c/Väisälä reflector sights and this was done during the early months of 41.

Juha


----------



## Elvis (Oct 7, 2009)

Juha,

So you're saying that the gun sight was changed twice?
I only recall seeing referrnce to one change.
Regardless, sounds like the work was done in Finland. Correct?
Also, you're saying that all B-239's sent to Finland were _brand-new_ planes?
If so, I have a problem with that statement.



Elvis


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 7, 2009)

From accounts I have read The US navy agreed to give up planes on production line or to be built against original order to the Finns in return for a better price on on the "Improved" F2A-2 model to be delivered later. Not sure of that but the Finns could have gotten both a few used aircraft and a bunch of "new" aircraft. In any case they would have been knocked down and crated for shipment. Which would require assembly and test flights on the other end.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 7, 2009)

FYI, the book "Aces Wild" by Robert Winston provides a first-hand account by a Brewster test pilot who flew the Finnish aircraft as they came off the re-assembly line in Sweden. 

Mark H


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 7, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> From accounts I have read The US navy agreed to give up planes on production line or to be built against original order to the Finns in return for a better price on on the "Improved" F2A-2 model to be delivered later. Not sure of that but the Finns could have gotten both a few used aircraft and a bunch of "new" aircraft. In any case they would have been knocked down and crated for shipment. Which would require assembly and test flights on the other end.



That's pretty much what _F2A Buffalo in Action_ by squadron/signal states.


----------



## Juha (Oct 8, 2009)

Hello Elvis
Quote:” Also, you're saying that all B-239's sent to Finland were brand-new planes?”

Where I wrote that? Anyway, as Shortround wrote, most of the planes were new ones. USN had got 11 F2A-1s, of which 9 were delivered on USS Saratoga, to VF-3, or was it VF-2. Finns got these 11 and the 33 others were new ones.

All planes arrived to Trollhättan without sights. I don’t know, were Aldis sights installed at Trollhättan or in Finland. Revi 3Cs and Väisälä reflector sights were installed in Finland in early 41.

Juha

CORRECTION: All FAF B-239s were new, USN had ordered 54 F2A-1s, got 11, FAF got the rest, that is 43, plus one "proto" which was a modified plane from the Belgian order OR FAF got 38 de-navalised F2A-1s and 6 from Belgian order. This is a bit unclear, I have rather plenty material on B-239 but don't have time to go through it now, and the the sources I checked gave these 2 explanations.

On sights, from the photo on one B-239 damaged when landing at the end of ferry flight from Sweden, one can see that it had bead and ring sight. I have photos on B-239s soon after arrival but not time to dig them up, but it seems that during assembly in Sweden they got bead and ring sight, fairly soon after arrival to Finland they got Aldis telescopic sights, I have photo(s) that show that configuration, and during the early 41 they got reflector sight.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Oct 8, 2009)

buffnut453 said:


> Thanks Proton45. I had forgotten about that reference. I don't think we need get overly excited about the level of precision in these numbers - I think we can fairly safely say that there were 55-60 Ki-43s and 108-120 Ki-27s. Irrespective, this is far more than Parsifal's "approx 25" fighters and my previous post refutes his claim that 25 Zeros did all the damage in the fight for air superiority over Malaya - they weren't even committed to operations over the Malay peninsula until mid-Jan 42.
> 
> The history of the Ki-27 units over Malaya is very, VERY sparsely documented. We know that they flew CAPs over the invasion convoys from Phu Quoc Island during the early stages of the campaign, and there are references to them performing airfield fighter defence in Thailand and in southern Malaya but there are few details beyond this. We know a number were used in Burma but that was much later in December after the airfields in northern Malaya had been abandoned by the RAF and taken over by the IJAAF. The activities of the Ki-27 units is one area where I wish further research was focussed - there are just too many aircraft available to assume they only did airfield defence, and I can't see any commander letting his fighters sit on the ground in the middle of a campaign.
> 
> ...



Hi Buffnut

I don’t think you can safely assume anything, because your assumptions and quotes appear to heavily rely on discredited information, which I pointed out to you previously, but which you are preferring to adhere to at this point

Far from being outnumbered, the Buffaloes in Malaya in those opening days enjoyed a superiority of about 1.3:1 over the opposition. And that includes the Zeroes which you say were not used over Malaya until after the 21st, but which Japanese records say were flying missions and engaging and shooting down Allied aircraft from the the first week of the campaign. I am looking for referenced source material, which i know that I have on this, but cant quite place right at this minute. 

The 59th Sentai at Hankou was selected as the first unit to receive the new Nakajima Ki-43 Type 1 Fighter ‘Hayabusa’ (‘Oscar’). The unit returned to Japan during June-August 1941 to collect some 30 examples of the Ki-43-Ia, which were then flown to Hankou. During these ferry flights and in training flights, folds began appearing in the wings following sharp turns and several mid-air disintegrations occurred. Four or five aircraft out of 20 examined proved to have defects in the wing construction, and at once the Sentai’s ground personnel attempted to install reinforcement. Their efforts proved to be in vain, and the major part of the unit therefore returned to Tachikawa in October to convert to the –Ib model. 

The second unit to re-equip with the Nakajima Ki-43 was the 64th Sentai. Pilots returned to the homeland in August. From the end of August, receiving their new aircraft at Fussa, near Tokyo. Major Tateo Kato, understood fully why the Ki-43 had been adopted, and at once stressed training in over-sea navigation and long distance flights. Consequently the 64th Sentai pilots were able to achieve ranges of 700 km, whilst those of the 59th Sentai, who had not trained in the same way, could manage only 600 km. However the 64th Sentai remained dissatisfied with the integrity of the wings, and subsequently flew to Tachikawa for to be properly strengthened, then flying back to Canton in November. 

I will concede that the 59th Sentai was equipped with Ki-43s, but you are distorting the facts by attempting to say these aircraft were available for operationjs over Malaya from the beginning. They were not, due to their range limitations, moreover none of the units were formally transferred from their initial base of operations until after the 21st. Despite any thing you have read, these aircraft were physically incapable of reaching Malaya until after that date. Their topscoring ace of the period, for example a captain Hideki (from memory ???) did not undertake his first mission over Malaya until the 21st....there may have been isolated participation before that date, but the overwhelming majority of the Sentai did not contribute to the offensive over Malaya until the latter part of December. Because of their lack of overwater training, and relative inexperience on the type (having only received the airworthy versions of the type in late October) it was not committed to much combat until later in the campaign. You need to consult the Japanese records to understand this...Allied records consistently misrepresent this. 


Moreover, the 64th Sentai’s Oscars continued to experience technical difficulties that are synonymous with the introduction of a new type. As I said, there were seldom more than 25 Ki 43s available from 64th at any given time during these early campaigns….a similar number to the 25 Zeroes of the Yamada detachment. These few aircraft flew rings around the buffaloes that opposed them, and shot them out of the skies with ease. 
In December the 59th Sentai flew its new Ki-43-Ibs to Kompong Trach in Indochina the day before the outbreak of the Pacific War. I attach a link to allow you the opportunity to determine just where they were. With an effective maximum range of 600km, and a base of operations effectively beyond that range, it should come as no surprise that the 59th could not get into battle until much later

Kampong Trach Region Map: Kampong Trach — Phumi Veal Taping | Cambodia Google Satellite Maps 

The 64th Sentai moved to Duong Dong, Idu Phu Quoc, in December. I didn’t check Duong Dong airfield, but Phu Quoc is at least 150 km closer to Malaya than Kompok Trach. With an effective range of 700km, and 150 km advantage in airbase location, it should come as no surprise that it was solely the 64th that flew over Malaya up until the 21st December, when the first air units began redeployment. All references to relocation of fighter units from the 3rd Hikoshidan before that date should be treated as pure allied propaganda. They simply did not happen……

The Japanese deployments in Indochina were as follows:
The JAAF (3rd Air Division) was at the following places in Indochina: 
Konpong Trach, Konpong Chong, Duong Dong, Sien Reap, Kurakar, Kukan, Phnom Penh. 

The JNAF (22nd Air Flotilla) was at the following places in Indochina: 
Saigon, Thu Dau Moi, Soc Trang. 

I concede that I do not know where Kukan airfield is , but it was not used by the 59th in any case


----------



## Elvis (Oct 8, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Elvis
> Quote:” Also, you're saying that all B-239's sent to Finland were brand-new planes?”
> 
> Where I wrote that?


In the post you wrote.

Quote: "_Hello Elvis
The B-239s were shipped to Bergen in Norway, then moved by rail to Trollhättan in Sweden, where they were assembled and test flown, then flown to Finland. Finns got them without USN equipment, ie without weapons; *anyway Finns bought new ones from US*, dials, sights etc...._"



Juha said:


> CORRECTION:...USN had ordered 54 F2A-1s, got 11, FAF got the rest, that is 43, plus one "proto" which was a modified plane from the Belgian order OR FAF got 38 de-navalised F2A-1s and 6 from Belgian order. This is a bit unclear, I have rather plenty material on B-239 but don't have time to go through it now, and the the sources I checked gave these 2 explanations.
> 
> On sights, from the photo on one B-239 damaged when landing at the end of ferry flight from Sweden, one can see that it had bead and ring sight. I have photos on B-239s soon after arrival but not time to dig them up, but it seems that during assembly in Sweden they got bead and ring sight, fairly soon after arrival to Finland they got Aldis telescopic sights, I have photo(s) that show that configuration, and during the early 41 they got reflector sight.
> 
> Juha


Yep, that sounds better.
Thank you for checking into that.
I apologize for the misstatement earlier. I had remembered the numbers incorrectly.
When you stated that they got "new ones", that suggests (to me, anyway) that they went straight from Brewster's assembly line to Finland, and that's not totally true. Some went to the USN first. This makes those planes "used", even if only slightly so.
However, you make a good point. MOST of those planes were indeed, new and I failed to remember that fact.

I have a very good magazine article on the Buffalo's expderience in Finland, and it starts off with some history of Buff from its design and inception into the USN.
Unfortunately, I have recently moved and threw a lot of things out, including some old magazines.
I hope I still have that article, but if I do, its buried in a box somewhere.
Still, I will see if I can find it. If so, I'll check the article and see what it says, if anything, about the Belgian order.


Elvis


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 8, 2009)

Hi Parsifal,

I really don’t want this discussion to be overly contentious – I welcome robust discussions and arguments but I must contest your assertion that my “assumptions and quotes appear to heavily rely on discredited information”. Since most of my research comes from original, contemporary sources or, where necessary, from Japanese researchers, which of my information is discredited and by whom? If you’re referring to Yasuho Izawa, who authored the definitive record of IJAAF fighter units, he is recognized as a pre-eminent historian of WWII Japanese military aviation. Several contemporary British and Japanese sources agree that there was a substantial build-up of IJAAF fighters on Phu Quoc and nearby on mainland Indochina prior to the invasion of Thailand and Malaya, and that these fighters were used to gain air superiority over northern Malaya and provide air cover for the invasion convoys. 

To clarify the airfields situation, Duong Dong and Kukan were the 2 new airfields created on the western coast of Phu Quoc. These were the closest airfields to the Malaya coast and were an ideal location from which to launch fighter operations. You state “I will concede that the 59th Sentai was equipped with Ki-43s, but you are distorting the facts by attempting to say these aircraft were available for operations over Malaya from the beginning”. I am not distorting facts but reporting Japanese sources on this subject. A former Ki-43 pilot who participated in these actions stated that the 64th and 59th Sentais deployed to 2 airfields on Phu Quoc on 3 Dec 41 and were tasked to escort bombing missions, conduct fighter sweeps and strafe airfields. A Japanese Times and Advertiser article from Apr 42 described how, without consulting Tokyo or French authorities, the IJAAF built an airfield in fifteen days ‘on an island close to Kota Bharu’ which, when completed in late November 1941, played a ‘vitally important role in effecting a landing at Kota Bharu for the Japanese Air Units could operate freely from the newly acquired base’. This island was Phu Quoc. Colonel Tsuji saw the Phu Quoc airfields as, ‘A mighty mainspring in accomplishing perfect protection of our convoy of transports and air cover for the landing of our troops at Singora, Patani, and Kota Bharu’. Finally, I refer you again to my previous post and the reference to “aerial exterminating action” over northern Malaya which research was undertaken by a Japanese historian (who, coincidentally, was also a JASDF officer). All these sources—which, you will note, are Japanese not western—agree on the role of the Ki-43s (of both 64th and 59th Sentais) operating from Phu Quoc from the first week of Dec 41 onwards.

You also claim that, “None of the units were formally transferred from their initial base of operations until after the 21st. Despite any thing you have read, these aircraft were physically incapable of reaching Malaya until after that date” Why were the fighters “physically incapable” of reaching Malaya before 21 Dec but suddenly were capable after that date? This makes no sense to me. IJAAF fighters WERE in Malaya at least a week before the date you cite. Allied pilots encountered fixed-undercarriage fighters over northern Malaya on 9 Dec which patently cannot be Zeros. Some 40 fighters were observed by RAF recce aircraft at Kota Bahru airfield on 15 Dec and 44 fighters were observed at Sungei Patani on 19 Dec. Or are these contemporaneous reconnaissance reports part of the “allied propaganda” to which you referred? 

One final point to ponder. You indicate that it was the Japanese fighter force that was outnumbered by Buffalos. At the time of the Japanese invasion, there were 18 Buffalos of 21 Sqn and 3 Buffalos of 243 Sqn in northern Malaya. The units in Singapore were tasked with air defence of the island, convoy patrolling and fleet air defence support. Thus we have 21 Buffalos against 150+ Japanese fighters. The IJAAF was able to concentrate it’s fighter force and dictate the tempo of the campaign because (a) they had sufficient numbers of aircraft to accomplish the roles assigned to them, and (b) Malaya lacked an adequate integrated air defence system. To put the situation in context, the RAF had 4 squadrons of fighters to defend a territory the size of England against an adversary that could (and did) choose the time and location of its attacks. In closing, you state that “These few aircraft flew rings around the buffaloes that opposed them, and shot them out of the skies with ease.” Here are the real Buffalo loss figures (derived from contemporary sources):

Shot down by enemy fighters: 21
Shot down by other enemy action: 9
Destroyed on the ground: 30+ (only lists known airframes destroyed – actual figure likely to be higher)
Destroyed in Accidents: 49 (20 pre-war, 29 from 8 Dec onwards)

That leaves approx 40 airframes unaccounted for, most of which were abandoned either in northern Malaya, on Singapore or in the Dutch East Indies (the RAF tends to be quite punctilious about recording human casualties but less so about abandoned hunks of metal, hence we can be reasonably certain about the numbers of aircraft shot down compared to the total destroyed on the ground or abandoned). 

Apart from vague references to things you remember reading, you have not cited a single source for your assertion that IJN Zeros were active over Malaya from the beginning of the campaign. Which aircraft did they shoot down? You continue to state that the main Japanese fighter force comprised 25 Zeros and roughly the same number of Ki-43s and yet there is ample evidence that far more fighters were available and were used – the additional 110 Ki-27s, for example. Despite ample contemporary evidence to the contrary (eg RAF photo recce reports identifying 60-80 fighters operating from airfields in northern Malaya from mid-Dec 41 onwards), you insist that IJAAF fighters were not deployed to Thailand or northern Malaya before 21 Dec. I’m not making this stuff up – I spent many years researching primary sources to come to my conclusions. I would welcome seeing the sources you are citing so we can achieve a more comprehensive understanding of what all Japanese air arms were doing in early Dec 41. 

Kind regards,
Mark H


----------



## proton45 (Oct 9, 2009)

buffnut453 said:


> Apart from vague references to things you remember reading, you have not cited a single source for your assertion that IJN Zeros were active over Malaya from the beginning of the campaign. Which aircraft did they shoot down? You continue to state that the main Japanese fighter force comprised 25 Zeros and roughly the same number of Ki-43s and yet there is ample evidence that far more fighters were available and were used – the additional 110 Ki-27s, for example. Despite ample contemporary evidence to the contrary (eg RAF photo recce reports identifying 60-80 fighters operating from airfields in northern Malaya from mid-Dec 41 onwards), you insist that IJAAF fighters were not deployed to Thailand or northern Malaya before 21 Dec. I’m not making this stuff up – I spent many years researching primary sources to come to my conclusions. I would welcome seeing the sources you are citing so we can achieve a more comprehensive understanding of what all Japanese air arms were doing in early Dec 41.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Mark H




Not that you need help in this discussion...but i thought I would add to the information you supplied. Aside from the Pearl Harbor attacks, the only engagements that the A6M was involved in was the campaign on the Philippines. Zero's of the 3rd and Tainan Kokutais escorted bombers that attacked Clark and Iba air bases on December 8th. These fighters where based in Taiwan. By December 22nd the 3rd kokutai had moved from Takao airbase in Taiwan to Davao airbase on Mindanao. On December 28th, from their airbase on Davao, the 3rd Kokutai launched 7 A6m's with reconnaissance aeroplanes to the island of Tarakan on the northeast coast of Borneo...here is the first time that they encountered 9 Dutch Brewster Buffaloes.


----------



## proton45 (Oct 9, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Hi Buffnut
> 
> I don’t think you can safely assume anything, because your assumptions and quotes appear to heavily rely on discredited information, which I pointed out to you previously, but which you are preferring to adhere to at this point




Are you saying that my information is discredited? The numbers I quoted are from a reputable book...one of the authors (Christopher Shores) is even cited in an article you linked. http://www.warbirdforum.com/jaaf.htm The only thing Buffnut comes even close to "assuming" is the aerocraft numbers I quoted...


----------



## JoeB (Oct 11, 2009)

proton45 said:


> Are you saying that my information is discredited? The numbers I quoted are from a reputable book...one of the authors (Christopher Shores) is even cited in an article you linked. The only thing Buffnut comes even close to "assuming" is the aerocraft numbers I quoted...


I agree the ORBAT info is pretty clear in for example Bloody Shambles, and most of the JAAF info in that book is straight out of Vol 34 of Senshi Sosho, the Japanese official history volume covering JAAF ops in that theater and period (likewise relevant volume for JNAF info). So I agree with your and Buffnut's side of the argument there.

However, comparison of Japanese and Allied info as in BS vol I. gives the outcomes of combats case by case; I don't see a reason to generalize based on total losses, or even to generalize based on total order of battle strengths. Overall numbers of course tend to affect the final outcome, one side may run out of planes, the other may have plenty left: no more air fighting! . But ORBAT numbers don't necessarily affect the numerical odds in particular combats or the average combat. One side with 100 planes other with 50 does not mean one side outnumbered the other 2:1 in the typical combat, that's a lot more complicated function of how each side organized itself, what missions it was trying to perform, etc. 

So, looking at invidual combat as reported in BS Vol 1., Parsifal is actually at least partly right. The first combat which saw Buffalo's meet Type 1's was Dec 21 1941, according to that book, even though the 59th and 64th Sentai's were operational in the theater before that. And I've given before the results I counted up from that book for Buffalo's, including all the early campaigns for RAF not just Malaya, and including KNIL. I counted 44 Buffalo's downed by Japanese fighters, 12.5 by Zeroes (indeed later in the campaign), 16 by Type 1's, 15.5 by Type 97's, 2 (Dutch) by Type 0 Observation Seaplanes acting as fighters. In return the book gives 4 Zeroes, 4.5 Type 1's, 1.8 Type 97's and no Type 0 Obs downed by Buffaloes in those same battles. The fractions are prorating by me where more than one type was present on each side; I ignore combats where Shores et al don't report results from each side (but that's only a few combats). But let's be clear, this is info from Shores et al. that anyone can go check, not some proprietary info of mine.

I know from reading parts of SS Vol 34 that the JAAF accounts are sometimes vague (in contrast the original JNAF records are on the web now, there's no doubt about the completeness of those). But look at the context: by same source and counting method the Hurricane did no better than the Buffalo in the same period v Zero or Type 1; it did do better v the Type 97 but still less than a 1:1 kill ratio. And I recently counted up Hurricane v Type 1 results for late 1942 (when air combat involving Hurricanes resumed)-end of 1943 in "Air War for Burma" by the same authors the same way, and was surprised to find that even in that later period the Hurricane's kill ratio v the Type 1 hardly improved from the early 1942 campaign, about 1:4.5 in the later period v 1:5 in the earlier period. Those JAAF units were simply more effective (and various new Allied units always faced the same more and more experienced 64th Sentai, the most dangerous unit). That's the only reasonable conclusion IMO. Neither the Buffalo as an airplance nor the special handicaps in early war for the RAF/CW units seems to have been the dominant factor in *fighter-fighter kill ratio* problem of the RAF in the Far East through 1943 (which of course also included Spitfire units in Australia v Zeroes in 1943). Again, the overall outcome of air campaigns was surely affected by numbers, overrunning of enemy a/f's etc. The RAF could continue for months on end at short end of a kill ratio v Type 1's in Burma late 1942- end of '43, with plenty of replacement a/c, bases secure, and losses of pilots considerably less than those of a/c. But kill ratio is still a useful measure of a fighter unit's effectiveness, IMO. Overall numerical superiority or your own ground forces seizing enemy airfields are always good things, but it's always better if you're also more effective in air combat as measured by kill ratio.

To review my position on this particular thread, the Buffalo was quite unsuccessful against Japanese fighters, that's no myth. But, since many other Allied types also were in 1942, and some were even in 1943, I don't think the Buffalo can be singled out.

Joe


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 11, 2009)

Joe,

Thank you for a balanced contribution to the discussion. I entirely agree that total numbers available cannot be equated to the numbers of combatants meeting in specific combats but that, too, raises issues. Such a tactical level of examination elevates other factors, aside from mere aircraft performance, to importance in the discussion - weather, relative positions of the opposing units, unit leadership and coherence. For example, it is possible for a formation of relatively few aircraft to defeat a larger formation if the conditions are right (attacking from up-sun or from a blind spot). In such discussions, aircraft performance is but one parameter within a complex range of variables that often cannot be measured empirically, hence the complexity of examining fighter engagement. For example, in the case of the 22 Dec engagement over Kuala Lumpur, the only massed engagement between Buffalos and Ki-43s during the entire campaign, the Buffalos were climbing up into the fight while the Ki-43s had the height advantage. 

There is also a tendency to confuse the counting method (ie interchanging total ORBAT count with aircraft that are operationally available for use). For example, several sources declare that 21 Sqn had only 4 Buffalos remaining after the initial IJAAF onslaught on 8 Dec 41 and yet it seems clear that this was probably the number of aircraft operationally available from a total of 8-11 airframes (depending on the date). This brings in the additional factor of availability, maintainability into the equation and the logistics train to support the front-line squadrons. 

As for the first Ki-43/Buffalo engagements taking place on 21 Dec, I read some of the early 21 Sqn engagements on 8/9 Dec as involving Ki-43s which would place the first combat between the types much earlier in the campaign. Your info on which aircraft claimed Buffalo kills is also quite illuminating, although it would be interesting to examine a smaller subset of the campaign, for example Dec 41, since the genesis of this discussion was the question of which aircraft gained air superiority over Malaya. 

Despite the above, I fully concur with your closing remarks. Why does the Buffalo get such a slating when no other Allied aircraft types did any better against the Japanese air arms? The Buffalo performed poorly against superior opposition (IJAAF and IJNAF) and so is castigated as "the world's worst aircraft" yet when it performed well in the hands of the Finns it is still criticized because it was flying against weak opposition. Why are these criteria applied to other aircraft - the Zero performed well against inferior opposition but didn't do so well against Hellcats and Corsairs so does that make the Zero a bad aircraft? The main problem seems to be the "accepted wisdom" that the Buffalo was hopeless and so the myth perpetuates, even to the extent where people make things up (eg earlier in this thread there's a comment about the Buffalo not being able to sustain combat damage - tell that to Harry Griffiths of 453 Sqn whose Buffalo sustained more than 70 hits but still brought him home).

Kind regards,
Mark H


----------



## proton45 (Oct 11, 2009)

Good information...8)


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 11, 2009)

The Buffalo may have been unfairly criticized for it's combat performance but the Facts may be that no one saw it capable of doing any better.
The wing structure, while inovative in some ways, was less than ideal for a combat plane. 

The wing was one piece (no left anf right) with the landing gear in it so the only way to repace the wing was to hoist the fuselage into the air with a crane. (OK. Lots of jacks and cribbing?) 

The fuel tanks being intergral with the wing spars was certainly inovative but ment that they were almost impossiable to install selfsealing materials inside of and very difficult to repair without replacing the wing. see problem above. 

The U.S. Navy's "solution" of adding extra protected fuel tanks to the Buffalo and then not filling one of the existing ones to get the same capacity sure points to something. 

The Buffalo's small wing, for an American fighter, means there is only so much weight that can be added before the wing loading gets out of hand. Handling was already being criticized on the later models. While a more powerfull engine might have helped straight line speed and climb but unless it wasn't much heavier than the existing engine there were going to be problems.

Existing landing gear was already a problem. 

Armament may have been borderline. While more might not be necessary, four .50s were about as light as the Americans were willing to go. 

While it did do better in combat than popular legend it just didn't offer much in the way of improvement down the road.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 11, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> The wing was one piece (no left anf right) with the landing gear in it so the only way to repace the wing was to hoist the fuselage into the air with a crane. (OK. Lots of jacks and cribbing?)



The zero wing was built in the same manner.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 11, 2009)

True but the Buffalo being a midwing aircraft didn't make the job any easier. Lower fuselage was built in with the wing so you did need more ground clearance before the wing could be slid out.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 11, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> True but the Buffalo being a midwing aircraft didn't make the job any easier. Lower fuselage was built in with the wing so you did need more ground clearance before the wing could be slid out.


Having removed a few wings in this manner I don't think it would make that much of a difference, the determining factor would be how accessible the attach points would be on both aircraft and what type of support equipment is available to facilitate removal.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 11, 2009)

You certainly have more experience than I do but considering that most U.S. fighters din't have this repair problem why stick with one that did considering it (the Buffalo) offered no real advantages to compensate?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 11, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> You certainly have more experience than I do but considering that most U.S. fighters din't have this repair problem why stick with one that did considering it (the Buffalo) offered no real advantages to compensate?


And there you have a point - a matter of maintainability.

But some aircraft that offered a "single piece" wing did have some advantages with regards to strength and repairs, but again if the rest of the aircraft is substandard, the point is mute.

In the end, with all the evidence shown here, its clear that the Buffalo doesn't deserve to to be labeled as "the worse" aircraft of WW2. IMO it shouldn't even be on the top 5.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 11, 2009)

I've wondered if the prime cause of the "worst fighter" label had more to due with the Navy's/Other's opinion of the Brewster Co itself then the plane.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 11, 2009)

That's a very valid point. Brewster had no real reputation as an aircraft manufacturer of note, despite some innovative designs. However, it's also worth remembering that the Buffalo dated back to 1936 when Grumman was still up-engining biplanes. For its time, it was quite advanced, particularly for a naval aircraft-- retractable undercarriage, enclosed cockpit, single-seat, 4x50cal MGs (most naval fighters of the time had, at most, 2 small-calibre MGs), and flaps--but the company's lack of experience was witnessed by the landing gear problems associated with heavy deck landings and the design's general lack of growth potential. By the time it entered combat with the US and Brit militaries, its performance had been surpassed and aircraft manufacturers were building aircraft based on a couple of years of combat experience. Even the Zero resulted from IJNAF combat experience in China with the A5M.

The points about the single-piece wing are valid, more so because the lack of any wing folding mechanism limited the potential wing area of the design. One much-publicised commentary by Sqn Ldr Churchill of 71 Sqn RAF famously claimed that a single bullet hole in the wing fuel tanks would necessitate replacing the entire wing, although operational maintenance procedures were put in place (at least by the RAF) to repair battle damage to the wing tanks. I also believe the RAF aircraft had a form of self-sealing based on, if memory serves, a horsehair liner. That said. replacing a wing was a major activity involving numerous bolts that had to be undone and then re-fastened although RAF Stations in the Far East appear to have been equipped with the necessary equipment to do the job (and is wing replacement really an activity that maintenance crews would do quickly...all things are relative, I suppose).


----------



## Elvis (Oct 18, 2009)

buffnut,

You wrote: "..._However, it's also worth remembering that the Buffalo dated back to 1936...it was quite advanced...retractable undercarriage, enclosed cockpit, single-seat, 4x50cal MGs_..."
I read that as you quoting the original design, so it would then be 3-50's and 1-30....and why one 30? What's the point? I never got that about the later pre-war fighters.

You also wrote: "..._Brewster had no real reputation as an aircraft manufacturer of note_..."
Its my understanding that Brewster was actually a fairly new company at the time they vied for the Naval Fighter contract.
I seem to recall an inception date for the company being 1930, possibly 1932? 
In fact, that appears to have been a glaring problem with them, during the stormy relationship they had with the US Government - They were so new, they hadn't had time to "develop" the production facilities needed to successfully satisfy the Naval order in a timely fashion.
Is that how you understand the story, as well?

As for wing replacement, I have some video on a P-40 being restored and they showed the crew putting the wing on that plane.
Appeared to have taken 10 guys and a LOT of time to get the wing on.
Lots of , "a smidge this way" and "I see a hole!". A bunch of rollin head bars seemed to help, as well.
Once squared up and a few bolts started, the procedure seemed to have gone fairly quickly....so it seems a majority of the time was spent just fiting the wing to the plane and lining up all those bolt holes.
Of course, "apples-2-oranges", it could've been a completely different procedure in the Buffalo.


Elvis


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 18, 2009)

I think that Navy, while not real pleased with Brewster's Performance while building Buffaloes didn't really get P.O.d until later with the lack of progress on both the Bermuda and the Corsair.

See:Brewster Aeronautical Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Navy may have been willing to cut them some slack in 1939-40 because they finished a $10 million order for PBY parts in May of 1940. For comparison the 43 planes supplied to the Finns was valued at $3 million. It was also in May 1940 that Brewster leased a 217,000sq ft hanger at Newwark airport for final assembly and in June of 1940 they got an eight story building of 482000sq ft across from original factory. 

Some production figures for the Buffalo and the Wildcat from 1941.

month...............Buff............Wildcat
Feb...................22................25
March................35................25
April..................35................47
May..................35................37
Aug..................26................31
Sept.................39................18

Some of the Brewster figures include Foreign deliverys. April was the only month that Grumman exceeded 40 Wildcats for the year. Brewster might have only got the contract for 103 F2A-3s becasue Grumman couldn't build Wildcats fast enough and to keep Brewster going and expanding for later production. Work starting at the end of March for a new factory on a 400 acre site in Johnsville , PA.

As to the wing, I think, but could be wrong that the P-36/P-40 wing could be seperated into halves. Wiether the only one half could be fitted to the plane at a time I don't know but even if it couldn't the ablity to ship and store the wings as "halves" would have been an advantage.
The Idea of using the space between the front and rear spars as the fuel tank ( using heavy gauge metal to cover the top, bottom and ends) was quite inovative for the time and offered about a 200lb weight savings over the seperate tanks used in the Wildcat. While quite acceptable for peacetime use or for civilian planes the idea does kind of loose it's appeal for combat when it proved difficult to rig the the intergral tanks with selfsealing material or repair combat damage to the tanks. Replace the whole wing rather than pull damaged tank from wing/ fuselage and replace tank. 
The one piece wing might not have been as big an issue if repairs could have been done to the wing and systems without replacement of the entire unit.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 18, 2009)

Elvis, mea culpa! You're right - the 4x50cals didn't come in until the F2A-2. The only reason I can think of for having a different weapon would be lack of space - perhaps the internal reconfiguration of the -2 provided sufficient latitude to put in the larger calibre weapon.

Brewster had a long history as a carriage works building first horse-drawn vehicles and later automotive bodies. However, their aviation expertise was far less extensive - if memory serves, they started out as a subcontractor building wingtip floats for seaplanes. As for the production facilities, the Brewster factory was quite reasonable for the low-rate production of the inter-war period but it operated on multple floors of a factory building and hence was totally unsuited to mass production requirements of total war (although they still did quite well compared to Grumman in 1941 as observed by Shortround6). I believe the key problems were lack of quality control (the RAF encountered a number of faults with delivered airframes that were just down to shoddy manufacturing processes) and disharmony between the union-led workforce and the management. At one point, delivery of RAF Buffalos was totally disrupted due to a union strike - imagine how that was received by the UK which was at war at the time and needed every aircraft it could get.

Finally, the F2A-3 is a fascinating subject. As far as I know, the design was driven by the USN to extend the range/endurance of the -2. It certainly was not a Brewster-led proposal to "improve" the aircraft.

Yours aye,
Mark H (LKBS)


----------



## Elvis (Oct 19, 2009)

Shortround,

AFAIK, no USN pilot was ever "dissatified" with the performance of the Buffalo.
Upon reflection, some may have lamented the want for a _different_ airplane, when recalling a certain situation, but I've never read any reports that ever said anything to the extent of "The Brewster Buffalo is a lousy fighter plane".
So I'm not sure where your line of thinking came from, as far as the USN being dissatisfied with the Buffalo's performance.
What happened was the advent of the F6F.
Once the Hellcat hit the scene, it made just about everything else in the USN's inventory obsolete, except maybe for the Corsair, and they'd already given those to the Marines.
The reason for the strife between Brewster and the US Government was that Brewster never fully delivered on their orders.
As Buffnut mentioned, there was some internal strife and the main plant used an antiquated format for contructing their planes.
Even though you showed several months in 1941 where production was at least in step with Grumman, you have to remember those are (for us) _pre-war_ figures.
Once we got mixed up in brawl, we needed much more significant productioin numbers and even though there were various plants, they were "stages" rather than full production facilities, so if anything, even the added floor space was used ineffciently.
What gets me, is how Brewster was able to keep the goverment enticed for so long.
Shows ya' just how slick those salesmen were and should also serve as insight into the governments perception of the _lethality_ of the Buffalo.
----------------------------------------------------

Buffnut,

I didin't know Brewster's history went back that far. Maybe I was just thinking of their Aeronautical division.
Thanks for the insight.
My question about the single .30 caliber gun, is why have it, when 3/4 of your armorment is the superior .50 cal machine gun.
It would've made better sense to simply have 3-50's and use the extra space for more ammo, or some other purpose.
I guess another case of "coulda, shoulda, woulda".
BTW, its my understanding that the advent of the "-3" was generated by pilot input. It seems USN pilots preferred "flying tanks" to something that could actually dogfight with the Zero.





Elvis


----------



## Juha (Oct 19, 2009)

Hello 
IMHO the .30mg in F2A-1 wasn’t there because of space restrictions. At least Finns were able to put a .5 hmg in its place in 42-43 when weapon situation allowed that. On the other hand at least USAAC had in 30s policy to arm its fighters with one .5 and one .30 cowling mg.

on Brewster, IIRC there were labour disputes at the new factory even in 1942 or 43 when USA was in war. IIRC the shop steward of the factory gave some radical statements.
Juha


----------



## gepp (Oct 19, 2009)

Breda Ba.88 would be a shot for number 1 spot i read the maximum horizontal speed of 250 km/h (155 mph) and in some cases and several units were even unable to take off at all ,they had to strip it down of its rear machine gun,observer,bombs and some fuel,lessening the weight so it could fly or perform better but aircraft's performance didn't achieve good results so it ended up being stripped of useful equipment, and scattered around operational airfields as decoys for attacking aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2009)

Elvis said:


> Shortround,
> 
> AFAIK, no USN pilot was ever "dissatified" with the performance of the Buffalo.
> Upon reflection, some may have lamented the want for a _different_ airplane, when recalling a certain situation, but I've never read any reports that ever said anything to the extent of "The Brewster Buffalo is a lousy fighter plane".
> ...



I think we have a bit of mis-understading here, I was not refering to the "performance" of the 'Brewster airplane ' but the "performance" of the "Brewster company". 

Yes those numbers are for "pre-war' production but then very few Buffaloes were delivered after Pearl Harbor.
Production by year for the Buffalo and some other US fighters

year........1938.....1939......1940.........1941......1942
Navy.........1..........11.........42...........108.........1
Export.......0...........0.........124..........201.........21
P-38..........0..........1...........1............207......1479
P-39..........0..........1...........13...........926......1932
P-40.........1...........0..........778..........2248.....3854
P-47.........0...........0...........0..............1.........532
P-51.........0...........0...........0............138........634
F4F..........0...........1...........106.........324.......1447(by G)
F4U..........0...........0............1............0..........178
F6F..........0...........0............0............0............0 edit>10<

All the other companies were doing a mad scramble for factory space, tools, and workers. THis is where Brewster fell down. But not until the Buffalo had past the scene (at least production wise).
Brewster by mid 1941 held contracts for 1052 SB2A dive bombers with the US Navy order for 140 having been placed on Dec, 24 1940. And Brewster was named as the second source for Corsairs on Nov 1 1941.
Good salesmanship or was the Navy not yet upset enough with Brewster? Or that desperate?
I think that we can also see that the advent of the F6F had nothing to do with the Buffalo's lack of further orders. 
Now maybe Brewster was delivering Buffaloes late according to contract dates, but it sure didn't stop the Navy from giving them more contracts in 1940-41-42 for other types of of aircraft did it?

As to the .30cal MG. I beleive it was a hold over from earlier requirements. Many US fighters from the late 20s to mid 30s carried either twin .30s or replaced one .30 with a .50 for one of each. with engines of 450-700hp there might not have been enough power to to carry the weight of two .50s without too big an impact on performance.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 19, 2009)

Elvis said:


> Shortround,
> 
> AFAIK, no USN pilot was ever "dissatified" with the performance of the Buffalo.
> Upon reflection, some may have lamented the want for a _different_ airplane, when recalling a certain situation, but I've never read any reports that ever said anything to the extent of "The Brewster Buffalo is a lousy fighter plane".



Well, there sure were some complains about the A-3. I have some accounts somewhere from US pilots saying they liked the A-2 but thought the worst of the A-3.
The British weren't all too pleased with their B339E's either, noting their lack of performance. On the other hand, there were British pilots praising the B339D's for their superior performance over the B339E. It comes down to the fact that customisation of the customer was often the cause of the bad performance. The second reason was the lack of suitable engines, so having to use lower rated ones. For instance the B339-23 had a 1000hp G5B while being heavier while the D had a 1200 hp and was lighter.


----------



## Elvis (Oct 19, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I think we have a bit of mis-understading here, I was not refering to the "performance" of the 'Brewster airplane ' but the "performance" of the "Brewster company".


 oops, sorry about that 


Elvis


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2009)

I think part of the problem in evaluating the Buffalo is that it changed so much from the first models to the last. And that many of these different models were in combat all within 2 years. 

The Early models (the F2A-1 and the B239) were much lighter than the later ones and might have actually been able to maneuver with a Zero. However that Ugly weight problem rears it's it's head and reality starts to intrude. At 5040lbs Gross weight for an early model Buffalo you are not only missing the armour and what ever crude form of fuel tank protection that could be put on the tanks (although there was a CO2 purge system.) you are also without the wing .50cal guns. Leaving the Plane armed with just a single .50 with a 200 rounds and a single .30 with 500 rounds. It also measn filling the tanks with only 110gals of fuel. While this might represent combat weight after burning off fuel you would have to give the same consideration to it's opponents. Maybe the Finns with their shorter flight distances never filled the tanks all the way?
Adding the two wing .50cal guns increases the weight by about 263lbs including ammo. you now have a 5300lb fighter against the Zero and what is the Zeros weight with 2/3 fuel on board? 
Structual weights climbed as did engine and propeller weights. The Dutch, British and Belgian planes had power plant weights (engine, accessoreis, propeller, controls, oil systems,etc) around 300lbs heavier than the First planes. Switching to a full .50cal armament with increased ammo capacity sky rocketed the armament weight. From around 240lbs for the original two gun armament to 547lbs for the four .50s with full ammo load for another 300lbs. 
Leaving out armour and self sealing ful tansk might have helped a bit but (as would flying with half ammo) but with the wing somehow picking up an extra 100lbs on it's own whatever later model Buffalo is chosen is going to be over 800lbs heavier than the early versions even without protection. Granted the Buffalo picked up 150-250hp but the extra weight almost exactly cancels out the extra power and the wing loading goes up by about 17%. Heavily loaded F2A-3s are even worse. 

Does this mean the Buffalo is the worst airplane of WW II? No, far from it. But it was a dead end design and was recongnized as such. No amount of wishing or hoping or what if'ing are going to transform it into a first rate fighter (or even middle of the pack) at the end of 1941, begining of 1942.


----------



## Juha (Oct 20, 2009)

Hello Shortround
FAF B-239s were armed in summer 41 with 3 .5 hmgs and one .300 mg and alsohad back and head armour for the pilot but no self-sealing. So IMHO B-239 was not a top class fighter but middle class yes, Finns thought that it definitely was better than Hurricane at low and middle altitudes which were the height bands that were important when fighting against Soviets.

Juha


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 20, 2009)

THe weight charts in the book "America's Hundred Thousand" show Gross weights for a 2 gun fighter with 110gal, a 2 gun bomber with 110gals, a 2 gun fighter with 160gal, and a 4 gun fighter with 110 gal. THese are more than likely American "factory" weights and do not actual show Finnish service weights. THe Gross weights (dropping decimals) are 5014, 5276, 5314 and 5276. Some source claim that the American F2A-1 grossed 5040 and lump the 239 in with it and then don't add in the weight of the extra wing guns. 

Considering most of the planes the Finns fought against did not have the manueverability of the Japanese aircraft a little more weight in the form of back protection for the pilot probably didn't hurt things much

The comparison with the Hurricane makes sense if you consider the engines. Since I doubt that the Finns had much access to 100 octane fuel that means the Merlin is limited to 880hp at sea level rising to 1030hp at just over 16,000ft. The figures for the Cyclone in the 239 seem to be 950hp for take off, 1000hp military power at sea level and a military rating of 800hp at 16,000ft. Normal ratings (max continous power) are given as 850hp at 6000ft and 750hp at 15,200. Given that the Hurricanes were over 1000lbs heavier I can see why the Brewster might have been a bit more spritely at the lower altitudes


----------



## Juha (Oct 20, 2009)

hello Shortround
Quote:"Considering most of the planes the Finns fought against did not have the manueverability of the Japanese aircraft a little more weight in the form of back protection for the pilot probably didn't hurt things much"

Yes, but some had, for ex I-153 was very maneuverable a/c and climbed well.

Juha


----------



## JoeB (Oct 20, 2009)

Elvis said:


> Shortround,
> 
> 1. AFAIK, no USN pilot was ever "dissatified" with the performance of the Buffalo.
> Upon reflection, some may have lamented the want for a _different_ airplane, when recalling a certain situation, but I've never read any reports that ever said anything to the extent of "The Brewster Buffalo is a lousy fighter plane".
> ...


I don't think either point is historically accurate.

1. The naval services concluded the Buffalo was not suitable for combat after its one and only outing in US colors v enemy fighters, the disastrous performance in hands of VMF-221 based at Midway v Japanese carrier based Zeroes (13 F2A-3 and 2 F4F-3's lost v 2 Zeroes and a few attack a/c actually lost, and the F4F's apparently downed the Zeroes). I posted the results of this combat in detail from the Japanese records and US accounts, I think way back in this thread.

Those were among the only F2A's remaining with front line units by that time anyway, but the US definitely did decide it was a lousy fighter after that incident, not suitable for combat. This wasn't a comparison to the F6F but to the F4F, which wasn't considered wholly satisfactory v the Zero, but the F2A not suitable for combat at all. We can debate their view, but that was the view of the USN and USMC at the time. Various pilots had liked the F2A as peacetime a/c prewar, but nobody wanted to fly one in combat after that Midway incident.

2. The addition of pilot and fuel tank protection to US naval a/c was a high level decision based on lessons learned in European combat prior to US entry into WWII, 'water under the bridge' by the time USN a/c actually entered combat in the Pacific. It took time to enact the decision, so in a few early operations F4F's entered combat still lacking fuel tank bladders and with no or homemade cockpit armor, but a single combat by VMF-211 at Wake was the only case where F4F's lacking (and not weighed down by) protection ever met Zeroes (3 Type 97's Carrier Attack Planes downed by 2 F4F's, 1 F4F downed pilot KIA and the other badly shot up by Zeroes).

More lightly protected and nimble Allies types failed against Zeroes in 1942. A/c like the Dutch CW-21 for example, high power to weight ratio lightly built no protection, could outclimb the Zero, and generally a reasonable opponent on paper to play to the same strengths; but didn't turn in positive actual results in the general circumstances prevailing. JNAF fighter units equipped with Zeroes had virtually uniform success v Allied fighters until they met USN F4F units from mid 1942, against whom they were only about equal; late in 1942 some USAAF P-39/40 units achieved close to even results v Zeroes in relatively few combats (a few Zeroes in New Guinea, most were in the Solomons facing mainly USN/USMC a/c), but the USAAF's record for all 1942 v the Zero was much less than 1:1. Allied fighter units mainly faced Zeroes in early-mid 1942 in Buffalo, Hurricane and minor types were all consistently unsucessful. In real history, there is no alternative model of a 1942 fighter consistently matching the Zero except 'weighed down' versions of the F4F. Some of the other types might have been able to do it in different circumstances but none actually did in the real circumstances.

Joe


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 20, 2009)

I think you have something.
Brewster was winding up US Navy's last order for F2A-3s when Pearl Harbor happened. Facing a very real shortage of aircraft the US Navy placed NO follow up orders for F2A's in the weeks or Months after Pearl Harbor. This time period is a number of Months before any US Buffalos saw combat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2009)

From the horse's mouth...

http://www.warbirdforum.com/vmf221.htm

"The F2A-3 is not a combat airplane. It is inferior to the planes we were fighting in every respect. The F2A-3 has about the same speed as an Aichi 99 Dive Bomber. The Japanese Zero Fighter can run circles around the F2A-3. I estimated the top speed of a Zero Fighter, form what I saw, at better than 450 mile per hour. 

It is my belief that any commander that orders pilots out for combat in a F2A-3 should consider the pilot as lost before leaving the ground." 

Captain Philip Renee White
VMF-221


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 20, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From the horse's mouth...
> 
> http://www.warbirdforum.com/vmf221.htm
> 
> ...



Since mr. White says that Zero as fast as P-51B/C/D, I'd say that his credibility is undermined a lot. No offense.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Since mr. White says that Zero as fast as P-51B/C/D, I'd say that his credibility is undermined a lot. No offense.



Remember - this is from the mouth of a very young marine officer in his first combat while getting shot at, so I think its safe to say we all know he exaggerated a bit.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2009)

This was brought up earlier

Buffalo wing being installed - interesting!

http://www.warbirdforum.com/straits.htm


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2009)

_"Bingham-Wallis defends the Buffalo

[The following letter appeared in the August 1984 issue of Aircraft Modelworld, a British magazine. Peter Bingham-Wallis was one of a handful of British officers in RAF 67 Squadron; most of the squadron were sergeant-pilots from New Zealand. A tip of the virtual hat to Tom Cervo for sending it along. -- Dan Ford] 

Buffalo comments

I bought a copy of your May [1984?] issue recently. On pages 79 and 80 there is a description by Mr Bruce Robertson of the Brewster Buffalo in service in the Far East. As a former "A" flight (67 Sqn) Commander in the period that he covers, I feel that I must make some comments over his descriptions of the Buffalo in service. I was also fortunate in the summer of 1942 to have some four former members of the 243 Sqn [Buffalo] posted to the 67 Sqn when we were at Alipore, Calcutta. Of these four, two were the famous Bert Sam Wipiti and Charlie Kronk. 
Over the past 30 years I have suffered from reading articles condemning this particular aircraft out-of-hand. However, I realise that there will be shortly published a book, very thoroughly researched by Chris Shores covering the air war in the Far East from December 1941 to June 1942 in which it will be seen that the facts are very different as to what has been stated to date. [ Bloody Shambles, published in two volumes in 1992 and 1993] 

In the meantime, as some help to Mr Robertson in the future, 67 Sqn arrived in Burma in October 1941. Six aircraft had already been assembled and flown by 60 Sqn which left that month with their Blenheim bombers for Malaya, leaving two aircraft with one crew. Twenty-four further Buffalo arrived and were assembled with the exception of three which were still in crates when the hanger they were in was destroyed. Only eight Buffalo were actually shot down during the campaign in Burma, killing the following pilots - Sgts Cutfield, Hewitt, Finn, McPherson; F/Offs Brewer, Lambert, Wiggiesworth; Flt Lt Pinckney, DFC. 

Six returned to India (one of which was damaged in a landing accident at Dum Dum and used for spares). (Two went for a short time to 146 Sqn. The other three then remained with 67 Sqn - two of which were flown to Risalpur (NWFP) where they were flown by ex-67 Sqn pilots on rest at the gunnery flight.) Two were destroyed on the evacuation at Zayatkwin by our own staff. They were at the time being serviced, but the evacuation did not allow time for them to be put in an air-worthy condition. 

Two newly assembled awaiting air test were destroyed on the ground. One crashed into a lake at Zaigon with engine failure and another crashed north of Pegu with engine failure, due to enemy action. Yet another with undercarriage failure crashed at Mergui and was used for spares. Five were destroyed in blast pens in Mingaladon during Jap air raids. One was destroyed during servicing by stupidly trying to weld bullet damage in the tank without first ensuring that the inflammable vapour had been expelled. 

This gives a total of 30 aircraft. The Sqn over these few weeks of the Burma Campaign were awarded - 2 x DFC to Flt Lt Pinckney and Sqn Ldr J. Brandt, 1 x DFM to Sgt G. A. Williams. The Sqn had destroyed during this period 27 Japanese aircraft. 

The official documents from both the Japanese and British sources show that both air forces in that first Burma Campaign each lost approx. 185 aircraft (our losses were coupled with those of the AVG). 

P. M. BINGHAM-WALLIS, Frinton-on-Sea, Essex." _


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 20, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Remember - this is from the mouth of a very young marine officer in his first combat while getting shot at, so I think its safe to say we all know he exaggerated a bit.



That makes sense.

That also means his assessment of the planes from an above post are not accurate and should not be taken seriously, to say it mildly. Again, no offense.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> That makes sense.
> 
> That also means his assessment of the planes from an above post are not accurate and should not be taken seriously, to say it mildly. Again, no offense.



I would take his assessment of the Buffalo with a bit more validity since he did fly in it and get shot at while flying it.


----------



## Elvis (Oct 20, 2009)

I'm going to take some time and digest this a little more, but I'll leave you all with this.
...remember that all the accounts listed so far all deal with the _worst_ version of the Buffalo that was ever produced, the "-3".
No one liked that plane, but originally (i.e., B-239), it was a good design.
...I really need to find that article I have on the Buff.


Shortround,

The gross weight figure I remember for the F2A-1 was around what you're quoting, but that's armed with 1-30 cal gun and 3-50 cal guns.
Your quote of one 30 and one 50 as armourment is news to me...HOWEVER, that _is_ the armourment of the F3F.
I wonder if you haven't stumbled across a heretofore unknown typo.


Elvis


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 20, 2009)

Hi, FLYBOY,

I reckon it that he was, as a green pilot, shoot by Zero (correct me if I'm wrong about that). He states that Zero is able to do 450mph (=720 km/h).  
He also states that his plane (I'll name it Buffalo, since it's easier to me) is not capable to catch Val dive bomber.

So, we should either trust both of his assessments ( of both Buffalo and Zero), or to discard both of them.
I choose to discard them.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 20, 2009)

Gordon Firebaugh, promoted to lieutenant j.g. and flying a Grumman Wildcat, was shot down at Guadalcanal. "I've often thought that . . . I'd [have] been better off in a Brewster," he said. "I think it would have matched the Zero. The [Wildcat] was heavier and didn't have the turning radius." 

bottom line: you can always fiend a quote suitable for your ideas.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Hi, FLYBOY,
> 
> I reckon it that he was, as a green pilot, shoot by Zero (correct me if I'm wrong about that). He states that Zero is able to do 450mph (=720 km/h).
> He also states that his plane (I'll name it Buffalo, since it's easier to me) is not capable to catch Val dive bomber.
> ...



Your choice, remember he was the one in combat during a chaotic and confusing battle that saw his entire squadron decimated. Bottom line is his aircraft was severely out performed and he was lucky to escape with his life, that's the real heart of this story. I think we know his story was exaggerated but in the end history adjusts for this pilot’s “exaggerations.”


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 20, 2009)

Agree with the words you say, yet I'd add that disparity in pilot quality (in experience mostly) was what decided the outcome of the battle. 
The disparity in aircraft quality comes second in our example.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Agree with the words you say, yet I'd add that disparity in pilot quality (in experience mostly) was what decided the outcome of the battle.
> The disparity in aircraft quality comes second in our example.



I think both were part of the equasion. Green pilots + poor aircraft = slaughter.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 20, 2009)

I agree that green pilots + inferior aircraft = disaster (VMF-221 was suffering, as were all Marine Aviation units, from the rapid expansion starting in late 1941, resulting in roughly 50% of VMF-221 pilots coming straight out of training) but there is another factor - tactical immaturity. By Midway, the USN was increasingly adopting 2-man formation elements combined with the Thach Weave as a means of countering the tactical advantages of the Zero. At Midway, VMF-221 was still using Division formation tactics in unwieldy 5 or 6 aircraft formations. 

The quote from Lt White is frequently used - one senses his frustration at seeing his mates shot down around him. The after-action report from the unit stated that neither the F4F nor the F2A-3 had adequate performance compared to the Zero. 

Finally, combat reports from 67 Sqn (the only surviving RAF Buffalo combat reports) observed that the Buffalo had a speed advantage over the IJAAF fighters encountered over Burma, including the Ki-43s. None of the reports give the impression that the 67 Sqn pilots, most of whom were also pretty green, although they did have time to get used to flying the Buffalo, felt they were outmatched by their adversaries.

KR,
Mark H (LKBS)


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 20, 2009)

Elvis said:


> I'm going to take some time and digest this a little more, but I'll leave you all with this.
> ...remember that all the accounts listed so far all deal with the _worst_ version of the Buffalo that was ever produced, the "-3".
> No one liked that plane, but originally (i.e., B-239), it was a good design.
> ...I really need to find that article I have on the Buff.
> ...


It sure doesn't look like a typo in the weight charts. 

Seeing as how the four weight charts for the 239 are labeled 2 gun fighter 110gal, bomber 110gal, 2 gun fighter 160gal, and 4 gun fighter 110gal.

rows in the chart are labeled "1 cal .50,1 cal.30" with weights of 108.7lb for the two gun versions and the row below saying "3 cal.50, 1cal .30 with a weight of 251.1 lbs in the 4 gun version.

further down after the row for basic weight are rows labeled "cal.50 ammo" and cal.30 ammo" with 39.0 lbs of ammo for the .30 in all versions and 59.8lbs of cal.50 ammo listed for the two gun versions and 179.4lbs listed for the 4 gun configuration. 

On the opposite page are five weight charts for various configurations of the F2A-2 which are 2 gun fighter, 4 gun overl'd fighter, 2 gun bomber, 4 gun overl'd bomber and zero gun ferry. No references to cal 30 guns here but the 2 gun versions list 139lbs for guns with 277lbs being listed for the 4 gun versions. 150lbs of ammo for the 2 gun versions and 270lbs for the 4 gun configuration. 

Below that are 5 weight charts for the F2A-3 all of which have 4 guns except the Zero gun ferry configuration. 

There is a weight chart for the 239 which covers the weight of the wings, tail, fuselae, landing gear, engine section, engine and so on. 21 lines to come up with a empty weight of 3744.1lbs. 

The tables for the various configurations start with that empty weight and add crew, armament (as described above) prov. for bombs, pyrotechnics, comm equipment, Navagation equip. and Misc. to come up with fixed useful load to which is added the useable oil, the ammo and internal fuel for the disposable load to come up with total useful load and gross weight. The other tables for loads are pretty much the same but the tables for the weights leading up to the empty weight are not quite as detailed.

Does this mean the authors couldn't have made a mistake? No, but it does kind of leave out a simple typo or misidentification of the aircraft. 

Although not explicitly stated I believe these are factory weights/options and may not have been used in the feild.
Leave the wing guns behind so you can carry bombs and some extra gas by the book or take-off over loaded? 
Even the later model Buffalos at just under 7000lbs had half the ground roll of a lightly loaded P-39

I am not sure why but the Buffalo just didn't seem to have much "growth" in it. From the XF2A-1 prototype to the F2A-3 it gained 280 pounds of airframe weight, 172 lbs of it in the wing. The power plant gained 547 pounds but less than half of that can be blamed on the new self sealing tanks. 77 pounds of that are for the new propeller alone. Fixed equipment went up by 210 lbs. Later aircarft also had a heavier radio set-up. And then there is the armament thing. 471lbs to go from the original one.50 and one .30 to four .50s and what was perhaps too much ammo.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not sure why but the Buffalo just didn't seem to have much "growth" in it.


1930s technology thrown into WW2. This was a bit of shortsightedness from the designer AND the US Navy as they are the one that dictated the design specification the Buffalo was developed to.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 20, 2009)

Don't forget that the spec the XF2A-1 was designed to meet didn't actually demand a monoplane solution. Grumman put forward an evolution of their biplane fighter series but the performance difference was so marked that the Navy pretty much had to go with the XF2A-1. Grumman went away, licked their wounds, donned thinking caps and came up with the XF4F, which ulitimately became the Wildcat. In truth, the Wildcat's performance didn't improve substantially throughout it's life but it was available in sufficient numbers and it came from the right manufacturer (Grumman = Navy fighters right through to the F-14).

In its time, the XF2A-1 was quite revolutionary but, by 1941, like so many inter-war fighter designs, it had been overtaken by events. I think it's a little unfair to criticize the design as short-sighted. In the 1930s, there was still a strong emphasis on bomber development and many still adhered to Douhet's philosophy on the inability of defences to overcome assaults from massed bomber formations. The vulnerabilities of the bomber (and it's failure to always get through) were only learned much later in WWII, and at much cost to British and US bomber crews, but the impacts of lackadaisical efforts in fighter development were felt much earlier. In this context, the British specification that led to the Hurricane and Spitfire was quite exceptional but both manufacturers had a heritage of developing high-performance aircraft which Brewster simply did not have - instead, they innovated with the design of the XF2A-1 which was thrown into combat in arguably the most disadvantageous situations possible (at least from the British and American perspectives).


----------



## JoeB (Oct 20, 2009)

buffnut453 said:


> 1. I agree that green pilots + inferior aircraft = disaster (VMF-221 was suffering, as were all Marine Aviation units, from the rapid expansion starting in late 1941, resulting in roughly 50% of VMF-221 pilots coming straight out of training) but there is another factor - tactical immaturity. By Midway, the USN was increasingly adopting 2-man formation elements combined with the Thach Weave as a means of countering the tactical advantages of the Zero. At Midway, VMF-221 was still using Division formation tactics in unwieldy 5 or 6 aircraft formations.
> 
> 2. Finally, combat reports from 67 Sq...None of the reports give the impression that the 67 Sqn pilots, most of whom were also pretty green, although they did have time to get used to flying the Buffalo, felt they were outmatched by their adversaries.


1. Inexperience of pilots is a partial reason, but the Marine units that did well with F4F's at Guadalcanal had similar make up. In only a few cases did any of their pilots have prior combat experience, and many were new pilots. One exception was Marion Carl later of Guadalcanal fame, who fought with VMF-221 at Midway, in an F4F. As mentioned, whether by coincidence or not, the comparative claims and losses show that the VMF-221 F4F's in that Midway combat probably achieved 2 Zeroes downed for 2 F4F's lost, pretty much in line with the F4F's general record against the Zero in 1942. USN units as well started the war with many high hour pilots, but rotated a lot of them back to training commands even before Coral Sea, ending up with a lot of relatively inexperienced pilots (relatively: green 1942 USN pilots had more hours than green pilots in most other WWII air arms).

The tactical point is at most partly correct. Thach used the 'Thach Weave' in his own division at Midway, that was the only use of that tactic in combat until VF-10 used it late in the Guadalcanal campaign. Thach through intermediaries had convinced the 'other Jimmy', Flatley (other highly respected leader/tactician among USN pilots) of the merit of the tactic by Flately led VF-10 (the first USN replacement squadron) into combat. But in general USN and USMC F4F units did not use the Thach Weave in combat in 1942, and the Marine units at Guadalcanal generally improvised and learned as they went along when it came to tactics.

2. But the fighter v fighter combat results show British and Dutch Buffalo's were outmatched, by Army Type 97's and Type 1's as well as Zeroes. As related above, taking all combats involving Buffalo's in the SEA campaigns of '41-42 for which both sides' losses are known, the outcomes were several: 1 in favor of the Japanese fighters for all three major Japanese types, and in almost every combat with few exceptions. Although as also noted it was about as true of Hurricane units, v Type 1's and Zeroes at least, and remained so for Hurricane v Type 1 in Burma through the end of *1943*. It was not true of the AVG v JAAF, either Type 97 or Type 1, the AVG bested both according to both side's loss records, but never met Zeroes. But USAAF P-40's (RAAF Kittyhawks too) and P-39's at least in the period with lots of combats through mid 1942 also suffered 1: several ratio in favor of Zeroes; although again those units did notably better in the fewer combats against Zeroes in New Guinea after the Guadalcanal campaign started.

The USN and USMC believed there was something about the F2A that made it worse than the F4F, and I don't see the clear evidence on which to reject that idea, though again it doesn't make the F2A worst of WWII. In actual combat results among Allied fighters in the Pacific that saw significant action in 1942, the F4F was the most successful, so worse than the F4F is not a reasonable proxy for worst.

Joe


----------



## proton45 (Oct 20, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Since mr. White says that Zero as fast as P-51B/C/D, I'd say that his credibility is undermined a lot. No offense.



I think we could take one bit of information from this quote...the A6M was faster then the F2A-3. Its possible that his estimate was based on a Zero that had his energy up (following a dive), OR maybe his estimate was Km/h, NOT mph...the A6M's top speed was near 450 km/h.

anyway...


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 20, 2009)

Joe B. I can't disagree with your points. My previous post should have been caveated that I was working from memory (which is obviously failing!) because I'm working away from home without access to my library...and I'm rather sleep-deprived! However, did the USN fighters at Midway have much contact with Zeros? I know of 6 Zeros escorting the IJN bombers which sank Yorktown but how many other F4F-vs-Zero combats involving USN pilots were there during the Battle of Midway? 

The kill-to-loss ratio of VMF-221's F4Fs is hardly statistically significant (which is, I know, a dreadful thing to say when discussing such life-and-death matters). The survival of a greater proportion of F4Fs could simply be the result of circumstance. For example, (and this is from memory) the F4Fs went into the fray sometime after the first 2 divisions, which were equipped with F2A-3s, had already attracted the attentions of the bulk of the escorting Zeros. I had the privilege of meeting Bill Brooks a number of years ago. He was one of the surviving F2A-3 pilots at Midway and later flew the F4F and, in his view, both aircraft had broadly similar performance against the Zero. 

As for the British and Dutch combats, I don't think we can say with any certainty that the losses for both sides are fully known. I think the RAF and Dutch losses are well documented but the IJAAF losses are certainly less clear (at least from the information I've seen). I don't think we really know how many Type 97s were lost in operations over Malaya, nor do we have a clear view of 59th Sentai operations in that theatre (but I'd be delighted to be proved wrong). When I get home, I'll dig out a report I found in the UK National Archives written immediately after the war by 2 former IJAAF officers which outlined operations over Malaya and provided a (very vague) summary of losses in case it may bring useful information to bear on this subject.

Cheers,
Mark H


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 20, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 1930s technology thrown into WW2. This was a bit of shortsightedness from the designer AND the US Navy as they are the one that dictated the design specification the Buffalo was developed to.



Some planes seem to be able to stretch and grow, if not with ease , at least with dignity and usefulness while some of their contemporaries seem to hit a brick wall in development and go nowhere. I don't know if it is talent or hard work by the design team, luck, a larger budget, a better choice of engine or what. 

First Spitfire flew over a year and half before the Buffalo. First 109 2 1/2 years before the Buffalo. 
Things were changing fast and and maybe some designers just guessed better than others


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 21, 2009)

And none of those types had to fit onto the elevator of an aircraft carrier or achieve low landing speeds required for carrier operations which, presumably, were key design criteria/constraints for the XF2A-1. Note that wing folding only came later in the Wildcat's development in an effort to fit more aircraft into the available space on a carrier.


----------



## Elvis (Oct 21, 2009)

buffnut453 said:


> Don't forget that the spec the XF2A-1 was designed to meet didn't actually demand a monoplane solution. Grumman put forward an evolution of their biplane fighter series but the performance difference was so marked that the Navy pretty much had to go with the XF2A-1. Grumman went away, licked their wounds, donned thinking caps and came up with the XF4F, which ulitimately became the Wildcat. In truth, the Wildcat's performance didn't improve substantially throughout it's life but it was available in sufficient numbers and it came from the right manufacturer (Grumman = Navy fighters right through to the F-14).
> 
> In its time, the XF2A-1 was quite revolutionary but, by 1941, like so many inter-war fighter designs, it had been overtaken by events. I think it's a little unfair to criticize the design as short-sighted. In the 1930s, there was still a strong emphasis on bomber development and many still adhered to Douhet's philosophy on the inability of defences to overcome assaults from massed bomber formations. The vulnerabilities of the bomber (and it's failure to always get through) were only learned much later in WWII, and at much cost to British and US bomber crews, but the impacts of lackadaisical efforts in fighter development were felt much earlier. In this context, the British specification that led to the Hurricane and Spitfire was quite exceptional but both manufacturers had a heritage of developing high-performance aircraft which Brewster simply did not have - instead, they innovated with the design of the XF2A-1 which was thrown into combat in arguably the most disadvantageous situations possible (at least from the British and American perspectives).


Mark, that is a great post and answers a lot of question which seem to be asked frequently.
Thank you for posting that. 

To add to Mark's comments, it should also be realized that a lot of "combat experience" dated to WWI, the last major combat we'd been involved in.
To take that data, and add-in some more recent study, to come up with something like the B-239 is quite remarkable.
Remember, this is the FIRST monoplane fighter the USN received and only the third to enter US military service, period (the B-9 and P-26 pre-dating it).
This could explain the lack of "adaptability" of the Buffalo, as the engineers were most likely "pushing the envelope" when designing it.
It should also serve as a "gauge" to show just how fast technology was moving in the mid-late 30's, as something that was fairly advanced in 1937 was literally obsolete only 4 years later.




Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Oct 21, 2009)

buffnut453 said:


> And none of those types had to fit onto the elevator of an aircraft carrier or achieve low landing speeds required for carrier operations which, presumably, were key design criteria/constraints for the XF2A-1. Note that wing folding only came later in the Wildcat's development in an effort to fit more aircraft into the available space on a carrier.


The folding wing idea was the answer to how the Navy was able to fit an entire squardron into a vessel the size of a Cruiser, instead of a "proper" aircraft carrier.


Elvis


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2009)

Elvis said:


> Remember, this is the FIRST monoplane fighter the USN received and only the third to enter US military service, period (the B-9 and P-26 pre-dating it).



I believe that while the first part of that statement is true the second part is far, far from being accurate.

PLEASE SEE:
P-30
P-35
P-36 (even the XP-37 flew before the Buffalo)
B-10/12
YB-17
B-18
A-17
A-18

Please note that these are all retactable landing gear aircraft which niether the B-9 or P-26 were. And please note that these are all aircraft that did enter production. 
If you mistyped and ment the P-9 instead of the B-9 the list still does hold true and I would note that the P-9 was a one-off that used a braced high wing of fabric covered construction 



Elvis said:


> This could explain the lack of "adaptability" of the Buffalo, as the engineers were most likely "pushing the envelope" when designing it.
> It should also serve as a "gauge" to show just how fast technology was moving in the mid-late 30's, as something that was fairly advanced in 1937 was literally obsolete only 4 years later.
> 
> Elvis



There were plenty of other aircraft to keep the Buffalo company in being "advanced" in 1937 and obsolete 4 years later. 

Can we all say "Fairey Battle"
And plenty more.

Part of the Buffalo's problem may have been the engine. While it did offer good power for weight it was a barn door of engine in size having 12% more frontal area than an R-2800 and actually being slightly larger than an R-3350. Clever cowl design can only get you so far. couple that with a gap in development at the critical time for the Buffalo. THe 1350hp version of the Cyclone that powered the FM-2 doesn't show up until the end of 1942 and doesn't enter service until the summer of 43. 
I don't know how much an extra 150hp would have helped the Buffalo but but the Buffalo needed that power in late 1941. 
The Buffalo's airframe wouldn't really take any other engine. The only other option, the P&W R-1830 was both longer and heavier. Both the F4F and P-36 which could take either engine were over 2 1/2 feet longer than the Buffalo. 
By the time the fuselage is redesigned to take another engine and the wing structure is redesigned to eliminate the fuel tank problem, the landing gear is modified, and some other less than atractive minor problems are taken care of you are half way to designing a new airplane.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2009)

buffnut453 said:


> And none of those types had to fit onto the elevator of an aircraft carrier or achieve low landing speeds required for carrier operations which, presumably, were key design criteria/constraints for the XF2A-1. Note that wing folding only came later in the Wildcat's development in an effort to fit more aircraft into the available space on a carrier.




Please note that the Spitfire did operate off of carriers later and did so in rather heavier configuration than it's late 1930 version.
It did have weak landing gear( so did the Buffalo) would have taken up more space without the folding wing and had a much worse veiw for carrier landing but I don't believe the the landing speeds were actually that far apart. 

Not every airplane was star. Not every aiplane had the capability of developing into a Star. 

While the Buffalo does not deserve the reputation it has of being among the worst, no amount of rewriting history is going to put it among the best.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 21, 2009)

proton45 said:


> I think we could take one bit of information from this quote...the A6M was faster then the F2A-3. Its possible that his estimate was based on a Zero that had his energy up (following a dive), OR maybe his estimate was Km/h, NOT mph...the A6M's top speed was near 450 km/h.
> 
> anyway...



near 550 km/h was a best near or also 350 mp/h


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 21, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> While the Buffalo does not deserve the reputation it has of being among the worst, no amount of rewriting history is going to put it among the best.



Hi Shortround,

I entirely agree. I hope my posts haven't come across as rewriting history. I'm merely trying to present a balanced view that attempts to overcome hindsight and ill-informed received wisdom by thorough research and factual examples (despite some of my inaccurate comments made in the heat of the moment or when away from research resources).  Mea culpa for the mistakes in previous (in fact any and all) postings!!! I would never count the Buffalo as one of the best aircraft but nor does it deserve the reputation it has acquired.

Per your earlier comments, both the Hurricane and the Spitfire did subsequently operate from carriers but they were only thrown into those roles when the inadequacies of the Sea Gladiator, Skua, Roc and Fulmar were fully revealed. Again, I applaud the foresightedness of the specification that led to the Hurri and Spit, and to the design teams who created such capable aircraft, particularly the Spit which, of the two, had unprecedented growth potential. 

KR
Mark H


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2009)

I don't believe you have come across that way. 

I do enjoy finding out the actual facts of of an aircraft and it's use and I hope I can find a balance or reasons why the operational use of a plane may differ from it's "paper Spec's" or as someone reffered to it "what is in the brouchure" .

I thank you for your work in bringing the operational history of the Buffalo to our/my attention as the hard work and sacrifice of the pilots and ground crews sometimes is over shadowed by the combat results 'score card".

Any country that truely values it's soldiers (pilots and ground crew alike) should never be satsified with a plane that can just barely hold it's own or go one to one with the enemy. The country should be trying to provide it's pilots with a plane that can cause the most enemy losses while minimizing it's own losses. The Buffalo might never have been sent to Southeast Asia if the west had a better Idea of the Japanese aircraft's true ability. Or but a little more belief in the reports they did get

That the British, Australian and New Zealand units were able to do as well as they did is quite commendable. Bombings, withdrawals and such do tend to hamper proper maintaince (lack of spare parts).


----------



## Marcel (Oct 21, 2009)

JoeB said:


> But the fighter v fighter combat results show British and Dutch Buffalo's were outmatched, by Army Type 97's and Type 1's as well as Zeroes.



While it's true the Buffalo didn't do very well against the Japanese, I still think these results don't say much about the technical quality of the Buffalo as a fighter. They were too much in a dis-advantage for any fighter to do well. As I am more familiar with the ML-KNIL than the RAF, I will take this as an example:
1: Dutch pilots were very inexperienced. Many of them were fresh from training and had only a few hours on the Buffalo. Many had never fired at an aerial target. Remember many Japanese in this phase of the war were experienced and battle-hardened.
2. There was no early warning system. Therefore Buffalo's usually had an altitude dis-advantage which is a bad position for any fighter.

Doesn't matter if the Dutch would have had F4F's or even Spitfires. In any way they would have had a hard time. Same counts for the British I suppose.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 21, 2009)

Thanks for the generous words, Shortrounds. Be careful or you might get me started on my favourite hobby-horse - the Malayan Campaign and its origins (cue Monty Pythonesque shouts of "Run away! Run away!!" 

Britain was desperately seeking to avoid confrontation with Japan during late 1941 and was doing everything possible to not provoke Tokyo in hopes that a Far East war could be forestalled. The Buffalo was almost certainly seen by London as a stop-gap measure until more/better fighters could be delivered to the Far East during 1942. Unfortunately for the Commonwealth fighter pilots this policy ran out of time on 8 Dec 41. The intelligence issues surrounding these events have still not been fully explored by historians.

I think I'll leave it there for now because (a) it's getting off-topic, and (b) I'd end up writing all night when I have work I need to complete.

KR
Mark


----------



## Elvis (Oct 21, 2009)

buffnut453 said:


> I would never count the Buffalo as one of the best aircraft but nor does it deserve the reputation it has acquired.
> 
> KR
> Mark H



My thoughts, EXACTLY.
----------------------------------------------

Shortround,

My apologies for omitting the other aircraft you mentioned.
My memory is nothing, if not infalable. 


Elvis


----------



## JoeB (Oct 21, 2009)

buffnut453 said:


> 1. However, did the USN fighters at Midway have much contact with Zeros? I know of 6 Zeros escorting the IJN bombers which sank Yorktown but how many other F4F-vs-Zero combats involving USN pilots were there during the Battle of Midway?
> 
> 2. I had the privilege of meeting Bill Brooks a number of years ago. He was one of the surviving F2A-3 pilots at Midway and later flew the F4F and, in his view, both aircraft had broadly similar performance against the Zero.
> 
> 3. As for the British and Dutch combats, I don't think we can say with any certainty that the losses for both sides are fully known. I think the RAF and Dutch losses are well documented but the IJAAF losses are certainly less clear (at least from the information I've seen).


1. Lundstrom estimated, from comparing US and Japanese records, 11 Zeroes downed by USN F4F's at Midway v 4 (or 5?) F4F's downed by Zeroes IIRC. That's not a huge sample either, and considerably better than the the all-1942 average, but the point remains that the all-1942 average of Zero v F4F, which consisted of 100+ losses on each side, was pretty even (apparently a bit in the F4F's favor). Most of the kills and losses were by the USMC at Guadalcanal, but again the results didn't vary all that much comparing Navy results in the carrier battles with USMC (and USN) results defending Guadalcanal, which itself included a wider variety of tactical situations than is sometimes implied. There seemed to be a quite robust tendency of USN/USMC F4F v IJN Zero to come out about even, over time (some particular combats went strongly one way or another of course). I think this somewhat undercuts the idea that poorer results by most other Allied fighter units depended on a quirk in circumstances. I think the most reasonable simple conclusion is most other Allied fighter units just weren't as effective as IJN Zero units, but USN and USMC F4F units tended to be more their equal. And I believe there's considerable room to believe intangible factors about the F4F as practical combat plane had something to do with that, though the extent is not provable.

2. That wasn't the majority view, and again has few actual combat examples to demonstrate it.

3. My count leaves out combats where the source (Bloody Shambles, which basically uses Senshi Sosho as Japanese source) isn't clear on Japanese losses. It's combat by combat not counting losses of the Allies in combats where the source doesn't definitively state losses for the Japanese. So the only bias would come if Bloody Shambles/SS definitely states a Japanese loss in a particular combat but it's wrong. This is provably virtually never the case when it comes to the IJN, because the original 'tactical action records' of the IJN are now available on-line and the book is an accurate reflection of them to within a reasonable tolerance. And if we doubt what's in those handwritten records, that applies equally to the F4F's who basically only faced the JNAF in 1942, and where the source for saying 'they came out even' traces back to the same records as far as Zero losses. IOW if the Brit/CW or USAAF units really shot down a lot more Zeroes than IJN records say, then the F4F's probably did too, but I just don't think that's a plausible line of argument to begin with. Then by comparison, the kill ratio of both Buffalo and Hurricane v Army Type 1 fighters or Zeroes was about the same. This implies IMO that counting the combats in Bloody Shambles where a definitive result is given gives the approximately correct result for combats with the Army Type 1 as well as Zeroes. When it comes to the Type 97, the Buffalo did much worse than the Hurricane v Type 97 by the counting method, and also worse than Buffalo v Type 1 or Zero. So perhaps there's an anomaly there (or not, maybe it just did worse), but seems to me mainly a footnote, if the basic discussion is comparing ability to meet the Zero, for which Type 1 might be a limited proxy, but where Type 97 is pretty irrelevant.

Joe


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 21, 2009)

Joe,

Thanks for the additional info on the F4F -vs- Zero engagements at Midway and Guadalcanal. What I'm unclear on is what early warning capability was present on Guadalcanal and other, as you put it, intangible factors. Guess I'll have to do some reading!

As for the Malayan campaign, the origin of this whole discussion started with Parsifal's contention that Japanese air superiority during the Malayan campaign was obtained by 25 Zeros plus a roughly equal number of Ki-43s. My contention is that there were far more Japanese fighters available, and in this sense the Type 97 question is far from irrelevant.

I remain concerned about the lack of detail on IJAAF fighter operations in December 1941 and discrepancies between the documented actions. For example, during the combat over Kuala Lumpur on 22nd December, the 64th Sentai reportedly lost just one Ki-43 when the wings failed as it was pulling out of a dive. However, 453 Sqn pilots reported the loss of one of their mates, Sgt Mac Read, when his Buffalo collided with an enemy fighter. These 2 events are difficult to reconcile as being the same incident so were 2 Ki-43s lost or just one? Again, the gap in documentation of Type 97 and 59th Sentai activities is of importance here.

Kind regards,
Mark


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2009)

Elvis said:


> Shortround,
> 
> My apologies for omitting the other aircraft you mentioned.
> My memory is nothing, if not infalable.
> ...



Besides the engine situation, I think that there at least two other problems that hurt the Buffalo.
One was the intergal fuel tank. This may have been "cutting edge" at the time and saved somewhere on the order of 100-200lbs over convetional unprotected tanks. This would have been a very good thing on a raceplane or transport or even a long range reconnaissance plane. And considering that NOBODY had protected tanks when the Buffalo was designed one can't really fault the designers for going with it. Once protected tanks became a requirement the Buffalo was in trouble. 
THe other probelm was the armament. While the American .50 was a pretty good gun both it and it's ammunition are heavy. Even the Early Buffalo with three .50s and one .30 carried a heavier weight of guns and ammo than ANY 109 did that didn't use gun pods. It was also heavier than the Eight .303s with 350rpg on a MK II Spitfire.


----------



## Josh64 (Nov 10, 2009)

Probably the Me-163. Despite it's incredible technological/performance superiority over everything else, it did not have much success in combat. Plus it's fuel would melt flesh if it came in contact with a person, and it killed more pilots in training/operational accidents than in combat.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 13, 2009)

Haha Josh, if I was a mod, I would have had you banned just for that !! 



Kris


----------



## Josh64 (Nov 15, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Haha Josh, if I was a mod, I would have had you banned just for that !!
> 
> 
> 
> Kris



Ha Ha


----------



## stuka1940 (Nov 18, 2009)

my pick would have to be the Blackburn Skua, and the the Botha.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 18, 2009)

Would you please explain why would Skua be the worst?


----------



## stuka1940 (Nov 18, 2009)

the Skua was a 200mph 2 seat heavy fighter with 4 303MG. 

I should not be so hard on the Skua. They manage to sink a German cruiser, and the first english plane shoot down a german plane in [email protected] a Do18.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 18, 2009)

stuka1940 said:


> the Skua was a 200mph 2 seat heavy fighter with 4 303MG.
> 
> I should not be so hard on the Skua. They manage to sink a German cruiser, and the first english plane shoot down a german plane in [email protected] a Do18.


point a finger at the Skua and it will point one directly at the Roc.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 19, 2009)

stuka1940 said:


> the Skua was a 200mph 2 seat heavy fighter with 4 303MG.
> 
> I should not be so hard on the Skua. They manage to sink a German cruiser, and the first english plane shoot down a german plane in [email protected] a Do18.



Skua was 1st a dive bomber (and a decent one) and after that a fighter. When the brass went to make a turret-fighter out of that (=Roc), while almost deleting the dive-bomb ability, they blew it.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 23, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> point a finger at the Skua and it will point one directly at the Roc.



Clay, thats a great line!!! 



> Probably the Me-163. Despite it's incredible technological/performance superiority over everything else, it did not have much success in combat. Plus it's fuel would melt flesh if it came in contact with a person, and it killed more pilots in training/operational accidents than in combat.



The Me 163 did basically what it was designed for and that was a point intercepter. And there were never a multitude of 163s available for missions, so kills were low but if you ratio it out, they weren't bad. And most of those fuel problems were, like you stated, training accidents but there is some question on just how many pilots it killed. My guess is it wasn't so much the fuel as trying to learn to fly a boomerang with a firecracker!


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 24, 2009)

Njaco said:


> Clay, thats a great line!!!
> 
> 
> 
> The Me 163 did basically what it was designed for and that was a point intercepter. And there were never a multitude of 163s available for missions, so kills were low but if you ratio it out, they weren't bad. And most of those fuel problems were, like you stated, training accidents but there is some question on just how many pilots it killed. My guess is it wasn't so much the fuel as trying to learn to fly a boomerang with a firecracker!


----------



## Civettone (Nov 26, 2009)

In fact I also thought that was a great line !! 


Kris


----------



## phatzo (Jan 12, 2010)

Has anyone mentioned the Me 323, It was just a big sitting duck.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2010)

phatzo said:


> Has anyone mentioned the Me 323, It was just a big sitting duck.



As was any transport aircraft if it was not protected by fighter cover. The Me 323 performed very well in its intended role. If it was not protected, of course it was going to shot down. As stated however, that is the case for all transport aircraft.


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 24, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> As was any transport aircraft if it was not protected by fighter cover. The Me 323 performed very well in its intended role. If it was not protected, of course it was going to shot down. As stated however, that is the case for all transport aircraft.



Actuallly that is true for all aircraft - including fighters and bombers

Hence box-formations and wingmen - well certainly during WW2 which is why we are here right ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Actuallly that is true for all aircraft - including fighters and bombers
> 
> Hence box-formations and wingmen - well certainly during WW2 which is why we are here right ?



You missed my point. 

A transport has very limited means to defend itself, but that does not mean it does not do its job well.


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 24, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You missed my point.
> 
> A transport has very limited means to defend itself, but that does not mean it does not do its job well.



No actually I was agreeing with you by *extending* the analogy - Kapish ?

So, for example, Bombers are good at bombing - maybe not so good at defending themselves

BUT that does not make them bad at what they do - which is bombing

Ditto gliders, aerial recon, met recon yaddah yaddah


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2010)

Gotcha...


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 24, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Gotcha...



BTW love the signature pic - is it an F or G model ?

I still think that if the 109 had been rejigged with an outward folding under-cart it would have gone down in history as an all-time great plane.

As you know, some of the latter K models with the last 605 engines were fast as anything and could really climb too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2010)

It is a Gustav. The bulges over the cowlings give it a way. It is Hartmann's.


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 24, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It is a Gustav. The bulges over the cowlings give it a way. It is Hartmann's.



Aha ! Die Beule

That must be Erich Hartmann of course - hence the Heart emblem - I am being slow witted 

I think he scored all his victories in the Bf 109 (you may know more about that). He also reminds me of Rudel - gloriously unrepentent !

BTW Adler is a name for Spotting Post or something like that is it not ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 25, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> BTW Adler is a name for Spotting Post or something like that is it not ?



Adler = Eagle

DerAdlerIstGelandet = The Eagle Has Landed


----------



## Njaco (Jan 25, 2010)

Hartmann was far from unrepentant totally unlike Rudel.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 25, 2010)

Njaco said:


> Hartmann was far from unrepentant totally unlike Rudel.



Agreed. Hartmann was nothing like Rudel. Rudel was a believer and a Nazi through and through, Hartmann was not. To claim that Hartmann was is false and defamation in my opinion.


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 25, 2010)

Njaco said:


> Hartmann was far from unrepentant totally unlike Rudel.



I feel I must defend myself.

I did not say that Hartmann was an ardent national socialist - you are making an assumption there if I might say so.

BUT when the Soviets imprisoned him he never capitulated to their demands - and put his life on the line several times

In other words, he did not accept their accusations of being a war criminal in the context of his exploits as a fighter pilot.


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 25, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed. Hartmann was nothing like Rudel. Rudel was a believer and a Nazi through and through, Hartmann was not. To claim that Hartmann was is false and defamation in my
> opinion.



Actually your accusation is based on a false premise and is potentially a defamation of me - so please ease off, especially as I have been nothing but friendly to you at all points so far (take a look).

I was not commenting on their relationship to the Nazi party in either case. Also, I am not a supporter of national socialism or any political philosophy as I find them all lacking - I rely on the democratic process to take the edge off extremists at least for the present time.

I was pointing out that both of them did not bend to the idea that by fulfilling their duties as combat pilots they were _de facto _war criminals in that *specific* context.

Note. The Americans were quite willing to seek the counsel of Rudel through his books and in person (please check) I believe.

Look at the development of the A10 - Reading Rudel's book was _de rigeur _for those involved in the project.


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 25, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Adler = Eagle
> 
> DerAdlerIstGelandet = The Eagle Has Landed



As in the film

Which is rather a good flick actually and I have it on DVD, which is unusual for me.


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 25, 2010)

Njaco said:


> Hartmann was far from unrepentant totally unlike Rudel.



Ways in which Hartmann and Rudel were _similar_


1. Both German Luftwaffe Pilots during WW2

2. Extraordinary Ability - far exceeding almost anything before or since

3. Scored most Kills on Eastern Front (against Russians mostly)

4. Specialised in using one type of aircraft - 109 for Hartmann 87 for Rudel

5. Both persisted with a type of plane that was becoming somewhat obsolete towards end WW2 i.e. 109 and 87 as above

6. Both survived WW2 and died natural deaths

7. Both involved in military aviation post WW2 in various capacities

8. Both received Iron Cross with leaves, swords, diamonds etc 


Cromwell


----------



## Njaco (Jan 26, 2010)

I understand what you're saying Cromwell and you are correct in those simularities. But philosophically, both were opposites. Hartmann embraced the new Liftwaffe and political atmosphere while Rudel would not let go of National Socialism. Hartmann was a pure apolitical pilot while Rudel let his political opinions guide him after the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> I feel I must defend myself.
> 
> I did not say that Hartmann was an ardent national socialist - you are making an assumption there if I might say so.
> 
> ...



Of course he did not, nore should he have. He was not a War Criminal, he was a fighter pilot who did his job. To accuse him of being a war criminal was wrong in the first place.



Cromwell said:


> Actually your accusation is based on a false premise and is potentially a defamation of me - so please ease off, especially as I have been nothing but friendly to you at all points so far (take a look).
> 
> I was not commenting on their relationship to the Nazi party in either case. Also, I am not a supporter of national socialism or any political philosophy as I find them all lacking - I rely on the democratic process to take the edge off extremists at least for the present time.
> 
> ...



1. Woh chill out man! I am not accusing of you of that. I am saying that in general doing such things is defamation. I am not trying to say you were doing so...

2. I do have a question however. How does doing your job as a figher pilot make you a de facto war criminal? A soldier doing his duty does not make him a war criminal...



Njaco said:


> I understand what you're saying Cromwell and you are correct in those simularities. But philosophically, both were opposites. Hartmann embraced the new Liftwaffe and political atmosphere while Rudel would not let go of National Socialism. Hartmann was a pure apolitical pilot while Rudel let his political opinions guide him after the war.



Ding, Ding, Ding...

Tell him what he won Johnny!


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 26, 2010)

Njaco said:


> I understand what you're saying Cromwell and you are correct in those simularities. But philosophically, both were opposites. Hartmann embraced the new Liftwaffe and political atmosphere while Rudel would not let go of National Socialism. Hartmann was a pure apolitical pilot while Rudel let his political opinions guide him after the war.



Thank you ! *Phew I am glad someone understands me at last !*

BTW you are both Moderators - is my Signature OK ?

too big / small ? its hard to get a small Cromwell Pic online


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 26, 2010)

_2. I do have a question however. How does doing your job as a fighter pilot make you a de facto war criminal? A soldier doing his duty does not make him a war criminal..._ .... < Schniptz ! >

OK, _try again_ 

This IS MY Point ! I am trying very hard to AGREE with you.

I am totally uncomfortable with the concept of 'war criminals' as it is nearly always applied by the Victors on the Vanquished

Winners write history, not losers

Politically Nuremberg had to happen - to appease the Russians if nothing else 

BUT philosophically I have problems with Executing so-called War Criminals, it is also bad for Military Intelligence because you are sending a LOT of Know-How to the Grave

Its not very 'smart'


NOTE: Getting them to do Penance and help clear up the mess, well that is another matter


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 26, 2010)

BTW It is the Tragedy of the 20C that the English and the Germans ended up fighting each other. The First World War was a HUGE Mess-Up and set the pace for the next 60-70 years until the wall finally came down late 80s


It was much more fun when we were fighting the French together ! What a TEAM !

Think if the Brits and Jerries had joined forces instead ?

We would have ruled the world and crushed the opposition into a million pieces


*(Manic World Domination Laughter )*


NOTE: Mr Moderator - is my Signature Graphic OK with you ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Thank you ! *Phew I am glad someone understands me at last !*
> 
> BTW you are both Moderators - is my Signature OK ?
> 
> too big / small ? its hard to get a small Cromwell Pic online



I think it is fine. If it were mine, I would make it a tad bit smaller, but not much.



Cromwell said:


> _2. I do have a question however. How does doing your job as a fighter pilot make you a de facto war criminal? A soldier doing his duty does not make him a war criminal..._ .... < Schniptz ! >
> 
> OK, _try again_
> 
> ...



I state again however that a fighter pilot who does his job of shooting down enemy aircraft or straifing enemy troops is doing his job. He is not a war criminal. That is what fighter pilots do.


----------



## beaupower32 (Jan 26, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think it is fine. If it were mine, I would make it a tad bit smaller, but not much.
> 
> 
> 
> I state again however that a fighter pilot who does his job of shooting down enemy aircraft or straifing enemy troops is doing his job. He is not a war criminal. That is what fighter pilots do.




Agreed!


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 26, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think it is fine. If it were mine, I would make it a tad bit smaller, but not much.
> 
> 
> 
> I state again however that a fighter pilot who does his job of shooting down enemy aircraft or straifing enemy troops is doing his job. He is not a war criminal. That is what fighter pilots do.



AND I state again that I AGREE with YOU !

I am not arguing with you - I am trying very hard to show that I agree with you

Oh boy


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 26, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think it is fine. If it were mine, I would make it a tad bit smaller, but not much.
> 
> How would you make it smaller please ?
> 
> ...


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 26, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> How would you make it smaller please ?
> 
> I find that when I try to upload from my PC to your website it does not seem to go too well
> 
> ...


there are online image resizers and image hosting sites


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 26, 2010)

Clay_Allison said:


> there are online image resizers and image hosting sites



OK, Good stuff thanks


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2010)

Sorry Cromwell, I think I need to explain why I am saying what I am trying to say. Frankly it is because you have confused me, because of how you are saying it. I do not know what you are trying to say. 

When you said this...



> He also reminds me of Rudel - gloriously unrepentent !



in conjunction with this...



> I was pointing out that both of them did not bend to the idea that by fulfilling their duties as combat pilots they were de facto war criminals in that *specific* context.



It made me think that it was being implied that they were war criminals, as you said "de facto war criminals". 

I believe we just have a case of classic misunderstanding.


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 26, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Sorry Cromwell, I think I need to explain why I am saying what I am trying to say. Frankly it is because you have confused me, because of how you are saying it. I do not know what you are trying to say.
> 
> OK no worries - perhaps I should be clearer in my communication, or not communicate at all sometimes !
> 
> We are friends - in the words of Borat "High Five!"


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 26, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> OK, Good stuff thanks



No problem.


----------



## Bullo Loris (Mar 29, 2010)

The worst for me was P-69 Airacobra, it wasnt how the other WWII system, it was modern for the '40 years...I don't like but P-69 was a good fighter, used over 200 missions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2010)

Bullo Loris said:


> The worst for me was P-69 Airacobra, it wasnt how the other WWII system, it was modern for the '40 years...I don't like but P-69 was a good fighter, used over 200 missions



P-69? You mean P-39?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 29, 2010)

Bullo Loris said:


> *The worst* for me was P-69 Airacobra, *it wasnt how the other WWII system*, it was modern for the '40 years...I don't like but P-69 was *a good fighte*r, used over 200 missions


Was it 'the worst' or 'a good fighter'?
What do you mean by 'used over 200 missions'?
What does "it wasnt how the other WWII system" means anyway?


----------



## Waynos (Mar 29, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> P-69? You mean P-39?



Oh, I see you decided to start with that part. I couldn't decide where to begin


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Oh, I see you decided to start with that part. I couldn't decide where to begin


----------



## zoomar (Mar 29, 2010)

This may have been said before, and I apologize for not reading all 100 some-odd pages, but it depends what one means by worst? There are those planes which were excellent when introduced in the 1930's but had become hopelessly obsolete when forced to fight against much more modern types in WW2 - planes like the P-26, Gladiator, Ki-27, and Polikarpov I-15/16 series. I don't think it's fair to include these. Then there are planes that were never as good as it was hoped they would be, or that were designed to meet obsolescent ot foolish specifications - planes like the Battle, F2A, P-39, Stuka, Ki-43, Skua, Defiant, Bf-110, etc. Then there are planes which were simply design failures that, because of poor planning had to enter service way too early - like the Me-210 or the He-177, or like the Ju-288 never entered service (funny that all my examples are German). But my vote goes to the Me-163. Superficially a revolutionary and "hot" plane that completed acheived its performance objectives, but that failed to make any real difference in WW2. A complete waste of effort.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 29, 2010)

I agree with your distinctions as to defining 'worst' but for me I still think the worst was the Blackburn Botha. Designed to be a Torpedo bomber, if could hardly even fly and was despised by its own test pilots. I can't believe the same team came up with the Buccaneer!


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 29, 2010)

It's too tough to decide between Ba.88 and B. Botha


----------



## Bullo Loris (Mar 29, 2010)

Sorry sorry  P-39


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 29, 2010)

Why?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2010)

And why do you think it was the worst?

If you are going to pick an aircraft, tell us why it is was so bad...


----------



## Bullo Loris (Mar 29, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And why do you think it was the worst?
> 
> If you are going to pick an aircraft, tell us why it is was so bad...



design was bad...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2010)

Bullo Loris said:


> design was bad...



The P-39 served well with the Soviet Airforce. Chuck Yeager said it was his favorite WW2 aircraft to fly. So what was so bad about the design???


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 29, 2010)

his fellow 357th ace, Bud Anderson, gave a good synopsis on it....

It was a good-looking airplane. If looks counted for anything, it would have been a great airplane. And the Russians absolutely loved them, and wound up with most of them. Under 15,000 feet, the P-39, called the Airacobra, was a decent if underpowered performer. But the Airacobra was mincemeat above 15,000 feet, and useless in Western Europe, where virtually all of the flying and fighting was at double that altitude. ... 

Bell P-39 Airacobra - Fighter Airplane Used by Russia in WW2 <<<< that's the website.

the air war over the soviet union was not at the high altitudes as it was in the west. so the 39 was inside its threshold of performance. going from the UK bombers were above 20K most of the time and up to and over 30 K feet often enough up. at that altitude the P-39 would not have been able to match the LW aircraft and provide adequate bomber ecsort. as a low level fighter and ground support AC it could have functioned but we had ample supply of better performing AC at that juncture of the war. Its not the worse aircraft...like any other...it had to be used within the confinds of its performance.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2010)

Bullo Loris said:


> design was bad...



How was it bad?


----------



## zoomar (Mar 29, 2010)

The only possible reason one might bring up is the removal of supercharging that made the P-39 a disappointing dog performance-wise. But that was the USAAC's fault not Bell. As has been noted the Soviets put the plane to very good use. The P-39 was a very disappointing plane as far as the USAAF and RAF were concerned. But there was nothing inherently faulty with the design and in capable Soviet hands it was able to hold its own against Bf-109s and Fw-190's at low altitudes. In any lists of "worsts" the P-39 needs an asterix.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 30, 2010)

In a low altitude dogfight with a P-39, you kow for sure you can't afford to take a shot from the cannon. There's some psychological advantage there.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 17, 2010)

Bobbysocks has already hit the nail on the head here - the P39 performed very poorly at higher altitudes and was therefore of little use to the USAAF and RAF. On the Eastern Front, where combat occurred at lower altitudes, it performed much better, and was a success - do you really see the VVS employing large numbers of an aircraft design that was no good? The list of high-scoring Soviet aces who used the P-39 for all or part of their career also suggests that this was not a 'bad' aircraft...


----------



## Waynos (Apr 18, 2010)

There was a report on US aircraft published in Flight magazine in 1940 that is quite amusing to read today and I wonder where they got their information, the Germans?

Among the claims made in that piece were that the B-17 could be brought down by a single bullet and was 'obsolete by any standard' (!!) and that the only US type to approach British standards of light bomber design was the Douglas DB-7 (!!) But the bit that this part of the thread reminded me of was the open mockery of the first prototype P-39 report from Bell as fanciful rubbish and the outlandish claim that Bell would be well advised to forget all about it and concentrate on 'their only really promising type' the Airacuda (!!!!)







See the Flight archive and search 1940 to read the piece in full


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 18, 2010)

Excellent stuff Wayne - although the RAF can't have despised the Fortress that much as they used it as a heavy bomber soon after that report was published 

Interestingly, the USAAC apparently warned the RAF that the Fortress I (B-17C) would be a disaster as an unescorted, high-altitude day bomber due to it's insufficient defensive armament - and they were proved absolutely correct (for a number of reasons).

Having plastered the machine with extra guns to create the B-17E/F variants, the Americans then went on to ignore their own advice and the disaster of Schweinfurt ensued - perhaps both sides suffered from a degree of hubris about the capabilities of their aircraft and crews?


----------



## Waynos (Apr 18, 2010)

It wasn't the RAF's view, it was the Flight reporters own. Actually, it may not have been Flight, it might have been the Aeroplane, which is not online. I'll look for it and scan it if thats the case.

I thought it was the RAF who told the Americans about the B-17 and daylight raids, rather than the other way round?


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 18, 2010)

Let me go and check that - I came across the tale while researching 90 Squadron's Forts with a view to building one in 1/72 scale. All that stuff was on my old PC AFAIK (it isn't on this one anyway), but the thread with the links is on here somewhere 8)


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 18, 2010)

Just another though on that report - I can understand the hack rooting for the Airacuda - heavily-armed, twin-engined, multi-crew fighters were in vogue at the time, with the Bf110 leading the way and the RAF barking up a related tree with the Whirlwind. I presume the article was published before the 110 flopped over South-East England and the full extent of the Whirlwind's problems became known?


----------



## Negative Creep (Apr 19, 2010)

How about the PZL.30 Zubr?






Completely obsolete before it was built and the undercarriage caused so many problems the crews just flew with it down. Then there is the fact they demonstrated it to the Romanians, whereupon it broke apart it mid air. Finally, it is so ugly you wonder if the plan was to make its opponents crash from laughing so hard


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 19, 2010)

The Zubr has to be from the same stable as the Amiot 143 and Farman F.222. Monumentally ugly with monumentally poor performance to boot. Having said that, all of them were as aerodynamic as a housebrick, so they were never going to win prizes for performance...


----------



## zoomar (Apr 19, 2010)

My goal is to piss people off, so I will list some "worst" planes for each of the major combatants that may not be ususal suspects. To meet my rigorous requirements, these planes will have to have seen lots of active service. Some will be planes that actually performed well and acheived quite a bit in combat, but were in one way or another unpopular with pilots, unsuccessful in the major role they were intended for, slightly obsolescent when most needed, were prematurely introduced before all the kinks were worked out; or were good basic designs that suffered from poor manufacturing and reliability.

Great Britain: Defiant, Battle, Blenheim, Gladiator; Typhoon, Manchester, Stirling, Albacore,
Germany: He-111, He-177, Me-210, Do-17/215/217 night fighters, Hs-129, Fw-200, Bf-110, Ta-154, Me-163
Italy: Fiat CR42, Mc202/202 (actually just about the entire Regia Aeronautica)
USSR: LaGG-3, Mig-3; Il-4, I-15/16/153, 
USA: Helldiver, Seamew, P-39, P-36, P-40, B-26 Marauder, F2A, Devastator
Japan: Ki-43, Ki-44, G3M, G4M, Ki-21, and with the possible exception of the Ki-46, Ki-67, and Ki-84, just abount anything else flown by the JAAF.

Obviously, this list includes some "great" planes.


----------



## Negative Creep (Apr 21, 2010)

There was a Japanese transport, designed to carry fuel supplies towards the end of the war. I believe it actually used 80% of it's cargo getting there so in that respect it was hopeless. Only thing is I can't remember for the life of me what it was called. Any ideas? I think it looked somewhat like a Ju88


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 21, 2010)

zoomar said:


> My goal is to piss people off, so I will list some "worst" planes for each of the major combatants that may not be ususal suspects. To meet my rigorous requirements, these planes will have to have seen lots of active service. Some will be planes that actually performed well and acheived quite a bit in combat, but were in one way or another unpopular with pilots, unsuccessful in the major role they were intended for, slightly obsolescent when most needed, were prematurely introduced before all the kinks were worked out; or were good basic designs that suffered from poor manufacturing and reliability.
> 
> Great Britain: Defiant, Battle, Blenheim, Gladiator; Typhoon, Manchester, Stirling, Albacore,
> Germany: He-111, He-177, Me-210, Do-17/215/217 night fighters, Hs-129, Fw-200, Bf-110, Ta-154, Me-163
> ...



In terms of the GB planes, the only fight I'm going to pick it the Typhoon. While it was indeed rubbish in its _intended role_, it was deadly in the role it later grew in to, and made a valuable contribution to Overlord and subsequent campaigns.

The LW: agree with your list except for the Fw200, which was the bane of Atlantic convoys (making bombing attacks then vectoring in the wolf packs) until CVEs became widespread towards the end of the war. I also disagree with the Bf110, and I'm sure many bomber Command veterans who were shot down by one would as well. Finally, I think it's a bit unfair to slate the Ta-154 as it never saw service. The design was fundamentally sound and it would have been deadly, but the bombing campaign prevented the Germans making high enough quality glue to hold the thing together, so the project was stillborn.

For the US, I would say that the F2A was a turkey, but this was in some ways down to the spec of the US versions rather than the design as a whole - after all, the Finns achieved great success with their Buffaloes against much 'better' opponents. The P-40, P-39 and B-26 I would also take off your list, the two fighters were both good performers, especially in Soviet hands in the case of the P-39. The B-26 could be classed as 'bad' because it took considerable skill to handle and killed a good few of it's pilots, but by that logic the Bf109 is also 'bad' because of the demands made by narrow-track landing gear, very limited view on the ground, and having a fuel tank under the seat. I would also question if the Helldiver was 'bad', or that it simply failed to live up to the legacy of the SBD which, after all, basically won the Battle of Midway.

I don't know enough about the Russians or Japanese to make too much comment, but will agree the Italians fielded very poor types. I have the view that this was partly due to extreme conservatism witihn the Italian airforce concerning armament, aircraft layout etc, and partly due to the Fascist government being heavily supported and even staffed by representatives of the Italian arms industry, who seemed to get paid a lot for build poor quality kit, not just planes, but notably tanks too.

I'm not pissed off... but I do love a good debate


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 21, 2010)

It's hardly a debate when a person just lumps the planes tells that those are bad ones


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 21, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> It's hardly a debate when a person just lumps the planes tells that those are bad ones



True, but I am trying my best to start one


----------



## zoomar (Apr 21, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> In terms of the GB planes, the only fight I'm going to pick it the Typhoon. While it was indeed rubbish in its _intended role_, it was deadly in the role it later grew in to, and made a valuable contribution to Overlord and subsequent campaigns.
> 
> The LW: agree with your list except for the Fw200, which was the bane of Atlantic convoys (making bombing attacks then vectoring in the wolf packs) until CVEs became widespread towards the end of the war. I also disagree with the Bf110, and I'm sure many bomber Command veterans who were shot down by one would as well. Finally, I think it's a bit unfair to slate the Ta-154 as it never saw service. The design was fundamentally sound and it would have been deadly, but the bombing campaign prevented the Germans making high enough quality glue to hold the thing together, so the project was stillborn.
> 
> ...



Well, as I said, I included a number of planes that one might not normally include in a list of "worsts". I actually thought about some others that would raise even more eyebrows (how about the Bf-109G and Ki-84, for example). Part of my purpose was to point out that there really can't be any legitimate "worsts' or "bests" because so much more needs to be considered than simply performance or operational record. So let's discuss some of my examples.

Britain. Glad to see you basically agree with me here, and I realized that including the Typhoon was a stretch. But you pointed out the main reason I included it: There rarely has been a major warplane that was so bad at the role it was specifically designed for, and yet turned out to be great at something else entirely. How can highly skilled designers and manufacturers be so wrong about their own creation?

Germany. The point with this list was to ask another question. How is it that a _whole country_ full of of highly skilled designers and manufacturers with an absolute leader that plotted for a European War he knew and virtually intended would eventually involve the the two greatest naval powers and the the largest continental power on earth, have an air force so ill-prepared for the task? With the (almost accidental) exception of the Ju-88, German bombers were all poorly equipped to succeed when they were needed most in 1940-41. Yes, the Fw-200 was amazingly successful for a year or two as a long-range maritime recon/bomber operating from bases on the bay of Biscay. Just imagine how much more successful an equivalent number of real warplanes like the Lancaster, B-17, B-24, or Sunderland would have been in this role? And what was the only halfway successful airplane the Germans turned to when the Fw-200 finally couldn't hack it? Not the He-177, which almost everyone puts at the top of their "worsts" list but _another converted transport_, the Ju-290. Such planning! Germany also produced a raft of twin-engined Zestorers, flying Swiss Army Knives that were compromised by having to do everything. And when they finally found a niche they excelled at (night-fighting), the war was basically over. When the war was still winnable and Germany really needed a long-range escort fighter in 1940-41, the Bf-110 was...well...not that plane. You will note that I did not include the infamous Ju-87 Stuka in my list. That's because it was designed for one role and one role only - dive bombing - a role at which it actually excelled. It is not the Stuka's fault it was mis-used in theatres any classic dive bomber would be shot down in droves.

USA. This list was hard, because it included a number of planes that were not really all that bad...and some that achieved greatness. As is the case with Germany the blame for the relatively poor standard for US fighters in the first part of WW2 (the P-39 and P-40) can probably be laid more on upper level officialdom and USAAF policy rather than the skill and ability of their manufacturers. The P-39 could have been a great fighter had it been given the right engine, and the P-40 had to soldier on too long because the US was slow to gear up for WW2 (something a traditional neutral like the USA can be excused for, not Nazi Germany). Both planes had excellent qualities, as the Russians eventually proved - especially with the P-39. Actually, if it weren't for the British the best and most iconic USAAF fighter would never have existed. The Helldiver was a horrible plane, hated by its aircrew, but achieved greatness nonetheless. I listed the B-26 for much the same reason, but I will admit that its initial problems were eventually resolved. I'll gladly remove it.

Regarding the Russians, I might have been a little unfair, especially with regard to the I-16, which through no fault of its own was just a tad old when WW2 came around. But the LaGGs and MiGs were produced in far greater numbers than they should have been - but if Stalin says "build it" you'd better build it by God!. By and large, I am not a fan of JAAF fighters, which to me had similar flaws as Italian fighters - under gunned, under powered, and too lightly constructed. Yes they were probably fun airplanes to fly around in, but not when bigger, faster, stronger, and more heavily armed enemies are out to get you.


----------



## RAM (May 7, 2010)

Ok, gonna bite in this one. Too much factual errors in zoomar's posts to let them slip by before someone tells him about it, any casual reader will get a very wrong information if reading this post otherwise.



zoomar said:


> (how about the Bf-109G and Ki-84, for example).



you'd be so wrong as to be painful. The Bf109G ranged from an excellent fighter (G-2, G-10, G-14, G-6 with MW50) to an average, yet still quite good fighter (G-6 sans MW-50).

The Ki84 was a respected plane among the american aircrews. And that was flying with low quality gas (when tested in the US with proper high-octane gas it gave a sterling performance that raised many an eyebrow among the US airmen).



> Germany....



Here you start with a false premise. Hitler never intended to go to war vs the US until PH. In fact during 1941 he actively tried to avoid entering war vs the US several times. And Hitler didn't really want to go to war vs Britain aswell. He only had a quarrel against France, and he wanted to see it fullfitted. And then of course, he wanted to destroy the USSR and take all European Russia and rest of the soviet states up to the Urals and Caucasus, enslave the slavic population and massacre every jew he found in every mile in his path.

But hitler didn't, ever, actively planned or seeked a war vs the UK and/or USA.



> have an air force so ill-prepared for the task?



Calling the luftwaffe an "Ill-prepared force" is daunting. I'm not gonna comment this as it deserves no commentary. The Luftwaffe reigned supreme over the skies of europe between 1939 and 1942 (Even during the BoB the LW really got near victory; Dowding himself saw the abbyss coming fast to his Fighter command. Only thing that saved the day was Göring stupid regulations about close escort that rendered the Bf110 useless, and hitler's stupid decision to switch targets from the RAF to bombing civilians) and then only was slowly drained because HItler had given it too many a foe to fight in such an inferiority of numbers. If you think an "Ill prepared" force is able to do that, lord helps anyone who ever faces an "appropiately prepared" air force in a war.




> German bombers were all poorly equipped to succeed when they were needed most in 1940-41.



The He111 receives very little respect from you, I see. Yet it was a very good medium bomber for it's day and kept being so until circa 1942, or even 1943 (the sailors aboard the convoys to Murmansk would have to agree with me, seeing how many of their ships this "poorly equiped" plane blew out of the water with it's torpedoes).

The Ju87 also does receive very little respect. For a plane that terrorized most of europe for three years in a row and was the main tool of one of the most feared anti-shipping air unit ever to fly (FliegerKorps X), certainly this "poorly equipped" plane, did its job well. 

Yeah, both planes only could operate safely if air superiority wasn't on the enemy side. So the same can be said about every other bomber of the war. Without air superirity the B-17 was a sitting duck. The Il-2 was a duck. The B-24/25/26/you name it were sitting ducks. The Blenheims were sitting ducks. The beauforts were sitting ducks.The Wellingtons were sitting ducks. The Lancasters were sitting ducks. Etcetera. Include every succesfull bomber/ground assault plane here, you name it, unless it operated under a decently sized escort, or under a total air superiority, they were sitting ducks.

I guess every ground attack plane and bomber of WW2 sucked, then.


BTW, I'd have to tell you that it's not the planes' problem (nor fault) that their designers don't know what they will be expected to do with two or three years of advance because noone told them about it. The Bf109E had a limited range because noone expected it to be escorting bombers to strategic objectives. The Ju88/He111/Do17 (excellent planes for their time, otherwise) were designed to serve tactical purposes of ground support for the benefit of the Heer, not to conduct deep strikes into the heartland of Britain (something that never was put in their specifications). Those planes were designed for a certain set of roles, which they did accomplish brilliantly. It doesn't mean they sucked or were bad because they failed to perform better when they were asked to do things that they were NEVER intended to do in the first place.

As for the Bf-110 being "not that plane"...it was an excellent long range fighter for the time being. Watch its speed performance - faster than the Hurricane and almost on par on the Spitfire. with it's clean (for the time and it's size) aerodynamics and weight was a notable diver and zoomer and a quite adept plane at playing the "hit and run" tactics the german fighter doctrines demanded from their pilots. With the german standard fighter tactics (Freie jagd at high altitudes to bounce at an enemy distracted by trying to intercept bombers), the plane actually performed really well. It's not the model's fault that suddenly Göring drank too much schnapps and ordered ALL fighters to perform close escort duties only, forcing the Bf110 to enter every fight from there onwards lower and slower than it's enemies; a situation it couldn't cope with.

Just for the record, the Bf110 went on to get among the best night fighters of the war. But far from that fact, MANY Bf110s remained on day fighting squadrons and did a hell of a job as fighter/fighter bombers/ground attack at both the mediterranean and Russia. The Bf110 has been demonized for decades because they were mauled in the BoB, but that wasn't the model's fault, was Göring's.


About american planes. The P-39 sucked harder than a 2 cent "virtue selling" woman when paid one dollar. It was that hard. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know about the famous 1.5 K/D Ratio over Port Moresby. Hell, the Wildcats were getting far better K/Ds over guadalcanal at that time and honestly, the Wildcat was another dog. But that dog at least could fly from a carrier, something a P39 coudln't, and operat at altitudes over 13000 feet, something that the P-39 could not aswell. And the Wildcat was hard to get into a spin, and was easily recovered from one. The P-39 was highly unstable, easily put into a spin, and had no means to get out of one, if it ever entered it. Amazing model, yeah.
A handful of P-40s did achieve an amazing K/D ratio over china flying with the FLying Tigers under the command of Lt. Gen. Chennault. Noone will argue the P40 being a very limited (being very generous) fighter if anything. The thing here is that the opposition flew in worse planes (Ki27 nates and early Ki43 oscars. Planes that if asked to do anything but turn in tight circles were an absolute FAIL), and that the P40 did keep using the right tactics for its strong points, and for avoiding the enemy ones.

Similarly over PM and NG, the P39s had success because the enemy was in a relatively speaking dog (Yeah, the Zero, a plane that couldn't dive, couldn't zoom, had barely acceptable weaponry and got dissasembled if hit by anything bigger than a fly) with the proper tactics and team coordination. Good tactics always win. Bad tactics lose (the japanese always flew as individuals. Teamwork shined...because there was NONE at all.) Inflight comms do help winning aswell, even more if the enemy doesn't fly with a radio (many zeros didn't fly with a radio at the time, relying on visual gestures) . 

Given all that, the K/D ratio tells me nothing about the P-39. The russian stories about how great the plane was don't tell me too much either because:

A) the russians were flying P-39s using engine settings that trashed their engines in 4-5 flights. They cared nothing about the lifetime of their machines.. They also retired part of the weaponry and most of the armor of the plane to make it lighter. So the P-39 flying in Soviet service wasn't the P-39 in US or british service, was a completely different plane with an abused engine and much lighter than the standard plane, and that was expected only to last for anything between 3-5 sorties before being trashed.

B) even so, any plane that gives up the altitude capabilities the P-39 certainly lacked, is a FUBAR fighter. Boelcke's diktat was as valid in 1939-45 as it was in 1915-18. He who is higher, controls the fight, and sets the rules of said fight. A fighter model that FORCES YOU to fly low because it CAN'T fly high is forcing you to give the initiative to the enemy. In air combat initiative=victory 90% of the times. So, the lighter-abused-P39 in soviet service still SUCKED.

C) all the above mentioned points are backed up by raw numbers. German fighters did shoot down russian planes in droves and a lot of them were P-39s. For anyone who brings K/D ratios into any discussion about the P39 (mentioning the New Guinea record of the model), I 'd ask him to dig up the REAL K/D of the P39 in soviet service. Even more I'd ask him to dig up the REAL Casualty/kill rate (given that the engines couldn't last more than 10-15 hours of running in the conditions the russian pilots ran them, and that the plane was unstable, easy to get into an accelerated spin, and unrecoverable once in said spin) of the model. That would shed some light about the ACTUAL value of that scrap-yard piece of crap the airacobra was.


As for the I-16 "having no fault on it's own", well, yet another plane that was so unstable on every and each of the three axis that the pilots had serious trouble keeping it in controlled flight "has no fault on it's own". Suprising to say the least.

So really your post has some blatant errors and misconceptions and,honestly,I can tell you-you hold opinions that I respect as such, but are based on nothing but factual errors. Next time you give a list as the one you gave, I'd suggest you to base it on some real grounds instead of so many errors.

Sorry if I sound too harsh, but really, it is that way.


----------



## RAM (May 7, 2010)

as for the topic itself, I read up to page 29 of this thread until I jumped to the last 2 (too much to read of this thread, lol, I have limited time). I would like to give my vote which goes to the Breda Ba-88 (mentions of honor go for the Me163 and Bachem Natter). A plane which most brilliant service record is to lay down as a decoy in an airfield is...unspeakable of. The latter two were pure desperation projects, and as such at least they have an excuse for having ever existed...because they were pure death traps for anyone valiant enough to strap himself into their cockpit.


And a little information on the brewster buffalo. The F2B2 which flew over Midway (and that was a complete dog) was an overloaded design. The basic design (the brewster 339 which flew for the british over singapore and in the DEI and gave a good account of itself, and the finnish model which achieved such a succesfull career in their hands) had much less armor, lacked self sealing tanks and had much lighter radio equipment. As such was much more maneouverable and survivable than the heavily laden version that flew with the navy. So both the navy officer who said that sending pilots in that crate was to insta-losing them, and the finnish pilots who give accounts of a highly succesful fighter are right. There was little to compare between both versions: one (B339) was a very nimble and maneouverable respectable fighter. The other (F2B2) was a complete failure as a fighter.

All the best.


----------



## Cromwell (May 9, 2010)

RAM said:


> And a little information on the brewster buffalo. The F2B2 which flew over Midway (and that was a complete dog) was an overloaded design. The basic design (the Brewster 339 which flew for the British over Singapore and in the DEI and gave a good account of itself, and the Finnish model which achieved such a successful career in their hands) had much less armor, lacked self sealing tanks and had much lighter radio equipment. As such was much more maneuverable and survivable than the heavily laden version that flew with the navy. So both the navy officer who said that sending pilots in that crate was to insta-losing them, and the Finnish pilots who give accounts of a highly successful fighter are right. There was little to compare between both versions: one (B339) was a very nimble and maneuverable respectable fighter. The other (F2B2) was a complete failure as a fighter.
> 
> All the best.



The Navy in the US and the UK had a nasty habit of spoiling an otherwise great plane with, say, unnecessary 2nd crew, massively over-engineered equipment (like chunky compasses in huge gimbals - you should see them) - under powered like the dreadful Barracuda, even an emergency-power Griffon could hardly drag that barge off the deck, into the wind, ship doing 15 knots, etc

As regards the 'Buffalo' - this plane just keeps coming back atcha post after post - and it is a strange conundrum *

Personally I think it is partly to do with that other Old Chestnut - yes thats right - Operational Logistical Implementation.

Compare with the P39/40 in the hands of the Flying Tigers. 

A big part of the Brit losses in Singapore were to do with bad leadership AND a barking failure to share resources with the Chinese and more importantly the US volunteers such as Claire Chenault

Claire was a top-bloke who was, of course, often ignored by the great and good - he kept a small force of planes operational against all odds. If only we had listened.


* Also - The Finns used to reverse the Oil Rings on the pistons to increase continuous power ratings - and it _worked !_ ...... So why didn't we all do that ?


Addendum : Think of the Firefly without the extra crew member and rid off the heavy unwanted contraptions - it could have really scored I think, even better than it did already.


----------



## Cromwell (May 9, 2010)

Negative Creep said:


> How about the PZL.30 Zubr?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Have you noticed that 'Zubr' sounds a little bit like FUBAR ?

Anyway, I would like to build an indoor rubber-powered model of one just , well , because it represent the ultimate challenge in unsuitable design for flying scale model.

(it might work with foam wings and CO2 power)


----------



## renrich (May 9, 2010)

Ram, don't know where you get your info about Japanese fighter pilot tacics but you need to read "The First Team" by John Lundstrom. The training and tactics of the IJN pilots in the early going was excellent. Your characterisation of the Zero is questionable at best. In the hands of a good pilot, it was still a formidable advesary in 1945 and in 1941 it was overall arguably the best fighter in the world.


----------



## Waynos (May 9, 2010)

RAM said:


> Yeah, both planes only could operate safely if air superiority wasn't on the enemy side. So the same can be said about every other bomber of the war. Without air superirity the B-17 was a sitting duck. The Il-2 was a duck. The B-24/25/26/you name it were sitting ducks. The Blenheims were sitting ducks. The beauforts were sitting ducks.The Wellingtons were sitting ducks. The Lancasters were sitting ducks. Etcetera. Include every succesfull bomber/ground assault plane here, you name it, unless it operated under a decently sized escort, or under a total air superiority, they were sitting ducks.
> .



Mosquito


----------



## Waynos (May 9, 2010)

RAM said:


> Calling the luftwaffe an "Ill-prepared force" is daunting.................BTW, I'd have to tell you that it's not the planes' problem (nor fault) that their designers don't know what they will be expected to do with two or three years of advance because noone told them about it. The Bf109E had a limited range because noone expected it to be escorting bombers to strategic objectives. The Ju88/He111/Do17 (excellent planes for their time, otherwise) were designed to serve tactical purposes of ground support for the benefit of the Heer, not to conduct deep strikes into the heartland of Britain (something that never was put in their specifications). Those planes were designed for a certain set of roles, which they did accomplish brilliantly. It doesn't mean they sucked or were bad because they failed to perform better when they were asked to do things that they were NEVER intended to do in the first place.



Do you see how you contradicted yourself in the same post?

So, Zoomar was right then. They WERE ill-prepared for the task at hand......according to you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2010)

RAM said:


> Calling the luftwaffe an "Ill-prepared force" is daunting. I'm not gonna comment this as it deserves no commentary. The Luftwaffe reigned supreme over the skies of europe between 1939 and 1942 (Even during the BoB the LW really got near victory; Dowding himself saw the abbyss coming fast to his Fighter command. Only thing that saved the day was Göring stupid regulations about close escort that rendered the Bf110 useless, and hitler's stupid decision to switch targets from the RAF to bombing civilians) and then only was slowly drained because HItler had given it too many a foe to fight in such an inferiority of numbers. If you think an "Ill prepared" force is able to do that, lord helps anyone who ever faces an "appropiately prepared" air force in a war.



Actually a military force that is not prepared to fight its enemies no matter how numerical is an "ill-prepared force". That does not make it a "bad force". I personally think that up to about 1942/1943 it is was the best Air Force in the world, but that does not mean it was "prepared" for the task at hand.


----------



## Cromwell (May 9, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Actually a military force that is not prepared to fight its enemies no matter how numerical is an "ill-prepared force". That does not make it a "bad force". I personally think that up to about 1942/1943 it is was the best Air Force in the world, but that does not mean it was "prepared" for the task at hand.



I suspect what we are trying to say here is that the LW were optimized for Tactical Strikes, in a land-mass connected theatre of war (like Europe for example).


Cross-channel strategic campaigns were not their best card, so to speak - right ?


----------



## Cromwell (May 9, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Mosquito



Yep - and later 'bomber' versions of the Lightning - P38L and Q I think - the special leader version with the Snoot for the bombadier


----------



## RAM (May 10, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Cross-channel strategic campaigns were not their best card, so to speak - right ?



There you go. The German Lufwaffe was never intended to do any strategic bombing (it was ruled out very soon in the development of the air force. Since Wever was killed in an air crash and the Ural bomber concept was scrapped, the german air force never gave a second thought to strategic campaigns until they saw it as the only way to bring UK to their knees in 1940. In the meantime the Luftwaffe had wiped the european skies out of enemy oposition and cleared the way of the wehrmacht to conquest half europe. And after the BoB they kept doing the same until sheer enemy numbers weighed too much.

That wasn't under any perspective an "Ill-prepared force". It was a brilliant tool to do what they were asked and planned to do- Tactical air support, air superiority tasks and limited deep strikes against enemy air bases to wipe enemy AFs on the ground. That they lacked the ability to propoer conduct a strategic bombing is trivial. And anyway compare the 1939 Luftwaffe with the rest of the contending air forces. The RAF was only adept at defending britain (and that only because of dowding). Bomber Command was a disaster until 1943 and there was no organized army support at all until very late 1942. I need not to talk about the Regia Aeronautica. The French Air force lacked tools to do ANYTHING properly. The Red Air Force lacked proper tactics and most of its models were hopelessy outdated. The USAAF at the time was a very small force without the forces needed to wage a war. The IJA had placed too much emphasis on a kind of aircraft that later proved itself to be as dangerous to it's pilot as for the enemy. Etc.

From all the air forces in the world in 1939, the Luftwaffe was by far the best. Yet it was "ill-prepared" to wage a war?....I guess the rest of the air forces in the world were cronically sick, then.



AS for the mosquito example-I didn't mention it at all and for a good reason . Still, attacking an enemy without proper air support they'd have suffered serious losses nonetheless. In any case my point was brought up to probe the case about the models mentioned as "possible worsts" in that imfamous list (He111 or Ju87) being in fact very able tools which gave a very good account of themselves, and don't deserve to be in said list.



As for the Zero. IJN pilot training was the best in the world in 1941. Probably their pilots were among the best in the world because the harsh requirements to enter that force by then. Still, the plane wasn't well suited to be a good fighter for WW2 requirements, and the training was still faulty nonetheless when it came to tactical "teamplay". By New Guinea times the standard japanese "flight" was still of 3 aircraft, they still had not adopted the "finger four". Team tactics were very limited or non-existant. 
And the plane itself wasn't really good. It had a decent top speed but an underaverage acceleration and climbrate. Worse yet, WW2 air combat proved the fact that energy or/and hit and run tactics were the war winners, not low speed maneouverability. Japanese planes until 1944 (and with the expection of the Ki44) put too much emphasis in low speed flying qualities and maneouverability, and not enough to high speed tactics, dive, zoom, firepower and protection. And those latter were the parameters which defined a great fighter at the era. The Zero lacked them all.

The zero only shined in the initial parts of the Far Eastern war, when the japanese attacked second or third line air forces with untrained pilots that insisted in entering close fights vs them. However, the Zero failed ALWAYS to provide air superiority when properly trained enemies (Even in an inferior plane as the Wildcat) showed up to fight against them (see: US Navy or USMC). When the USAAF also adopted teamwork and high speed tactics to fight the japanese, the Zero also failed to provide even while the opposition was in mediocre planes such as the P39 or P40. See the fights over New Guinea.

And when better planes came into service (F6F, F4U, P38, P51, P47, Spitfire), of course the japanese were wiped out of the sky, for now they had the inferior tactics AND the inferior plane.

The Zero was a decent embarked fighter, and certainly was one of the best fighters of the PAcific Theater (because the british had their better fighters at europe) in 19491. But certainly was no "terminator of the air" and no excellent fighter at all. Compare it's performance with the standard fighters flying over europe at the time (109F, Spitfire Mk.V, Fw190) performance wise and tactically wise, and you'll see exactly how much obsolete it was.


Finally "the zero was a dangerous foe if well piloted until 1945". Well, yes. polish parasol P.11s fighters did give a surprise to much better german fighters in 1939 now and then. Doesn't retract from the fact that the fighter was hopeless, and that was obsolete, and that it had no chance to fight succesfully in the WW2 skies. A P26 shot a Zero over the Phillipines in 1941, that means the P26 with good pilots was "a Dangerous foe in 1941"? hell no. It means a P26 pilot had the skill (And the luck) to accomplish it, but the plane was a piece of crap for 1941 standards.
The Zero was a barely acceptable fighter for 1941 standards, was well obsolete by 1943 and was completelly and hopelessy outdated for 1945. In short: it was no miracle or marvel at all.

/edit: a little add-on. While the germans did not give stategic bombings a real serious thought until the BoB was forced upon them, they still were about to force the fighter command collapse just at the time that the main offensive focus was changed towards area bombings on english cities, and so, they were very close winning the BoB (tho it woudl've served nothing, SeaLion was an impossibility for Germany at the times, RAF in or out of the fight or not). So that qualifies them as teh best strategic bomber air force of 1940 in the world.

Not only that, at a time when bomber command (a command created for strategic bombing and assumed to have good enough night navigation and striking ability) was dropping leaflets all over the german countryside (because they failed to find their targets consistently), the germans already had several pathfinder night bombers to conduct high-precision night attacks against Britain thanks to their bombing aids based on lorenz beams. That those systems failed to deliver was 100% attributable to Ultra - something completely out of scope for the Luftwaffe- and some very brilliant guys in charge of the British Scientific Intelligence room of MI6.

So- by 1940 we have the best tactical air force in the world
the best strategical air force in the world
The best fighter force in the world (tied up with RAF's Fighter Command, slightly better or slightly worse depends on opinion, but it was roughly on par)
The best night bombing air force in the world
The best naval attack air force in the world (as FLiegerkorps X shown in january 1941 over the Illustrious and british convoys to Malta, latter greece, and later Crete)

Yet that air force was "ill suited" for the task?.

Yeah, right.


----------



## Waynos (May 10, 2010)

> That wasn't under any perspective an "Ill-prepared force".



Of course it is! Why cant you see the contradiction in your own post? They were very well equipped for short range tactical warfare - and then sent on long range strategic missions, er hello?

Yours assertions about Germany almost winning the BoB are also well wide of the mark, (British strength increased during the Battle as German strength declined) but that belongs in a different thread. Also, RAF Fighter Command was _de facto_ the best fighter force in the world in 1940. Opinion doesn't come into it. while the planes and pilots *were* the German fighter force, in Britain they were just an important element in a chain that included ground based radars and fighter control, essential elements upon which all subsequent fighter defence screens were modelled. And thats before you look at the upper management


----------



## tomo pauk (May 10, 2010)

+1

Though, RAM has plenty of good points.


----------



## renrich (May 10, 2010)

Appendix 5 in the "First Team" goes into detail about IJN carrier pilots and their combat methods. I cannot, being a hunt and peck typist, record all these details here. The "route" formation was similar to the British VIC but was not used in combat. During combat the IJN adopted much more loose formations than the RAF. The IJN pilots liked to use firing passes from high astern and high side using medium to low deflection shooting. They would charge down on the target, fire and then pull out underneath and ahead to climb out of reach. " In 1943, the lack of experienced pilots compelled the IJN to adopt the 2-2 formation of two-plane Butai comprising a four-plane Shotai"

In 1944, Boone Guyton, the main test pilot for the Corsair, flew the Zero and was very impressed with it's astounding maneuverability below 220 mph, its incredible rate of climb at SL of around 4500 fpm and it's Vmax on the deck of 300 mph.

In the comparison tests in December, 1942, between a Zero 21 and various US fighters, the Zero was superior in climb to the P38F up to about 20000 feet. The Zero against the P39-D1, the P39 was superior in ROC up to 10000 feet where the Zero gained superiority and there was no contest from there on up. All tests were not completed because the P39 ran out of fuel. Against the P51( Allison) the Zero climbed sharply away from the Mustang from 5000 to 10000 feet and from 10000 to 15000 feet. Above 15000 feet the tests were terminated because the P51 power plant failed to operate properly. Against the P40F the tests were not able to be completed because full power could not be obtained by the P40. The Zero was superior in speed and climb to the F4F4 at all altitudes above 1000 feet. Between 5000 and 19000 feet, the Zero was slightly superior to the F4U1 in ROC. The Zero, particularly in the early war was noted for it's good ROC.


----------



## RAM (May 10, 2010)

There's no contradiction. At all. You're missing the point. No air force in 1939 (in fact no air force until 1944' USAAF, and to a point, RAF) was suited to conduct **EVERY** role a modern air force had to conduct during WW2. And German bomber force didn't really do a bad job during the BoB, btw.
Faulty tactics enforced by Göring and a wrong switch of operational targets forced by Hitler killed the campaign, not the lack of quality of the german bomber force (which had models that weren't really the best for the task, but they sure gave an excellent account of themselfs nonetheless).

Yes, the German air force didn't have B-17s in 1940. Guess what, that didn't turn them into an ill-prepared force: they still were the only air force of the era able to conduct a quite succesful strategic bombing campaign on another nation, even though it had never been designed for that role when it was built.




renrich said:


> Appendix 5 in the "First Team" goes into detail about IJN carrier pilots ...



We're talking about 1941-43 here (at least I am, after 1943 there's simply nothing to debate as the Zero was totally outclassed).

Zeros over NG were still using Vic formations on fighter sweeps over Port Moresby. in 1942. 

A good number of Zeros over NG, Guadalcanal, and quite some embarked models lacked a radio set. in 1942.

IJN training schemes put extreme emphasis on aerobatics, and too little in teamwork. This still held true by 1945.


Those three points alone give the IJN air complements a very low rating teamwork-wise and tactically wise.




> In 1944, Boone Guyton, the main test pilot for the Corsair, flew the Zero and was very impressed with it's astounding maneuverability below 220 mph



Every pilot who flew a zero was amazed by its low speed maneouverability. I guess that had Boone Guyton flown a WW1 Dr-1 triplane he'd been amazed by it's under-80mph turn rate and maneouverability. 

But, would've that turned the DR-1 into a worthy fighter for WW2?. No. And his comments on the low speed maneouverability of the zero don't qualify the model as a succesful fighter any more than that. 

Low speed maneouverability accounted for nothing during WW2 air fights. Otherwise jets woud've never been the next step, and Biplanes would've been the best fighters around. Yet Speed, hi-speed maneouverability, dive, zoom, toughness, firepower and visibility were the vital performance stats of top-class fighters of WW2. That was why the CR-42 fell in droves against hurricanes. That was why the Gladiator was retired from service. That was why by the end of the war high speed planes as the Gloster Meteor, Me262, P80, etc, heralded the new era of the jet fighters. None of those planes could turn with a propeller driven aircraft under 250mph IAS. But they were the future because they were better in what mattered. Turning ability at low speeds meant nothing. 

The Zero failed in most of those departments. It excelled at low speed turnings. In short: the Zero wasn't a top-class WW2 fighter for his era (I insist, Fw190, Bf109F, Spitfire MkV-IX. Those were the top dogs. The zero was a sub-par figher that did great at the DEI because they fought elderly machines flown by hopelessy unexperienced pilots).



> its incredible rate of climb at SL of around 4500 fpm



Pure hyperbole, that's a myth. The A6M2 did at it's best some 2700fpm at sea level, and steadily fell as altitude increased. By that time the Spitfire Mkv was able to (barely) hit 3500fpm at sea level, the german 109F4 was hitting 3900, and the Fw190A1 was good for around 3700fpm. All of them had better powerloading than the japanese fighter.

The whole 4500fpm myth is that, a myth. It comes from a wrong transcription of documents coming from some time back. There's no phisical way a 2800kg machine with a 950hp engine can climb that fast. The power delivered is not up to the task to achieve it, and that without taking propeller eficiency into the equation.

As a comparison, 4500fpm is a bit under what a Bf109G10 was able to achieve in 1944. The 109G10 was a roughly 3400kg plane with a 1800hp engine (DB605ASM with Mw50 injection and B4 fuel). Do the powerloading, or power to weight (As you wish to call it) math to see how impossible are the claims about the Zero making 4500fpm.

A6M2 Zero:
950hp/2800kg= 0.39 hp/kg

Bf109G10
1800hp/3300kg= 0.545 hp/kg

So, care to try to explain anyone how a plane with that powerratio can climb the same as the Bf109G10?.

Further comparison with an contemporary of the A6M2:

Bf109F4 (DB601E engine, 1350hp/sl)
1350hp/2900kg= 0,465hp/kg

Translated, almost 18% better power ratio than the zero. I would also ask you about how you are giving the Zero 4500fpm when it had a vastly lower power/weight ratio than the 109F4, yet you claim it outclimbed it by almost 600fpm.

I can do more comparisons with planes within that climb rate performance level. LAte spits, late russian fighters, late german fighters, most of them were in the 4500+ fpm turf. And they were all forced to have impressive powerlevels to do it. Most of those fighters sported engines with powers ranging from the 1800hp to the 2300hp.

The Zero had a 950hp engine. As I said, 2500-2700fpm was the best it could attain at sea level. Respectable, given the opposition it found. But no world-class beater by any means. Any spitfire would've eaten it for lunch (As they did later), and I won't enter in comparison with the best fighter of the time, the Fw190.



> and it's Vmax on the deck of 300 mph.



Thats a gross overstatement. Even the A6M5b wasn't able to pull more than 290mph at on the deck, and had 400hp more, and a better aerodynamic to boot. The A6M2 was good for some 270mph on the deck. Slower than a F4F, btw (the Zero was noticeably faster than the F4F at an altitude, though).

Even if you were right (That you are not), 300mph is barely impressing for late 1941. Roughly average for the time at the best. BF109F4s were clocking some [email protected] at the time, Fw190A1 was good for some [email protected] and spits V were able to run at around 310mph on the deck.

If we compare it with 1942 fighters (Fw190A4, Bf109G2, Spitfire Mk.IX, P47C), it's even worse.




> In the comparison tests in December, 1942, between a Zero 21 and various US fighters, the Zero was superior in climb to the P38F up to about 20000 feet. The Zero against the P39-D1, the P39 was superior in ROC up to 10000 feet where the Zero gained superiority and there was no contest from there on up. All tests were not completed because the P39 ran out of fuel. Against the P51( Allison) the Zero climbed sharply away from the Mustang from 5000 to 10000 feet and from 10000 to 15000 feet. Above 15000 feet the tests were terminated because the P51 power plant failed to operate properly. Against the P40F the tests were not able to be completed because full power could not be obtained by the P40. The Zero was superior in speed and climb to the F4F4 at all altitudes above 1000 feet. Between 5000 and 19000 feet, the Zero was slightly superior to the F4U1 in ROC.



Yep, that proves a fact, and it is that US fighters never were good at constant climb rate. They never were intended to anyway, and it never mattered; the american designs (particularily those that came online after 1942) emphasized what mattered in WW2 air combat: toughness, diving and zooming, firepower, top speed, high speed maneouverability, pilot visibility. Climbrate/acceleration was never in that list (they are good attributes for interceptors but once the fight is started, even a plane that accelerates like a truck but has good dive/zoom and high speed maneouverability, will destroy a lighter plane unable to dive/zoom properly, no matter what).

Also note, the tests vs the F4U1 were conducted with the early corsair, with the early hamilton standard prop. After the paddle props were issued, the Zero accelerated worse than the Corsair.

You also fail to mention that those reports also shed light over the fact that the Zero had progressively cemented controls over 250mph and was unmaneouverable at speeds over 350mph IAS, and that the plane had a very poor dive, and an ever poorer zoom. Wich was EXACTLY the reason why they were never able to do anything worth mention when faced against properly trained enemies flying (on-paper) inferior planes.

You don't mention either that the plane had an airframe so lightly built that a handful of 12.7mm rounds would pulverize it. But we all know that anyway so I guess that omission is OK. 



> The Zero, particularly in the early war was noted for it's good ROC.



Of course, because they were facing P40s, P39s, F4Fs, CW21 demons, Brewster Buffaloes, Fokker DXXIs, etc. I mean, they were flying against flying scrap bins. Not unnatural it outclimbed most of them.

And even then, it never mattered. Each time a force flying Zeros encountered an enemy force comprising properly trained pilots, they always failed to win air superiority. Even while those enemy forces flew such poor performers as the F4F, P39, P40 and other flying trash. Because that flying trash was still better than the zero at what mattered: Dive/zoom, toughness, firepower and high speed maneouverability.

of course, as soon as that flying trash was substituted for F6Fs, F4Us, P47s, P51s and P38s the whole IJA fighter forces were wiped out time after time. Unsurprising, to say the least.

The Zero was a very limited fighter at its best. It's a fact.

All the best


----------



## RAM (May 10, 2010)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/a6m2-oct2342.pdf

Performance analysis of the A6M2 captured on the aleutians proving the facts stated avobe:

Vmax at sea level: 277mph
Vmax: [email protected]
Climbrate at sea level: 2710fpm (maximum of the model)
Climbrate at 15000feet: 2460fpm



http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf

Performance analysis of an A6M5b (the best performing Zeke of the whole series which entered service with Japan).

-F4U1D (paddle prop) climbed as well as the Model 52 (A6M5b) up to 10000 feet, better avobe that.
-the FM2 (A MODIFIED WILDCAT!) climbed BETTER than the A6M5b up to 19000 feet.
-The model 52 still had very high control forces over 200mph IAS (the model was MUCH improved in that regard vs the A6M2) wich prevented it from being a threat to planes flying fast
-Literally what's said in that report is that over 200mph the F4U, F6F,FM2 (up-motorized F4F) had the maneouverability advantage over the Zero. So the zero wasn't that good maneouvering after all (and I insist, the model 52 was MUCH better than the A6M2 in that regard).
-The Zero still couldnt' dive well (and the model 52 also was much better than the A6M2)
-The only chance for a Zero to win a fight vs any of the avobe mentioned models was to drag the fight under speeds of 175Mph IAS. Which was easily avoided by the attacked: simply doing a sharp diving turn would shake the Zero off his tail because he wouldn't be able to follow. A following zoom back would also put his plane on equal or superior terms against the japanese fighter.

Corollary of all that, the A6M5b, the best Zero ever, was hopeless against even a refurbished wildcat. Not strange they got wiped out of the sky.


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/p5016.pdf

Comparison tests of a captured A6M2 vs P40k and P43 Lancer.

-A6M2 climbs better than the P40 over 10000 feet, but under 5000 feet the P40K climbs faster (or at least is suspected to, as report says)
-Acceleration wise the Zero was inferior to the P40K. (10000 feet)
-In mock-up fights if the P40K stayed fast the A6M2 stood no chance to harm it, even if the P40K didn't dive.
-It's highlighted again the poor controlability of the Zeros at moderate to high IAS. At 200mph the controls start getting harder to move. At 300mph IAS even putting the plane into a gentle turn requires an inordinate ammount of pilot strenght and was impossible to roll.
-I'ts also highlighted that at 275mph or avove IAS, the P40K had the clear upper hand maneouverability wise.
-The plane simply wasn't able to keep up with a P40K in a sharp dive, and would've been soon left behind even in a shallow one. Japanese pilots actually never tried to follow in either of those (as is also remarked on the report).


Corollary: the P40K was a much effective fighter than the A6M2. 

Anyone wishes, around here, to call the P40 a war winner?. Because I certainly won't ever do it. The Warhawk was obsolete even by 1942 standards (as the 109s made it clear over the Lybian and Egiptian deserts), yet the A6M2 was clearly inferior to it.

The Zero was a dog. Case closed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2010)

RAM said:


> Low speed maneouverability accounted for nothing during WW2 air fights.



Some interesting point in your discussion RAM but consider this...

At the start of the war and even into its early months, pilots (at least in the US) were being taught to engage in combat maneuvers at speeds under 300 mph. Not only was this an out dated training doctrine but it related to the aircraft maneuvering speeds and structural limitations. It also played into the hand of such aircraft like the Zero and Oscar and I think te results of some early air battles speak for themselves. I don't have the data in front of me right now but I believe there were charts in either the P-38 or P-40 flight manual that showed some pretty low speeds with regards to entering and performing aerobatic maneuvers and tight turns. Of course we know later in the war this changed and "boom and zoom" was the tactic of the day, I think you'll find that many twisting and turning dogfights that did happen occurred at speeds well under Vne for the given aircraft, at least at the beginning of the war.


----------



## RAM (May 10, 2010)

That's something I can't buy, FlyboyJ. The Marines and USN pilots had all appropiate training regarding teamwork and high speed tactics. True enough, they also had their good share of training on "old school" combat, but european reports coming from the other side of the Atlantic since 1939 were telling a clear story: close range, slow speed, turn based fighting was now totally outdated. Chennault only subscribed to it in China, and the whole of the air designers of the time aknowledged it. Which means, the air forces had also done it (and if the air force knew it, the pilots too because the AF sets the training courses ).

The american designers took a good note of what was going on in Europe at the time. The Hellcat, F4U, P47 and P38 designs all date from dates well prior to the enter of USA into the war (the stories about the F6F being designed on basis of what was found out of the aleutian A6M2 are pure myths). If the designers knew that their new fighters had to be powerful, speedy, good in high speed and energy fighting, and that low speed maneouverability was a non-factor by then, it's only normal to think that the pilots and the US air forces of the time (USAAC, US Navy and USMC air corps) were well aware of it aswell.

It's unsurprising, remember that some american models were flying in Europe at the time. The americans were specially interested in knowing how the P-36 fared in combat in order to know what to do to improve it. Reports came telling a tale about an enemy using superior tactics and relying on high speed, suprise passes, hit and run tactics, and not entering close combats unless as a desperate last resort. American engineers took good note of that and accordingly, designed fast, heavy, powerful planes that coudln't turn exactly on a dime, but noone cared about that.



What you say about training, however, applies very well to other nations. And thats why I say that the Zero excelled in the only place of the planet it could excel at the time: DEI, Indonesia and Burma. Against the array of outdated and obsolete models present there, it already had a headstart, but when we also take in account pilot training...well, the Japanese didn't put any emphasis on team work training at all, but their adversaries were simply untrained or very poorly so. The dutch pilots were trained in the "old school" of "turning and burning" and as such were easy prey. The british knew better, but their fighter pilots at the spot at the time weren't properly trained and actually were among the lowest quality fighter pilots of the Empire at the time (no disrespect intended to them at all, but the good ones understabily were fighting over the Channel and the DEsert at the time) and weren't properly commanded either.
The USAAF present at the Phillipines was a non-factor after Clark was wiped out of the earth by japanese early bombings, but their pilots weren't top-notch either and they still were flying by the "old" tactics anyway.

The only and one group of fighters/pilots the Japanese couldn't get the upper hand on, was against the AVG. Those were top-class pilots in an obsolete plane, the P40B. But a plane that still was better than the Zero for what mattered: high speed fighting. All those pilots had to do was to keep their fights fast. And so they did. And so we can see today their kill/loss ratio: absolutely outstanding. And soon what was already known back at the States reached every frontline squadron: NEVER turn with a japanese fighter. Stay fast, dive away if attacked, slash/zoom when attacking.

And the Zero happy days were over. Forever.

Against an enemy who kept their planes fast (and if those planes were good in the role of fighting fast, of course), the japanese fighters ,notably the Oscars of the Army, but here clearly I am including the Zero aswell, were simply hopeless. Against an enemy who just tried to close the fight into a slow speed conquest they ran over the opposition, the A6M/Ki43 were simply too good in slow speed stallfights. So, the Zeros excelled in the only and one place of the whole planet where a combination of old school tactics/poor pilot training/park of garbage planes was present at that time: DEI.

Had the Japanese been in France at the time and launched a Zero sortie over the British Islands they'd been merrily chewed away by the RAF.

In any case it took the allies soon enough to understand what not to do against a Zero. The USN F4Fs were doing it by the time of Coral Sea, and only 6 months had passed since the war had started. A plane that trusts its succesfullness in the faith of an stupid enemy who doesn't learn a harsh lesson after six months is hopeless. As soon as even the most novice pilot in the Allied forces was taught "not to turn with a Zero", the plane was hopelessy obsolete. And that did happen pretty soon.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2010)

RAM said:


> That's something I can't buy, FlyboyJ. *The Marines and USN pilots had all appropiate training regarding teamwork and high speed tactics.* True enough, they also had their good share of training on "old school" combat, but european reports coming from the other side of the Atlantic since 1939 were telling a clear story: close range, slow speed, turn based fighting was now totally outdated. Chennault only subscribed to it in China, and the whole of the air designers of the time aknowledged it. Which means, the air forces had also done it (and if the air force knew it, the pilots too because the AF sets the training courses ).
> 
> The american designers took a good note of what was going on in Europe at the time. The Hellcat, F4U, P47 and P38 designs all date from dates well prior to the enter of USA into the war (the stories about the F6F being designed on basis of what was found out of the aleutian A6M2 are pure myths). If the designers knew that their new fighters had to be powerful, speedy, good in high speed and energy fighting, and that low speed maneouverability was a non-factor by then, it's only normal to think that the pilots and the US air forces of the time (USAAC, US Navy and USMC air corps) were well aware of it aswell.
> 
> ...



Have you looked at any flight manuals with regards to maneuvering speeds and exceeding structural limits? You don't do 4G tuns at 400 mph, at least in many aircraft you're not supposed to unless you want to bend the airframe or worse. Additionally, when you speak of Marine pilots receiveing "high speed training," do you have any indication of what "high speed" was?


----------



## renrich (May 10, 2010)

Maybe hyperbole and maybe Eric Brown is full of it but he does not seem to share the opinion of RAM who seems very positive about his views, but from Brown's book, "Duels in the Sky" " Assessment: The Zeke was possibly the world's outstanding fighter at low and medium altitudes in 1941, and it was excellently suited to the demanding aircraft carrier environment, a combination that qualifies it as one of the greatest naval fighters of all time. The aircraft's obvious weakness was an inability to absorb punishment from heavy caliber guns, but it did not expect to reckon with many of these." Not bad for a "dog." I do not recall the F4U ever being fitted with paddle blade props and Guyton does not mention it in his book and I don't believe it is mentioned in "America's Hundred Thousand."


----------



## RAM (May 10, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Have you looked at any flight manuals with regards to maneuvering speeds and exceeding structural limits? You don't do 4G tuns at 400 mph, at least in many aircraft you're not supposed to unless you want to bend the airframe or worse. Additionally, when you speak of Marine pilots receiveing "high speed training," do you have any indication of what "high speed" was?




WEll, structural limits varied from plane to plane. Sustained 4Gs won't be a problem for a Fw190, for instance (sturdily built, one-piece integral structure wing, etc), but will rip apart a Ki43 oscar in no time. So, well, that varies from instance to instance.

AS for high speed maneouverability, I guess I have to explain myself better here (Language barrier sucks, honestly). I'm not speaking of a 400mph+ small circles here. For maneouverability I mean "controllability". Light controls that ease the pilot's task in asking his plane doing something. Harmonized controls. Sturdy structures that allow for high speed changes of direction without compromising the plane's integrity. Fast-response to pilot inputs. Etc.

So, for instance, when I say that a P51D had an absolute upper hand maneouverability wise at high speeds over a Zero I mean that:

-the P51 had a much better rollrate than the Zero (well, the Zero was un-rollable over 350 IAS, so that's not a real comparison ).
-the P51 had much lighter controls allowing the pilot to stay fast and manoeuver at those speeds without tiring him phisically
-the P51 had well harmonized controls that gave him prompt responses to his inputs.
-The P51 was able to retain that high speeds for a long time (Thanks to exceptional aerodynamics and plane weight).
-etc.

When I speak of high speed maneouverability, I'm talking about the above mentioned things, not saying that a P51D at 400mph IAS if faced with a zero would do a 12G turn into the Zero's tail .


As for the high speed training of the USN pilots, well, any "high speed" maneouver is basically conducted over the plane's corner speed. In other words: it belongs to those speeds where plane acceleration is less important than intertia/aerodynamics.
By staying at those speed brackets you rely on dive/Zoom properties of planes (Related to weight/aerodynamic considerations) rather than in powerloading. Given that US planes usually were heavy, had good aerodynamics (with some exceptions, of course) but had a marginal or worse climb rate/Acceleration, it was only natural that tactics teached to their pilots tended to focus on those "high" speeds. In general, US airmen also were given a fair bit of hints about energy management during air combat, etc.

all the best.


----------



## theultimateend (May 10, 2010)

I'm going out on a limb here but I feel the worst aircraft in WWII had a 100% mortality rate for the pilots who flew it.

The Ohka:







Was it an effective delivery device? Probably! But something about killing every person that flies in it makes it seem like the worst plane in WWII.

I'm sure no other plane (that didn't serve the same purpose I guess) had a better rate of survival .

Or how are we defining best/worst? Since this is up to 112 pages :/

GM Rico


----------



## RAM (May 10, 2010)

renrich said:


> Maybe hyperbole and maybe Eric Brown is full of it but he does not seem to share the opinion of RAM who seems very positive about his views



Certainly I'm open to debate. Where debate is possible. Performance numbers debate is NOT possible. The numbers for the Zeke performance are posted avobe and can't be discussed (they come from official sources of the era).

Now ,if you choose to think that a slow plane (for the era), low climbrate/Acceleration (For the era), with bad dive/zoom, not that good firepower (Zeke pilots said their 20mms were good for nothing and that their preferred weapons were the twin 7.7mms on the cowl), very low ability to take punishment, unable to fight over 250mph IAS, etc, was better (or on the same league) as a plane like the Fw190 which was

50mph faster (much more if we compare later models)
exceptional dive/zoomer
Exceptionally hard hitter
exceptional at high speeds
able to stand severe punishment
Better performer in EVERY single department of performance one can measure except on low speed maneouverability
etc

then it's your call, not mine. You're entitled to your opinion if you want to say that the Zeke was the best fighter of the era, even while the comparison against the top dog of the era shows otherwise, you're free to think as you wish.



> but from Brown's book, "Duels in the Sky" " Assessment: The Zeke was possibly the world's outstanding fighter at low and medium altitudes in 1941, and it was excellently suited to the demanding aircraft carrier environment



I don't disagree with the second. The Zeke was well designed for embarked operations. So was the Fairey Fulmar. Does that turn the Fulmar into a war winner?.


Anyway: In december '41 embarked fighters of the era were

-Brewster F2B2 (absolute dog)
-Wildcat F4F (under par fighter, yet proved to be the equal of the Zero over the Pacific)
-Fairey Fulmar (I'd rather not enter into valorations here, shall I? )
-Hawker Sea Hurricane (I'd rather it as better, but here at least its debatable).
-Sea Gladiator (biplane, need I say more?)

The Zeke certainly was the best or second best of them all, and as I said comparisons with the Sea Hurricane and F4F have at least some ground to base on.

HOwever, the Sea Hurricane was an already obsolete fighter for the day. The F4F wasn't up to par with the best fighters of the era. And Certainly the A6M2, if on level or slightly better than this two, couldn't compete with the best of the era either.


As for the first part I think Brown's talking about the experience of flying it. Certainly the Zeke was a joy to fly. And certainly it had the performance numbers to give the opposition a rough time. But that opposition when properly flown gave the Zero fits. I don't base myself on the (Subjective) opinions of an excellent pilot when flying it in a test environment, not combat. 

I base myself on the objective facts that war gives us.

Those objective facts say the following:

-the Zeke wasn't able to estabish any kind of lasting air superiority over enemy fighters with worse performances on paper, between 1941 and 1943, as long as said fighters relied on high speed tactics. This fact is undebatable because, well, the Zero didn't achieve it.

-Said fighters comprise (among others) the following models:
-P40B
-P40E
-F4F3
-F4F4
-P39D
-P400

-Said models were all obsolete/obsolescent/barely adequate at the time. At its best. This fact is undebatable because those models had very average or sub-par performances for the time being, and because some of them actually were kicked out of the sky in other theaters (as happened with the Kittyhawk/Tomakawk).

Those are the facts ,and here's my opinion based on those facts:
-A fighter that consistently fails to provide a decisive air superiority when the opposition is flying those obsolete/obsolescent/barely adequate models, can't be a world winner BY DEFINITION. Even more when in the other hemysphere of the planet there are air battles waged where much better performing fighters are flying day after day.





> The aircraft's obvious weakness was an inability to absorb punishment from heavy caliber guns, but it did not expect to reckon with many of these."



you post here an opinion of a test pilot. 

I gave you avobe two different set of official test trials regarding the Zeke maneouverability.

IF you think a plane that's unable to properly maneouver over 250mph IAS is not an "obvious weakness", you're free to do so. I'm seriously surprised Mr. Brown didn't mention it elsewhere. Should really buy that book, has been in my list for ages.




> Not bad for a "dog."



I have Eric Brown's opinions in a high esteem generally speaking, but certainly I heartfeltly disagree with his opinions on this one.Thats what happens with pilots quotes, they are always subjective.

However, I gave some real grounds where I base my opinions on, in this debate. I provided some objective data. So far you have brought only a subjective opinion (of an expert, but subjective nonetheless). I've given performance figures, official tests, historical facts, etc.

And those performance figures and tests point out that the Zeke was a dog. And I insist: a dog it was.



> I do not recall the F4U ever being fitted with paddle blade props and Guyton does not mention it in his book and I don't believe it is mentioned in "America's Hundred Thousand."



Then I have to tell you that you need to check your sources better: the Corsair was fitted with one. The initial three bladed props weren't the ones that the model carried in the F4U-1A and D versions. And certainly they were not the four bladed paddle prop the F4U4 had.


----------



## timshatz (May 10, 2010)

theultimateend said:


> I'm going out on a limb here but I feel the worst aircraft in WWII had a 100% mortality rate for the pilots who flew it.
> 
> The Ohka:
> 
> ...




That one is pretty good. 100% mortality rate, nobody ever walked away. 

That should do it.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 10, 2010)

RAM said:


> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/a6m2-oct2342.pdf
> 
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf
> ...



all this test were with wrongs power settings of engine and the last probably with engine heavy troubled.

on the opinion on Type 0 i think it was a good fighter, if you comparate it with they adversaries, before of the event of new generation fighters (corsair, thunderbolt ...)

for comparation Hurricane vs Type 0 if i remember right actually type 0 wins


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2010)

RAM said:


> WEll, structural limits varied from plane to plane. Sustained 4Gs won't be a problem for a Fw190, for instance (sturdily built, one-piece integral structure wing, etc), but will rip apart a Ki43 oscar in no time. So, well, that varies from instance to instance.


It actually depends on speed and I also believe that within its maneuvering speed envelope an Oscar was able to sustain 4Gs.


RAM said:


> AS for high speed maneouverability, I guess I have to explain myself better here (Language barrier sucks, As for the high speed training of the USN pilots, well, any "high speed" maneouver is basically conducted over the plane's corner speed. In other words: it belongs to those speeds where plane acceleration is less important than intertia/aerodynamics.


And in 1940 - 41, you're looking at speeds between 250 - 300 mph in F2As and F3Fs - the speeds where the Zero and Oscar were in their element.


RAM said:


> By staying at those speed brackets you rely on dive/Zoom properties of planes (Related to weight/aerodynamic considerations) rather than in powerloading. Given that US planes usually were heavy, had good aerodynamics (with some exceptions, of course) but had a marginal or worse climb rate/Acceleration, it was only natural that tactics teached to their pilots tended to focus on those "high" speeds. In general, US airmen also were given a fair bit of hints about energy management during air combat, etc.
> 
> all the best.



Actually, energy management maneuvers were emphasized after the war started in training circles. As we know the AVG made use of boom and zoom, later the use of energy to fight in the "yo-yo" or even vertical was developed. When the US first entered the war there was a strong emphasis on fighting in the horizontal, but that eventually changed. Because of that and the use of some inferior fighters, the US struggled the first few months of the war.


----------



## renrich (May 10, 2010)

Regarding the debates by all of us" experts" about performance charts and combat effectiveness of our various favorite. airplanes, I have a comment and question. I recently read an article which was about a gentleman who headed up the business of selecting firearms for the US Army prior to the War of Northern Aggression. As we all know both army's infantry were armed for the most part with similar weapons. They were a percussion 50 cal or so muzzle loading rifled musket which was effective out to maybe 500 or 600 yards. One reason that the Henry and Spencer rifles were not widely used or thought to be effective was that they did not have the killing power at long ranges of the rifled musket. The article stated that a recent study showed that the average range of an infantry engagement during that unfortunate war was 127 yards. Hmmmmm?

Following that line of thought I believe it would be extremely interesting if it was possible to know at what altitude and at what average speeds the typical engagement between two fighters took place in the ETO and the PTO during WW2. My bet would be that the speeds and altitudes both would be much lower than most of us think. No where near the Vmax or service ceiling of the aircraft involved. There is a story about a mission, Ira Kepford flew in the Pacific in his Corsair. He got caught on the deck by several Zekes diving on him. He managed to force one into an overshoot and shot him down and then used WEP to get out in front with a little lead but when the water ran out he could do little more than stay in front of the pursuing Zekes while on the deck. If the Zeke was as slow as mentioned down low and the Corsair had a big advantage as all the performance numbers tell us, what is going on?

Regarding the paddle blade prop on the Corsair, I don't doubt that the props on the various Corsair models were different than that on the prototype, because the Hamilton Standard prop on the prototype was under development when the XFU first flew as well as the R2800. However in Dean's book he goes out of his way to mention the paddle blade prop on the P47s in the captions under the numerous pictures and it is possible to look at the photos and see the differences in the Hamilton and the Curtis props. All the Corsair props(except when the four blade prop of the F4U4 was introduced) look alike in the photos and Dean never mentions a paddle bladed prop for the Corsair. In fact there was a discussion about the paddle blade and the P47 and why the Corsair with the same engine did not use one earlier on this forum. Maybe the Corsair got one and it did not have the same impact for it that the P47 prop did?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2010)

RAM said:


> -Said models were all obsolete/obsolescent/barely adequate at the time. At its best. This fact is undebatable because those models had very average or sub-par performances for the time being, and because some of them actually were kicked out of the sky in other theaters (as happened with the Kittyhawk/Tomakawk).


To say the Kittyhawk/ Tomahawk were "kicked out of the sky," do you have combat reports or some type of data to back that up?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 10, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> I suspect what we are trying to say here is that the LW were optimized for Tactical Strikes, in a land-mass connected theatre of war (like Europe for example).
> 
> 
> Cross-channel strategic campaigns were not their best card, so to speak - right ?



Yes, I am agreeing with all of you. My post was directed at RAM.


----------



## Cromwell (May 10, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Some interesting point in your discussion RAM but consider this...
> 
> At the start of the war and even into its early months, pilots (at least in the US) were being taught to engage in combat maneuvers at speeds under 300 mph. Not only was this an out dated training doctrine but it related to the aircraft maneuvering speeds and structural limitations. It also played into the hand of such aircraft like the Zero and Oscar and I think the results of some early air battles speak for themselves. I don't have the data in front of me right now but I believe there were charts in either the P-38 or P-40 flight manual that showed some pretty low speeds with regards to entering and performing aerobatic maneuvers and tight turns. Of course we know later in the war this changed and "boom and zoom" was the tactic of the day, I think you'll find that many twisting and turning dogfights that did happen occurred at speeds well under Vne for the given aircraft, at least at the beginning of the war.



Flyboy - what I find continually frustrating is that no-one on this list seems to show much enthusiasm for Claire L Chennault 

Claire Lee Chennault - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is a shame, because he explains in his various memoirs how the AVG really had already figured out the 'boom zoom' during 1937-38

Anyhow, you are an American right ? Perhaps you need to educate us Brits in the ways of Billy Mitchell too who was treated slightly more badly than Claire Chennault, but not much .....

Its not only us Brits who fail to recognize a good hero you know


----------



## renrich (May 10, 2010)

Billy Mitchell made a pest of himself lobbying for an independent air force and made a lot of enemies. There was a big splash when the bombers bombed the old WW1 ships left over from the High seas fleet but it did not really prove a whole lot and perhaps gave the US the false impression that heavy bombers could act as a defense against a foreign navy which turned out to be patently false.


----------



## Cromwell (May 10, 2010)

renrich said:


> Regarding the paddle blade prop on the Corsair, I don't doubt that the props on the various Corsair models were different than that on the prototype, because the Hamilton Standard prop on the prototype was under development when the XFU first flew as well as the R2800. However in Dean's book he goes out of his way to mention the paddle blade prop on the P47s in the captions under the numerous pictures and it is possible to look at the photos and see the differences in the Hamilton and the Curtis props. All the Corsair props(except when the four blade prop of the F4U4 was introduced) look alike in the photos and Dean never mentions a paddle bladed prop for the Corsair. In fact there was a discussion about the paddle blade and the P47 and why the Corsair with the same engine did not use one earlier on this forum. Maybe the Corsair got one and it did not have the same impact for it that the P47 prop did?



The Paddle Blades on the later Mosquito, along with the much improved Merlin, made a big difference to Sustained speeds at altitude

This is why the 190s and 109s often used to gradually fall behind on their chases of Mossies back to the UK following high-altitude radio/radar guided bombing raids.

It was not just pure VMax but the ability to keep it going at altitude. You can read about some of this on Airvectors (Greg Goebel) for example, in the section on the PR Mossies :-


_"Eight PR.IXs were refitted with uprated Merlin 76/77 engines and American-designed Hamilton Standard four-bladed paddle propellers. The four-bladed propellers provided improved high-altitude performance, at the expense of poorer low-altitude performance. "_


----------



## Cromwell (May 10, 2010)

renrich said:


> Billy Mitchell made a pest of himself lobbying for an independent air force and made a lot of enemies. There was a big splash when the bombers bombed the old WW1 ships left over from the High seas fleet but it did not really prove a whole lot and perhaps gave the US the false impression that heavy bombers could act as a defense against a foreign navy which turned out to be patently false.



Well when you say 'heavy bomber' you are talking about Handley Page ex-WW1 style right ?

I actually think you will find that US bomber planes did a fine job of stopping the Japanese Navy in its tracks - even if they were single-engined often and carrier borner ... but not always

I think Mitchell was right - he showed that Battleships were patently vulnerable to bombing, and that their days as the primary expressions of military power were over, although they did have other uses it is true.

Note. The brits sank ships using Lancs sometimes - I think they could be classed as Heavy , don't you ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Flyboy - what I find continually frustrating is that no-one on this list seems to show much enthusiasm for Claire L Chennault


Had you given it more time we would have gotten there


Cromwell said:


> Which is a shame, because he explains in his various memoirs how the AVG really had already figured out the 'boom zoom' during 1937-38


Actually there were no "Flying Tigers" in China at that time. They actually became operational AFTER Pearl Harbor.


Cromwell said:


> Anyhow, you are an American right ? Perhaps you need to educate us Brits in the ways of Billy Mitchell too who was treated slightly more badly than Claire Chennault, but not much .....


Different subject all together and basically Billy Mitchell was a bomber pilot...


Cromwell said:


> Its not only us Brits who fail to recognize a good hero you know


True - after all you folks kicked "Eddie the Eagle" to the curb!
Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## buffnut453 (May 10, 2010)

True - after all you folks kicked "Eddie the Eagle" to the curb!:[/QUOTE]

No we didn't - he's still making a living as the butt of at least one TV ad. How much more of a hero can you get???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> True - after all you folks kicked "Eddie the Eagle" to the curb!:
> 
> No we didn't - he's still making a living as the butt of at least one TV ad. How much more of a hero can you get???



Going on Oprah Winfrey and admitting you're gay or a recovering drug addict!


----------



## buffnut453 (May 10, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Going on Oprah Winfrey and admitting you're gay or a recovering drug addict!



We are unworthy!!! No wonder the US of A is the worlds only superpower!!!

Then again, there's always Jerry Springer!!!


----------



## Cromwell (May 10, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Had you given it more time we would have gotten there



Well I have tried before ..... Honestly !

Yes Billy Mitchell was a bomber man - but nonetheless he was right - and so was Claire

Different specifics perhaps, but both were Military Aviators trying to let the World know that a change of approach was needed


(......are you sure the AVG was Post-Pearl ? )


----------



## Cromwell (May 10, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Going on Oprah Winfrey and admitting you're gay or a recovering drug addict!



Which episode was that ? How would I recognize you without the Helmet ?


----------



## Cromwell (May 10, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Had you given it more time we would have gotten there
> 
> Actually there were no "Flying Tigers" in China at that time. They actually became operational AFTER Pearl Harbor.
> 
> ...



This is from Wikipedia - Pretty cool actually, Ed was not such a donkey after all 

_Michael Edwards (born 5 December 1963), better known as Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards, was the first competitor to represent Great Britain in Olympic ski jumping and was the British ski jumping record holder. He was also the world number nine in amateur speed skiing (106.8 mph) and the stunt jumping world record holder (10 cars/6 buses).[1][2]_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> (......are you sure the AVG was Post-Pearl ? )



_The Flying Tigers were still training, they hadn't flown their first combat mission, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. As the Japanese threatened one Allied city after another, the British asked for a squadron of Flying Tigers to help defend Rangoon. Oley Olson's Third Squadron, "Hell's Angels," headed south, while the bulk of the AVG flew up to Kunming, to protect the terminus of the Burma Road. *On December 20, the AVG engaged Japanese bombers for the first time*, downing four and disrupting their bombing raid on Kunming. Over Burma, the Third Squadron also met with success, claiming six on the 23rd and ten on the 25th; before Jack Newkirk's Second Squadron relieved them. _

The Flying Tigers - American Volunteer Group, flew P-40s over China


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Which episode was that ? How would I recognize you without the Helmet ?



Actually I rather go on Dr. Phil - don't know if his show reaches you folks....


----------



## Cromwell (May 10, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Going on Oprah Winfrey and admitting you're gay or a recovering drug addict!



BTW Flyboy is right - the AVG was Post Pearl - I confess my error to the list !

[see below also]


Flying Tigers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (May 10, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Well I have tried before ..... Honestly !
> 
> Yes Billy Mitchell was a bomber man - but nonetheless he was right - and so was Claire
> 
> ...





> http://www.warbirdforum.com/erikrip.htm
> 
> In later years, many would believe the unit fought in China against the Japanese for years before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
> In fact, the first operational mission of the A.V.G. was not flown until December 10, 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
> The flight, a photo reconnaissance mission from Rangoon to Bangkok, was was flown by Shilling




Wheels


----------



## Cromwell (May 10, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually I rather go on Dr. Phil - don't know if his show reaches you folks....



The Baldy Fudgepacker who has a PhD in Family Therapy ? (and recommends Registry Mechanic software)

Nope sorry, no idea - Any other Brits care to comment ?

BTW Did you know in the US that we are currently experiencing a Hung Parliament - Cameron Clegg are both hung.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> This is from Wikipedia - Pretty cool actually, Ed was not such a donkey after all



Personally I always liked him, but it seems some of your fellow Brits thought he was less than an imbecile...

Was Eddie the Eagle mad? Well they did lock me in an asylum - mirror.co.uk


----------



## Cromwell (May 10, 2010)

wheelsup_cavu said:


> Wheels



I already apologized already

I am so totally flipping sorry with sugar liberally sprinkled on top


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> BTW Did you know in the US that we are currently experiencing a Hung Parliament - Cameron Clegg are both hung.



Oh yea - it's been on the news here a bit - comparing it to our situation...

Hung British Parliament in the balance


----------



## Cromwell (May 10, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Personally I always liked him, but it seems some of your fellow Brits thought he was less than an imbecile...
> 
> Was Eddie the Eagle mad? Well they did lock me in an asylum - mirror.co.uk



Well I think you will find that governing bodies world-wide like to do pee-pees on anyone who is starting to make it - But yes, we did not appreciate him properly - and in his own words :-


_"I was lucky. My worst accident as a jumper was in Innsbruck, 21 years ago, and I only broke my collar bone, cracked two ribs and damaged my kidneys."_
.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Well I think you will find that governing bodies world-wide like to do pee-pees on anyone who is starting to make it - But yes, we did not appreciate him properly - and in his own words :-
> 
> 
> _"I was lucky. My worst accident as a jumper was in Innsbruck, 21 years ago, and I only broke my collar bone, cracked two ribs and damaged my kidneys."_
> .



All too true...


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (May 10, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> I already apologized already
> 
> I am so totally flipping sorry with sugar liberally sprinkled on top


Look at the post times for your post and mine.
I posted less than a minute after you.
I didn't see that you had already posted again.


Wheels


----------



## RAM (May 11, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It actually depends on speed and I also believe that within its maneuvering speed envelope an Oscar was able to sustain 4Gs.



I beg to differ, 4G are the same at 400 mph IAS than at 250IAS. 
There was no way to "sustain" a 4G turn in WW2 propeller driven planes (they would slow down too much up to the point that 4G weren't sustainable unless stalling the plane). Of course you could do a series of 4G maneouvers if you let your plane accelerate between them. 

In any case 4G are the same at the speed you are. And if you repeateadly asked 4G out of an Oscar you would soon find out that it's structure was compromised, it was so lightly built.




> and in 1940 - 41, you're looking at speeds between 250 - 300 mph in F2As and F3Fs - the speeds where the Zero and Oscar were in their element.



The Zero had a serious controllability problem at speeds over 200mph IAS. Controls grew stiffer to the point that at the speeds you mention the Zeke was a real trouble to put into a sustained turn and was almost impossible to roll at all. So the allied planes could maneouver out of their path and start a zooming climb before the zero was even able to start pulling up.

In short: no, the Oscars and Zekes weren't in their element at 250-300mph IAS.




> Actually, energy management maneuvers were emphasized after the war started in training circles. As we know the AVG made use of boom and zoom, later the use of energy to fight in the "yo-yo" or even vertical was developed. When the US first entered the war there was a strong emphasis on fighting in the horizontal, but that eventually changed. Because of that and the use of some inferior fighters, the US struggled the first few months of the war.



I beg to differ, at least in what regards to the US Navy fighter complements, and IIRC the USMC air complements. By the Coral Sea battles those guys already had well learned the use of speed to fight the japanese fighters, which means they were teached to do it quite before.



> To say the Kittyhawk/ Tomahawk were "kicked out of the sky," do you have combat reports or some type of data to back that up?



just take a look at any comparison between the Bf109F4trop/Bf109G2trop and the P40s over North Africa, Flyboy. They were pretty much inferior to the Messerschmitt in every area of performance that mattered in air combat. And suffered at their hands accordingly.
They only had one card to play - numbers. There were more P40s, Hurricanes and Spitfires flying for the Allied Desert Force than planes had the LW and RA together in most of the stages of the fighting. But the plane by itself was outclassed by german 109s and italian MC202s, and by the own allied Spitfires and P38s (the latter when they reached the MTO). The Warhawk was relegated to dedicated ground attack as soon as there were enough fighters of other models, because the plane was aknowledged as inferior to the Axis models by the own Allied forces who flew them.
And lucky they were there was no Fw190 in north africa until the Tunis Campaigng (and by then were very few and dedicated ground attack versions), because the Wurger was by large the best fighter of the time.



/edit:



renrich said:


> Regarding the paddle blade prop on the Corsair, I don't doubt that the props on the various Corsair models were different than that on the prototype



nope, not speaking about the prototype here. The F4U-1 had a R-2800-8 engine. The F4U-1A and F4U-1D had both the R-2800-8(W) with water-methanol injection and extra power. And those were fitted with wider chord paddle-blade propellers to better "absorb" the engine power. And the F4U-1 wasn't a prototype, was the first service model of the Corsair to see combat on the PTO.

I could dig up for more information about this if you want to. I know where to ask about documentation on the F4U. But you can trust me on this one, the Corsair -1 had paddle blade props in the -1A and -1D models (and of course in the late -1C aswell, and in the -4 series)

As for the effects of the propellers, paddle blade props gave an improved acceleration and sustained climbrate, and a slightly better top and cruise speeds.

All the best


----------



## buffnut453 (May 11, 2010)

RAM said:


> The Zero had a serious controllability problem at speeds over 200mph IAS



I always thought the Zero's controls only started to stiffen above 300 mph.


----------



## RAM (May 11, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> I always thought the Zero's controls only started to stiffen above 300 mph.



nope, that's the point where the cementing got past the point of making the plane almost unmaneouverable in a fight (rolling at 300mph was almost impossible because of frozen ailerons...no roll ability equals to me to be unmaneouverable in a fight). The plane was really hard to fly much before reaching that speed. In addition to this the plane tended to have vibration problems at speeds around 300mph IAS (I'm being conservative, reports actually speak of serious vibrations at speeds over 250 knots, which tranlsate into something like 275mph IAS, not 300, but as I say I'm being "generous" when talking about the Zeke's maneouverability problems at high speed. In fact I'm even a bit too generous).

Read the .pdfs I linked a couple pages behind, those are real life tests of captured A6Ms ,and even the A6M5b (which had gone through a lot of work to improve controlability at high speeds) started developing serious trouble with cementing control surfaces at roughly 200mph IAS (report says 160 knots which actually translates more into around 175mph. Again I'm giving conservative numbers) . Meaning that flying the plane between the 200mph-300mph speed brackets was phisically exhausting for the pilot to say the least. And in the top part of said bracket (past the 275mph IAS mark) the plane actually stopped being a viable fighting machine at all (I insist, inability to roll=unmaneouverable fighter. At least for me. Other more optimistic forum members may disagree.)

The reports of the captured A6M5b actually say that planes as the F4U-1D or F6F-5 were noticeably more maneouverable than the type 52 already at speeds of 200knots (which translate into around 225mph IAS) , and that can be attributed mostly to the very innefective controls of the Zero at those speeds. Given that the Zero was well aknowledged to turn circles around both models at low speeds (under 200mph IAS), you can get the idea on how bad the problem was and how fast did it build up as speed increased.

And the A6M2 was quite worse than that, for the A6M5b design activelly tried to make the plane more controllable at high speeds than its predecessors.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2010)

RAM said:


> I beg to differ, 4G are the same at 400 mph IAS than at 250IAS.
> There was no way to "sustain" a 4G turn in WW2 propeller driven planes (they would slow down too much up to the point that 4G weren't sustainable unless stalling the plane). Of course you could do a series of 4G maneouvers if you let your plane accelerate between them. In any case 4G are the same at the speed you are. And if you repeateadly asked 4G out of an Oscar you would soon find out that it's structure was compromised, it was so lightly built.


You are correct about a WW2 aircraft sustaining 4Gs, my error, HOWEVER they were stressed to do so and I believe the Oscar was designed for +6.5. -3 Gs which was average for most WW2 aircraft



RAM said:


> The Zero had a serious controllability problem at speeds over 200mph IAS. Controls grew stiffer to the point that at the speeds you mention the Zeke was a real trouble to put into a sustained turn and was almost impossible to roll at all. So the allied planes could maneouver out of their path and start a zooming climb before the zero was even able to start pulling up.


That's wrong - try above 250 - 275 mph - this was substanciated in the tests of captured Zeros, those tests are posted on this site.


RAM said:


> In short: no, the Oscars and Zekes weren't in their element at 250-300mph IAS.


See above and below;

_"In September 1943, the Allies were able to rebuild a complete fighter out of several wrecked Model 2A Hayabusas found at Lae, New Guinea. This aircraft was flown in mock combat against several different Allied fighters. *Allied pilots commented favorably on the Hayabusa's sensitive controls and extreme maneuverability*. It had no vicious flight characteristics, and its turning and stall characteristics were better than those of any Allied fighter. It handled well in the air, and had phenomenal low-speed handling capabilities which were aided by its set of combat flaps.* It had excellent low-speed acceleration and could leap from 150 mph to 250 mph with extreme rapidity.* Nevertheless, the Allied pilots felt that the Ki-43 was outclassed by the P-47 Thunderbolt, the P-38 Lightning, the Supermarine Spitfire, and even by later models of the P-40 Warhawk. The Hayabusa was appreciably slower than most Allied fighters and could usually be evaded by diving. The Hayabusa lacked effective firepower and its lack of effective armor protection made it vulnerable to superficial combat damage and often disintegrated in the air when hit. Nevertheless, Allied fighter pilots were always well-advised to avoid combat with the Hayabusa at low speeds since its rapid acceleration and excellent low-speed maneuverability made it a deadly opponent in such situations." _

http://www.warbirdforum.com/hayabus2.htm



RAM said:


> I beg to differ, at least in what regards to the US Navy fighter complements, and IIRC the USMC air complements. By the Coral Sea battles those guys already had well learned the use of speed to fight the japanese fighters, which means they were teached to do it quite before.


And do you have evidence when that happened? I could tell you that the fighter pilots who participared in the Coral Sea battle were not just out of flight school. Point here once again that the "high speed air combat training" you speak about really came about after the war started.



RAM said:


> just take a look at any comparison between the Bf109F4trop/Bf109G2trop and the P40s over North Africa, Flyboy. They were pretty much inferior to the Messerschmitt in every area of performance that mattered in air combat. And suffered at their hands accordingly.


They were, but the P-40 still seved well in North Africa and in the Med in both air to air and air to ground roles and were not swept from the skies. And lingered on until newer aircraft cam on scene



RAM said:


> They only had one card to play - numbers. There were more P40s, Hurricanes and Spitfires flying for the Allied Desert Force than planes had the LW and RA together in most of the stages of the fighting. But the plane by itself was outclassed by german 109s and italian MC202s, and by the own allied Spitfires and P38s (the latter when they reached the MTO). The Warhawk was relegated to dedicated ground attack as soon as there were enough fighters of other models, because the plane was aknowledged as inferior to the Axis models by the own Allied forces who flew them.


See above



RAM said:


> And lucky they were there was no Fw190 in north africa until the Tunis Campaigng (and by then were very few and dedicated ground attack versions), because the Wurger was by large the best fighter of the time.


Irrelivant point...

Ponts again were at the beginning of the war the US briefly fought in the Japanese element, combat speeds below 300 mph. Lessons were learned quickly and high speed boom and zoom and later energy management tactics where greatly used. The Zero and Oscar were quickly outclassed but there were no pushovers and still had to be considered extremely dangerous.

Suggested reading...

The Flying Knights of WWII


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2010)

*A crippling blow was struck when it became widely understood that the Zero could be defeated in maneuvering combat at speeds in excess of 250 mph. Worse still for the Zero pilots, new more powerful aircraft like the P-47 Thunderbolt, F4U Corsair, and F6F Hellcat were being introduced by the U.S. However, the Zero would remain a dangerous opponent until the end of the war, whenever Allied flyers tried to dogfight with it.*

P-40 and Zero

And from the same site...

_On 1 July 1943, 22 P-40s made a fighter sweep over southern Italy. Forty Bf-109s surprised the checker-tails, engaging them at moderate altitude where the P-40 performed best. After an intense dogfight the Germans lost half their force while only one P-40 failed to come back.

A similar event took place on the 30th of the same month in which 20 P-40s were bounced by thirty-five 109s. The Germans limped home after losing 21 of their own while the checker-tails came through with only one loss. The Germans lost 135 aircraft (ninety-six of which were 109s) to the pilots of the checkered-tail P-40s while shooting down only seventeen of the 325th._

Historians later substantiated "overclamis" in these battles, but I think this certainly shows the P-40 was "kicked out of the sky," not even in the Med or North Africa.


----------



## RAM (May 11, 2010)

argh, error 500 then server busy and now doble post. Really nice, lmao.

someone delete this, please


----------



## RAM (May 11, 2010)

part by part:

Re. the Oscar. I don't know that plane enough, but I've read persistent accounts of their structural weakness. I'm not saying one turn at 4G would shed its wings. However after some hours of flights the structure would be weakened if enough of them were asked from the airframe.

As for it's performance, and the quotes you bring here about it, I have nothing else to add: the plane reigned supreme at low speeds. Like every other japanese fighter of the period (except for the Ki44). However at high speeds it was even worse than the Zero because of frozen control surfaces and sheer effort required from the pilot to operate the controls. Go figure.


Re. The A6M. yes, those reports are in this same forum. I mean, I linked some of them not even 2 pages back. Please check them and read what they say about maneouverability when comparing the plane with allied iron. In fact you can just check my previous post in this same page, it sums it up. I'll sum it up again for you:

-At speeds of 200knots (225mph IAS) the F4U1-D and F6F-5 had the advantage in maneouverability over the plane

-The plane developed cementing control surfaces at speeds over 160 knots (175mph)

-The plane couldn't roll at all over 250 knots (275mph IAS).

-The plane developed buffetting and vibrations at speeds over 250knots (275mph IAS).

-all that comes from a report of a captured A6M5b, a plane which was better than the A6M2 at diving and maneouvering at high speeds.


Now you can argue the historic reports, if you want. I'm just telling the tale they tell; a Zero over 200mph IAS had serious cementing control surfaces problem, and turned it into a flying brick at speeds under 300mph. That's what the reports say, that's what I say, and that means the Zero couldn't fight at high speeds at all.


RE. Allied pilot training. Well, so far (because I'm far from my sources in an order of around 300 miles), I can only point out that in the Coral Sea the Wildcats were already refusing to enter close combats against the Zeros, and were already into the "don't turn with a zero" idea. I can also point out factual evidence, as the fact that John S.Thach developed the "thatch weave" tactics even before PH because he already knew that the Zero was more maneouverable than the Wildcat by September'41. If thatch knew about it there's little chance no other marine or navy fighter pilot knew it.

More factual evidence: the american industry was working on a new generation of planes that couldn't turn for crap at slow speeds, which means that those at the air forces already knew their pilots would have to fly to their strenghts: flying fast, using Energy tactics, and declining slow tight turning contests.




> _On 1 July 1943, 22 P-40s made a fighter sweep over southern Italy. Forty Bf-109s surprised the checker-tails, engaging them at moderate altitude where the P-40 performed best. After an intense dogfight the Germans lost half their force while only one P-40 failed to come back._


_

Ahh yes, THAT infamous july combat. Please check the losses of the Luftwaffe in Italy at that time. I mean, this report talks about 40 109s in a single fight. There were less than 40 109s able to fly at the zone at that time able to fly. And IIRC Luftwaffe reports checked after the war has no record of ANY 109 lost that day (not sure if is about this case of overclaiming or another also having happened over Sicily later) 

Overclaiming is one thing. Overestimating the opposition is another. And misidentifying it, was yet another. Probably those P-40s found a handful of italian Macchis, mistook them for 109s, downed a few of them and then the whole story got into motion because overclaiming was a serious issue. However, to claim more 109s killed than what could fly in a given day in a given zone must be a record. Was not the only one record of that, btw.




A similar event took place on the 30th of the same month in which 20 P-40s were bounced by thirty-five 109s. The Germans limped home after losing 21 of their own while the checker-tails came through with only one loss. The Germans lost 135 aircraft (ninety-six of which were 109s) to the pilots of the checkered-tail P-40s while shooting down only seventeen of the 325th.

Click to expand...


Told you, there were more instances of the same....Ahh other of the infamous overclaim combat stories of the Italian campaign  

The whole luftwaffe in Italy didn't have 96 109s to lose like that, Flyboy.Only two JGs were in italy at that time (JG53 and 77) , both well understrenght, and a loss of 96 planes would've meant the whole jagdwaffe in italy would've been toast in just one day. Added strenghts were roughly 150 machines, but serviceability rates at the time were lower than 60%, so make the math.
A further 109 squadron was at Greece at the time but it didnt fly over italy at all. Once again the mighty allied fighters killed more german planes that those that could fly in a given zone in a given day 

Bringing those stories in here won't win too much grounds to argue anything. And in any case that in a couple times some P40s could kill some 109s doesn't mean the P40 was any better. I mean, there were squadrons flying outdated planes everywhere up the same end of the war. Doesn't give those planes any kind of boost performance wise.

The P40E was recognized as an unadequate fighter by mid 1942 because it was totally outclassed by the contemporary Bf109s in service in the MTO at that time. Those are the estimations of the forces flying it, not mine. Again you can disagree with me, but is hard to disagree with the guys who flew the machines, or commanded the units, and claimed for the model to be replaced ASAP




Historians later substantiated "overclamis" in these battles, but I think this certainly shows the P-40 was "kicked out of the sky," not even in the Med or North Africa.

Click to expand...


"substantiated overclaim"?. Thats an understatement. If the kill tally reports of the allied planes over the Mediterranean had to be true, the Allied air forces on the spot would've destroyed the luftwaffe at that theater...six times between March 1943 and December 1943.

Extract your own conclussions.

In any case I'm not one to fight at several fronts at the same time, I think that the Zero discussion is enough for me at the time given that I can't be online and writing all day long . We can always go back to the 109-P40 comparison when that one is finally dead and buried ._


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2010)

RAM said:


> part by part:
> 
> Re. the Oscar. I don't know that plane enough, but I've read persistent accounts of their structural weakness. I'm not saying one turn at 4G would shed its wings. However after some hours of flights the structure would be weakened if enough of them were asked from the airframe.


That would be true on any aircraft - But for the most part you're looking at a design criteria at abut +6 -3 gs.


RAM said:


> As for it's performance, and the quotes you bring here about it, I have nothing else to add: the plane reigned supreme at low speeds. Like every other japanese fighter of the period (except for the Ki44). However at high speeds it was even worse than the Zero because of frozen control surfaces and sheer effort required from the pilot to operate the controls. Go figure.


I can agree and those speeds would be approaching 300 mph. The controls would start stiffening up at about 250 and even this would vary airplane to airplane.



RAM said:


> Re. The A6M. yes, those reports are in this same forum. I mean, I linked some of them not even 2 pages back. Please check them and read what they say about maneouverability when comparing the plane with allied iron. In fact you can just check my previous post in this same page, it sums it up. I'll sum it up again for you:
> 
> -At speeds of 200knots (225mph IAS) the F4U1-D and F6F-5 had the advantage in maneouverability over the plane
> 
> ...


 Ok....


RAM said:


> Now you can argue the historic reports, if you want. I'm just telling the tale they tell; a Zero over 200mph IAS had serious cementing control surfaces problem, and turned it into a flying brick at speeds under 300mph. That's what the reports say, that's what I say, and that means the Zero couldn't fight at high speeds at all.


I think if you read reports by the Japanese who flew them you'll find the speeds the Zero lost its maneuverability were a bit faster than your posting. Depending on the aircraft you're looking at 250 - 275 mph where things became stiff. By 300 mph the control surfaces became heavy.



RAM said:


> RE. Allied pilot training. Well, so far (because I'm far from my sources in an order of around 300 miles), I can only point out that in the Coral Sea the Wildcats were already refusing to enter close combats against the Zeros, and were already into the "don't turn with a zero" idea. I can also point out factual evidence, as the fact that John S.Thach developed the "thatch weave" tactics even before PH because he already knew that the Zero was more maneouverable than the Wildcat by September'41. If thatch knew about it there's little chance no other marine or navy fighter pilot knew it.


Cmdr Thatch came up with the Thatch Weave shortly before Pearl Harbor...It was first used at Midway. Although I don't trust Wikipedia too much, I read this text in a magazine article..

_Thach called on Ensign Edward "Butch" O'Hare, who led the second section in Thach's division, to test the idea. Thach took off with three other Wildcats in the role of defenders, Butch O'Hare meanwhile led four Wildcats in the role of attackers. Trying a series of simulated attacks, Butch found that in every instance Thach's fighters had either ruined his attack or actually maneuvered into position to shoot back. After landing, Butch excitedly congratulated Thach: "Skipper, it really worked. I couldn't make any attack without seeing the nose of one of your airplanes pointed at me."

*The tactic was first tested in combat by Thach during the Battle of Midway,* when his flight of four Wildcats was attacked by a squadron of Zeroes. Thach's wingman, Ensign R. A. M. Dibb, was attacked by a Japanese pilot and turned towards Thach, who dived under his wingman and fired at the incoming enemy aircraft's belly until its engine ignited.

Soon enough, the maneuver had become standard among US Navy pilots, and USAAF pilots also adopted it.

Marines flying Wildcats from Henderson Field on Guadalcanal also adopted the Thach Weave. The Japanese Zero pilots flying out of Rabaul were initially confounded by the tactic.

Saburō Sakai, the famous Japanese ace, relates their reaction to the Thach Weave when they encountered Guadalcanal Wildcats using it:

For the first time Lt. Commander Tadashi Nakajima encountered what was to become a famous double-team maneuver on the part of the enemy. Two Wildcats jumped on the commander’s plane. He had no trouble in getting on the tail of an enemy fighter, but never had a chance to fire before the Grumman’s team-mate roared at him from the side. Nakajima was raging when he got back to Rabaul; he had been forced to dive and run for safety._



RAM said:


> More factual evidence: the american industry was working on a new generation of planes that couldn't turn for crap at slow speeds, which means that those at the air forces already knew their pilots would have to fly to their strenghts: flying fast, using Energy tactics, and declining slow tight turning contests.


And can you show a source for that "Factual Evidence"?





RAM said:


> Ahh yes, THAT infamous july combat. Please check the losses of the Luftwaffe in Italy at that time. I mean, this report talks about 40 109s in a single fight. There were less than 40 109s able to fly at the zone at that time able to fly. And IIRC Luftwaffe reports checked after the war has no record of ANY 109 lost that day (not sure if is about this case of overclaiming or another also having happened over Sicily later)
> 
> Overclaiming is one thing. Overestimating the opposition is another. And misidentifying it, was yet another. *Probably those P-40s found a handful of italian Macchis, mistook them for 109s, downed a few of them and then the whole story got into motion because overclaiming was a serious issue*. However, to claim more 109s killed than what could fly in a given day in a given zone must be a record. Was not the only one record of that, btw.


That’s your opinion and you have no proof of that. the combat was actually confirmed on the German side...



RAM said:


> Told you, there were more instances of the same....Ahh other of the infamous overclaim combat stories of the Italian campaign
> 
> The whole luftwaffe in Italy didn't have 96 109s to lose like that, Flyboy.Only two JGs were in italy at that time (JG53 and 77) , both well understrenght, and a loss of 96 planes would've meant the whole jagdwaffe in italy would've been toast in just one day. Added strenghts were roughly 150 machines, but serviceability rates at the time were lower than 60%, so make the math.
> A further 109 squadron was at Greece at the time but it didnt fly over italy at all. Once again the mighty allied fighters killed more german planes that those that could fly in a given zone in a given day
> ...



I have and there's a lot of your conclusions that are based on your opinions, not fact. Bottom line, we can agree that the P-40 was certainly outclassed as an air to air fighter, but it was far from being "kicked out of the skies" and did hold its own until better fighters came along. And even the P-39, with all of the stories of it being a "dog" still served well and when it was when it was put in its element it did its job (just ask the Russians). Neither one of these aircraft can come close to be called "total dogs" or the worst aircraft of WW2, if anything they were far from it. You had two fighters that became obsolete as the war progressed and were still able to make their presence felt. They were not "war winners" but in many situations they made the difference.


----------



## RAM (May 11, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think if you read reports by the Japanese who flew them you'll find the speeds the Zero lost its maneuverability were a bit faster than your posting. Depending on the aircraft you're looking at 250 - 275 mph where things became stiff. By 300 mph the control surfaces became heavy.



I have read reports by the japanese, perception varies slightly between pilots. As far as I can recall, noone gives speed numbers when talking about the Zero control stiffening.

Yet you have a report here that gives those numbers.

I'm not going to force you to accept evidence, Flyboy. I'd just insist you: you have it just in front of your eyes.





> Cmdr Thatch came up with the Thatch Weave shortly before Pearl Harbor...It was first used at Midway. Although I don't trust Wikipedia too much, I read this text in a magazine article..



I don't trust wikipedia that much. However Thatch was aware of the Zero low speed maneouverability advantage when compared with Wildcats well before Pearl Harbor. He was instrumental in the US VF squadrons dropping the Vic formations for "finger four" tactics and he was already advocating the use of high speed and teamwork tactics before war. 

His Thatch Weave was a tactic implemented 1st time at midway. Correct. Couldn't be any other way: Thatch wasn't present at the Coral Sea so he could hardly have implemented it there, and the US carrier fighter complements didn't see much action vs Zeros elsewhere until then.

And he developed it before the war. You bring a quote you said "you read in a magazine". As an answer I bring you a quote from a text published by the Department of the Navy:

_During the early 1940s, while commanding Fighting Squadron Three, Thach developed the fighter combat technique that came to be known as the "Thach Weave", a tactic that enabled the generally mediocre performing U.S. fighters of the day to hold their own against the Japanese "Zero"._

US People--Thach, John S.

Again, believe the source you want in this one. I know which one deserves more credibility for me (if anything, because it's official)




> And can you show a source for that "Factual Evidence"?



About US fighter development dates?. Ok, let me check (this one is too hard to answer by memory)

F4U- Contract awarded on the design of the XF4U in June 1938- A whooping three years and a half before the war started for the US
F6F- Contract awarded on the design of the XF6F, june, 1941. Six months before the war started. 
P47- contract awarded on the design of the XP-47B, dated September 1940. 15 months before the war started.
P38- contract awarded on the design of the XP-38, dated June 1937, four years and a half before the war started for the US

I won't include the P51 here, it was designed to win a british contract, not american.

Hard data can be found in almost every single book about american fighter planes of WW2. I mean, I don't have to give exact quotes here, do I?.

The american air forces were awarding contracts for heavy, average to mediocre climbing and accelerator, lousy maneouverable at low speed, but excellent high speed fighters, as soon as mid 1937. If that doesn't signal a general trend of where they were heading towards (and that wasn't "old school" air fighting, I don't know what does.





> That’s your opinion and you have no proof of that. the combat was actually confirmed on the German side...



Lack many of my books here, so I might have confused the day and the fight. I know there was a certain date on July 1943 where the allied air forces on the mediterranean claimed a crapload of 109s killed, yet the luftwaffe lost none at that theater in that particular date. Somehow I recalled it was the 1st of July one, but if it's not my bad. But it did happen.




> I have and there's a lot of your conclusions that are based on your opinions, not fact. Bottom line, we can agree that the P-40 was certainly outclassed as an air to air fighter, but it was far from being "kicked out of the skies" and did hold its own until better fighters came along.



That depends on how you take the phrase itself. For me "being kicked out of the sky" means "being vastly outclassed". And seeing the performance figures of the P-40 and comparing it to the 109F/G series I honestly think the P40 was really outclassed by it.

However, that phrase doesn't mean that I think that the P40 was shot off the skies in the dozens. Good pilot skills usually are enough to prevent that happening, and sometimes even an outclassed plane can achieve some local and casual victories against much better opponents (P.11s over Poland, P-26s over Phillipines, CW21 demons over DEI...). I don't say that every P40 which flew was shot down. However, the upper hand quality wise was undeniably on the german (and italian, the C202 and C205s were reported as much superior to the P40) fighter side.

For me that is "being kicked out of the sky". As soon as a formation of 109s or C205s came near a P40, the P40 would better run for it.



> And even the P-39, with all of the stories of it being a "dog" still served well and when it was when it was put in its element it did its job



Against the Zero. The british summarily rejected the model because the prospect of flying that thing in front of the german guns simply gave them shivers. British rejects reached the pacific as the P400 (others went to russia), and achieved K/Ds over 1 against the Zero. If that doesn't say enough about the Zero...but says very little about the plane (at least for me because I qualify the Zero as one of the big lies of the history of aeronautics).




> (just ask the Russians).



Sorry, I already said and I'll repeat, I don't accept russian sources/performances/histories as representatives of the model. The soviets burned their planes abusing their engines. They used engine settings well avobe those reccomended by the builder and those planes never lasted more than a handful of missions because of that. The P-39 was a model built by Bell, and I qualify it by the performances and traits it had flying according to the builder's manual. The Soviets did not fly them that way, they burned them and then trashed them (it was easy to replace them, as a lot more would come via Siberia or Persia so, why bother?)

if we are to compare "soviet" P-39s we then should do it against hypotetical similarily "souped up" german fighters. And then the P-39 against appears as a dog.



> Neither one of these aircraft can come close to be called "total dogs" or the worst aircraft of WW2, if anything they were far from it.



I never said the P-39 was the worst aircraft of WW2. AS I said my vote went for the Ba-88, with honorary mentions to the Me163 and bachem Natter. The P-39 was a lousy plane, dangerous for it's pilot (almost unrecoverable spin, and easily put into one) overall qualifyable as a dog. But at least was able to regularily beat the Zero, which actually and instantly means it can't be a "worst" in any list of mine (and which means the Zero was a REAL DOG ... yet it isn't the worst for me anyway ).



> You had two fighters that became obsolete as the war progressed and were still able to make their presence felt



The P39 was obsolete as soon as it passed prototype stage, got it's high altitude supercharger deleted, and a crapload of indispensable combat equipment loaded instead. It's tremendous flying quircks regarding maneouverability and lack of stability didn't help.

The P40 was a honest workhorse. Noble, stable, did it's job, never shined and was quite sometimes outclassed. Contrary to what it might seem here I have a soft spot for the plane in my heart (is one of my favorite rides in flight simulators, for instance). But it's undeniable that, while it could hold out and prevail against the Zero (which isn't too much in my agenda ), it was outclassed by contemporary fighters on the MTO and relegated to ground attack duties because of it. That, for me, is a good description of a dog. 



> They were not "war winners" but in many situations they made the difference.



Certainly they did in the PTO but against an opposition that wasn't in a very good plane either. Both planes did its job, but that doesn't make them more than mediocre at best (the P39 even worse). I think their (partial) success is more a credit to the air crews that flew them than to the models themselves which were barely acceptable to the job at hand. 

Said that, certainly for me the P40 was hands up the best of the two. At least it was an honest performer, a though airframe, a good weapons platform, and a stable, safe plane to fly. IT was outclassed but still served with a style.

The same can't be said about the Airacobra, which was not only a dog, but a dangerous one for its pilot, at that.

All the best.


----------



## RAM (May 11, 2010)

Further information about the Thatch Weave and it's pre-pearl harbor nature. The veracity of the claim that it was actually developed by Chennault and the AVG is a good matter of debate, as some sources say that the AVG's "weaving" techniques were different from Thatch Weave, while others say the Thatch Weave was a simple copy of AVG tactics:




> The so called "Thatch weave," was supposedly used for the
> first time in the battle of Midway. According to Commander Thatch,
> this was a contributing factor in winning this decisive battle.
> This weave was mentioned, and used by the AVG, and part of the
> ...



http://yarchive.net/mil/avg_tactics.html


Some more evidence about the date of Commander Thatch's doctrine forging, dating from late 1941, not mid-1942. Aslo this gives some in-sight about what I said before: the US Navy was actively looking for succesfull high speed and teamwork tactics for their fighter squadrons.



> To the USN the tactic became known as "Charlie," after
> "Ass-end Charlie." They learned of it from the RAF, according to OPNAV
> Confidential Ltr. A16-3(5) of 5 Mar. 1941 and ComAirBatFor
> Endorsement of 27 Mar. 1941). The Navy's carrier squadrons tested
> ...



http://yarchive.net/mil/thach_weave.html


In any case it's plain to see that the US Navy was working on teamwork/high speed tactics well before Midway and the actual implementation of the Thatch Weave into operational service.

All the best.


----------



## RAM (May 11, 2010)

ARGH! multiple post again...server load problems are really haunting me today!


----------



## renrich (May 11, 2010)

The A6Ms flew missions from land bases in 1941-42 that no other single engine fighter in the world could manage. It's combat radius from land bases was in excess of 500 miles. To call the A6M a "dog" seems to ignore reality. That "dog" at the extreme end of it's combat radius more than held it's own against every Allied fighter in the Pacific. 

The first F4U1As, an informal designation, began to appear on August 9th, 1943, with the 950th AC. The first F4U fitted with water injection was number 1551 on November 25, 1943.

The F4U1 had the R2800-8 as well as some F4U1As. Some F4U1As as well as the F4U1D and F4U1c had the R-2800-8w engine.


----------



## renrich (May 11, 2010)

The AAF felt that heavy bombers could defend against a sea borne invasion prior to Pearl Harbor. This supposition was in part fostered by the efforts of Billy Mitchell. There was one "stunt" by heavy bombers in the pre war period where a flight of heavy bombers went out and "found" an ocean liner at sea which I think was the Bremen. This "proved" how effective heavy bombers would be defending against invasion by sea.

This supposition by the AAF was the reason that the air fields in the Philipines when the war began had more B17s than any other place in the world and and why the airfield at Midway was populated heavily by B17s. We all know how effective those bombers were at defending the Philipines and Midway. In fact four engined bombers were ineffective against warships or almost any ship underway at sea.


----------



## RAM (May 11, 2010)

renrich said:


> The A6Ms flew missions from land bases in 1941-42 that no other single engine fighter in the world could manage. It's combat radius from land bases was in excess of 500 miles.




Well, they had a very good range. So they could get farther before failing to establish any kind of air superiority against a bunch of inferior planes (on paper) as the F4F and P39s (a-la-Guadalcanal). Or even worse, they could get farther before getting shot out of the sky by the same planes while failing to provide said air superiority.



> To call the A6M a "dog" seems to ignore reality.



if range is all what matters, the best fighter of WW2 was the B-29.. 

oh, wait...



> That "dog" at the extreme end of it's combat radius more than held it's own against every Allied fighter in the Pacific



exception made of each and every single allied fighter plane that entered service since 1942 onwards. you name it, it was vastly superior to the Zeke. The F4U? immensely superior. F6F? ate Zekes for breakfast. P47? no comparison. P-38? absolute hell for the Zeke. P51? no contest at all. So the Zero only "held it's own" against "every allied fighter in the pacific" only for less than one year. And before that they consistently failed in providing the japanese with the air superiority they so badly needed, fighting outclassed planes. Not exactly something to say magnificent things about, but you seem to think otherwise.

And you'll excuse me. To warrant an "excellent fighter" label a plane has to do "something" more than "holding it's own" against an opposition consisting mostly on F4Fs, P39s, P400s and P40s. All of them mediocre or under-average planes for their time (aknowledged by the own americans, I'm not saying anything that official sources don't say), and all of them gave the Zero a run for it's money during the carrier battles and air battles of 1942 until newer american models came on the line. After that there was simply no contest.

So, how exactly does NOT doing anything else than "holding it's own" against sub-par enemy machines (on paper) help qualifying the Zero as an excellent fighter for it's era?. I mean, because range alone isn't (by far) enough to do it.



> The first F4U1As, an informal designation



You'll excuse me, the F4U1-A designation was as official as the F4U-1D or -1C or any other of the -(number)(suffix) given to the Corsair series. It was not "informal" under any way. The -1A brought the new cockpit design and then Water-Methanol injection. And previous -1As that didn't have it, received it as a retrofit. Along a paddle blade propeller.



> began to appear on August 9th, 1943, with the 950th AC. The first F4U fitted with water injection was number 1551 on November 25, 1943.



And flew with a paddle blade propeller. And the prior -1A series that could, were given the methanol-water injection engines as a retrofit (during mainteinance periods and if the engine was available on site) along their new wider chord propeller



> The F4U1 had the R2800-8 as well as some F4U1As. Some F4U1As as well as the F4U1D and F4U1c had the R-2800-8w engine.



And each single Corsair fitted with an R-2800-8(W) powerplant (be it from factory, be it from retrofitting) flew with a paddle blade propeller. Something the first series of the plane (F4U-1 with birdcage cockpit and without water injection) didn't have.

In short, YES, the F4U-1 series changed their initial propeller for a wide chord paddle blade propeller along their development life. The initial production series didn't have it. The subsequent production series did have it. Which is exactly what I said, and what you denied previously.

All the best.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2010)

RAM said:


> I have read reports by the japanese, perception varies slightly between pilots. As far as I can recall, noone gives speed numbers when talking about the Zero control stiffening.
> 
> Yet you have a report here that gives those numbers.
> 
> I'm not going to force you to accept evidence, Flyboy. I'd just insist you: you have it just in front of your eyes.



I read the reports. A few comments

First, you are never going to extract exact aircraft performance information on a captured aircraft that has suffered any type of damage. Now with that said, you can probably gain enough information about the aircraft to at least know the general characteristics.

The report stated the Zero's controls "started" to stiffen up at 225 MPH. It did not give any indication that the stick loads were unmanageable or that the aircraft's turning ability was falling off, although at speeds above 200 mph(I think it was 250 mph it was shown that the F4U, P-40K and F6F had superior turning ability. In one report it stated that at 300 mph it required great stick forces to accomplish slight maneuvers and could not do a roll.

At speeds below 200 mph, it was obvious the Zero was superior.

I've always felt the Zero was over rated but despite what was shown in these tests it's quite obvious that the Zero and Oscar did cause great concern at the beginning of the war because of tactics against them. Although Thatch did recognize and developed tactics, it obvious that on many occasions, there were many pilots who did try to dogfight the Zero and came out on the losing end. There can be justifiable explanations why this happened (cruising with drop tanks, getting bounced at cruise speeds, etc). 

With that said, your post that started this discussion...



RAM said:


> Low speed maneouverability accounted for nothing during WW2 air fights.



So what do YOU think low speed maneouvering is/ was?



RAM said:


> _During the early 1940s, while commanding Fighting Squadron Three, Thach developed the fighter combat technique that came to be known as the "Thach Weave", a tactic that enabled the generally mediocre performing U.S. fighters of the day to hold their own against the Japanese "Zero"._
> 
> US People--Thach, John S.
> 
> Again, believe the source you want in this one. I know which one deserves more credibility for me (if anything, because it's official)


And when was his tactics adopted by the entire fleet? 



RAM said:


> About US fighter development dates?. Ok, let me check (this one is too hard to answer by memory)
> 
> F4U- Contract awarded on the design of the XF4U in June 1938- A whooping three years and a half before the war started for the US
> F6F- Contract awarded on the design of the XF6F, june, 1941. Six months before the war started.
> ...



Again your comment...



RAM said:


> The american air forces were awarding contracts for heavy, average to mediocre climbing and accelerator, lousy maneouverable at low speed, but excellent high speed fighters, as soon as mid 1937. If that doesn't signal a general trend of where they were heading towards (and that wasn't "old school" air fighting, I don't know what does.



That was the doctrine of the day - it was thought that the US would fight a war close to home and would have to intercept enemy bombers. Explore the AAF proposal that led to the P-38 and P-39.

Had designers or people at Wright Patterson or Pax River known more about the low speed turning performance of the Zero, that would have been addressed during the concept and design stage of pre-Pearl Harbor aircraft. 



RAM said:


> Lack many of my books here, so I might have confused the day and the fight. I know there was a certain date on July 1943 where the allied air forces on the mediterranean claimed a crapload of 109s killed, yet the luftwaffe lost none at that theater in that particular date. Somehow I recalled it was the 1st of July one, but if it's not my bad. But it did happen.


Although the battle was overclaimed, damage was inflicted on the Germans and this battle is well documented.

_"The 325th FG (known as the "Checkertail Clan") flew P-40s in the MTO. The 325th was credited with at least 133 air-to-air kills in April-October 1943, of which 95 were Bf 109s and 26 were Macchi C.202s, for the loss of 17 P-40s in combat.[39][47] An anecdote concerning the 325th FG, indicates what could happen if Bf 109 pilots made the mistake of trying to out-turn the P-40. 325th FG historian Carol Cathcart wrote: "on 30 July, 20 P-40s of the 317th [Fighter Squadron] ... took off on a fighter sweep ... over Sardinia. As they turned to fly south over the west part of the island, they were attacked near Sassari... The attacking force consisted of 25 to 30 Bf 109s and Macchi C.202s... In the brief, intense battle that occurred ... [the 317th claimed] 21 enemy aircraft."[48] Cathcart states that Lt. Robert Sederberg who assisted a comrade being attacked by five Bf 109s, destroyed at least one German aircraft, and may have shot down as many as five. Sederberg was shot down in the dogfight and became a prisoner of war.[48]"_

325 His



RAM said:


> That depends on how you take the phrase itself. For me "being kicked out of the sky" means "being vastly outclassed". And seeing the performance figures of the P-40 and comparing it to the 109F/G series I honestly think the P40 was really outclassed by it.
> 
> However, that phrase doesn't mean that I think that the P40 was shot off the skies in the dozens. Good pilot skills usually are enough to prevent that happening, and sometimes even an outclassed plane can achieve some local and casual victories against much better opponents (P.11s over Poland, P-26s over Phillipines, CW21 demons over DEI...). I don't say that every P40 which flew was shot down. However, the upper hand quality wise was undeniably on the german (and italian, the C202 and C205s were reported as much superior to the P40) fighter side.
> 
> For me that is "being kicked out of the sky". As soon as a formation of 109s or C205s came near a P40, the P40 would better run for it.


There are a lot of opinions there but I think history actually shows that the P-40 did its job when it had to and despite being outclassed was not a push over.



RAM said:


> Against the Zero. The british summarily rejected the model because the prospect of flying that thing in front of the german guns simply gave them shivers. British rejects reached the pacific as the P400 (others went to russia), and achieved K/Ds over 1 against the Zero. If that doesn't say enough about the Zero...but says very little about the plane (at least for me because I qualify the Zero as one of the big lies of the history of aeronautics).


The Zero was over rated but was till an effective fighter aircraft untill tactics and better aircraft came along. I don't think it was a big lie, just over rated. It still caused a lot of damage.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2010)

RAM said:


> Sorry, I already said and I'll repeat, I don't accept russian sources/performances/histories as representatives of the model. The soviets burned their planes abusing their engines. They used engine settings well avobe those reccomended by the builder and those planes never lasted more than a handful of missions because of that. The P-39 was a model built by Bell, and I qualify it by the performances and traits it had flying according to the builder's manual. The Soviets did not fly them that way, they burned them and then trashed them (it was easy to replace them, as a lot more would come via Siberia or Persia so, why bother?)
> 
> if we are to compare "soviet" P-39s we then should do it against hypotetical similarily "souped up" german fighters. And then the P-39 against appears as a dog.


I'd like to know specifics for you to back up your opinions. Were the Russians running theses aircraft at full RPM too long? Too high Manifold Pressure? Tell me what these setting are?

There were many an allied pilot who, for a given mission or situation burnt up their engines. Look at some of the overhaul times on P-51Bs when they first reached Europe. It’s no secret the Russians weren't gentle with their aircraft, but then again they had a war to win that decided if they survived or not.

More of your opinions - they used the aircraft and got results, end of story. Again history speaks for itself.



RAM said:


> I never said the P-39 was the worst aircraft of WW2. AS I said my vote went for the Ba-88, with honorary mentions to the Me163 and bachem Natter. The P-39 was a lousy plane, dangerous for it's pilot (almost unrecoverable spin, and easily put into one) overall qualifyable as a dog. But at least was able to regularily beat the Zero, which actually and instantly means it can't be a "worst" in any list of mine (and which means the Zero was a REAL DOG ... yet it isn't the worst for me anyway ).
> 
> The P39 was obsolete as soon as it passed prototype stage, got it's high altitude supercharger deleted, and a crapload of indispensable combat equipment loaded instead. It's tremendous flying quircks regarding maneouverability and lack of stability didn't help.


I agree 100% about the Ba.88

The P-39 was not unstable or dangerous if one was properly trained to fly it. Chuck Yeager said it was his favorite WW2 aircraft to fly. There were many "green" and inattentive pilots killed flying the P-39 because they allowed it to get away from them. Training, it’s that simple.



RAM said:


> The P40 was a honest workhorse. Noble, stable, did it's job, never shined and was quite sometimes outclassed. Contrary to what it might seem here I have a soft spot for the plane in my heart (is one of my favorite rides in flight simulators, for instance). But it's undeniable that, while it could hold out and prevail against the Zero (which isn't too much in my agenda ), it was outclassed by contemporary fighters on the MTO and relegated to ground attack duties because of it. That, for me, is a good description of a dog.
> 
> Certainly they did in the PTO but against an opposition that wasn't in a very good plane either. Both planes did its job, but that doesn't make them more than mediocre at best (the P39 even worse). I think their (partial) success is more a credit to the air crews that flew them than to the models themselves which were barely acceptable to the job at hand.
> 
> ...



In actuality the P-40 was the more difficult aircraft in many respects because it was a tail dragger. Again, the P-39 had its quirks but a properly trained pilot could master it. Both aircraft were outclassed in the theaters they served and took on other roles that made them effective weapons, but both aircraft, especially the P-40 were far from "dogs." Again, you're entitled to your opinions, their war records speak for themselves.


----------



## RAM (May 11, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I read the reports. A few comments.



of the reports I posted only one had performance problems, the A6M2 tested against the P40 and P43 which, for unknown reasons, could only attain 2050 rpm. However control issues had nothing to do with the engine, so that can be sided.

Of the rest of the tests, well the Alleutian zero was (and is) renowned for falling on american hands virtually intact. All the americans had to do was to change the propeller (not difficult for the Zeke flew with a licenced american propeller) and the plane was ready to go. Pretty much similar with the Type 52, was captured in almost pristine status.

So no, I don't think "damage" is an issue in this captured planes tests.



> The report stated the Zero's controls "started" to stiffen up at 225 MPH.



Read it well: it says controls start to stiffen over 160 Knots IAS. Translated to Mph, that's 175mph, not 225mph.



> It did not give any indication that the stick loads were unmanageable or that the aircraft's turning ability was falling off.



a plane that is stated as developing heavy controls at 175mph IAS and not being able to roll at all at speeds of 300mph IAS means that in the mid-range of the 200s is progressively worse and worse. Even more, the plane not only gets unresponsible, heavy controls mean that any kind of maneouver will tire the pilot fast, and put himself in a serious situation in protracted fights.

Adding up to that, the reports also mention severe vibrations developed over 250mph IAS (275mph IAS). So at 275mph you have a cemented control plane vibrating, and demanding an exhausting ammount of strenght to fly. You can guess how those effects developed in the mid range of 200 to 300mph, I have a pretty much clear idea of it in my mind: VERY FAST because a Zeke reaching those speeds most of the times meant a diving Zeke building up speed pretty fast (not as fast as the allied planes anyway). An allied fighter with a Zeke on it's back only had to do a tight diving spiral; the Zero would be left in the dust in no time. Follow on move would be a pull-out the Zeke would also be hard pressed to follow, and a Zoom, something the Zero wasn't good at. After that sequence the initially advantaged position of the Zero was inverted with a Zeke seeing an allied plane higher than himself getting ready to start a BnZ sequence he couldn't run away from.

It's not strange that the reports say that over 250mph the allied iron could outmaneouver a Zero. Was easy to achieve. And was easily done during the air fights of the Pacific.



> At speeds below 200 mph, it was obvious the Zero was superior.



No sane allied fighter would fly at 200mph IAS while fighting a Zeke. Well, yes, in the DEI where they were all untrained and had no idea what they were flying against. Elsewhere, any fighter that slow would initiate a power dive the Zero simply coudln't follow.



> ...Zero and Oscar did cause great concern at the beginning of the war because of tactics against them.



Their myth grew out of any possible proportion, but as much as the deeds of the plane over the DEI and phillipines as for the fact that it was a fighter designed by an "inferior race". Racial considerations had a lot of impact for the allied mind of the era; they didn't give Japan any chance to compete with their own designs and the Zero came as a harsh surprise. And the reaction to it was an OVER reaction.



> Although Thatch did recognize and developed tactics, it obvious that on many occasions, there were many pilots who did try to dogfight the Zero and came out on the losing end...



Mostly happened when caught by surprise. If the Zeke was able to would the enemy before he could put his plane into a steep dive, then the enemy would surely die. Target fixation also happened: pilots moving in for the killing shot being shot to pieces by a Zero slipping on their backs without them noticing it.

But that would've been true had the Japanese flown a very different plane than the Zero.



> So what do YOU think low speed maneouvering is/ was?



I thought it was implicit in one of my prior messages. If high speeds are speeds over corner speed where inertia/aerodynamics are of bigger importance than acceleration/wingloading, it's plain to see that by slow speeds I mean speeds under the corner velocity of the plane, where acceleration/wingloading play a bigger part than inertia/aerodynamics.


----------



## RAM (May 11, 2010)

Oh, BTW; do you --REALLY-- want me to go through the pain of going to every home page of each of the fighters list I gave, in order to give you a link so you can double check my data on order dates?...

come on, man, you can check in any book you own on american planes. Is late and I hate to browse online sources as I'm posting. Those dates are real...don't make me go to each the Corsair, Hellcat, Thunderbolt and Lightning's webpages to give you a link so you can read from someone else :O.





> And when was his tactics adopted by the entire fleet?



Thatch weave itself was adopted as a general maneouver after midway, and wasn't an instant process. By guadalcanal it was more or less standard (even while some pilots didn't know it yet at that time).

However we're talking about a SINGLE maneouver here. The lesson "stay fast-don't turn with a Zero" was GENERALLY accepted among navy and Marine Corps pilots already by the time of the Coral Sea battle. And actually "stay fast and don't turn with a Zero" was enough to keep the Zero at bay and deny it any kind of decisive victory in the meantime. When we're talking about F4Fs here, that some big stuff to achieve.




> That was the doctrine of the day - it was thought that the US would fight a war close to home and would have to intercept enemy bombers. Explore the AAF proposal that led to the P-38 and P-39.



CErtainly ,and the P38 had noticeably different design emphasis than either the F4U, F6F or P-47 (its plain to see as the P-38 was a notably better climber/accelerator than either of them).

However, those other models also were chosen for production and awarded contracts much prior to Pearl Harbor. You can't really explain how a fighter as the P-47 (which accelerated as a truck and had the same wingloading and low speed turning radious as the A-20 Boston) achieved such a contract without aknowledging that those who asked for it (the USAAC) were well aware than future air combats would rely on dive/zoom/firepower/speed rather than in close slow turnfests.

Same goes for the F4U and F6F, btw.



> Had designers or people at Wright Patterson or Pax River known more about the low speed turning performance of the Zero, that would have been addressed during the concept and design stage of pre-Pearl Harbor aircraft.



That's easily proven wrong. The designers of Grumman had good forewarning about the Zero capabilities when the plane was still in prototype stage. 

Did they make it lighter? no.

Did they make it better turning at low speeds? no

Did they try to lower it's wingloading? No.

Actually the only thing they did was giving the plane a bigger, heavier engine (increasing wingloading in the meantime, thus hurting low speed turning ability) so the plane could have more power available and as such a higher top speed. By increasing weight they also improved dive/zoom (where inertia,and as such, mass, plays a very big part). But they didn't try to make their plane any better at slow turning.



> Although the battle was overclaimed, damage was inflicted on the Germans and this battle is well documented.



As I said, if I mistook that battle report for another, my bad. But there was one instance of a high number of 109s claimed as shot down by american planes over Sicily in a day the Luftwaffe records show no 109 losses in the MTO. 



> There are a lot of opinions there but I think history actually shows that the P-40 did its job when it had to and despite being outclassed was not a push over.



few if any planes in history were "push overs", even when totally outclassed. Mostly because in many occasions of outclassed fighters soldiering on, the pilots behind the controls usually showed a high quality and did their best to put up the difference in performance in pilot skill, so avoiding being totally wiped out. 

Such was the instance of the P-40s in the mediterranean, at least for me.




> The Zero was over rated but was till an effective fighter aircraft untill tactics and better aircraft came along. I don't think it was a big lie, just over rated. It still caused a lot of damage.



The problem is that tactic superiority only lasted 6 months (at best) in fading away. And better aircraft lasted just roughly one year in entering service. After that, the Zeros were simply were exterminated. 

Wouldn't be as bad if in the meantime the model achieved decisive air superiorities, thus at least justifying it's fame as a great fighter. But the fact remains that out of the DEI/Phillipine area (flying mostly against mid-30s hopeless dustbins with wings), the Zeke failed time after time to establish any kind of sizeable air superiority even when flying against much inferior (on paper) planes as the american models of the era.

I don't rate that as an "effective" aircraft. Not even close.



> I'd like to know specifics for you to back up your opinions. Were the Russians running theses aircraft at full RPM too long? Too high Manifold Pressure? Tell me what these setting are?



again, too far from my sources to give detailed data at the moment. Could look for it in the internet, but will have to wait until tomorrow the soonest (is late here at Europe).

Roughly speaking, the soviets overboosted their engines well avobe what the Allisons could sustain. Russian service records show that, while the allison had an (theoretical) expected operational life of 250 hours between overhauls, the soviet P-39s were good at the most for 60% of that time, and after that the engines were totally burned out and was more economical to wait for the next lend-lease P-39 batch to come rather than overhauling the engine.

Of course, lower grade russian fuel only worsened the situation. Overboosting was bad enough, but running the engines on lower grade aswell was a killer.

I'll try to dig for more details on this tomorrow, to give you some hard data on it. I know where to ask for details.

AS a further note, Soviet planes not only ran on crazy boosts, they also chopped their aircraft down. Soviet P-39s had erased machineguns and deleted armor that lightened up the model a lot. As I said, I'm sorry but a P-39 flying for the soviets was a VERY DIFFERENT machine than the P-39 flying for the USAAF. You can't say the USAAF P-39 was "decent" because a very different creature was succesfull when flying for the soviets.



> The P-39 was not unstable or dangerous if one was properly trained to fly it. Chuck Yeager said it was his favorite WW2 aircraft to fly. There were many "green" and inattentive pilots killed flying the P-39 because they allowed it to get away from them. Training, it’s that simple.



That would be really good if the plane was just meant to fly around. P-39s were fighting machines and as such they were repeatedly used in air combat. Air combat means that sooner or later you're going to pull some high AoAs on your plane. 
If said plane has a nasty, almost unrecoverable, accelerated spin developed from a terrific stall that kicks in with absolutely NO Forewarning at all, that means that even an experienced pilot in the middle of a combat is in a serious,constant, danger of losing his plane and probably his life. Actually there were quite some experienced pilots who either lost their life in, or had to jump out of, a P-39 they had unexpectedly put into a spin.

As for the P-40 being actually more dangerous because being a tail dragger...come on, then most every other fighter of the WW2 era was more dangerous than the P-39 aswell?. The P40 was a pretty stable and noble platform with a very wide separation between landing gears, meaning it was pretty safe to operate in takeoff/landings. INstead the model never really gave any kind of serious problem in that department.

All the best.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2010)

RAM said:


> of the reports I posted only one had performance problems, the A6M2 tested against the P40 and P43 which, for unknown reasons, could only attain 2050 rpm. However control issues had nothing to do with the engine, so that can be sided.
> 
> Of the rest of the tests, well the Alleutian zero was (and is) renowned for falling on american hands virtually intact. All the americans had to do was to change the propeller (not difficult for the Zeke flew with a licenced american propeller) and the plane was ready to go. Pretty much similar with the Type 52, was captured in almost pristine status.
> 
> ...



The Alleutian Zero was basically in tact true, but was flipped on its back - it was damaged. Once an airframe recieves any type of damage as such, it is never the same. The amont of intelligence gather from that aircraft was invaluable, but I could say with oyt a doubt that aircraft never flew the same or exhibited all the characteristics that a factory example would show - that's the problem with test flying ANY repaired captured aircraft

And I bolded your comment - 


RAM said:


> a plane that is stated as developing heavy controls at 175mph IAS and not being able to roll at all at speeds of 300mph IAS means that in the mid-range of the 200s is progressively worse and worse. Even more, the plane not only gets unresponsible, heavy controls mean that any kind of maneouver will tire the pilot fast, and put himself in a serious situation in protracted fights.


At the point where it could not roll is where it gets really serious, at that point the progressive stick forces will be subject to the pilot and what he can handle. I have flown planes with high stick forces where I was able to control the aircraft with no problem but another pilot would have difficulty.


RAM said:


> Adding up to that, the reports also mention severe vibrations developed over 250mph IAS (275mph IAS). So at 275mph you have a cemented control plane vibrating, and demanding an exhausting ammount of strenght to fly. You can guess how those effects developed in the mid range of 200 to 300mph, I have a pretty much clear idea of it in my mind: VERY FAST because a Zeke reaching those speeds most of the times meant a diving Zeke building up speed pretty fast (not as fast as the allied planes anyway). An allied fighter with a Zeke on it's back only had to do a tight diving spiral; the Zero would be left in the dust in no time. Follow on move would be a pull-out the Zeke would also be hard pressed to follow, and a Zoom, something the Zero wasn't good at. After that sequence the initially advantaged position of the Zero was inverted with a Zeke seeing an allied plane higher than himself getting ready to start a BnZ sequence he couldn't run away from.


And again all this is progressive. Would it mean that a P-40 SHOULD dogfight a Zero at 250 mph?


RAM said:


> It's not strange that the reports say that over 250mph the allied iron could outmaneouver a Zero. Was easy to achieve. And was easily done during the air fights of the Pacific.


Perhaps, but the tactic of the day was not to maneuver with the Zero.



RAM said:


> No sane allied fighter would fly at 200mph IAS while fighting a Zeke. Well, yes, in the DEI where they were all untrained and had no idea what they were flying against. Elsewhere, any fighter that slow would initiate a power dive the Zero simply coudln't follow.


Well it did happen early in the war and some who tried this were American



RAM said:


> Their myth grew out of any possible proportion, but as much as the deeds of the plane over the DEI and phillipines as for the fact that it was a fighter designed by an "inferior race". Racial considerations had a lot of impact for the allied mind of the era; they didn't give Japan any chance to compete with their own designs and the Zero came as a harsh surprise. And the reaction to it was an OVER reaction.
> 
> Mostly happened when caught by surprise. If the Zeke was able to would the enemy before he could put his plane into a steep dive, then the enemy would surely die. Target fixation also happened: pilots moving in for the killing shot being shot to pieces by a Zero slipping on their backs without them noticing it.
> 
> But that would've been true had the Japanese flown a very different plane than the Zero.



Possible scenerios but not always the case



RAM said:


> I thought it was implicit in one of my prior messages. If high speeds are speeds over corner speed where inertia/aerodynamics are of bigger importance than acceleration/wingloading, it's plain to see that by slow speeds I mean speeds under the corner velocity of the plane, where acceleration/wingloading play a bigger part than inertia/aerodynamics.



And again - in your opinion what are "high speeds?"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2010)

RAM said:


> Oh, BTW; do you --REALLY-- want me to go through the pain of going to every home page of each of the fighters list I gave, in order to give you a link so you can double check my data on order dates?...
> 
> come on, man, you can check in any book you own on american planes. Is late and I hate to browse online sources as I'm posting. Those dates are real...don't make me go to each the Corsair, Hellcat, Thunderbolt and Lightning's webpages to give you a link so you can read from someone else :O.


It not about the data - its about your statement. Do you really think pre WW2 aircraft were "designed" heavy on purpose or were developed with a heavy wing loading on purpose? Do you think that the US "could have" designed an aircraft just as manoeuvrable as the Zero? The CW-21 had similar properties as the Zero and Oscar but it could not accelerate or climb like the Japanese planes. Bottom line, it was on the same track of design philosophy was the Japanese and it was made in the USA


RAM said:


> Thatch weave itself was adopted as a general maneouver* after midway*, and wasn't an instant process. By guadalcanal it was more or less standard (even while some pilots didn't know it yet at that time).
> 
> However we're talking about a SINGLE maneouver here. The lesson "stay fast-don't turn with a Zero" was GENERALLY accepted among navy and Marine Corps pilots already by the time of the Coral Sea battle. And actually "stay fast and don't turn with a Zero" was enough to keep the Zero at bay and deny it any kind of decisive victory in the meantime. When we're talking about F4Fs here, that some big stuff to achieve.


So I guess it made no difference about the Zero's performance below 300 mph?!? 



RAM said:


> CErtainly ,and the P38 had noticeably different design emphasis than either the F4U, F6F or P-47 (its plain to see as the P-38 was a notably better climber/accelerator than either of them).


The P-38 was designed as an interceptor. It became apparent during its development that it could perform other roles. Needs during WW2 also dictated additional roles.


RAM said:


> However, those other models also were chosen for production and awarded contracts much prior to Pearl Harbor. You can't really explain how a fighter as the P-47 (which accelerated as a truck and had the same wingloading and low speed turning radious as the A-20 Boston) achieved such a contract without aknowledging that those who asked for it (the USAAC) were well aware than future air combats would rely on dive/zoom/firepower/speed rather than in close slow turnfests.
> 
> Same goes for the F4U and F6F, btw.


Actually that's easily answered - SYSTEMS. The P-47 introduced a huge turbocharger, air conditioning and was advertised as a high altitude fighter. Additionally the AAF wanted it to be able to carry bombs and shoot up things. It was only natural that this aircraft was going to grow in size.

Additionally, look at the US engines that were being developed, especially radials. The customer wanted more power and the engines got bigger and bigger.



RAM said:


> That's easily proven wrong. The designers of Grumman had good forewarning about the Zero capabilities when the plane was still in prototype stage.


Proof?!?

That for the most part is a myth. The Grumman proposal for the aircraft that eventually became the F6F was sent to the Navy in late 1940. Grumman was awarded the F6F contract in June 1941. The Zero entered service while the F6F was on the drawing board and there was little if any intelligence sent to Grumman about the Zero. There were reports about the Zero floating around and Chennault knew about it, but the Zero no way influenced the F6F.


RAM said:


> Did they make it lighter? no.
> 
> Did they make it better turning at low speeds? no
> 
> ...


And that was based on a design philosophy from Leroy Grumman. 




RAM said:


> As I said, if I mistook that battle report for another, my bad. But there was one instance of a high number of 109s claimed as shot down by american planes over Sicily in a day the Luftwaffe records show no 109 losses in the MTO.


Ok...



RAM said:


> few if any planes in history were "push overs", even when totally outclassed. Mostly because in many occasions of outclassed fighters soldiering on, the pilots behind the controls usually showed a high quality and did their best to put up the difference in performance in pilot skill, so avoiding being totally wiped out.
> 
> Such was the instance of the P-40s in the mediterranean, at least for me.


Again your opinion, history shows otherwise..




RAM said:


> The problem is that tactic superiority only lasted 6 months (at best) in fading away. And better aircraft lasted just roughly one year in entering service. After that, the Zeros were simply were exterminated.


Actaully things changed in Early 1943 when you saw more P-38s in theater as well as other aircraft such as the F6F.


RAM said:


> Wouldn't be as bad if in the meantime the model achieved decisive air superiorities, thus at least justifying it's fame as a great fighter. But the fact remains that out of the DEI/Phillipine area (flying mostly against mid-30s hopeless dustbins with wings), the Zeke failed time after time to establish any kind of sizeable air superiority even when flying against much inferior (on paper) planes as the american models of the era.


Actually that's not true - in the very early going in 1942, there were many times the allies did not have air superiority over New Guinea and Port Morsby . Read the book "Bloody Shambles"


RAM said:


> I don't rate that as an "effective" aircraft. Not even close.


Your opinion


RAM said:


> again, too far from my sources to give detailed data at the moment. Could look for it in the internet, but will have to wait until tomorrow the soonest (is late here at Europe).
> 
> Roughly speaking, the soviets overboosted their engines well avobe what the Allisons could sustain. Russian service records show that, while the allison had an (theoretical) expected operational life of 250 hours between overhauls, the soviet P-39s were good at the most for 60% of that time, and after that the engines were totally burned out and was more economical to wait for the next lend-lease P-39 batch to come rather than overhauling the engine.
> 
> Of course, lower grade russian fuel only worsened the situation. Overboosting was bad enough, but running the engines on lower grade aswell was a killer.


And given a desperate situation, any other combatant of the day would have done the same thing.


RAM said:


> I'll try to dig for more details on this tomorrow, to give you some hard data on it. I know where to ask for details.


Ok...


RAM said:


> AS a further note, Soviet planes not only ran on crazy boosts, they also chopped their aircraft down. Soviet P-39s had erased machineguns and deleted armor that lightened up the model a lot. As I said, I'm sorry but a P-39 flying for the soviets was a VERY DIFFERENT machine than the P-39 flying for the USAAF. You can't say the USAAF P-39 was "decent" because a very different creature was succesfull when flying for the soviets.


The Soviets did nothing different than other operators of the war. So they deleted guns and armor. That was their decision. The US put 75mm cannons on B-25s. What's the difference?!?

You fail to grasp that the US also used the P-39 and P-400 in the ground attack role and it served well.

I don't see what the Soviets modding their aircraft has to do with anything. 



RAM said:


> That would be really good if the plane was just meant to fly around. P-39s were fighting machines and as such they were repeatedly used in air combat. Air combat means that sooner or later you're going to pull some high AoAs on your plane.
> 
> If said plane has a nasty, almost unrecoverable, accelerated spin developed from a terrific stall that kicks in with absolutely NO Forewarning at all, that means that even an experienced pilot in the middle of a combat is in a serious,constant, danger of losing his plane and probably his life. Actually there were quite some experienced pilots who either lost their life in, or had to jump out of, a P-39 they had unexpectedly put into a spin.


And you're quoting totally inaccurate information. First off a good fighter SHOULD have a level of instability. Second I don't know what your background is but every aircraft will give you indication when it is about to stall. Some more pronounced than others but the P-39 was easily mastered by an experienced pilot. Bottom line, if you're properly trained and master your aircraft you will not have problems and I can tell you that the P-39 did not just fall out of the sky. It was touchy, but there were many other aircraft of the day that had similar or even worse characteristics.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2010)

RAM said:


> As for the P-40 being actually more dangerous because being a tail dragger...come on, then most every other fighter of the WW2 era was more dangerous than the P-39 aswell?. The P40 was a pretty stable and noble platform with a very wide separation between landing gears, meaning it was pretty safe to operate in takeoff/landings. INstead the model never really gave any kind of serious problem in that department.


Have you ever flown a taildragger? Just by design a taildrageer is inherently more dangerous than any tricycle aircraft. Look at the accident rate of the Bf.109! Even the Spitfire had its share of landing accidents. Now does that mean it can't be mastered? Not at all, but in reality, look around and see how many modern combat aircraft planes are tail draggers.


----------



## RAM (May 12, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Alleutian Zero was basically in tact true, but was flipped on its back - it was damaged



only the propeller. Structure was pretty much intact otherwise. But we're turning circles here, so I'll stop it just by saying that every test done on the Zero showed the same characteristics at high speed and stiffening at similar speeds. Which means it was an attribute of the model as a whole, not of a certain captured aircraft



> At the point where it could not roll is where it gets really serious,at that point the progressive stick forces will be subject to the pilot and what he can handle. I have flown planes with high stick forces where I was able to control the aircraft with no problem but another pilot would have difficulty.



well for starters japanese pilot constitution wasn't he strongest around. They weren't really strong (of course, exceptions also happened) so strong control forces were a ibg penalty for them.

The moment the plane stopped to roll wasn't the point where things got "really serious". The plane had a very hampened roll before that -cementing was progressive, not instant. Meaning the plane couldn't follow close spiral high speed dive, level and pull out by an american plane at all, putting the plane in a distinct disadvantage iin air combat. That's for me "really serious", and that happened quite before 300mph IAS.



> And again all this is progressive. Would it mean that a P-40 SHOULD dogfight a Zero at 250 mph?
> Perhaps, but the tactic of the day was not to maneuver with the Zero.



Agreed, the P40 would do better to restrict itself to BnZ, where he was nigh untouchable by the Zero. Yet, if needed, could resort to other tactics and STILL beat the Zero.




> Possible scenerios but not always the case



true, but they were the most common ones, at least in the case of the USN and USMC pilots.




> And again - in your opinion what are "high speeds?"



Already answered it before. Speeds over corner speed of the model flown, where inertia/aerodynamics play a bigger part in the aircraft Energy management than sustained climbrate/Acceleration or wingloading.




> It not about the data - its about your statement. Do you really think pre WW2 aircraft were "designed" heavy on purpose or were developed with a heavy wing loading



ACtually pretty much the opposite. US air forces requested planes with certain kind of equipment on board, and motorizations. The designers gave them what they wanted but they had to pay in weight for loading that required equipment and heavy engines: the resultant planes were all very heavy, and didn't allow for any kind of low speed maneouvering. Which was never a problem, the models the air forces already had (P-40, P39, F4F, F2B, etc) already weren't the best slow turners around.

Accordingly the air forces had to adapt their flying style for them. They knew what was coming, and that what was coming was no better (and usually worse) in low speed fighting than what they already had.




> Proof?!?
> 
> That for the most part is a myth. The Grumman proposal for the aircraft that eventually became the F6F was sent to the Navy in late 1940. Grumman was awarded the F6F contract in June 1941. The Zero entered service while the F6F was on the drawing board and there was little if any intelligence sent to Grumman about the Zero. There were reports about the Zero floating around and Chennault knew about it, but the Zero no way influenced the,,,



Proof? well, the Hellcat was still in prototype stage when the Alleutian Zero was captured and tested (first test flight: September 20, 1942). At the time the F6F prototypes were flying in two variants, one with the Cyclone, another with the more powerful and heavier R-2800 engine. The Cyclone prototype was lighter and had better low speed maneouverability, the P&W engined prototype was heavier but sported better top speed and power. The chosen prototype was the second. 

The first production F6F didn't came out of the line until the 3rd of October 1942. That's 13 days after the Zero started being tested by the americans and their low speed traits were aknowledged (aswell as many of its drawbacks). Had the US Navy been in a hurry to improve the low speed traits of its next gen embarked fighter, they very well coudl've done it.

PLease note: I don't say the Alleutian Zero INFLUENCED the US fighter design. Never said so and never will because that is NOT true. What I say is that the american Navy COULD'VE modified their next gen fighter design, which was intended to be the workhorse against the Zero, to give it better low speed traits. They only should've needed to change their decision and return to the Cyclone based F6F. They never did so (and weren't even tempted). THAT is what I say.




> And that was based on a design philosophy from Leroy Grumman.



and on US Navy requirements. The Navy would decide what they wanted, not Grumman. However, it just happened that the Navy was happy with what Grumman was about to deliver them, so they didn't change it at all to give it any kind of imporovement at low speed fighting ability.




> Actaully things changed in Early 1943 when you saw more P-38s in theater...



actually things started to change in late 1942 when the first USMC F4U squadron started operating over the Solomons. Of course, the more time passed by, the more modern allied fighters were around and the more gutted the Zeke got. But by late 1942 the first squadron of next-gen US Fighters was already fighting Zeros (and killing them in very large numbers).


----------



## RAM (May 12, 2010)

> Actually that's not true - in the very early going in 1942, there were many times the allies did not have air superiority over New Guinea and Port Morsby . Read the book "Bloody



there weren't enough allied squadrons over PM at the time. Numbers also count when trying to establish air superiority ,not just aircraft quality.

However, you'll note, while the Allies didn't hold air superiority over PM, neither did the japanese at the time. It was a consant contest, meaning neither of the sides had the undisputed control of the air. Meaning the Zero ALSO FAILED to establish it. Sure enough, they gave a better account of themselfs than a couple months later when the number of allied planes on PM was triplicated, but still failed to keep a constant, undisputed, control of the air. 

Which is exactly my point: the Zeke consistently failed to provide the japanese with air superiority against inferior planes (and here, inferior numbers aswell). Neither did the allies have it for a long time over PM. But certainly the Zero didn't either. So, another Zero fail.

I note the book, btw, another for the list (which is way too long for my ability to buy, lol)




> The Soviets did nothing different than other operators of the war. So they deleted guns and armor. That was their decision. The US put 75mm cannons on B-25s. What's the difference?!?
> 
> You fail to grasp that the US also used the P-39 and P-400 in the ground attack role and it served well.
> 
> I don't see what the Soviets modding their aircraft has to do with anything.



ok, I'll try again.

The P-39 the USAAF used during 1942 wasn't the P-39 the Russians used. The model name was the same, the model series (D version, initial russian version too, aswell as a good number of P-400s) was the same on paper, the plane ACTUALLY was very different.

The soviet fighter flew with overboosted engines which killed engine life, had retired weaponry and deleted armor and were so much lighter and powerful than the american P-39D. So, even while the model and the series was ,on paper, the same ,both planes were VERY different.

So when I say that the P-39D was a dog (and a dog it was) based on their performances and traits when flown by US Forces, you can't tell me the model was OK because the soviets did great with it. Because the soviets weren't flying that plane, they were flying a heavily customized one which largely differed from the base model the americans flew. You would be comparing apples to oranges.



BTW, what the russians did wasn't what everyone would do. Noone else could do that.They just did because they had access to a vast numbers of P-39s they didn't have to build themselves, but was given to them in high numbers with each lend-lease deliver going trhough Persia. As such they simply disregarded any kind of consideration regarding engine life and plane expected lifetime. 

That's a luxury NO OTHER NATION could do when flying during WW2, not even Germany in 1945. The only and one nation that could fly the P-39 like they did the soviets during WW2...were the soviets because they had the Lend Lease program to support them. In fact the Russians didnd't do it either with their own indigenous models, none of the soviet built fighters was overboosted or had so little engine life expectancy as the P-39D had on their hands. And that's said even while soviet fighters weren't expected to fly more than 10-15 combat sorties over the front in total.


The degree of abuse the P-39 engines went through can be meausred by the fact that, regardless the L&L constant and uninterrupted deliversvia Persia, at one point some units of the VVS burned out their fighters' engines when there was still no replacement available. They were forced to put the M-105 engine in them (At least a hundred Soviet P-39s flew with the M-105 in a given point) until the next batch of Allison P-39s was delivered to them. They really burned down the models at an atrocious pace.

But I am digressing here. What I mean is what I mentioned avobe: you can't discuss the P39D as a model when I'm talking about the standard model in US service, by giving accounts of it's service record with the Soviets, who abused the planes to extreme limits the US couldn't (and wouldn't) do. Apples to Oranges. That's my point.

This is the same thing as with the Brewster. Noone can come here saying the Buffaloes the US Navy flew during 1942 and that got shredded at Midway was comparable under any means to the Finnish B-339 model that was so succesfull against the VVS. The base models could be the same, the actual planes were VERY different and can't be really brought as "the same plane" in a discussion. Because they weren't the same plane. And US P-39Ds vs soviet P-39Ds is the same story. They weren't the same plane.


> background is but every aircraft will give you indication when it is about to stall



Usually a buffeting would warn the pilot. However certain planes gave near t onil warning to the pilot, and stalled almost without any kind of warning. A good instance would be the Fw-190, a plane that "dropped" it's left wing almost instantly with little or no feedback for the pilot that they were on the verge of doing it.

Same with the P-39, it gave little or no forewarning at all. But where the Fw190 had a nasty, sudden and unwarned stall, it had a very noble recovery. The P39 had a nasty, sudden and almost no warning stall, and unless the pilot had instant, perfect reaction, the plane would enter an unrecoverable spin almost instantly thereafter.

If that's not unforgiving, what is?.





> Have you ever flown a taildragger? Just by design a taildrageer is inherently more dangerous than any tricycle aircraft. Look at the accident rate of the Bf.109! Even the Spitfire had its share of landing accidents. Now does that mean it can't be mastered? Not at all, but in reality, look around and see how many modern combat aircraft planes are tail



ACtually I have, at Cuatro VIentos, Madrid. I flew with an instructor by my side. Most fun of my life, BTW. I've also flown Cessnas a couple times. Know the differences myself.

But I digress. You bring here two planes that had some serious landing/takeoff/ground rolling quircks. Which can be attributed to their NARROW TRACK UNDERCARRIAGE, not to the fact that they were tail-draggers. It was easy to ground loop a spit or a 109 if one wasn't careful because of the short distances between gears that made the plane very little stable on the ground. But that had nothing to do with the fact they were tail draggers. 

most of the WW2 combat aircraft were tail draggers. Hell the T-6 Texan is a tail dragger and is a joy to fly, land and takeoff in (you tell me ). the Fw190 was a taildragger and was easy to land and take off. Same with the P-47 or P51. Others like the Typhoon were nasty because of inverted torque (pulled to the right instead of the left) going against the pilot's instincts when compensating with rudder during takeoffs, and because sheer torque and little rudder authority at low speeds...all of them factors which had nothing to do with the plane being a tail-dragger.

Nose gear planes have a distinct advantage over taildraggers because they give an unrivalled view to the front when on the ground, taking off or landing. That I give you. But that doesn't mean the taildraggers are "dangerous" while the P-39 was not. I'd rather be in a taildragger that has noble flying qualities than in a nose-gear plane which gets me in a spin without almost no forewarning at all.


Re. the P39 overboosting by soviets. I've been promised to receive a good deal of information on the model in my email inbox today. I don't know how much of it is related to it's use by the soviets, but I hope thre's enough. If not ,I'll keep looking. Will post when I receive the information.

All the best.


----------



## RAM (May 12, 2010)

Grrrr "server busy" again, and double post again...really, the "server busy" thing is starting to get into my nerves...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 12, 2010)

RAM said:


> Already answered it before. Speeds over corner speed of the model flown, where inertia/aerodynamics play a bigger part in the aircraft Energy management than sustained climbrate/Acceleration or wingloading.


Hmmmm - So that's specific for an aircraft? So it should be in the flight manual, right?





RAM said:


> Proof? well, the Hellcat was still in prototype stage when the Alleutian Zero was captured and tested (first test flight: September 20, 1942). At the time the F6F prototypes were flying in two variants, one with the Cyclone, another with the more powerful and heavier R-2800 engine. The Cyclone prototype was lighter and had better low speed maneouverability, the P&W engined prototype was heavier but sported better top speed and power. The chosen prototype was the second.
> 
> The first production F6F didn't came out of the line until the 3rd of October 1942. That's 13 days after the Zero started being tested by the americans and their low speed traits were aknowledged (aswell as many of its drawbacks). Had the US Navy been in a hurry to improve the low speed traits of its next gen embarked fighter, they very well coudl've done it.
> 
> PLease note: I don't say the Alleutian Zero INFLUENCED the US fighter design. Never said so and never will because that is NOT true. What I say is that the american Navy COULD'VE modified their next gen fighter design, which was intended to be the workhorse against the Zero, to give it better low speed traits. They only should've needed to change their decision and return to the Cyclone based F6F. They never did so (and weren't even tempted). THAT is what I say.


Point taken


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 12, 2010)

RAM said:


> So when I say that the P-39D was a dog (and a dog it was) based on their performances and traits when flown by US Forces, you can't tell me the model was OK because the soviets did great with it. Because the soviets weren't flying that plane, they were flying a heavily customized one which largely differed from the base model the americans flew. You would be comparing apples to oranges.


 I still disagree. Overboosting an engine and removing some armor and the wing guns is not a "heavily customized" modification. The Russians showed the true potential of the aircraft despite it being outclassed bu other aircraft. In reality they operated it in its element despite frying engines along the way. 


RAM said:


> Usually a buffeting would warn the pilot. However certain planes gave near t onil warning to the pilot, and stalled almost without any kind of warning. A good instance would be the Fw-190, a plane that "dropped" it's left wing almost instantly with little or no feedback for the pilot that they were on the verge of doing it.
> 
> Same with the P-39, it gave little or no forewarning at all. But where the Fw190 had a nasty, sudden and unwarned stall, it had a very noble recovery. *The P39 had a nasty, sudden and almost no warning stall, and unless the pilot had instant, perfect reaction, the plane would enter an unrecoverable spin almost instantly thereafter.*
> If that's not unforgiving, what is?.



Please tell me your source for that. I'll quote Yeager again who said the aircraft was great to fly aside from being a bit unstable at low speeds, and again what you're describing can be dealt with with training. The P-39 had bad spin/ stall tendencies when operated out of the CG limits and there were many tests conducted by Bell on this. The plane did have a high stall speed when compared to other fighters of the day (105 clean, 90 dirty). The -1 also states that spins aren't recommended, especially if there is ammo in the wings. 

The P-39 was used as an advanced trainer and did have a high accident rate for a while until the USAAF training syllabus was tightened up. What you're saying is a remedied with training and in some cases the P-39's spin stall characteristics were no different than a P-51 depending where the CG fell.




RAM said:


> ACtually I have, at Cuatro VIentos, Madrid. I flew with an instructor by my side. Most fun of my life, BTW. I've also flown Cessnas a couple times. Know the differences myself.
> 
> But I digress. You bring here two planes that had some serious landing/takeoff/ground rolling quircks. Which can be attributed to their NARROW TRACK UNDERCARRIAGE, not to the fact that they were tail-draggers. It was easy to ground loop a spit or a 109 if one wasn't careful because of the short distances between gears that made the plane very little stable on the ground. But that had nothing to do with the fact they were tail draggers.
> 
> ...


I can tell you that flying a tail dragger is WAY different than an aircraft with a tri cycle landing gear and there is greater risk of landing accidents in the tail dragger. If you had flown one, you'll know what I am talking about and I say this from experience. Even in a T-6, landing in a cross wind can me hazardous. A T-6 IS NOT a joy to fly in a crosswind. I have a good friend who is a flight instructor on them and they are not as docile as you state. You fly a taildragger from the minute the engine is started.

In the P-39, all that had to be done is fly the airplane by the numbers. Know your stall speeds and limitations when performing maneuvers and you will not come close to stalling or spinning the aircraft and in the end it was safer to take off and land than some of its contemporaries. Again I don't know where you're getting your information from about the P-39 stalling, giving no warning prior to going into an uncontrollable spin, I can tell you that is an exaggeration.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 12, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That’s your opinion and you have no proof of that. the combat was actually confirmed on the German side...




please where are this conform from german side?

and 160 kts are ~185 mph 
200 kts are ~230 mph


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 12, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> please where are this *conform* from german side?


"confirmed"

An air battle between 317th Fighter Squadron and a mix of Bf 109s an Mc 202s on July 30, 1943. 20 P-40s were jumped by 25 to 30 Bf 109s and Mc 202s. The 317th claimed 21 enemy aircraft destroyed with the loss of one of their own.

317His


----------



## Vincenzo (May 12, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "confirmed"
> 
> An air battle between 317th Fighter Squadron and a mix of Bf 109s an Mc 202s on July 30, 1943. 20 P-40s were jumped by 25 to 30 Bf 109s and Mc 202s. The 317th claimed 21 enemy aircraft destroyed with the loss of one of their own.
> 
> 317His



sure confirmed

the link it's not from german side


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 12, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> sure confirmed
> 
> the link it's not from german side



Its not - but there are some on here (Erich and I think JoeB) who has the data from the German side that confirmed the battle and shows only 5 enemy aircraft lost on the Gide (From what I remember). This air battle was previously spoken about in an older thread.


----------



## renrich (May 12, 2010)

Page 517, "America's Hundred Thousand" by Dean: "Aug 9 '43- The first raised cockpit aircraft appear starting with the 950th, the informally -designated F4U1As, used by Vought, but never officially approved by Navy Bureau of Aeronautics." I'll go with Dean.

A description by Boone Guyton of flying the Zero: " So was it's greatest maneuvering failure--excessive aileron forces required to rotate the airplane, in any maneuver, above 240 mph. Moving the stick, with both hands, at 260 mph produced a ridiculously slow rolling motion. It was like tugging at a box of concrete."


----------



## Vincenzo (May 12, 2010)

renrich said:


> Page 517, "America's Hundred Thousand" by Dean: "Aug 9 '43- The first raised cockpit aircraft appear starting with the 950th, the informally -designated F4U1As, used by Vought, but never officially approved by Navy Bureau of Aeronautics." I'll go with Dean.
> 
> A description by Boone Guyton of flying the Zero: " So was it's greatest maneuvering failure--excessive aileron forces required to rotate the airplane, in any maneuver, above 240 mph. Moving the stick, with both hands, at 260 mph produced a ridiculously slow rolling motion. It was like tugging at a box of concrete."



it's very important know if this are IAS or TAS speed


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 12, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> it's very important know if this are IAS or TAS speed


More than likely that would be indicated


----------



## TIMPF335 (May 12, 2010)

What about the French made Bloch MB 150. On its first test flight it couldnt leave the ground !


----------



## Cromwell (May 12, 2010)

wheelsup_cavu said:


> Look at the post times for your post and mine.
> I posted less than a minute after you.
> I didn't see that you had already posted again.
> 
> ...



OK no problem - I am almost never serious anyhow


----------



## Shortround6 (May 12, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> it's very important know if this are IAS or TAS speed



It is no guarantee but usually such limitations were given in terms of IAS. This way the limitation would remain relatively constant regardless of altitude and air density. 
An allied pilot, having been given this knowledge in a briefing (or passed to him by other pilots) could simply check his airspeed indicator to judge if the Zero was getting into the trouble area with it's ailerons. 

True airspeed would require a bit of mental calculation (or lots of experience) to figure out for each altitude. 

I could be wrong though


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 12, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> It is no guarantee but usually such limitations were given in terms of IAS. This way the limitation would remain relatively constant regardless of altitude and air density.
> An allied pilot, having been given this knowledge in a briefing (or passed to him by other pilots) could simply check his airspeed indicator to judge if the Zero was getting into the trouble area with it's ailerons.
> 
> True airspeed would require a bit of mental calculation (or lots of experience) to figure out for each altitude.
> ...



You are correct.

A "whiz wheel can be used to figure out TAS but in the middle of combat or conducting a test flight, that would be impractical. In those situations one could probably record altitude and outside air temp and figure out TAS later


----------



## VG-33 (May 13, 2010)

> RAM: A) the russians were flying P-39s using engine settings that trashed their engines in 4-5 flights. They cared nothing about the lifetime of their machines.. They also retired part of the weaponry and most of the armor of the plane to make it lighter.


Armor? Have you got concrete examples?



> So the P-39 flying in Soviet service wasn't the P-39 in US or british service, was a completely different plane with an abused engine and much lighter than the standard plane, and that was expected only to last for anything between 3-5 sorties before being trashed.


Do you have statistics? It seems that life expectancy of a P-39 was much longer in soviet service..






> C) all the above mentioned points are backed up by raw numbers. German fighters did shoot down russian planes in droves and a lot of them were P-39s.


Maybe you speak english. They certainly claimed in droves, just as the opposite side. How do you prove that the claimed planes were shooted down. Have you got numbers?



> As for the I-16 "having no fault on it's own", well, yet another plane that was so unstable on every and each of the three axis that the pilots had serious trouble keeping it in controlled flight "has no fault on it's own". Suprising to say the least.


Unstable? Where is it taken from? 




> So really your post has some blatant errors and misconceptions and,honestly,I can tell you-you hold opinions that I respect as such, but are based on nothing but factual errors. Next time you give a list as the one you gave, I'd suggest you to base it on some real grounds instead of so many errors.


As you said...

Regards


----------



## Negative Creep (May 17, 2010)

One thing I have noticed is a lack of Japanese aircraft on this list. Whilst they did have some pretty mediocre designs are there any you would say stood out as terrible? I'd say the Ki-115 would come closest, but since it never flew on operations I'm not sure if you can count it. The G3M Nell was highly vulnerable to fighter attacks, but was successful in the Sino-Japanese War and the early stages of WW2


----------



## zoomar (May 17, 2010)

Negative Creep said:


> One thing I have noticed is a lack of Japanese aircraft on this list. Whilst they did have some pretty mediocre designs are there any you would say stood out as terrible? I'd say the Ki-115 would come closest, but since it never flew on operations I'm not sure if you can count it. The G3M Nell was highly vulnerable to fighter attacks, but was successful in the Sino-Japanese War and the early stages of WW2



I'd have a hard time figuring where to place either the Ki-115 or the MXY-7 in such a list. These were planes that would inevitably kill their pilots, so by that measure they were horrible aircraft. Neither were they "good" airplanes from the handling/performance perspective. But since they were designed to be cheap manned missiles, that is not a fair judgement. They need to be judged by how well they acheived the goals set for them. As noted, the much simpler Ki-115 was never used on operations so it's impossible to evaluate its effectiveness, but it had the advantage of versatility. It was not dependent on a carrier plane so could be deployed from all sorts of land bases, which would have suited it well if an Invasion of Japan was ever attempted. Operationally, the Ohka was a mixed bag. It was certainly a faster target and harder to shoot down than normal kamakazi planes, but its extreemly short range and dependence on being launched by slow G4Ms meant that most never got within effective range of their targets before their carriers were destroyed.

If I had to name one Japanese plane as a "worst" it would be the Ki-49 Donryu. A lot of design and production effort went into this JAAF bomber, which was underpowered and hardly an improvement on the Ki-21 it was intended to replace (think Fairey Albacore). The G3M, on the other hand was simply obsolete when needed in WW2. Not a fault in itself. It was also a JNAF plane, which makes a difference. Actually, the JAAF might just qualify as the one major modern airforce in WW2 that, on average, deployed the worst aircraft. Among major types, only the Ki-84 (which appeared after the war had been lost and had its own faults), the Ki-61 (which owed a lot to German influence and its DB engine - and which when introduced in 1943 could best the Bf-109E and P-40 in mock combat - wow!) and the Ki-46 recon plane (a certifiably good plane) came close to matching their western or German competitors. All other JAAF planes were under gunned, underpowered, and underprotected machnes that seemed better than they were in 1941-1942 because they were arrayed against outnumbered, demoralized and dispirited enemy pilots flying obsolete or obsolescent desgns. It says a lot that the Ki-43, which was the mainstay of the JAAF throughout the war was maybe as good as the Brewster Buffalo, and less capable overall than the Hurricaine Mk1.

But back to suicide planes, to me one stands out as even far worse than the Japanese duo. That would be the manned Fi-103 missile, another example of WW2 Germanic "what on earth were they thinking". Here we have a country that was well its the way to introducing a number of sophisticated guided bombs and stand-off missiles and had already introduced a ballistic missile that decided to waste effort and time turning a lousy robot pulse-jet powered cruise missile into an even worse manned pulse-jet powered cruise missile. Plus they were so wishy-washy they trumpeted the thing as a vehicle for Loyal Nazis to kill themselves in if necessary to destroy Allied targets, but provided them with a means of bailing out! Make your minds up people! Are you supposed to die for the furhrer and make sure your target is destroyed or just take ridiculous risks for the furhrer and hope that your now unguided missile hits its target?


----------



## Vincenzo (May 17, 2010)

zoomar said:


> It says a lot that the Ki-43, which was the mainstay of the JAAF throughout the war was maybe as good as the Brewster Buffalo, and less capable overall than the Hurricaine Mk1.




the combats don't give this result


----------



## Negative Creep (May 17, 2010)

zoomar said:


> Actually, the JAAF might just qualify as the one major modern airforce in WW2 that, on average, deployed the worst aircraft. Among major types, only the Ki-84 (which appeared after the war had been lost and had its own faults), the Ki-61 (which owed a lot to German influence and its DB engine - and which when introduced in 1943 could best the Bf-109E and P-40 in mock combat - wow!) and the Ki-46 recon plane (a certifiably good plane) came close to matching their western or German competitors. All other JAAF planes were under gunned, underpowered, and underprotected machnes that seemed better than they were in 1941-1942 because they were arrayed against outnumbered, demoralized and dispirited enemy pilots flying obsolete or obsolescent desgns.




What about the Ki-100? That was capable of meeting the P-51D on fairly equal terms


----------



## zoomar (May 17, 2010)

Negative Creep said:


> What about the Ki-100? That was capable of meeting the P-51D on fairly equal terms



True, sort of. It is more accurate to say that the Ki-100 was an amazingly successful adaptation of the Ki-61 to take a radial engine and provide a fighter at least as good as the Ki-61 and an effective opponent to US fighters. It is in essence a re-engined Ki-61, which is why I didn't mention it separately. I am unconvinced the Ki-100 was truly the equal of the P-51D, however.


----------



## zoomar (May 17, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> the combats don't give this result



True, but as I said, the well-trained and aggressive JAAF pilots in their Ki-43s were facing an outnumbered and frequently demoralized allied force. I am always suspicious of combat result alone as the mark of aircraft capabilities.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 18, 2010)

zoomar said:


> True, but as I said, the well-trained and aggressive JAAF pilots in their Ki-43s were facing an outnumbered and frequently demoralized allied force. I am always suspicious of combat result alone as the mark of aircraft capabilities.



type 1 vs hurricane outnumbered? you talkingof actual engagements or on theatre fighters?


----------



## VG-33 (May 22, 2010)

Hello, since i did not have any answer:



> *RAM*:A) the russians were flying P-39s using engine settings that trashed their engines in 4-5 flights. They cared nothing about the lifetime of their machines.. They also retired part of the weaponry and most of the armor of the plane to make it lighter.


_Armor? Have you got concrete examples?_ Except the gear box and the oxygen bottle's one, it seems the the back' seat armor plate was finally maintained, for firewall rule despite TsAGI considered the engine as being a good protection by itself.





> So the P-39 flying in Soviet service wasn't the P-39 in US or british service, was a completely different plane with an abused engine and much lighter than the standard plane, and that was expected only to last for anything between 3-5 sorties before being trashed.



_Do you have statistics? It seems that life expectancy of a P-39 was much longer in soviet service._ 
About 220-230 hours for Alisson (250 h TBO), and 70-80 (100 TBO) for Klimov 105 PF from 5th Air Army statistics. I agree that a soviet 3200-3300 kg P-39 si very different from a 3800 kg british one.

The undisputed tittle of "Hangar Queen" is for the AM-35A with only* 3*5 hours. It explains why the P-39 played a major rule in the VVS and MiG-3 did not!





> C) all the above mentioned points are backed up by raw numbers. German fighters did shoot down russian planes in droves and a lot of them were P-39s.


_Maybe you speak english. They certainly claimed in droves, just as the opposite side. How do you prove that the claimed planes were shooted down. Have you got numbers?_ Life expectancy being about 160 war missions for the P-39 on eastern front from memory, (0.6% loss rate, compare with the B-17 one...) that means a rather poor Luftwaffe and Flack success.





> As for the I-16 "having no fault on it's own", well, yet another plane that was so unstable on every and each of the three axis that the pilots had serious trouble keeping it in controlled flight "has no fault on it's own". Suprising to say the least.



_Unstable? Where is it taken from? _ An old urban legend, like it was a P-26 copy. The CG of the I-16/M-22 was about 30% on the MAC and the I-16/M25 about 28% the AF being placed aft and CP even after, so *no *unstability phenomenum was observed until some 1939's planes before 36% position *and* +2° positive tail angle.

So even if the pitching moment was sometimes light for the I-16 and inartia moments very small, the plane was ttwitchy, i. e. prone to react *not* unstable, never...
It's not the same thing



> _Do you have statistics? It seems that life expectancy of a P-39 was much longer in soviet service._
> About 220-230 hours for Alisson (250 h TBO), and 70-80 (100 TBO) for Klimov 105 PF from 5th Air Army statistics. I agree that a soviet 3200-3300 kg P-39 si very different from a 3800 kg british one.



Not all the statistics being the same, naturally:
_>Там же приводится и статистика вырабатываемых ресурсов и по другим самолетам 5-й Воздушной армии.
>Аллисон - 220-230 часов, ВК-105ПФ - 70-80 часов_

Also:
_В августе 1944 года из 67-го гвардейского полка в отношении Р-39 "Аэрокобра" сообщали: "Мотор положенные ему по ресурсу 250 ч. но норме не вырабатывает... За два года эксплуатации не было, чтобы мотор в боевых условиях нарабатывал хотя бы 60-70% от положенного". _

From 67th guards regiment in 1944, august: after 2 years of intensive use no more that 60-70% of the planes reach the official 250 hours of work...but mainly to WEP overuse and abuse and low quality soviet oil and fuel B-78 ranges from 78 to 92/94 octane rate, and B-70 from 70 to 85...The last one was used during Leningrad siege.

The last Allison 83-85 series were also repported as being much more reliable than first ones of 63 family.

Regards


----------



## Knegel (May 27, 2010)

zoomar said:


> It says a lot that the Ki-43, which was the mainstay of the JAAF throughout the war was maybe as good as the Brewster Buffalo, and less capable overall than the Hurricaine Mk1.



Hi,

the Ki-43 was way better than the Hurri1a and Buffalow.

The climb, the turn and the Vmax even of the Ki-43-I was much better, the Ki-43-II and III was lightyears away.

The Ki-43´s flight performence was at least as good as that of the A6M Zero, most probably better, its main disadvantage was missing or poor protection and to bad guns.

Still, by the time of 1941 the Ki-43 was outdated in relation to the Ki-61, Ki-44, SpitVb, 109F after 1942, when the P38, SpitIXc, P47 and later P51 came, the Ki-43 was absolut hopeless.


Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## Sakai (Jun 1, 2010)

The Breda Ba.65! 

Breda Ba.65 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## looney (Jun 17, 2010)

The Ba-88 is much worse


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jul 21, 2010)

I have the impression that the ki-67 was a quite capable bomber, and though the ki-45 was hopeless as an escort fighter, it proved usefull in ground strikes and arguably as night fighter.

As for bad japanese planes I would suggest Q1W. Though its handling was adequate, it was far to slow and underarmed to have a chance to survive in an hostile air environment, and its radar was hopeless for its purpose.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2010)

Just Schmidt said:


> As for bad japanese planes I would suggest Q1W. Though its handling was adequate, it was far to slow and underarmed to have a chance to survive in an hostile air environment, and its radar was hopeless for its purpose.



There was actually nothing wrong with this aircraft. It was designed to be an ASW platform which means it was supposed to fly low and slow. In this type of environment it’s obvious that the aircraft either has to be adequately armed or be operating in an aircraft where it has aerial superiority. Although this aircraft was not heavily armed, it performed as advertised.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jul 21, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In this type of environment it’s obvious that the aircraft either has to be adequately armed or be operating in an aircraft where it has aerial superiority..



The problem was that at the time it entered service it neither had good defensive armament, nor did the japanese have any kind of air superiority anywhere. Setting aside the problems of fullfilling its role as an asw, it was (in its environment) suicidal to take it to air when it neither had the speed nor the armament to give it any chance of surviving interception.

Of course this stemmed from the low power it had available, but I still think it compares unfavourably to fx an aircraft as the Fw 189 (though that one wouldn't often be oncountered at sea).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2010)

Just Schmidt said:


> The problem was that at the time it entered service it neither had good defensive armament, nor did the japanese have any kind of air superiority anywhere. Setting aside the problems of fullfilling its role as an asw, it was (in its environment) suicidal to take it to air when it neither had the speed nor the armament to give it any chance of surviving interception.


 Bottom line is it flew as designed, that should be a key factor. Its sole purpose was to hunt for submarines.

Now the Breada 88 never flew as designed and had a dismal operational record.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jul 22, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Bottom line is it flew as designed, that should be a key factor. Its sole purpose was to hunt for submarines.



Agreed it was more misplaced than bad. Do you know if it had anything like protection for the crew and fuel tanks?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 22, 2010)

Just Schmidt said:


> Agreed it was more misplaced than bad. Do you know if it had anything like protection for the crew and fuel tanks?



Probably not - it did use early radar and MAD equipment, which was state of the art for that period. I read the radar unit in the aircraft was pretty poor and the crew usually relied on their eyeballs to look for subs (not too uncommon for WW2 ASW). It was supposed to get better radar but that never happened.

It was the first aircraft specifically designed for ASW warfare but there is no record of the aircraft actually sinking a sub.

I found a photo of a captured one


----------



## parsifal (Jul 22, 2010)

I have to agree with FB on this one. It was an aircraft designed to a budget, and was able to meet the design specs for which it was built. If it had been able to operate in an environment that was realistic, it would have been a good aircraft.

All ASW aircraft tend to be vulnerable to air attack, because they are simply not designed with survivability in mind. The main imperatives are range and endurance.....think about some modern examples, like the Grumman S2, P3s and Il-76, all of them are vulnerable in a hostil environment, yet all are judged as successful types


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jul 24, 2010)

At least it indicates that the admiralty at an early stage (42) actually showed some foresight in concern over the voulnerability of their shipping lanes, which otherwise might seem surprising in view of the course of events.

(Nice picture, one should think there were actually room for a turret with a 20 milimeter...)


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2010)

Just Schmidt said:


> (Nice picture, one should think there were actually room for a turret with a 20 milimeter...)



only at the expense of the offensive war load.

Lets face it, this thing was little bigger than an AT-11. 

for a defensive 20 mm you have either a free swinging 20mm which is actually of little use, hard to aim and limited ammo (15 shot drum?) and rate of fire or you use a power turret which weighs hundreds of pounds.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jul 24, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> for a defensive 20 mm you have either a free swinging 20mm which is actually of little use, hard to aim and limited ammo (15 shot drum?) and rate of fire or you use a power turret which weighs hundreds of pounds.



I've read that the turret in Ki-21 ll was bicycle pedalled, but of course that wasn't sporting a 20 mm. Still I wish I know more about that arrangement, the possible savings in weight and how efficient it was...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 24, 2010)

Just Schmidt said:


> (Nice picture, one should think there were actually room for a turret with a 20 milimeter...)



It actually it had the provision to mount a 20mm in the nose which I could see being handy in a ASW roll.


It kinda lookes like a poor mans Ju 88, without all the performance.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 24, 2010)

Thats what I thought. Kind of like the designer saw the Ju-88, once for a few seconds, and then went away and tried to draw it, lol


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 25, 2010)

A Ju-88 style nose makes a lot of sense in an ASW plane, as it maximizes visibilty from the cockpit. On the downside, it crams all the crew into a tight space where one flak shell or one burst of mg fire can incapacitate all of them in one go. I would also suggest that the weight of a power-operated turret would have a severe negative impact on range and search radius, for little pay-off. An ASW aircraft will be over deep water, so the odds of being attacked by fighters are low, unless you come across a carrier group...


----------



## Alexa (Oct 26, 2010)

I didn't read through all 114 pages but do the words Brewster, Buffalo and death trap mean anything to anyone out there?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 26, 2010)

Alexa said:


> I didn't read through all 114 pages but do the words Brewster, Buffalo and death trap mean anything to anyone out there?



I think there are a number of Finns that would disagree with that.


----------



## zoomar (Oct 26, 2010)

I do believe the Buffalo got its fair share of votes...but then the somebody always comes up with, "But the Finns...." Or the P-39, "But the Russians..." Or the Me-210, "But the Hungarians..."


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 26, 2010)

Where as nobody could defend the Ba.88


----------



## aircro (Oct 26, 2010)

Did anybody mentioned Savoia Marchetti S.M. 85, a dive bomber, 'winged banana'?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 26, 2010)

Just read up on that one, she would be a good candidate as well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2010)

aircro said:


> Did anybody mentioned Savoia Marchetti S.M. 85, a dive bomber, 'winged banana'?



It actually flew missions and survived - bad, but not as bad as the Ba.88


----------



## Civettone (Oct 27, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> A Ju-88 style nose makes a lot of sense in an ASW plane, as it maximizes visibilty from the cockpit. On the downside, it crams all the crew into a tight space where one flak shell or one burst of mg fire can incapacitate all of them in one go.


If the pilot and co-pilot are dead the plane is a goner as well. There are very few examples of planes being taken over by other crew members. 


Kris


----------



## johnbr (Oct 27, 2010)




----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 27, 2010)

The worst airplane in WWII was that one that looks like a low wing trainer, in every movie when you see it in dark green with black crosses you know its gonna get shot down with black smoke comming out of it in the next ten seconds


----------



## zoomar (Oct 28, 2010)

The would be the Focke-Schmitt AT 1000-6, I believe, also license-built by the Japanese as the Nakasbishi Ki-AT-6 6M-F. And yes they burned like a sonofagun


----------



## Civettone (Oct 28, 2010)

johnbr said:


> For me how can you top the Me 163 for bad.


But that's because you dont know any better. No offence.
Look up sone previous discussions on the Me 163 at this forum

Kris


----------



## koivis (Nov 13, 2010)

I sometimes check this thread just because someone always mentions the Brewster Buffalo in it.

Come on people, how can you say that the Brewster Buffalo was THE worst aircraft of WW2?

In the Finnish Eastern front, in Summer 1941, it was simply the best fighter available on either side. Why? From the all Finnish fighters, it was the fastest, had the best range, best armament, and was probably most reliable and durable.

Of course, the FAF fighter inventory then was not anything to cheer about: 

Fokker D.XXI (totally outclassed in every way)
MS.406 (slow, but nimble)
Fiat G.50 (almost as good as B-239, weaker armament, open cockpit)
Curtiss Hawk 75 (slower, armament slightly weaker)

On the other side, Soviet air force had:

MiG-3 (good at higher altitudes but weak down low, weak armament)
LaGG-3 (faster than B-239 in all altitudes, but handling was inferior)
I-16 (slightly slower than B-239, but probably more manouverable)
I-153 (a lot slower than Buffalo, but highly manouverable)

With the B-239, using different tactics, every enemy plane could be beaten either by manouvering or by speed/climb/dive.

Why the "myth" of the Buffalo as the worst WW2 aircraft? The version Finland used (F2A-1 or B-239) was lighter than the later aircraft used by other countries, most notably the B-339. While it was slower than the USN F2A-2, it was also a bit lighter than that too.

It was not a success elsewhere because
1. The opposition was superior in performance (A6M and Ki-43)
2. The enemy had numerical and tactical superiority (applies for Commonwealth and Dutch atleast)
3. The enemy had better combat experience (USMC pilots trying to turn with the Zero...)

None of these apply for the Finnish front.

Now, if we compare it directly against A6M or Ki-43, we can be sure that no matter what the pilot does, the enemy always has the upper hand. He can outrun you, outclimb you and outturn you with a clear margin. Why? Because until 1942, the A6M Zero was a plane very few if any Allied fighters matched. I can name just two, the Spitfire and P-40. I listed 7 fighters in operational use in summer 1941 that were on par or worse than the Buffalo.

Also, you have to remember that the F2A-1 or B-239 was a 1939 plane. What fighters did such major countries like France, USA or Soviet union have back then?

Yes, MS.406, P-36 Hawk, I-16...


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 14, 2010)

I think the truth is though the Defiant has to take the idea of worst actual implemented idea for an actual fighter aircraft. That big turret affected flight performance massively. It was also easy to avoid the danger zone of the fire from the Defiant and attack from underneath. Therefore it has to be said that it had initial effectiveness but it was very easy to counter. This is a better idea for defending bombers rather than using as armament on a fighter due to the need for the fighter to have manevourability and speed to make the intercept and the hopeful kill.

The Defiant thinking impinged on both these facts, which makes it potentially the worst fighter of WW2. Admittedly it did achieve success as a night-fighter but still it was no good in its original role...


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 15, 2010)

Out of all WW2 "turret fighters", Defiant was the best...


----------



## Juha (Nov 15, 2010)

Hello Tomo
yes, Defiant cannot be the worst because there was Roc.

Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 15, 2010)

You....old fox 8)


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 15, 2010)

I still think of the Defiant as the worst to see active service. ROC never saw active service did it?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 15, 2010)

It did see active service with at least the 801 806 Squadron. However, I'm not sure if they ever really saw combat


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 16, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> It did see active service with at least the 801 806 Squadron. However, I'm not sure if they ever really saw combat



VB,

The recent Roc GB on this forum was in the markings of the aircraft flown by Sqn Ldr Clarke when he attacked and damaged a German floatplane. Despite making several passes, the floatplane refused to be shot down. This was a second-line aircraft, however, and not part of a truly operational unit.

HTH,
BN


----------



## Airbus380 (Nov 18, 2010)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but atleast it did something during the war, not like the battle...........



Not quite true!

The Battle went into action in May 1940 as well as it could. It was totally

inadequate and the losses were horrendous. It says a lot for the crews who

knew they were facing total wipeout, that they tried their best with what they'd

got. Rather like the crews of the Devastators and Dauntlesses at Midway.

Rgds. Airbus380


----------



## Njaco (Nov 19, 2010)

Airbus380 said:


> Not quite true!
> 
> The Battle went into action in May 1940 as well as it could. It was totally
> 
> ...



I'm not so sure that would be totally accurate as far as crew anticipation was - hindsight being hindsight. I don't think many of those machines had such awful track records at the time that crews woud get sweaty hands because of the plane they were flying. Your point about Midway is fine except what other battle experice did SBDs have prior to Midway? Coral Sea. Of course after those engagements, the Battles and Devastators were pulled.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 20, 2010)

Then again for design we could always consider the He-177 Grief supposedly nicknamed by the German aircrew "The Flying Coffin" as a potential honorary mention due to the habit its twined engines had of creating flaming wrecks...


----------



## Kryten (Nov 22, 2010)

May I nominate the Fairy Fulmar as possibly one of the worst aircraft of ww2?


----------



## Marcel (Nov 22, 2010)

koivis said:


> I sometimes check this thread just because someone always mentions the Brewster Buffalo in it.
> 
> Come on people, how can you say that the Brewster Buffalo was THE worst aircraft of WW2?
> 
> ...


As a Fokker-lover (and being Dutch) I have to object  Finish airforce did quite well with this "outclassed" Fokker. Also the ML D.XXI's did quite well, considering the circumstances.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 22, 2010)

Kryten said:


> May I nominate the Fairy Fulmar as possibly one of the worst aircraft of ww2?



It would be good to say why, whether Fulmar or any other plane.


----------



## PatR1012 (Nov 29, 2010)

An article came out on cracked yesturday called 7 Planes Perfectly Designed (to Kill Their Pilots). It is seriously amazing, and will hopefully put an end to the debate once and for all. Natter was the worst.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 29, 2010)

PatR1012 said:


> An article came out on cracked yesturday called 7 Planes Perfectly Designed (to Kill Their Pilots). It is seriously amazing, and will hopefully put an end to the debate once and for all. Natter was the worst.



The Natter was an experiment and was never used operationally. It actually made it through a flight test stage and showed some conceptual promise. Although the pilot was killed during its one and only test flight, it probably could have worked.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 29, 2010)

PatR1012, I would put as much credibility on that article's author as I would with a politician's promise...I'm guessing this person is just posting this stuff to make thier blog interesting.

*#1. The Flying Bomb Fieseler FI 103R-IV "Reichenberg"*
First off, the heading image is a conceptual image of a Me262B-1 two-seat trainer with Argus engines...nothing to do with the Reichenburg. The concept of the manned "V1" was to get it on target and bail out, unlike the Japanese Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka, which was an actual suicide machine. Oh, the author failed to mention that.

*#2.The Disposable Heinkel He-162 Volksjager*
Where'd this clown get his info? There is truth to the loss rate, because of the inexperience of the pilots, but the plane flew well with a light touch on the controls, the instrumentation was simple and yes, the plane was rushed into construction from conception in a short time...due to the dire need for a simple economical defense fighter. It also had an ejection seat for the pilot's safety, something very few Allied fighters had at that time...

*#3.The Easily Torched Mitsubishi G4M "Betty"*
Much like the Zero and other Japanese aircraft of the early stages of WWII, Japan had air superiority and a need to cover large distances. With those being key factors, self sealing fuel tanks and armor protection for the crew were unnessecary weight expendatures. In all actuality, the G4M was a remarkable plane and served the Japanese well for the duration.

And the rest is pretty much the same BS...

If the author is trying to be funny with thier article, they're falling way short of the mark.

If they're trying to be informative, then they earn a major FAIL

And for a bonus: read the user comments...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2010)

GrauGeist said:


> PatR1012, I would put as much credibility on that article's author as I would with a politician's promise...I'm guessing this person is just posting this stuff to make thier blog interesting.
> ...



I have not yet looking into this individuals' background and expertise to give such a critique, but I'm guessing he's an "armchair" and if not I will apologize accordingly. If so I will puke on him accordingly.

EDIT!!!!

I just looked him up on line - here's what he says about himself on "cracked."

*
"My name's Pat Riordan. I'm an Aerospace Engineering major at U of I, and my abs are considered a precious metal by most nations. Here is a fact:

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/members/RocketScientist#ixzz16jw4CK9Y"*


Pat - you're an armchair - STFU! Pray that I'm never in you're company after eating 5 beef and bean burritos and drinking 4 pitchers of cheap beer!


----------



## Milosh (Nov 30, 2010)

I hope he never works on designing an airplane that I have to fly in.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2010)

Milosh said:


> I hope he never works on designing an airplane that I have to fly in.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 30, 2010)

Almost like a NGC documentary 


Kris


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I have not yet looking into this individuals' background and expertise to give such a critique, but I'm guessing he's an "armchair" and if not I will apologize accordingly. If so I will puke on him accordingly.
> 
> EDIT!!!!
> 
> ...



Honey can you bring me a micro-fiber cloth for the computer screen?


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 1, 2010)

Then again, GrauGeist, while the actual intent of the FI 103R-IV may not have looked like suicide, there is no way a sane designer would actually put the air-intake above the ****-pit and expect the pilot to be able to eject safely. While the contract bit may have been potential propoganda the fact remains that that is a crowning achievement in Stupid aircraft design. 

Once again with the He-162 where was the air-intake? Oh yes, right above the pilot. You have to be incredibly lucky to escape these flying death-traps. Hence why none are flying at the moment...

Then again, with the G4M Betty, the author did hit the nail on the head. Range was increased at the sacrifice of the pilot's safety. Even the mosquito which was an Allied fighter-bomber had better chances of coming back that that bomber. The US was very well able to showcase a bomber in the B-17 that had all these features and reasonable range for the Pacific. 

I just think that the author in amongst what he was saying did raise some really excellent questions about why such defects actually got past quality-control in these countries. A lot of the really major failures and designs that had a questionable probability of working in reality were German. We have only probably seen some of the Luftwaffe 1946 aircraft designed but already there are quite a few that we can see straight off had no chance of working in reality...


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2010)

When the Fi103 aquired it's target, the engine shut down and the pilot ejects...and just for the record, the "designer" never intended for a cockpit (or pilot) to be there...

The He162 (as was mentioned) had an ejection seat just for that reason...

The early "Betty" was designed at a time when Japan ruled the air and had no need for armor/self sealing tanks...those became standard in the subsequent model, starting with field modifications 1942 onwards.

If we're going to base aircraft on those attributes (as has been discussed at length in this, and other threads), then add the Me262 and the A6M as exceptionally flammable aircraft.

For that matter, any aircraft will burn when it's fuel supply gets ignited. How many photos have you seen where a B-17 gets hit by flak and erupts into a flamming ball? So then we could say that the B-17 was designed as a deathtrap, and therefore the worst aircraft of the war, right?

The P-39 and the P-40 were known to erupt into a fireball when the glycol was ignited, creating catastrophic and deadly consequences...were those intentional deathtraps too?

Sorry, but my opinion still stands...that blog is crap.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 2, 2010)

Kryten said:


> May I nominate the Fairy Fulmar as possibly one of the worst aircraft of ww2?



Are you serious. Given its time of entry to service, what it was replacing, what it achieved, and what development came from its design, it should be considered one of the better aircraft of WWII


----------



## riacrato (Dec 2, 2010)

HealzDevo said:


> Then again, GrauGeist, while the actual intent of the FI 103R-IV may not have looked like suicide, there is no way a sane designer would actually put the air-intake above the ****-pit and expect the pilot to be able to eject safely. While the contract bit may have been potential propoganda the fact remains that that is a crowning achievement in Stupid aircraft design.
> 
> Once again with the He-162 where was the air-intake? Oh yes, right above the pilot. You have to be incredibly lucky to escape these flying death-traps. Hence why none are flying at the moment...
> 
> ...


He 162 - as mentioned by Graugeist it had an ejector seat exactly for that. The reason none are flying today is because none survived the post war period in a flying condition and you'd be kind of idiotic to fly a plane that was built to last a couple of hundred hours and consisted to a large degree of plywood held together by whatever-was-available-glue more than 60 years later.

Betty - the B17 is a completely different aircraft, did the B-17 do lowlevel torpedo runs? the Betty did what it was designed to do and pretty well too, it just got overtaken by events.

Not by a long shot are these among the "worst aircraft of WW2".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2010)

riacrato said:


> He 162 - as mentioned by Graugeist it had an ejector seat exactly for that. The reason none are flying today is because none survived the post war period in a flying condition and you'd be kind of idiotic to fly a plane that was built to last a couple of hundred hours and consisted to a large degree of plywood held together by whatever-was-available-glue more than 60 years later.



Someone posted something here a while back about an He 162 that was being restored to flying condition.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 2, 2010)

HealzDevo said:


> Then again, GrauGeist, while the actual intent of the FI 103R-IV may not have looked like suicide, there is no way a sane designer would actually put the air-intake above the ****-pit and expect the pilot to be able to eject safely.
> 
> While the contract bit may have been potential propoganda the fact remains that that is a crowning achievement in Stupid aircraft design.
> ...



Dude, once again you have blessed us with naivety and an obvious lack of knowledge of subject matter. Have you ever seen this or heard of this?!?!?







North American F-107 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was an excellent aircraft and although the "uninformed" may have said the same thing about this aircraft as you did the Salamander, I can assure you that the air intake problem was recognized.

First, do you think if a pilot is bailing out either of these two aircraft the odds are the engine is not putting out 100%???

Second, have you ever been around an engine that suffered a catastrophic failure and seen it wind down? That big vacuum cleaner really slows to a halt very quickly and I can assure you that this giant sucking machine you may have visions about is no longer putting out human carcass shredding images that are probably affixed in your brain.

Lastly, just supposed one had to leave either of these two aircraft with the engines still operating - I'd put dollars to donuts that there would be SOP to REATARD THE POWER LEVERS TO IDLE!!!! Wow what a concept!!!! Although care has to be taken in front of any turbine engine at operation, again I'd place dollars to donuts that either machine cannot remotely come close in drawing a 180 pound man, let alone sitting in an ejection seat anywhere close to the jaws of its compressor.

Son, do your self a favor - really do some research before you post on here, you have come up with some more than interesting novice perspectives over the years that somewhat diminish your credibility.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 2, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Someone posted something here a while back about an He 162 that was being restored to flying condition.


Not sure which thread it's in, but the French are restoring the one that they've had since war's end: WrkNr. 120015

Good page on the project here: He 162

And just for the record, the above mentioned He162 was used by the French Airforce as a jet trainer for a few years (through 1949) until they recieved thier new jets purchased from the British. Not a bad track record for a "stupid and/or deadly" design, huh?


----------



## Marcel (Dec 2, 2010)

Most aircraft at the start of the war had no self-sealing fuel tanks. The british and the German a/c were more an exception than a rule at that time.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 4, 2010)

Good posts Riacrato, Graugeist, Marcel, ... it all seems easy with 20/20hindights 


Kris


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 5, 2010)

No, I must admit no. I just looked at it and assumed air intake in wrong place equals bad.


----------



## cimmee (Dec 31, 2010)

Lightning Guy said:


> The thing that the Roc has going for it is that it was just built to a bad specification. The whole idea of a turret armed fighter was messed up (though I have to admit the designs produced between the world wars were interesting).
> 
> The Battle was obsolete by the start of the war. But then so was the TBD which would certainly have to be in the running.



The TBD was a fine aircraft that was not properly used. It had to have uncontested skies and of course it did not.

So a lot of them died.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 31, 2010)

cimmee said:


> The TBD was a fine aircraft that was not properly used. It had to have uncontested skies and of course it did not.
> 
> So a lot of them died.



Actually it was used properly. It was state of the art in 1937, obsolete in 1942. With fighter escort it "might" have done better at Midway. It did serve in Coral Sea. Again one must look at the aircraft, whether it met its design criteria, and whether it was obsolete when facing an onslaught.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 2, 2011)

Well, the F-107 was called the "man eater". Maybe not for nothing.

I would also question the logic of ejection past the intake.

However, the X-32 is (apparantly) called the "sailor inhaler", so...






Pic thanks to Wikipedia.

Yours,


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2011)

ivanotter said:


> Well, the F-107 was called the "man eater". Maybe not for nothing.
> 
> I would also question the logic of ejection past the intake.



There was nothing to show that an ejection would ever be a hazard because of the intake locaton, please read the earlier post


ivanotter said:


> However, the X-32 is (apparantly) called the "sailor inhaler", so...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The X-32 "was". It lost to the X-35. How many sailors did it inhale during the flight test competition with the X-35?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2011)

I would however like to point out the title of the thread is:

Worst aircraft of *WW2*?


----------



## johnbr (Jan 2, 2011)

How about the Arado 240 no Buddy like to fly it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 2, 2011)

The Ar240 was never really put into production.

The few that did see service were unarmed recon versions (Ar240C-4) that overflew Britain, so I would hardly say this qualifies as the worst aircraft...


----------



## Rick65 (Jan 4, 2011)

I haven't checked all 122 pages but has the Saro Lerwick been discussed. A two Hercules engined mini Sunderland it entered production despite having vicious stall and unsatisfactory performance in yaw. Apparently the plane was unstable both in the air and on the water even.
The type entered service towards the end of 1940 and was withdrawn from operational service in May 1941 as soon as enough other boats were available.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 4, 2011)

That's a pretty bad aircraft Rick. Out of 21 built, 10 crashed.

Still, I'd have to side with the Ba.88. It went from a promising civil aircraft to a horrible military aircraft. The Lerwick was a doomed design from almost the start, and history is full of those types.


----------



## Rick65 (Jan 4, 2011)

Thorlifter
Agree that the Ba 88 is a shocker
Can you explain why the Lerwick was doomed from the start? Saro had experience with previous seaplanes and continued with that doomed type of plane after the war leading up to the Princess. The general layout of the Lerwick is similar to the Grumman Widgeon/Goose etc and examples of these continue to fly now. The Lerwick could have been a useful type that reduced the demand for the Catalina but the design team stuffed it up and it only made production because of the pressures of the war.


----------



## cimmee (Jan 5, 2011)

Lightning Guy said:


> It is true that the TBF and Marauder (both of which made torpedo runs at Midway) were both severly mauled.
> 
> Claiming that the TBD was one of the best torpedo bombers in the world at the time isn't saying much. What else was in the running? The Stingbag, the Abalcore, the B5N. That's about it.
> 
> And the TBD was that bad. Consider that clean it's top speed was a mere 206mph. When carrying a torp it was hard pressed to make 125mph.



The TBD was a fine a/c that was obsolete at the beginning of the war. In addition it was used in contested skies as were the TBF's and Marauders.


----------



## cimmee (Jan 5, 2011)

Bachem Ba 349 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## cimmee (Jan 5, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually it was used properly. It was state of the art in 1937, obsolete in 1942. With fighter escort it "might" have done better at Midway. It did serve in Coral Sea. Again one must look at the aircraft, whether it met its design criteria, and whether it was obsolete when facing an onslaught.




Nah..

They should have had an escort. The attack was uncoordinated so they were not used properly...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2011)

cimmee said:


> Nah..
> 
> They should have had an escort. The attack was uncoordinated so they were not used properly...



Nah.....

The "uncoordinated attack" had NOTHING to do with the way the aircraft operated. It did what it was supposed to do but was put in a time and place where its obsolescence showed. 

With or without an escort the TBD was doomed to be taken out of service, end of story.


----------



## cimmee (Jan 5, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Nah.....
> 
> The "uncoordinated attack" had NOTHING to do with the way the aircraft operated. It did what it was supposed to do but was put in a time and place where its obsolescence showed.
> 
> With or without an escort the TBD was doomed to be taken out of service, end of story.



No..

The "Mosquito Raids" and "Coral Sea" show the TBD to be a fine aircraft if obsolete. 

The "Stringbag" was even further down the obsolescence scale and performed admirably. Taranto? 

Contested skies made all of the difference not the a/c themselves.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2011)

cimmee said:


> No..
> 
> The "Mosquito Raids" and "Coral Sea" show the TBD to be a fine aircraft if obsolete.
> 
> ...



The Mosquito Raids and Coral Sea did not have the aircraft operating at the extent of its design limits. The fighter opposition played into the fray but compare to what replaced it the TBD (as well as torpedo bombing) was obsolete.

The Stringbag? Performed with honor in many battles but had been placed in the same situation as the TBD, it too would had been shot to pieces. I think all connected with the aircraft that a bit of luck had to play with much of its success.


----------



## cimmee (Jan 5, 2011)

Every time a TBD or Swordfish took off it was at it's design limits! They were both fine a/c that performed well if used properly..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2011)

cimmee said:


> Every time a TBD or Swordfish took off it was at it's design limits! They were both fine a/c that performed well if used properly..



And both obsolete and neither should be considered "worse aircraft of WW2." I think we've been saying the same thing all along.


----------



## cimmee (Jan 5, 2011)

You're shifting the goal posts. 

TBD's were lost in great numbers at Midway due to an improper mission profile.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2011)

cimmee said:


> You're shifting the goal posts.
> 
> TBD's were lost in great numbers at Midway due to an improper mission profile.



So tell us, what "would have" been the correct mission profile for the TBD at Midway to properly perform its mission?


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 5, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> So tell us, what "would have" been the correct mission profile for the TBD at Midway to properly perform its mission?




Tie balloons onto the torps and float them towards the Japanese fleet while the TBD pilots sensibly stayed in the wardroom and drank cocoa?

It was just a suggestion....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> Tie balloons onto the torps and float them towards the Japanese fleet while the TBD pilots sensibly stayed in the wardroom and drank cocoa?
> 
> It was just a suggestion....


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 5, 2011)

cimmee said:


> You're shifting the goal posts.
> 
> TBD's were lost in great numbers at Midway due to an improper mission profile.


TBDs were lost in great numbers at Midway because they were doing exactly what they were designed to do, approach an enemy ship straight and level and release thier torpedo at a speed of approx. 115 miles an hour...

The problem here is, that the TBD's design and application was outdated by almost a decade. The Japanese defenders tore them apart because of the light armor, insufficient defensive armament and low speeds, both in ingress and egress, and while on target.

If you're referring to the haphazard way they were deployed at Midway, that's the way it happens in battle. Nothing is ever perfect, and if it is, then there's a 99.9% chance it's an ambush...

Adm. Spruance did not have time to draw up a complete order of battle, he was outnumbered and did not have the luxury of time. So in went the TBDs on thier own by a twist of fate. They did thier job, much like the Charge of the Light Brigade and while they may not have dealt a serious blow against the IJN fleet, their attack halted the crucial refueling arming of the Japanese aircraft and created major confusion among the carriers, leaving them wide open for attack by the SBDs, who were soon to attack.

Bottom line, is that they performed as designed.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 6, 2011)

I have to raise issue with a number of comments regarding the TBD. It was a failure as much due to the ordinance it was carrying as any shortcomings in the aircraft design.

Its interesting to compare the TBD with its nearest enemy equivalent, the B5N. Both were unarmoured and inadedquately armed defensively. Ignoring manouverability , the maximum level speeds are not all that different...the TBD had a max level speed of 206 mph at 8000 ft, and a rate of climb of 720 ft/min, a service ceiling of 19200 ft and a range with bombload of 416 miles. The TBD was developed in from 1934-37

The B5N max level speed was 230 mph @ 9850ft, and a cruising speed of 164 mph. It had a rate of climb just over 1000 ft per min up to 10000 feet. Its service ceiling was 25200 ft and a range of about 700 miles. The B5N was developed at the same time, roughly as the TBD

The Devastator is generally judged a failure, whereas the Kate is considered a success. Though the Kate does enjoy a performance advantage, it is not that great, so why did the TBD fare so badly?

My opinion is that the primary failure was due to the ordinance being carried. It is interesting to note, that the successor to the TBD, the TBF, though much more survivable, did not enjoy much greater success, a/c for a/c, than its predecessor. Most of the major Japanese ship losses were due to bombs rather than torpedoes.

So lets compare the torpedo ordinance of each combatant, and see if there is any big difference....I am going to look at torpedoes that might be considered typical, rat6her than go through all the types in service.....

The principal types equipping the USN torpedo sqadrons in 1942, required a launch speed of no more than 110 knots, and a drop height not exceeding 50 feet. It had a theoretical range of 5800m, but in reality drop ranges were about 1000m . sea speed was just over 30 knots. For all this effort, the ordinance could deliver 401lbs of of TNT to the target, and was fitted with an unreliable exploder.

By comparison, the Japanese aerial torpedoes of 1942, a launch speed up to 260kts, and a max drop height of 250m. It had a theoretical range of 8000m, and a practical launch range of 2200m, and at that range could travel at 45 kts. It had an explosive charge of 530lb. Not sure if it was torpex. 

As can be seen the differences in aircraft performance, are significant, but not crucially so. Not so with the ordinance....the Japanese lead in torpedoes was commanding, and in 1942 decisve. Thats the main reason why the kate was relatively successful, whereas the TBD was a failure


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 6, 2011)

Excellent point, parsifal

Early U.S. torpedoes had a terrible performance record, both airborn and ship-launched. There were countless cases were a potentially decisive hit failed due to a "dud" (non-detonation or running lower than set depth) or the submariner's nightmare were it would circle back to it's point of launch.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 6, 2011)

Despite my earlier, highly flippant, post, I agree with the comments above. The TBD was another of those mid/late '30s designs which lacked the performance under combat conditions. That the aircraft's weapon performed so badly is simply shocking. Everyone in the military accepts that they may have to put their life on the line to defend their country, but flying the TBD into combat with little chance of causing any damage at all to the adversary is an appalling waste. The TBD is a long way from being the worst aircraft of WWII. It's just another of those types which held the limelight very briefly and for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2011)

Great post guys - so in the end it was obsolete, as originally stated. Even with the "the correct mission profile for the TBD at Midway" the plane was a sitting duck.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 6, 2011)

It would seem that any torpedo bomber using the early MK 13 torpedo in a "proper mission profile" would be a sitting duck. 
Proper mission profile being the correct target approach and torpedo drop requirements for best performance of the torpedo. A better performing aircraft could reach and escape the strike area at higher speeds or better evasive capability but if you have to slow to 110knots at sea level (+50 ft) with fighters in the area you are in trouble no matter what you are flying. In fact some aircraft might be in worse shape than the TBD. 
Imagine the B-26 at 110kts, 50ft over the water at 1000yds from a column of enemy ships. The B-26 had a best approach landing speed at 26,000lbs of 125kts. It would practically be at stall, even gunning the engines at the instant the torpedo drops is going to require a number of seconds for the plane to build speed before any but the gentlest of maneuvers are performed, like turning away from the ships with their AA guns. 
The torpedoes also required a certain amount of time in straight and level flight BEFORE dropping in order to be effective. 
The TBD's greatest failing at Midway was a lack of escort fighters, which is hardly the fault of the TBD.


----------



## cimmee (Jan 6, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> So tell us, what "would have" been the correct mission profile for the TBD at Midway to properly perform its mission?



Factoring them in "late" or escorted. Everyone arriving on time... same time.. Or not launching them.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2011)

cimmee said:


> Factoring them in "late" or escorted. Everyone arriving on time... same time.. Or not launching them.



Now you're shifting the goal posts, but I'll throw you a bone - arriving on time....


----------



## cimmee (Jan 6, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Now you're shifting the goal posts, but I'll throw you a bone - arriving on time....




Who changed my post? 

Why was I quoted dishonestly?

Who was the jerk that did it?


----------



## cimmee (Jan 6, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great post guys - so in the end it was obsolete, as originally stated. Even with the "the correct mission profile for the TBD at Midway" the plane was a sitting duck.



More crap...

Mission success was based on uncontested skies. 

Unfortunately you have unveiled yourself as a dishonest jerk. 

Who knew?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2011)

cimmee said:


> Who in the blue F$ck changed my post..?>. do not ever misquote me.
> 
> Ethics unhinged..
> 
> Nice job assholeels.



Ya know, after your comments on the other thread I've determined you're too much of an ignorant smart @ss to be here. Goodbye ASSHOLEEL!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2011)

cimmee said:


> More crap...
> 
> Mission success was based on uncontested skies.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately you're probably not potty trained.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 6, 2011)

what an idiot...


----------



## parsifal (Jan 6, 2011)

oh thank god.....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 7, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> The TBD's greatest failing at Midway was a lack of escort fighters, which is hardly the fault of the TBD.



The TBD's in a stern chase of the carriers at Midway was an issue. The IJN carriers nearly outran them. They were a few miles away from the carriers and had to contend with a delta V of only 70 knots or so. That's a long time for any AC to be a sitting duck.

They were too slow without a torpedo and even slower with one!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 7, 2011)

syscom3 said:


> The TBD's in a stern chase of the carriers at Midway was an issue. The IJN carriers nearly outran them. They were a few miles away from the carriers and had to contend with a delta V of only 70 knots or so. That's a long time for any AC to be a sitting duck.



And the Kate wold have had a Delta V of what in the same situation?
Or a Swordfish?

It was obsolete and the Navy had a replacement in the works rather than an improved model but I don't think it rates a "worst". 
The MK 13 torpedo might though


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 7, 2011)

Yes, the Mk13's high school year book notes the weapon was the most likely to kill its own crew whilst, perversely, being the weapon least likely to inflict damage upon the enemy.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 7, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> And the Kate wold have had a Delta V of what in the same situation?
> Or a Swordfish?
> 
> It was obsolete and the Navy had a replacement in the works rather than an improved model but I don't think it rates a "worst".
> The MK 13 torpedo might though



Kates were faster with a far superior torpedo. They could use their faster speed to get into position, slow down and drop the torpedo and actually have a chance of hitting the target.


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 7, 2011)

The Devastator discussion is (mostly  ) a good one but it's not close to being the Worst Plane of WW2. 

It's guilty of being obsolete and slow but it could perform the mission.

The Caproni Ca.135 was not only obsolete but *could not* perform its mission. 






_
The aircraft was underpowered, with a maximum speed of 363 km/h (226 mph) at 4,500 m (14,800 ft) and a high minimum speed of 130 km/h (81 mph), (there were no slats, and maybe not even flaps). Ceiling was only 6,000 m (20,000 ft) and the endurance, at 70% of throttle, was 1,600 km (990 mi). All-up weight was too high, with total of 8,725 kg (19,240 lb), not 7,375 kg (16,260 lb) as expected.

The total payload of 2,800 kg (6,200 lb) was shared between the crew (320+ kg/705+ lb), weapons (200 kg/441 lb), radios and other equipment (100 kg/220 lb), fuel (2,200 L/581 US gal), oil (1,500 kg/3,307 lb), oxygen and bombs. There was almost no chance of carrying a full load of fuel with the maximum bombload, (other Italian bombers were generally capable of a 3,300-3,600 kg/7,275-7,937 lb payload). The lack of power made take-offs when over-loaded, impossible. Indeed, even with a normal load, take-offs were problematic _

Caproni Ca.135 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*It makes the Devastator look like a world beater in comparison*


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 7, 2011)

Devastator, not Avenger


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 7, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Devastator, not Avenger



oops..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2011)

cimmee said:


> More crap...
> 
> Mission success was based on uncontested skies.
> 
> ...



Wow, shouldn't you be in your 3rd grade class room right now?

Edit: Just saw that Joe shot him down...


----------



## Elmas (Jan 17, 2011)

If not the worst, one of the ugliest, Ba 65






but Italians fortunately made also one of the prettiest


----------



## parsifal (Jan 17, 2011)

for some obscure reason that even i dont understand, i kinda like the look of the Ba65


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 17, 2011)

G.55 is one damn good looking plane (MC.205 is also nice, as posted above).


----------



## Vraciu (Jan 17, 2011)

That was one of Reggiane planes (Re.2005 I believe), not Macchi's.


----------



## Elmas (Jan 17, 2011)

Vraciu said:


> That was one of Reggiane planes (Re.2005 I believe), not Macchi's.




Yes, you're quite right...


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 17, 2011)

Indeed, I should have know better


----------



## cherry blossom (Jan 17, 2011)

Ideally, a really bad aircraft should kill its pilot as well as being useless. Unfortunately, few seriously dangerous aircraft were placed in production and those that were sometimes had some uses, for example the Ar 240 was used as a reconnaissance aircraft as it was fast. The Bachem Natter has some merit as it managed to kill its only pilot. The only test pilot who flew the Bristol Buckingham loaded with ballast to represent bombs survived but refused to try again. However, alas, this aircraft could be used fairly safely unloaded. May I propose a late WW2 research glider from General Aircraft, the GAL-56, whose characteristics were described by Eric Brown although he flew it after the war had ended "It was one plane in which I found I could not relax for a second, beginning right away with takeoff. You could not lift it off the ground through the slipstream of the towing aircraft before the latter was airborne, which was the normal method, because as soon as it was clear of the ground effect-tile cushion of air between wing tip and ground, the centre of pressure suddenly shifted and the machine dived straight back into the ground, to bounce on it's very springy undercarriage wildly across the airstrip. And it had the most incredible stalling characteristics. When you eased the nose up to slow the speed down, the plane suddenly took charge and continued to rear nose up until it was in a tail slide. Even pushing the stick right on to the dash made no difference. Then suddenly the stick movement would take effect and you would be pitched forward to fall almost vertically. General Aircraft decided to investigate this awful phenomenon after we had finished our tests. Their chief test pilot, glider expert Robert Kronfeld, went into a spin and was killed. The stalling characteristics also made landing very tricky."


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 17, 2011)

parsifal said:


> for some obscure reason that even i dont understand, i kinda like the look of the Ba65



I like the looks of .455 Webley's


----------



## Elmas (Jan 17, 2011)

OT mode On

Macchi 205






Fiat G 55





Aren't they real beauties?

OT mode Off


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 19, 2011)

As I said, He-177 Grief has to vie for this title. An aircraft that can catch fire in flight has surely got to qualify as being one of the worst aircraft. What is more this fault was known and the aircraft was still put into service. What does that tell you about the German Command's attitude to He-177 crew?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2011)

If a He-177 caught fire while airborne, that had something to do with another firm, Daimler-Benz.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 19, 2011)

The fact was though, tomo_pauk that a lot of these fires were not due to Daimler-Benz but the design requirement by Hitler for coupled engines. This requirement even after proven deadly was persisted with. The problems were known about but were never, ever fixed. Hitler had wanted the He-177 Grief to be able to act as a dive-bomber despite its size. This was what led to the engine problems...


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2011)

After a quick look at Wiki entry about the 177, no less than 3 parties could be blamed for flaming bomber:
-RLM, for demanding He-177 be able to do something it was problematic for big bombers (= to dive bomb)
-Heinkel/S. Guenther for choosing 2 coupled engines vs. 4 'normal' ones
-Daimler Benz, for not putting more effort to test the engines - later ones (DB 610) were trouble-free IIRC


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 19, 2011)

I believe the engines were coupled to disguise it from being considered a strategic bomber.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 19, 2011)

They also configured the engine in that way to reduce drag.

Up to the A-3 subtype, fires were endemic in the4 He177. however the later types pretty much solved this issue. The Germans did derive some use out of the he177, but it definately had more than its share of problems


----------



## Elmas (Jan 19, 2011)

parsifal said:


> for some obscure reason that even i dont understand, i kinda like the look of the Ba65



Some more pictures for you....


----------



## johnbr (Jan 19, 2011)

Woof.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 19, 2011)

Thanks elmas, and appreciated. Do you know the unit thye rendered side profile is depicting by any chance?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 19, 2011)

Looks like the Fasces is backwards on the unit insignia pictured in the color profile...


----------



## Rick65 (Jan 23, 2011)

"What does that tell you about the German Command's attitude to He-177 crew?"
The US faced a similar situation with the B29 also prone to uncontrolled engine fires and they also kept them flying demanding missions with a similar attitude.
The early B29 engines were not good, as evidenced by the replacement engines fitted to the CAF's Fifi. 
The pressure of war resulted in a lot of planes being put into service well before they were fully developed and reliable and the crew took the risk. (Typhoon also comes to mind).


----------



## mattiator (Sep 5, 2011)

I'll be different from the majority of rookies and NOT beat on the Buffalo. Instead I'll beat on the Bison, or PZL.30 Zubr, a medium bomber developed prior to the invasion of Poland.

A few gems from it's service life:

-Apart from the Polish Air Force, Romania showed an interest in the Żubr prototype in 1936, and wanted to buy 24 planes. However, after the prototype crash on November 7, 1936 over Michałowice with two Romanian officers on board, they ordered the PZL.37 Łoś instead (it should be noted, that the factory published a cover-up story, that the crash was caused by one of the Romanians opening the door during flight). The aircraft _broke apart mid-flight._
-The maximum bombload was 660 kg (1,450 lb) of bombs. This is a dedicated bomber developed in the mid-30s, mind you.
-Fully loaded, it could only operate from paved runways.
-The production models used engines 50% stronger than the prototype despite insistence of the designers that the airframe couldn't handle it. So they strengthed it by gluing extra plywood to the wing spars.
-The locking mechanism on the retractable landing gear was so bad that after a short while most ground crews simply forced it into a fixed down position.

Plus it was ugly as hell. I'd be embarrassed flying this hunk of poodoo.






It may be disqualified due to the fact that it was never used as a bomber in combat (though it WAS sent to squadrons to be used as such), and similar to the Botha, the head-slappingly stupid decision was made to give it to the training units. Most of them ended up going kablooie on the ground when the Luftwaffe came through, though they did capture a few of them, including a twin-taiflin prototype. Funniest part is that THEY used the thing as a trainer well! For longer than the Polish ever did!

So there you go. The Buffalo may not be the worst, but I'd say the Bison is CERTAINLY worthy of consideration.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 5, 2011)

While the Buffalo had it's shortcomings, the Finns put them to good use, and kept them flying despite getting them without spare parts!

I will agree that the Bison is definitely one to consider for both worst aircraft and ugliest aircraft. The Poles did produce some great airplanes, it's just that this wasn't one of them.


----------



## GregP (Oct 6, 2011)

I'd say the Polish PZL Zubr was the worst. It was designed and then bigger engines were hung on it without any redesign.

So it turned out the airframe life was used up in one flight! Most Zubrs were used as decoys on Polish airfields so the enemy would shoot at THEM instead of the other aircraft!

Now THAT's bad!


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 6, 2011)

The more I read about the Manchester the more it deserves at least honourable mention


----------



## Readie (Oct 9, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> The more I read about the Manchester the more it deserves at least honourable mention



Neil, ah the baited hook.
There were some truly ghastly, ill-considered and poorly executed aeroplanes that men went to war in.
That unnecessary loss of life is almost unforgivable.
Cheers
John


----------

