# WHAT "DUD" WOULD YOU FLY?



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2005)

We always talk about how good a fighter or bomber is, but what if you're stuck flying a "Dud?" For example, if I was a relatively new pilot I wouldn't be too happy flying the following in WW2....

P-40
P-39
Fairey Battle
Brewster Buffalo
Curtiss CW-21B
Douglas Devestator
Breda Ba.65
MiG-1

If you had to fly a "dud" which would you choose?


----------



## kiwimac (Jun 2, 2005)

P-40 was ok, certainly the RNZAF put them to good use in the Pacific and the P-39 was okish under 3000m.

Brewster Buffalo ..... urrrghh

Kiwimac


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2005)

I think the CW-21B would of been fun to fly, but taking it into combat would of been another story. I call the CW-21B the "American Zero."


----------



## evangilder (Jun 2, 2005)

Didn't they have some P-36s in the Pacific early on as well?


----------



## trackend (Jun 3, 2005)

Fairey Barracuda. 
From what I have read it was disliked intensly by both the Pilots and the ground crews as it flew like a pig and maintenance was a nightmare.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 3, 2005)

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


----------



## Glider (Jun 3, 2005)

For me its a the Battle. Easy to fly, reasionable payload so I could take plenty of beer and food. Room in the back for jolly flights and a decent range, so if I had to go into battle I could fly as far as possible in the other direction.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 3, 2005)

Hmmmmm...


A Lancaster on the Schweinfurt mission (I know there weren't any, hypothetical situation).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 3, 2005)

so baisically we're looking for the best, bad aircraft??


----------



## Bushranger (Jun 3, 2005)

I'd pick the P-40, but it ain't a dud 

I wouldn't mind flying the Cr-42 and Gladiator, Stringbag, the bipe's in Pisis' sig, Stuka, P-36 (Finns used em well), MS 410/Morane, Po2


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 3, 2005)

as much as i wanna dissagree, i will conceed, the stringbad must be counted as a dud


----------



## delcyros (Jun 3, 2005)

The Brewster Buffalo or the P-40 would be my choice, they are easy to fly and rugged. The Mig-1 probably has the best performance (men, one of the prototypes made 651 Kp/h or 404 mp/h!) but is a tricky plane, bad for newcomers anyway...


----------



## Hot Space (Jun 3, 2005)

I think the Me-210 - Some donkey that was.

Hot Space


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 3, 2005)

I'd go for a P-40 or a Bristol Blenheim, both easy to fly and both could take a beating


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2005)

Id go for a Reggiane Re-2000. Gotta love the ability to out-turn the CR.42 8)


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 3, 2005)

Really, the Re-2000 could turn inside a Fiat Cr 42? That's amazing.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2005)

Yep. Out of the G.50, MC.200 and Re-2000 the Re-2000 was by far the best, but the other two were favoured for some reason.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 3, 2005)

If evan felt the need to mention the P-36 as a possible dud, I'm taking that because it was better than the Spitfire Mk.I in everything but speed.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 3, 2005)

Hmmm..I mentioned the P-36 because it was the predecessor to the P-40. I don't know much about the P-36 though. I am assuming that the P-40 should have been better than the P-36 as it was after, but I could be wrong.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 3, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> so baisically we're looking for the best, bad aircraft??



Exactly - and happy B day Lanc!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 3, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Hmmm..I mentioned the P-36 because it was the predecessor to the P-40. I don't know much about the P-36 though. I am assuming that the P-40 should have been better than the P-36 as it was after, but I could be wrong.



Steve Hinton just wrote a pilot report on a recently restored P-36. He said it was more maneuvable than the P-40, but obviously slower. If I remember right, he compared it to the Hurricane


----------



## plan_D (Jun 3, 2005)

The P-36 was better than the P-40, it was just slower. It was better, in my opinion, than the early Spitfires. Although speed is quite important, I reckon a higher powered engine wasn't out of the grasp of Western technology. 

Here's a good, basic, description of the Mohawk .IV. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p36_10.html


----------



## evangilder (Jun 3, 2005)

Okay, then I sit corrected! I certainly respect the opinion of Steve Hinton. That guys has probably flown everything with wings and an engine! Ihave a video at home of him in a Corsair in a mock dogfight with our museum's Zero over the Pacific. Some great aerial cinematography.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 3, 2005)

Don't forget that Douglas Devastator - talk about a sitting duck!


----------



## evangilder (Jun 3, 2005)

Wasn't Torpedo 8, which was wiped out at Midway flying those?


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 3, 2005)

Yep! I really feel sorry for people who went in to combat with bad equipment


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 3, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Wasn't Torpedo 8, which was wiped out at Midway flying those?



All but Ensign George Gay. Although wounded, he survived. Lated flew for United Airlines. Passed away a few years ago.


----------



## JCS (Jun 3, 2005)

I'd have to go with the Ba.88, easily the worst piece of junk to fly in the war (or attempt to fly  ). It did look pretty good though.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 3, 2005)

The P-40 or P-36 would be my "duds" of choice.
That is if I could fly, much less dogfight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 3, 2005)

How about a B-18, even its name "Bolo" sums it up!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 3, 2005)

It looks almost cute though...almost.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 3, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> It looks almost cute though...almost.



It looks like something you would find at the bottom of a kids toybox!


----------



## evangilder (Jun 3, 2005)

I think it was the B-18 Bolo that was called the "Digby" in Canadian service.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 3, 2005)

Eh? We operated those things?  
I'll look into this. I've heard of the Digby, but I honestly don't recall this. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 3, 2005)

Here you go, man:

http://www.boeing.com/history/mdc/bolo.htm


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 3, 2005)

Thanks evan. Only twenty served with the RCAF I see. I wonder which squadron they were with. I'll look into this further.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 3, 2005)

It said coastal patrols, I am assuming that was probably Atlantic side. I am glad that we weren't the only ones that had to suffer the indignity of flying those beasts! 

It's good side is that is was a development of the Douglas DC-2, which became the DC-3/C-47


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 3, 2005)

Apparently the RCAF Digbys served with No. 10 (BR) squadron operating out of my local area, and were eventually replaced with Liberators. They even killed a U-boat. 

_"Like their American counterparts, the RCAF Digbys were also employed on maritime reconnaissance missions to counter the U-boat menace. The Canadian Digbys are credited with one U-boat kill. This was U-520 which was sunk on October 3, 1942 by Digby #757 PB-K of 10 (BR) Squadron operating out of Dartmouth (Halifax, Nova Scotia). By mid-1943, the RCAF Digbys had been superceded by Liberator GR. Vs in the anti-submarine role,"_ 

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b18.html


----------



## evangilder (Jun 3, 2005)

Right on! See, it got at least one kill!  =D>


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 3, 2005)

DIGBY - BOLO WHAT THE HELL'S GOING ON HERE  

Hey, but it did sink a SUB (I hate those things ya know!  ).

Picture this; You're a suave pilot in a nightclub, 1943, you go up to a beautiful gal just admiring your two-tone USAAF uniform with those shinny silver wings, or your stunning blue RCAF uniform with those gorgeous bullion wings, and say "I fly a Digby," or "I fly a Bolo."  

IF YOU WERE HER, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY!

Now I know why pilots lie!


----------



## SeaNorris (Jun 3, 2005)

This:





And This:


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 3, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> DIGBY - BOLO WHAT THE HELL'S GOING ON HERE
> 
> Hey, but it did sink a SUB (I hate those things ya know!  ).
> 
> ...


Well, at least the RCAF guy can say "I got a U-boat". 



Hey SeaNorris, where was that first pic taken? I'm just curious. Officially we're supposed to provide sources with our pics too. Remember that please.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jun 4, 2005)

Thats what Id fly, the Brewster Buffalo. It was a wierd aircraft, with its unique belly window and its odd landing gear, that I believe has a little bit of an undeserved reputation. Most of the Buffalo's bad reputation comes from accounts of Marines flying the Buffalo during the Japanese invasion of Midway. Most accounts state that the main reason the Buffalo was outdone was basically because the Marines were using WWI dogfighting tactics against the Zero. Since the Zero could simply turn inside the Buffalo they were dead meat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2005)

Yep - Agreed. It would seem like a cool aircraft to train in which many pilots did after the "Midway Massacre."


----------



## Glider (Jun 4, 2005)

Another dud that I wouldn't mind flying would be the Blenhiem fighter. The idea was sound enough but who had the idea of putting the guns in a drag inducing dustbin should have been shot. 
It would have been simple enough to put them in the nose. The weight should have been OK as the plane was designed to have a bombaimer in the nose who wouldn't have been needed.

A variation would be what to do with a plane that was a dud. In this catagory I think we could have made a half decent GA plane out of the Defiant. Take the turret out and put in a 'normal' back seat gunner saving the weight of the turret, which I think was around 800Ibs (open to comment as thats a long gone memory). It should have been possible to put some guns in the wings and there you have it. A close to 300 mph GA plane which was something that we didn't have until many years later.
Not ideal I admit, but better than trying to use Blenhiems with one forward firing LMG.


----------



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

i wanna say the lizzie but it wasn't really a dud was it..........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2005)

The Lizzie was a sleeper. In another life she would of been a fighter, no wait a bomber, no wait an attack aircraft, no wait......

Know what I mean?


----------



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

not really........


----------



## Glider (Jun 4, 2005)

The Lizzie was very good at what she did and therefore I don't think you could ever call it a dud.
Am I right in thinking that the first german plane shot down by the RAF in WW2 was shot down by a lysander.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2005)

That's correct. It also got itself involved doing many things that it wasn't intended for. Light bomber, ground attack, and somethimes fighter, and although sometimes mauled by enemy fighters, once in awhile it did things that surprised all, including downing other aircraft!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 4, 2005)

It only had 2x .303's in the wheel spats though didnt it?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2005)

It also had a flexible mg at the observer's station.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 4, 2005)

Yes but for use as a fighter?  2x .303's wont do much


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2005)

You said it! Somtimes it got lucky. I posted an article about an EAF Lysander downing 2 IAF Spitfires in 1948!


----------



## Soren (Jun 4, 2005)

Brewster Buffalo for me. It did a good job in Finnish service.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 4, 2005)

It's not clear to me what constitutes a "dud" for the purposes of this discussion. I figure the FM-2 Wildcat would have to qualify though in light of the P-40 making the list.

For some reason (I really can't put my finger on it), I find a certain elegance to the F-4 that transcends its, ahem ... mediocre performance.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 5, 2005)

Performance wasn't that good, but it did one heck of a good job with the USN before the Hellcat came onto the scene. BUt I agree, it did have a certain elegance. To see one fly is great. The RAF Martlett version was the hands down show favorite at Camarillo last year.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 5, 2005)

I'd have liked to fly a Stirling, the only reason it was dislike was because it didn't have a high enough ceiling (the Air Ministry wanted it to fit into it's 100foot wide hangers so they shortened the wings). Apparently it was very manouverable for a bomber


----------



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

yes all RAF heavies were renowned for their manouverability, many pilots saying they handled more like fighters than four engined bombers, but yes the stirling must be counted as a dud, and i believe the Marlet was french was it not??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2005)

Ive always like the Stirling. My favourite of the RAF heavies.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 5, 2005)

No, the Martlet was RAF. There were some ordered by France, but not delivered before the surrender to the Germans. Those aircraft were diverted to the British order.


----------



## Glider (Jun 5, 2005)

The Martlet is of course the Wildcat and was ordered by the French and the British. When France fell their order was taken over by the British and all the planes were I believe passed to the Fleet Air Arm. 
I am not aware of the RAF using them although a small number were used in the desert as part of a composite squadron with RAF Hurricanes.


----------



## trackend (Jun 5, 2005)

I think the wildcat was a good aircraft and certianly no dud in its day.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2005)

Very true and nice pic! I think the Marlet and Wildcat got a bad rap but when you study these aircraft in depth, they did remarkably well against the fighters they came up against, many of which outclassed em.'


----------



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

no i wouldn't really call it a dud...........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2005)

I agree!


----------



## Glider (Jun 5, 2005)

Everyone agree's is this a first? Seriously, I doubt that anyone could call it a dud.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2005)

Here'a a real dud - the Kyushu Q1W "Tokai" AKA "Lorna." This was the Japanese answer to ASW requirements in the Pacific. Considering how many allied subs were in the Pacific and their successes, I'd say this was a real dud.


----------



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

looks ugly too.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2005)

Can the Fw-189 be considered a dud? Id love to fly one of them.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Can the Fw-189 be considered a dud? Id love to fly one of them.



It might be?!? but yes I agree, would love to fly one!


----------



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

i'd call it a dud.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2005)

A good dud then. Effective plane and bloody manoeverable too


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2005)

How about one of my all-time favs - the AVRO ANSON


----------



## trackend (Jun 5, 2005)

Think their doing one up at Duxford I believe for a static only Fly where' that pic now?????????? ah here you go FBJ


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2005)

Nice 8) I like the Anson too.


----------



## JCS (Jun 5, 2005)

> Can the Fw-189 be considered a dud? Id love to fly one of them.



I dunno if I was dreaming this or what, but I seem to remember seeing something about an FW189 being restored to flying condition. Did anyone else see anything about this?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2005)

trackend said:


> Think their doing one up at Duxford I believe for a static only Fly where' that pic now?????????? ah here you go FBJ



Nice Track - I built the old Airfix kit with those same colors. How would you like to be in that turret with 3 -109s chasing you down!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2005)

How can the Fw-189 be considered a "dud" - it was only a spotter plane wasn't it? Or was it just relegated to that?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2005)

True it was, but I think it suffered sadly when encounterd by opposing fighters, although I read it was manuevable.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2005)

I don't think any spotter plane could handle itself against fighters. Spotter planes are supposed to be escorted! It can't be considered a "dud" if it was a spotter, unless it failed to fly...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2005)

You got a point D, but at the same time I think I would rather find myself in a -109 than one of those! Could you imagine being in the tail of that flying greenhouse and have a couple od Spitfires coming at you? Almost as bad as being in the turret of the Anson!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2005)

Well, I'd find it worse to be in a Lysander and having Spitfires shooting at you. Which happened quite a bit in the Battle for France apparently. The site I've got the story from is down...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2005)

Gotta post that one!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 6, 2005)

plan_D said:


> How can the Fw-189 be considered a "dud" - it was only a spotter plane wasn't it? Or was it just relegated to that?



Short range Recon and Close Support. Was also tried for use as a nightfighter and Tank buster. Interestingly the Tank Buster version (Fw-189C) competed against the Hs-129 and although the Fw-189 was better in just abuot every area the RLM chose the Hs-129.

FBJ it was surprisingly good against enemy fighters. It could out manouver thm and it was phenomenally tough, ive read reports of them flying back with one of the booms hanging off


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> FBJ it was surprisingly good against enemy fighters. It could out manouver thm and it was phenomenally tough, ive read reports of them flying back with one of the booms hanging off



WOW - Would love to see that!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 6, 2005)

Me too! Trouble is I cant remember where I read it  Ill have to try find it again.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2005)

I've read a story about a La-5 going through one of the booms of a Fw-189 (A typical Soviet ramming scheme) and the boom ripped off but the -189 carried on flying and came home missing it's quite well painted boom...the Red bastards...

That site that had the stories about the Lysanders being attacked by Spitfires is still down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

I guess we could sat the -189 WAS NOT a DUD!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 6, 2005)

Oh, but I wanna fly one, I like the 189 

Ok, Re-2000 will have to do I suppose 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

Is that a low pass along a boat? Great shot!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 6, 2005)

Nope, its being catapulted off the boat! 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

Oh - I got it now! Sea Hurricane con un piccolo italiano!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 6, 2005)

I bet the Re-2000 done it before the Sea Hurricane


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

You're probably right, I'll try to get some info on that!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 6, 2005)

Actually according to this site, it wasnt  http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Reggiane.html But damn that site made me like the Re-2000! 8)


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2005)

But the difference is, the Sea Hurricane was actually good. The only reason they were launching the Re-2000 was to get rid of the thing because it was taking up space on the ship.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 6, 2005)

No, they used it to replace the ancient Ro-43 biplane fighters...the Re-2000 was an excellent plane...But like the majority of early Italian fighters it was let down by poor armament...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

plan_D said:


> But the difference is, the Sea Hurricane was actually good. The only reason they were launching the Re-2000 was to get rid of the thing because it was taking up space on the ship.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 6, 2005)

i think the defiant would be my choice as it would allow to fly a fighter with the option of whining about my misfortune to a fellow future casualty


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

Especially since it couldn't shoot forward!


----------



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

actually she could, but not easily.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> actually she could, but not easily.........



Now that's scary!


----------



## wiggles (Nov 19, 2007)

How about the Wirraway - it was a fighter used by Australian Airforce over New Guniea , Rabaul etc.. Adopted from the Texan trainer. Apparantly, one shot down a zero once.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Nov 19, 2007)

P40 for me!!! It can and will held it own against most down low!! But is the P40 a dud though?


----------



## Glider (Nov 19, 2007)

Fairy Battle. Slow, easy to fly so its not tiring, decent range so I can go in the other direction, easy to land in out of the way fields, space for the girlfriend and a picnic.

What else would you need?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Nov 19, 2007)

The CW 21 looks cool.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 19, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> We always talk about how good a fighter or bomber is, but what if you're stuck flying a "Dud?" For example, if I was a relatively new pilot I wouldn't be too happy flying the following in WW2....
> 
> P-40
> P-39
> ...



Joe - P-40 an easy choice for me in potential survivability with the P-39 next. The P-40 was inferior to contemporary Me 109 and Fw 190 (and Zero) but kinda held it's own as pilots got more combat experience


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 19, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Joe - P-40 an easy choice for me in potential survivability with the P-39 next. The P-40 was inferior to contemporary Me 109 and Fw 190 (and Zero) but kinda held it's own as pilots got more combat experience



Oh agree 100% Bill - my point of the thread way back when was suppose it was late 1944 and you were a new fighter pilot ready to shoot down whatever in a new P-51 - then you find yourself flying P-40s for whatever reason. Or you're on your way to New Guinea and you're ready to get in a P-38 squadron and then suddenly you're flying P-39s....

Then again you could be a wanne-be Spitfire pilot and find yourself in a Battle or Defiant - Oh the disappointment!


----------



## ccheese (Nov 19, 2007)

Think I'd go with the P-39..... altho some Russians did well with them.

Charles


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 19, 2007)

Both the 40 and the 39 were solid aircraft when the right tactics were employed...

I'd go for the P39 just for the nose cannon and "car doors".

Chuck Yeager said that firing the cannon was like "lobbing grapefruits".

.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 19, 2007)

One of the P39, the P40 or the Whirlwind.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 19, 2007)

The Defiant was a fine flying aircraft but not when Bf 109s were about.

I would hate to call the P-40 a dud but I would go for that...They were still flying Hurricanes in 1944 so can I have one of them instead?


----------



## Wildcat (Nov 20, 2007)

I suppose alot of people class the Vengeance as a dud (not me!!) so I'll take one of those.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 20, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> We always talk about how good a fighter or bomber is, but what if you're stuck flying a "Dud?" For example, if I was a relatively new pilot I wouldn't be too happy flying the following in WW2....
> 
> P-40
> P-39
> ...



Are you sure the P-39 P-40 aren't too good to be on the "dud" list? Its hard to pick the best of a bad lot, because if its the best maybe its not a dud...

Perhaps this should be "what plane would you LEAST like to be in battle with?"

Speaking of Battle's I think it and the Devastator would be the worst. At least with the P-39 P-40 you had a chance to survive. And the Battle's flew the first "suicide missions" in the war.


----------



## Bf109_g (Nov 20, 2007)

I wouldn't mind having a go at a "suicide mission" in a Bristol Blenheim, so that
is my choice


----------



## lastwarrior (Nov 20, 2007)

I'll go for the P-40 but not Brewster Buffalo.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 20, 2007)

Fokker C.V. Slow, outdated, outnumbered but did the best it could given the situation.


----------



## JoeB (Nov 23, 2007)

Between P-39 and P-40, the P-39 had a much higher fatal accident rate in USAAF service. 47 per 100k flying hours v 17. See this page from USAAF stats digest, though you have to do a little arithmetic to get those numbers:
Army Air Forces in World War II

Otherwise, the armaments of the planes were different but basic performance was very similar for models with V-1710's, so the likes and dislikes (USAAF like the P-40 better, mainly for its successes in China, the Soviets liked the P-39 better) are probably mainly subjective.

On the list I also don't know why P-39 and P-40 are dud if Hurricane, MS406. Mc202 etc etc are not also duds. The Hurricane was an earlier plane, but a comparable or less capable plane ca. 1942 than either the P-40 or P-39, including side by side combat performance in places like early Pacific or Soviet northern theater. The P-39/40 were average fighters, not above average and not way below.

Joe


----------



## Desert Fox (Nov 23, 2007)

I personally would choose the Fairey Swordfish, 'Stringbag'. I would have loved to have flown on the Bismark mission!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 24, 2007)

JoeB said:


> Between P-39 and P-40, the P-39 had a much higher fatal accident rate in USAAF service. 47 per 100k flying hours v 17. See this page from USAAF stats digest, though you have to do a little arithmetic to get those numbers:
> Army Air Forces in World War II


The P-39 had a lateral and vertical center of gravity that were inches of each other making the aircraft inherently unstable if any of those envelopes were slightly exceeded. I would gather the majority of those P-39 losses occurred while performing combat or aerobatic maneuvers.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 24, 2007)

That and runway accidents...


----------



## Elvis (Nov 24, 2007)

I would think the worst "Dud" (if I'm interpreting this correctly) would be any unarmed transport.
Give me a C-46. 
Oversized, Overweight, Overly complicated (hey, its a Curtiss), and worst of all, over here!

...although I guess the troops in Burma would have a different impression of it.



Elvis


----------



## JoeB (Nov 24, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The P-39 had a lateral and vertical center of gravity that were inches of each other making the aircraft inherently unstable if any of those envelopes were slightly exceeded.


And longitudinal cg with 37mm magazine empty was trickily far aft. Also it had a stall departure with little warning. A good first hand book on the P-39 is "Nanette" by Edwards Park. It's kind of semi-novel, he calls it an 'exaggeration', but it actually corresponds pretty well with general facts about his unit in other sources. Extremely entertaining either way. 

Joe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2007)

Elvis said:


> I would think the worst "Dud" (if I'm interpreting this correctly) would be any unarmed transport.
> Give me a C-46.
> Oversized, Overweight, Overly complicated (hey, its a Curtiss), and worst of all, over here!
> 
> ...



How can you consider teh C-46 or hell the C-47 as a "Dud". Just because they are transports? I mean in my opinion and I think most here will agree with me they were the best aircraft of the war. There is more to fighting a war than shooting and dropping bombs.


----------



## Elvis (Nov 24, 2007)

DerAdler,


Here's how FlyBoyJ, who created this thread, asked his question...

"_We always talk about how good a fighter or bomber is, but what if you're stuck flying a "Dud?" For example, if I was a relatively new pilot I wouldn't be too happy flying the following in WW2...._"

So, the way I understand his question, you're flying into a "combat situation". What is the aircraft you're _least likely_ to WANT to be in.

Even though he mentions fighters and bombers, wouldn't any unarmed aircraft be the one you'd want to be in, _the least_?
I know I, for one, wouldn't mind a few guns and a little armour plating on my machine, if I'm to fly into a combat situation.
I would think anyone would want that.

...then there's the fact that the planes you and I mentioned are two engined transports and nowhere nearly as agile as any fighter plane we'd come up against, so that blows the whole "Your'e faster but I'm quicker" scenario straight out the window.


This is how I enterpreted "Dud", *as it pertains to this thread.*

Am I wrong?




Elvis


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2007)

No No I got you now.

I still look at it differently but I got you now.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 19, 2017)

I don't think the C-46 or the C-47 were a "dud" in any sense. During D-day, the loss rate among more than a 1000 transports delivering more than 24000 airborne troops to the battle area were just 30 a/c to combat losses. During Market Garden, carried out in the depths of winter and continuing over an extended time frame, a mere 8 aircraft out of more than 600 committed were lost to weather. compare that to the non-combat losses suffered by LW transport units operating in similar conditions.

C-47s and C-46s were rugged, and for their role were good performers. no other aircraft contributed more to the Allied victory than these aircraft. that's not the words to apply to a dud, its the language of a winner.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Feb 20, 2017)

Breda 88







And, between the aircraft the Italian Co-bellligerent force P-39…

Not only because airframes and engines were worn out and had worst ( and dangerous..) flight characteristics than those of the Macchi 205 to which the Italians pilots were used, but for the crap their pilots were given for the doors in truck style of their airplanes, wich earned them the nickname of the “lorry drivers”…

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

