# Worst Naval Plane of WWII



## SamPZLP.7 (Jan 3, 2013)

At the Fargo Air Museum we volenteers have had a lengthy discussion on the worst Naval Plane of WWII. 
Much appreciated!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 3, 2013)

Other. 

Curtiss Seamew.





. 

One of the few planes that was _replaced_ by it's predecessor. 

Curtiss Seagull, planes were pulled from second line units and re-issued to front line units to replace the Seamews.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 3, 2013)

Not the Skua; although one of the ugliest aircraft of the war, it was the most advanced machine the FAA was equipped with at the outbreak of WW2 and the RN really got their money's worth out of it. Sank a German cruiser, the _Konigsberg_ during the Norwegian campaign. Its even uglier sibling the Roc, however, was truly bad; being slower than the bombers it was sent to intercept, it was as useful as a chocolate teapot.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 3, 2013)

At the risk of being accused of French bashing, I would say one of the french types in the aeronavale. There was a floatplane , the name of which forget at this minute, that was introduced in 1939, and withdrawn 2 months later because of disappointing performance and an unnerving abaility to throw crankshafts whilst in flight. Then there was the Levasseur PL, which wiki had this to say:

_The first flight was in 1928, and during testing, aspects of the design underwent fine-tuning, including engine choice and the design of the wing struts and tail fin. Eventually presented to the Navy, an order for 15 aircraft was placed in 1929. However, the Navy had reservations about the wing design, and ordered five of these machines to be delivered with their spans shortened from the 18.00 m (59 ft 1 in) original down to 16.50 m (54 ft 2 in) and built to different wing areas, and a sixth machine with its span shortened to 17.25 m (56 ft 7 in). These miscellaneous types were all put into service together aboard the carrier Béarn in July 1930. After testing, one of the 16.50 m wing designs was selected as the standard, and 30 new aircraft were ordered with this wing. Ten of the existing PL.7s were also thus modified.

The PL.7s were grounded in July 1931 after two aircraft had disintegrated in flight, losses that were attributed to vibration problems. They were returned to service in September 1932 having reinforced wing bracing and engine mounts, and new three-bladed metal propellers. In 1934, they were relegated to shore duties, but were put aboard the Béarn again in 1936, where they were still in service (albeit now thoroughly obsolete) at the outbreak of the Second World War._ 

The intended french carrier based fighter, the Dewoitine D-371 also had the dubious reputation of engine failures whilst airborne......


No wonder the French were heading towards using US types as replacements


----------



## Aozora (Jan 4, 2013)

Ditto the Curtiss S03C Seagull/Seamew: 

From Steve Ginter "The Reluctant Dragon" 1999








Why 795 were built is unknown...


----------



## otftch (Jan 4, 2013)

Brewster Buccanneer/Bermuda. All the problems of the Buffallo with a larger airframe.
Ed


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 4, 2013)

Blackburn Firebrand. From wikipedia _The aircraft had killed two test pilots and, although after six months' modification Dennis Cambell did manage the first successful deck landing, the type was generally regarded as one of the war's worst aircraft._


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jan 4, 2013)

otftch said:


> Brewster Buccanneer/Bermuda. All the problems of the Buffallo with a larger airframe.
> Ed



I agree with Ed. How could it not be considered the worst? A carrier plane that failed carrier qualifications and was never used ship-board. This HAS to take the cake. The Buffalo at least made it to the fleet. Case closed.


----------



## Glider (Jan 4, 2013)

Roc is my suggestion, total disaster and waste of effort


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 6, 2013)

The Skua was arguably the most advanced naval strike bomber in operational use in Sept 1939. It performed very well for a naval aircraft in that time frame, being fast, very well armed, long ranged and it had folding wings. If it had appeared in any other navy it would have been hailed as a triumph. Unfortunately, it doesn't compare as favorably with naval aircraft in use in 1942, which is why it so many aspersions are cast upon it - but this is typical of the general trend when examining FAA aircraft.

The Devastator, OTOH, was a flying death trap with performance in service far below its manufacturer's specs and should have been retired long before Dec 1941.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The Devastator, OTOH, was a flying death trap with performance in service far below its manufacturer's specs and should have been retired long before Dec 1941.


The TBD performed as advertised in 1935. By 1941 it should have been long gone, but actually did well up to the Battle of Coral Sea, argue pilot skill or luck. To call it a "flying death trap" meant it was unsafe anytime it was in the air. History has it placed accordingly. It's an aircraft that one would not want to being into combat in 1942, but it was far from a "flying death trap" unlike an aircraft like the Breda Ba.88.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 6, 2013)

IMHO, one of the biggest problems with the TBD was its primary weapon. The early torpedoes used by the USN were, frankly, abominations. Too many good men were thrown away trying to deliver such an ineffectual weapon against heavily defended targets.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 7, 2013)

The other problem faced, both by Devastator and Avenger during the Battle of Midway, was the lack of effective fighter cover. Avengers were shot down there too, but no one talks today bad about them. The USN air torpedo launching envelope was restrictive one, the plane was to fly low slow - not a good prospect vs. a decent AAA and CAP.
The SBD have had the 'luxury' of being a dive bomber, ie. it was to fly at higher altitude speed, hence making a more demanding target for the defending CAP. The sacrifice of torpedo bombers also meant that CAP flying low and, mostly, without cannon ammo, was unable to perform it's task.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 7, 2013)

The only other carrier based torpedo bombers in any numbers in 1941/early 1942 were the Swordfish and Albacore and the Nakajima B5M2. I am not sure how they were any less of death traps if flown on similar missions with similar escorts or lack of escort. 

Perhaps if the US had ordered a MK II version with a 1050-1100hp version of the R-1830 it might have gone a bit faster but since the Japanese aircraft had no armor, no self sealing fuel tanks, basically a Lewis gun for rear defense and speed advantage of about 10% I am not seeing a huge advantage here.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 7, 2013)

Even if the TBD had a little more horse power, I doubt you would have gotten any more speed out of her. If I'm not mistaken I believe the wing used on the TBD favored "lift" in lieu of speed (probably a consideration given for the aircraft being underpowered). As stated, the TBD should have been long gone by 1941 but I think if any of its contemporaries were placed in the same situation as Torpedo 8 at Midway, they too would have been cut to ribbons.

In all, making a low level torpedo run in a slow moving aircraft on a heavily defended target without fighter escort was suicide. Doing it while carrying a torpedo that didn't work half the time just made matters worse.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jan 7, 2013)

Did not vote on this matter, but will discount the TBD as being the worst. The TBF saw action at Midway, with 5 out of 6 shot down without a single torpedo hit, with the last one shot up with a dead gunner. Will discount the F2A as well. It wasn't a bad aircraft, if the -3/Mk. I model was underpowered. It had the misfortune of being up against one of the most agile fighters of the war, with the experience and training of their pilots above the Buffs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 7, 2013)

It might have matched the B5M2, it might not have. B5M1 used an under 900hp 9 cylinder radial. 

US skipped the Devastator II and asked for designs leading to the Avenger in 1939.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 7, 2013)

I'm not really sure why the three choices* are these airplanes? Each of them was breaking a new ground when introduced, the monoplanes replacing biplanes. 

* I know that 4th choice is 'other'


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 7, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm not really sure why the three choices* are these airplanes? Each of them was breaking a new ground when introduced, the monoplanes replacing biplanes.



I agree any flat top with a squadron of each in 1939 would have had the best most up to date air arm. Just because they became obsolete within 2 years doesnt mean they were the worst.


----------



## VinceReeves (Mar 2, 2013)

I agree that none of the planes listed in the poll should be there. Anybody who thinks that the Skua was a bad plane doesn't know anything about it.

It's a toss-up between the Seamew and the Buccaneer, and I'm going with the Seamew.


----------



## pattle (Jul 23, 2013)

I think there are a number of different reasons why people consider certain types of aircraft as being bad, aircraft that were easily shot down, aircraft that were of a bad design, aircraft that were designed to fulfil a flawed requirement and aircraft that had become obsolete.
Badly designed aircraft are the worst in my book because they will always be completely useless, obsolete aircraft may have been the best in the world when they first came out and along with aircraft that were easily shot down or built to a flawed requirement they could be used for other purposes. 
Out of the three choices I don't think any were bad designs, but I pick the Devastator as it was the least successful in my view.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 23, 2013)

Curtiss Seamew. There were some other less-than-stellar aircraft, but the Seamew is almost the definitive failed project for the USN. I'll leave anything by Brewster out of this sort of list. There's something supremely incompetent about a company that's building combat aircraft losing money during a major war.


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 24, 2013)

Is it me, or does the Seamew apart from having a less than stellar name to inspire its crews and the naval erks, look like a 'floated' Helldiver powered by an licence built Argus inverted V12 - did the US trade the Hamilton Prop licence for an Argus one with Germany prior to the 41 DoW? 

Off-topically - if so, was some of this related to what grandpa Bush (Prescot/Prescott) was involved with, for which he nearly got 'black booked' almost imprisoned for?


----------



## stug3 (Jul 24, 2013)

Im going to have to nominate the Zero. Of course it was a great dogfighter as far as being extremely maneuverable and adequately armed. It also had great range. But the lack of armor and self sealing fuel tanks (though contributing to its light weight), were fatal flaws, as was the failure to develop more powerful engines to "keep up with the Joneses".


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 24, 2013)

I still nominate the TBD as worst strike aircraft, but the F2A has to rate has the worst naval fighter given that the USN was never really able to get it to reliably work on their carriers, with the only carrier based F2A-3 VF squadron being largely grounded within days of Pearl Harbour, due to landing gear failure.


----------



## redcoat (Jul 24, 2013)

Blackburn Roc.
It's most useful role was in the Battle of Britain where a number were used as stationary light AA positions on FAA airfields


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2013)

razor1uk said:


> Is it me, or does the Seamew apart from having a less than stellar name to inspire its crews and the naval erks, look like a 'floated' Helldiver powered by an licence built Argus inverted V12 - did the US trade the Hamilton Prop licence for an Argus one with Germany prior to the 41 DoW?



The Fairchild company had been working on the V-12 since about 1932/33. Since they were already making an air-cooled straight 6 the V-12 is a natural progression. A lot of companies that made 6 cylinder air cooled engines at least tried a V-12. De Havallind, Isotta-Fraschini, Renault, Walther.


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 25, 2013)

Cheers Shortround, I didn't know of the Fairchild Engines, stupidly I assumed they were just an airframe manufacturer like they were for the A10..


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 29, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The Fairchild company had been working on the V-12 since about 1932/33. Since they were already making an air-cooled straight 6 the V-12 is a natural progression. A lot of companies that made 6 cylinder air cooled engines at least tried a V-12. De Havallind, Isotta-Fraschini, Renault, Walther.



I think, though, that we can't blame the cooling issues just on the engine, as cowling design is usually done by the airframe manufacturer. I think Curtiss was having problems with its engineering staff at the time, as the Seamew had some fairly serious handling problems, which had no relation to the engine selection. 

I also wonder what alternatives Curtiss had with regards to engines. If the Ranger V-12 was underpowered, the plane would need something with 600 hp or so, and there just wasn't much in that category: Pratt's R-1340 was it. Wright's R-1300 didn't enter service until 1945, and Ranger never seemed to have gone anywhere with their V-920. So, the choices were a) Ranger V-770 b) Pratt R-1340 (probably the best plan) c) go way up in power, to at least the R-1535 d) do something odd like an entirely new engine, like 6 cylinder derivatives of the Allison V-1710 Ford V-1650 (GAA), or half an R-2800.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2013)

By the time they knew the Seamew was in trouble (Ranger-770 was not going to cut it) the R-1535 had been out of production for several years. Cutting an R-2800 in half was a several year job as was any major modification of an existing engine (a 6 cylinder Allison.) Wright 1300 is 1/2 an R-2600. 

Ranger was working an a new model V-770 with aluminium fins on the cylinder barrels and other improvements ( the "D" series) but I don't think it made it in time. A Seamew did wind up at Langley in the full sized wind tunnel in an effort to solve the cooling problem. 
The P W R-1340 was the only real choice.


----------



## R Pope (Jul 30, 2013)

How about the Bf109T? It never even landed on a carrier! Oh.....Wait.........


----------



## redcoat (Jul 30, 2013)

R Pope said:


> How about the Bf109T? It never even landed on a carrier! Oh.....Wait.........


They saw service with the Luftwaffe in Norway. I believe a Bf 109T is credited with the first Luftwaffe victory over a B-17(in RAF service)


----------



## parsifal (Jul 30, 2013)

These debates about Bf109s and Zeroes are really badly biased IMO. We need to go back and determine criteria for what makes a bad aircraft....In my opinion its an aircraft unable to coiomplete or potentially undertake its assigned role. At the top of the list are those that are designed so badly that they are unsafe to fly, independant of any enemy action. Then there are aircraft that due to operational limitations, like por performance, cannot be safely operated under any conditions in enemy airspace. 

Lastly, perhaps, there are those aircraft that were simply unsuited to the doctrine or purpose for which they were built. These aircraft might fly well, have sufficient performance, but simply dont do, or are unsuited to the role they are assigned. 

Examples of aircraft that are simply not airworthy migt inlude the Loire 210. 20 produced, entered service September 1939, withdrawn from service November 1939, 25% of airfranes suffered structural failures

Aircraft so old or lacking performance that they could not complete their mission. Again i would nominate French aircraft in this category. I would nominate the Levasseur PL.7, with performance that made the Swordfish look like a hot high perfomance machine

Lastly there are machines properly designed, but thrust into a role for which they were unsuited. Something like the Zero really does fit that category....it was an offensive fighter, designed almost exclusively for attack, when forced into a defensive situation, did not perform so well. Early Seafires were similar failures, as was the American Corsair (which was not given carrier clearance until very late in the war).


----------



## Mishal Kennedy (Jul 30, 2013)

Wish the Fairey Fulmer was listed... It, and the two turreted fighter designs (oh, what a useless concept...) made by blackburn, had to be some of the worst carrier aircraft available. As for the Buffalo? The Finns used her with remarkable success. I doubt she deserves the bad rep. I did, however, vote devastator... Boy, was that a disaster.


----------



## stug3 (Jul 30, 2013)

The flaws of the Zero accelerated the attrition of experienced Japanese pilots, which was a contributing factor to the failure of Japanese strategy. The success or failure of a plane like the Seamew had no effect on the outcome of the war.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2013)

Mishal Kennedy said:


> Wish the Fairey Fulmer was listed... It, and the two turreted fighter designs (oh, what a useless concept...) made by blackburn, had to be some of the worst carrier aircraft available. As for the Buffalo? The Finns used her with remarkable success. I doubt she deserves the bad rep. I did, however, vote devastator... Boy, was that a disaster.



The Fulmar actually did a decent job of defending the fleet in the Med. Not great but not a disaster. There was only ONE turreted naval fighter and it was never deployed on a carrier, at least it flew without breaking itself. 

The Devastator gets a really bad rap. The newest aircraft at Midway were about 2-3 years old, not design but time from factory door. the Devastator first flew 15 April 1935, I doubt that ANY _seven_ year old design _without any_ upgrades could make a daylight attack on a major fleet without fighter escort and survive any better. Douglas was NOT responsible for the lousy torpedoes. 

Loire was responsible for the poor structural strength of their aircraft. Curtiss was responsible for the handling problems, power to weight ratio and cooling problems of the Seamew.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 31, 2013)

Yeah, a good summary SR. I agree with all that you say.

What is it with your American compatriots, that they must clobber the Fulmar at every opportunity. Fulmar was a good compromise, given the poor state of the fleet air arm, and the absolute need to get something into the fleet defence role, and also able to undertake mutirole functions. The RN was at war in 1940, and needed something right away. It took the Americans more than 2 years to get the Hellcat in large scale squadron service, and even the Wildcat had a longer lead time than the Fulmar. If the RN had tried to go the way of the USN, it would have forced the surrender of much important objectives, possibly war changing events. 

Credit should be given for the speed of its deployment, and the tasks and gaps that it filled.


----------



## Mishal Kennedy (Jul 31, 2013)

Well, I'll have to agree fully. Thanks for the reply! Forgot about the Fulmer's success in the Med.


----------



## pattle (Jul 31, 2013)

I thought the Blackburn Roc was briefly flown from carriers during the Norway campaign? Unlike the Seamew the Roc was not a dangerous aircraft, it was just a useless one. The Roc was basically just a Skua with a turret on it's back, and to think that somebody was actually paid to come up with that idea! as though the Skua wasn't bad enough without putting a turret on it!


----------



## redcoat (Jul 31, 2013)

Mishal Kennedy said:


> Wish the Fairey Fulmer was listed...


Don't you insult an aircraft my grannie helped build


----------



## redcoat (Jul 31, 2013)

pattle said:


> I thought the Blackburn Roc was briefly flown from carriers during the Norway campaign? Unlike the Seamew the Roc was not a dangerous aircraft,!


They did make a floatplane version of the Roc but it was so slow it kept going into a stall when put into a turn. It didn't enter service.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2013)

pattle said:


> I thought the Blackburn Roc was briefly flown from carriers during the Norway campaign? Unlike the Seamew the Roc was not a dangerous aircraft, it was just a useless one. The Roc was basically just a Skua with a turret on it's back, and to think that somebody was actually paid to come up with that idea! as though the Skua wasn't bad enough without putting a turret on it!



Blackburn Roc aircraft profile. Aircraft Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945

" The aircraft operated from shore bases only, alongside Skua squadrons, and its front line career ended in June 1940"


----------



## pattle (Jul 31, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Blackburn Roc aircraft profile. Aircraft Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945
> 
> " The aircraft operated from shore bases only, alongside Skua squadrons, and its front line career ended in June 1940"



Sorry Shortround6, I am rubbish at computers and I don't know how to do links but if you go to the page you linked and click Blackburn Roc in the further information column at the bottom of the page it mentions the Roc flying from Ark Royal and possibly Glorious during the Norwegian campaign, there was only a few of them though.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2013)

Good catch.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 31, 2013)

pattle said:


> Sorry Shortround6, I am rubbish at computers and I don't know how to do links but if you go to the page you linked and click Blackburn Roc in the further information column at the bottom of the page it mentions the Roc flying from Ark Royal and possibly Glorious during the Norwegian campaign, there was only a few of them though.



I'm guessing this is the link you mentioned:

Blackburn Roc, description and overview of service use.

It does give an excellent summary of Roc performance and operations. It actually wasn't that bad of an aircraft, but was sensibly withdrawn from carrier service. Although with the long range tank, it would have been a useful recon and patrol aircraft, and it actually had some limited value as a dive bomber.

and here's an excellent essay on the outstanding Skua:

Blackburn Skua


----------



## pattle (Jul 31, 2013)

Yes that's the link. I read an excellent book called "I sank the Bismarck" about a year ago, I can't remember the name of the author but he was the pilot of the Swordfish which was believed to have been the most likely to have put the torpedo into the Bismarck's steering gear. In the book he said he originally wanted to be a fighter pilot but was put off by the Royal Navy's fighters of the day the Skua and Roc and so he volunteered for the Swordfish. Fancy volunteering to fly an obsolete biplane against ships like the Bismarck! no offence to the Swordfish as it did what it did and proved it's worth. I wouldn't have believed it was possible to land on the heavily pitching decks of those carriers but they did it.


----------



## stug3 (Sep 25, 2013)

Hush-Kit bottom ten: The ten worst carrier aircraft

Interesting list, some examples-

_10. Supermarine Seafire Mk XV
The first Griffon-engined Seafires did not like being on carriers. They had a tendency to veer to the right on take-off, smashing into the carrier’s island superstructure._







_5. Blackburn Firebrand
An evil, scandalous pilot-killer._






_2. Blackburn Roc
A maximum speed (at sea level) of 194 mph was simply suicidal for a fighter facing the Luftwaffe’s ’109s. Add terrible agility, no forward-firing guns and you get the idea. Wisely, the military decided the best use for it was as a static machine-gun post!_


----------



## parsifal (Sep 25, 2013)

Dont believe everything you read on the Seafire. Most of it is post war US propaganda. In 1943, when first introduced, the Seafire IIs had a poor operational record for safety. By 1945, at the time of the Seafire III and XV the Seafire had the best deck safety record of any type in the allied navies. This was not due so much to the outstanding nature of the type, more to do with the pilot training and deck handling procedures that had been developed to cope with the type in the intervening two years. US deck handling procedures were sloppy and dangerous by comparison, something that continued after the war. Not that you would know, reading US propaganda of the time.


Edit

This is a link to a site that discusses the Seafire in some detail. its not an entirely stelar performance, but neither should the Seafire be classified as one of the "worst" aircraft in Naval History.

http://www.sepsy.de/raf-spirtfire-mk-III Seafire.htm


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 25, 2013)

Interesting assessment, but that list is highly subjective and I could find fault with a lot of the points raised there. In particular, the Griffon Spitfires might not have had the best deck manners, but as fighter interceptors they had few piston engined equals at sea. The Seafire was always regarded as an excellent performing, if not short ranged interceptor, this was by the Americans as well as the British and yes, its deck handing was decidedly hazardous at times, but good piloting skills and practise, not to forget its excellent performance overcame many weaknesses suffered by the type. 

The Harrier a poor carrier aircraft? Far from it. The Royal Navy did not have anywhere near the record of crashes with its Sea Harriers as the Marines did with its AV-8s. The Harrier has enabled an unrivalled flexibility for smaller navies that do not have the budget for large carriers. Many still operate the type in service at sea, including the Marines, Indian Navy, the Spanish Navy, The Italian Navy and the Thai Navy and their loss rates are far lower than those suffered by the Marines to begin with.

The Yak-38 is another contentious one; although not the best berforming aircraft, again, it offered a previously unavailable (albeit limited) strike capability to the Soviet Navy; it also was fitted with one of the most effective autoland systems and nav-attack systems for a single-seat carrier aircraft of its age. Yak-38s regularly demonstrated operations from carriers in weather conditions that grounded conventional carrier aircraft that was witnessed by British and American over flights.

here are other suggestions that need'nt be in that list, including the Scimitar...


----------



## Marcel (Sep 26, 2013)

stug3 said:


> Im going to have to nominate the Zero. Of course it was a great dogfighter as far as being extremely maneuverable and adequately armed. It also had great range. But the lack of armor and self sealing fuel tanks (though contributing to its light weight), were fatal flaws, as was the failure to develop more powerful engines to "keep up with the Joneses".


I see many people bash the zero for that. But i don't understand. It beat evrything in it's way, the first few months. So it did everything expected an more. That it should have been replaced later is not the fault of the aircraft.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 26, 2013)

I'm with you, Marcel; the Zero was for its time the best carrier based fighter in the world. I don't believe the structre and lack of self sealing tanks were fatal flaws, flaws yes, but a part of the ethos of the design, very much intentional and the best Japanese pilots were more than able to use the aircraft's advantages and minimise its weaknesses. The Zero should not be on this list. We all would be surprised if we found out just how few aircraft had self sealing tanks in 1940.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 26, 2013)

USN supporters are very fond of proclaiming a 19:1 kill ratio for the Hellcat over the IJN, and often parade that as a 19:1 kill ratio over the zero. In fact, the hellcats victory ratio in the air over the zero was closer to 4:1. Thats still impressive, but not the whitewash often paraded as "the real story".


----------



## Marcel (Sep 26, 2013)

The hellcat appeared when the pre-war trained pilots became replaced with not so well trained pilots. I think one could say the Zero was a good fighter in capable hands but not very good su ted for the novice pilot. A good pilot could use all it's strong points, especially the agility. An inexperienced pilot iscnot able to do that and suffers from lack of armour.


----------



## stug3 (Sep 26, 2013)

I think the weak points of the A6M is an important factor in the attrition of experienced Navy pilots, especially if as you say this was already an effect by late 1943 when the Hellcat showed up. Im not saying the Zero was an inherently bad design, Im saying the IJN failure to update it with evolving technology led to disastrous results for its own operations.


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 26, 2013)

A key aspect in the USN's success over the IJNAF was not the aircraft employed but the use of tactical SIGINT. I recommend a read of Layton's "And I Was There" for interesting insights into how intercepting the radio comms of the IJN "master controller aircraft" allowed the USN to position its fighter aircraft in exactly the right position to inflict maximum casualties on the enemy.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 26, 2013)

All of these "worst" and "best" lists are, by their nature, very subjective. I tend to view "bad" as a synonym for "failed at their specified role due to design issues," as opposed to "failed because their specifications sucked." I think the Roc was quite firmly in the latter category, a group in which it is not alone. Some select aircraft fall into both (in my view, the exemplar is the Bell YFM-1).

A third category could be "failed because they were kept in service too long," which may be a bin into which one can throw aircraft like the Zero, I-15, CR.32, and Gladiator.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 26, 2013)

For th4 zero debate, you have to remove all the extrqaneous issues and then make your comparisons. The Japanese were defeated by an enemy with vastly superior numbers, industrial backing and aircrew. They also adopted policies that worked against their own interests and unrealistically assessed their own strength and capability. That is not to deny that the zero by 1943 was the wrong formula for the Japanese. They needed an aircraft no longer with great range, they needed firepower and inbuilt defernces, to take the punishment and keep fighting.

Zeroes in the hands of a good pilot were dangerous until the very end. that in my book imediately eliminates them from the "worst" category. But were they ideal? Far from it. The two issues..."worst" and "not ideal" are two entirely different fish however. Same argument applies to the Seafire, was it ideal...not a chance, was it the worst, nope, it was actually a better than average competitor.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 26, 2013)

> Im saying the IJN failure to update it with evolving technology led to disastrous results for its own operations.



Yes, but that was not a failure of the aeroplane. I would even disagree with swampyankee's assertion that the Zero failed because it was kept in service for too long; the Zero was, right until the very end a competent warplane and in the hands of a good pilot could still hold its own - although there were fewer of these as the war went on for the Japanese. It's just that there were far better aircraft being fielded by the Allies. The failure was with the IJN for not recognising that the Zero's design was obsolescent and that with technological advances abroad, something should have been done to rectify the situation sooner.



> A third category could be "failed because they were kept in service too long," which may be a bin into which one can throw aircraft like the Zero, I-15, CR.32, and Gladiator.



These aircraft mentioned did not fail because they were kept in service for too long, they were overtaken by technology; this is not a failure of the aeroplane, but a failure of the operator.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 26, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Yes, but that was not a failure of the aeroplane. I would even disagree with swampyankee's assertion that the Zero failed because it was kept in service for too long; the Zero was, right until the very end a competent warplane and in the hands of a good pilot could still hold its own - although there were fewer of these as the war went on for the Japanese. It's just that there were far better aircraft being fielded by the Allies. The failure was with the IJN for not recognising that the Zero's design was obsolescent and that with technological advances abroad, something should have been done to rectify the situation sooner.
> 
> 
> 
> These aircraft mentioned did not fail because they were kept in service for too long, they were overtaken by technology; this is not a failure of the aeroplane, but a failure of the operator.



I'm not sure whether you're trying to disagree with me or not, but one can say that "failure of the operator" applies to all the failures, as the operators write the bad specs, accept the bad designs, or keep aircraft in service too long.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 27, 2013)

A bit of both. What I mean't regarding operators was the armed forces that operated the aircraft in your last list, not the manufacturers; when those aircraft you listed first entered service, that is the Zero, I-15 (do you mean I-16, the monoplane; I-15 was a biplane?), CR-32 (do you mean CR-42?), and Gladiator, they were good aircraft, but swiftly became obsolescent as a result of technological progress. That's not a design fault of any of them.


----------



## MacArther (Sep 27, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Other.
> 
> Curtiss Seamew.
> 
> ...


AGREED!


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 4, 2016)

TBD was an excellent aircraft in 1935. It was much more modern and outperforms the Swordfish which first flew a year earlier. The Buffalo proved to be an adequate fighter when outfitted properly by the Fins.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Blitzrockie (Jul 19, 2016)

Seafire, good against a kamikaze but not suitable for a carrier.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 19, 2016)

.......but it did serve from '42 to '51 on carriers

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 19, 2016)

Blackburn Roc has to be a contender

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 19, 2016)

Glider said:


> Blackburn Roc has to be a contender


Next to a Roc the Skua must have seemed like a Sea Fury.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2016)

Blitzrockie said:


> Seafire, good against a kamikaze but not suitable for a carrier.



Huh? 

If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?


----------



## Blitzrockie (Jul 19, 2016)

A seafire was to fragile to be on board a carrier. A beautiful plane to fly but unsuitable for harsh carrier warfare


----------



## Blitzrockie (Jul 19, 2016)

The sea gladiator should be a contestant too.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 19, 2016)

Blitzrockie said:


> A seafire was to fragile to be on board a carrier. A beautiful plane to fly but unsuitable for harsh carrier warfare


True for the first but not the last.


----------



## Blitzrockie (Jul 19, 2016)

Honestly most of the planes we mentioned are bad, not all but some in some way.


----------



## Blitzrockie (Jul 19, 2016)

Most of the planes in this conversation are bad in some way.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 19, 2016)

I went with the Roc. The Defiant may have been a flawed concept but at least it had a Merlin to give it some giddy-up. The poor Roc with the Perseus engine just wasn't going to perform....period. And the concept of using it in the secondary role of dive-bomber? Let's take an overweight so-called fighter, plug bombs underneath, fly it towards the enemy and then dive it at the target....and hope the thing can pull out at the end. 

Now...I have to say, I like the quirky look of both the Skua and the Roc. Neither are boring aircraft and the Skua did some sterling, albeit largely forgotten work. One of these days, I'll dig out my SH kit of the Roc and paint it in the markings of Sqn Ldr D H Clarke who managed to damage a German seaplane flying a Roc with "the Saint" painted in a yellow diamond marking on the rear fuselage.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 19, 2016)

The same old chestnuts trotted out time and again. 

Seafires were far from ideal as a carrier aircraft and were far too specialised to be considered effective kit for the RN in 1945.

however the fragility issue is a total furphy as any even cursory examination of its operational record would show.

It was damned in 1942-3 because it was forced to operate from CVEs in still air environments (not enough moving air under the wings) with rookie pilots and undercarriages not properly strengthened for deck operations. Results were predictably abysmal.

Fast forward to 1945, when the Seafire III was operated by the BPF alongside Corsairs and Hellcats from proper fleet carriers, in better weather conditions for the a/c. The seafires in BPF service suffered the lowest attrition rate of the three types and achieved the highest kill/loss ratio. there was roughly a 30 mile difference in the operational range characterisitics between the Grumman and the Supermarine, though this was substantially bested by the corsairs operating with the BPF .

The Seafire III was still a lash up conversion, but its potential is written in spades in that it was developed into mk 47. Corsair was also developed by the americans as well, but nobody was interested in further development of the Grumman design after the war. The RN are aither complete idiots, or, saw enough potential in the Seafire III to warrant further development postwar

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sir Percy Ware-Armitage (Apr 6, 2017)

SamPZLP.7 said:


> At the Fargo Air Museum we volenteers have had a lengthy discussion on the worst Naval Plane of WWII.
> Much appreciated!



The Brewster F2A was a horrid plane which guaranteed a tragic outcome. The American, Aussies, Dutch, and more pilots who flew these flying coffin were indeed very brave men. We should never forget them.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 6, 2017)

While the Buffalo is unlikely to make the list of worlds best it was nowhere near as bad as often portrayed.
In the Far East in 1942 operational difficulties (shortages of fuel, equipment, parts and so on) often degraded the ability of _all_ aircraft in the theater.
One also has to be very careful looking at statistics. for example of the 30 Buffaloes that 60 squadron came into possession of only 6 made it back to India. This sound terrible but a further look reveals only 8 aircraft shot down by the Japanese in combat. 3 were destroyed in their crates in a bombing attack. Even Mustangs could not help that 
5 others were destroyed in bombing raids in dispersal pens, 2 were destroyed while awaiting test flights after assembly.
One was blown-up/burned when repair men attempted to weld a battle damaged fuel tank without properly purging the gas fumes inside. A few assorted crashes and engine failures account for most of the rest ( several destroyed to prevent capture when airfield evacuated.)
The squadron _claimed _27 Japanese aircraft destroyed during this period. Allowing for typical over-claiming it seems that in the air the British Buffaloes gave as good as they got.
Fighting to a 1 to 1 loss ratio while on the defensive is hardly guaranteeing a tragic outcome because of faults of the plane.

Edit: here is a website with a lot of information on the Buffalo. It's career in the Far East makes for interesting, if depressing reading. One wonders how well any other aircraft would have done in same circumstances. Granted a bit better in air to air but many of the losses were on the ground and a lot of the troubles were due to not enough mechanics and ground crew.

Annals of the Brewster Buffalo

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sir Percy Ware-Armitage (Apr 7, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> While the Buffalo is unlikely to make the list of worlds best it was nowhere near as bad as often portrayed.
> In the Far East in 1942 operational difficulties (shortages of fuel, equipment, parts and so on) often degraded the ability of _all_ aircraft in the theater.
> One also has to be very careful looking at statistics. for example of the 30 Buffaloes that 60 squadron came into possession of only 6 made it back to India. This sound terrible but a further look reveals only 8 aircraft shot down by the Japanese in combat. 3 were destroyed in their crates in a bombing attack. Even Mustangs could not help that
> 5 others were destroyed in bombing raids in dispersal pens, 2 were destroyed while awaiting test flights after assembly.
> ...





Thank you very much Shortround6 for a most informative comment. Yours truly stand corrected.

Cherio!

Sir P.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 7, 2017)

Sir Percy Ware-Armitage said:


> Thank you very much Shortround6 for a most informative comment. Yours truly stand corrected.
> 
> Cherio!
> 
> Sir P.



If you want to learn more, I can strongly recommend "Bloody Shambles" (Vols 1 and 2) and "Buffaloes Over Singapore", all published by Grub Street. Second-hand copies can be obtained quite reasonably. I agree with your sentiments about the bravery of the personnel involved. The experiences of 67 Sqn in Burma mentioned by Shortround in his prior post were also witnessed in Malaya and Singapore, with many aircraft destroyed on the ground due to lack of any workable early warning system (in northern Malaya "early warning" comprised of an erk on the airfield perimeter equipped with a red flag!), aircraft abandoned due to airfields being overrun, and accidental losses due to the pilots being, for the most part, an inexperienced bunch...not a criticism of them, just a reflection that most came straight out of flying training and had never flown a monoplane with flaps and retractable undercarriage until they arrived in Singapore.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 7, 2017)

In the early days of the Malta siege Spitfires suffered similar losses/lack of serviceability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sir Percy Ware-Armitage (Apr 7, 2017)

Thanks to all for the references.

Cherio!

Sir P.


----------

