# Worst ww2 fighter



## Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV (Aug 16, 2018)

If you have any more please inform me.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 16, 2018)

Basically you have four/five WW II fighters and a bunch of pre-WW II fighters that didn't get replaced quite soon enough.
Putting an aircraft down because it had been in service for 4-6 years before it saw combat seems more than a bit harsh.

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


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 16, 2018)

Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV said:


> If you have any more please inform me.


 Blackburn Roc.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 16, 2018)

Any military uses what it can and what it has. There were trials in 1939/40 fitting guns and bombs to Tiger Moths when invasion threatened the UK.


----------



## Marcel (Aug 16, 2018)

Define "worst"?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV (Aug 16, 2018)

Marcel said:


> Define "worst"?


Worst aircraft in general


----------



## Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV (Aug 16, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Basically you have four/five WW II fighters and a bunch of pre-WW II fighters that didn't get replaced quite soon enough.
> Putting an aircraft down because it had been in service for 4-6 years before it saw combat seems more than a bit harsh.


Right, but if it entered combat in ww2 it is on the list


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 16, 2018)

Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV said:


> Right, but if it entered combat in ww2 it is on the list


Hmmm, which is worse, the P-26 or the Gloster Gauntlet(used for ground attack against the Italians) ?

Now, lets figure out which one killed a higher number of it's own crew/s, hint, it might be the newest?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV (Aug 18, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Hmmm, which is worse, the P-26 or the Gloster Gauntlet(used for ground attack against the Italians) ?
> 
> Now, lets figure out which one killed a higher number of it's own crew/s, hint, it might be the newest?


?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 18, 2018)

Which fighter on your list got pulled out of service in the middle of war, production stopped, factories idled while a crash redesign was done to make it less dangerous to it's own crews?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 18, 2018)

Very few Boeing P-26s saw combat in WWII.
The few at Pearl Harbor, relegated to training, were all caught on the ground and destroyed.
The several USAAC P-26s in the Philippines were either caught on the ground during the attacks, or destroyed by their crews before evacuating.
The few Philippine Air Force P-26s fared well against the Japanese, as did the Nationalist Chinese P-26s.

So why is this even on the list?

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


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 19, 2018)

My 2 cents for whatever its worth is that this survey is, while an interesting idea, to largely influenced by date of design and service as it is presented. That is to say anything that was in sevice in the mid 30s is gonna look pretty lame compared to say an Me 262 so it becomes more of a survey of date than efficacy.
Maybe seperate similar surveys, one of pre war, one of early war, and one of late war types might yield a more even context for comparison.
Just a suggestion.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV (Aug 19, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Very few Boeing P-26s saw combat in WWII.
> The few at Pearl Harbor, relegated to training, were all caught on the ground and destroyed.
> The several USAAC P-26s in the Philippines were either caught on the ground during the attacks or destroyed by their crews before evacuating.
> The few Philippine Air Force P-26s fared well against the Japanese, as did the Nationalist Chinese P-26s.
> ...


I get what you are saying. meh... is it possible to erase options?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 19, 2018)

Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV said:


> I get what you are saying. meh... is it possible to erase options?


You may be able to add/delete poll choices if you go to the original post and click "edit".

Not real sure, it's been years since I did a poll - 

 Marcel
, is it possible to edit/change poll options after posting?


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 19, 2018)

Peashooter vs. Roc, that would be an interest matchup. P-26 was
from a different era. The Roc came along later, and could not
get out of its own way.



I forgot to mention that if you are planning to make changes
to your above listing, you might want to include Finland's
V.L. Myrsky II. For 1944 a 329 mph. frontline fighter with a
range of 310 ml. and a service ceiling of 29,500 ft. just ain't
cutting it.

Just an opinion, a thread such as this very much needs
to stipulate WHEN. Divide the junk by years that they
became operational. The Roc was pure junk when it
entered service late in 1939. The P-26 entered service
in December 1933, and was not junk at the time. Hardly
a fair comparison. If you wish to call the P-26 junk by
December 1941 you would still be wrong. If careful, it
could still do some damage. The Myrsky II of 1944?
Well, go check it out.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 19, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Peashooter vs. Roc, that would be an interest matchup. P-26 was
> from a different era. The Roc came along later, and could not
> get out of its own way.


What is interesting, is that the P-26 (flown by Philippine Army pilots) did engage A6Ms and downed several during the battle of the Philippines. 

So in a Roc vs. P-26 showdown, put my money on the P-26!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 19, 2018)

So in a Roc vs. P-26 showdown, put my money on the P-26! [/QUOTE]

Now you have the right idea, Jeff


----------



## pbehn (Aug 19, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> So in a Roc vs. P-26 showdown, put my money on the P-26!



Now you have the right idea, Jeff[/QUOTE]
The Roc was carrier capable.....if it was capable of anything.


----------



## Conslaw (Aug 19, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> What is interesting, is that the P-26 (flown by Philippine Army pilots) did engage A6Ms and downed several during the battle of the Philippines.




Please post specifics of the P-26 shooting down an A6M.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 19, 2018)

Conslaw said:


> Please post specifics of the P-26 shooting down an A6M.


I'll go one better.

Here's the operational history of the P-26 at Joe Baugher's site. 
Operational History of Boeing P-26

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Aug 20, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> You may be able to add/delete poll choices if you go to the original post and click "edit".
> 
> Not real sure, it's been years since I did a poll -
> 
> ...


I don't think deleting works, apart from deleting all, i mean, but I can change certain options. Maybe the creator of the poll can do that as well?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 20, 2018)

Thanks for the reply, Marcel!

I think I did a poll back in 2009, can't remember, but if the OP goes to edit the original post, they may be able to alter the poll options I think?

In otherword, add or delete poll options and then click save to update the changes?


----------



## Marcel (Aug 20, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Thanks for the reply, Marcel!
> 
> I think I did a poll back in 2009, can't remember, but if the OP goes to edit the original post, they may be able to alter the poll options I think?
> 
> In otherword, add or delete poll options and then click save to update the changes?


Yeah, altering works, but I doubt if deleting works. I will try to see what is possible.


----------



## Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV (Aug 20, 2018)

Marcel said:


> Yeah, altering works, but I doubt if deleting works. I will try to see what is poosible.


Thank you.


----------



## CatTheCool (Sep 5, 2018)

Blackburn roc!


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 5, 2018)

CatTheCool said:


> Blackburn roc!


The Roc is the poster child for the confluence of a bad specification and a bad design: an aircraft of the required performance may not have been possible with contemporary engines, but it certainly wasn't with the engine used. Maybe with a Centaurus (not available when the aircraft was being designed) or an R-2800. The aircraft needed at least 50% more power.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 6, 2018)

Why is the Defiant there, then? Its handling has been described as being virtually viceless and pilots enjoyed flying it. For two thirds of its front line career it was the most successful RAF night fighter, bringing down more German bombers over Britain between August 1940 and August 1942 than any other type, with the highest intercept ratio, compared to the Hurricane, Blenheim, Havoc and Beaufighter.

During the Battles of France and Britain, even taking over claiming and subsequent research into account, modern authors, such as Alec Brew, who has extensively researched the aircraft and written two very good books on it agree that by August 1940 the balance sheet was still in favour of the Defiant against enemy aircraft. There were only two squadrons operating Defiants at this time. By the time it was retired in late 1942 there were 16 squadrons that partially or wholly operated it as a night fighter. That doesn't appear to be a bad run of things at all and hardly qualifies it for inclusion in the 'worst fighter' list.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 6, 2018)

This "worst" list seems to reflect popular social media nonsense that keeps circulating.

I already called out one type on the list and I let the Me210 pass, since it was actually successful in the hands of the Hungarian Air Force in the mission role it was designed for.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 6, 2018)

nuuumannn said:


> Why is the Defiant there, then? Its handling has been described as being virtually viceless and pilots enjoyed flying it. For two thirds of its front line career it was the most successful RAF night fighter, bringing down more German bombers over Britain between August 1940 and August 1942 than any other type, with the highest intercept ratio, compared to the Hurricane, Blenheim, Havoc and Beaufighter.
> 
> During the Battles of France and Britain, even taking over claiming and subsequent research into account, modern authors, such as Alec Brew, who has extensively researched the aircraft and written two very good books on it agree that by August 1940 the balance sheet was still in favour of the Defiant against enemy aircraft. There were only two squadrons operating Defiants at this time. By the time it was retired in late 1942 there were 16 squadrons that partially or wholly operated it as a night fighter. That doesn't appear to be a bad run of things at all and hardly qualifies it for inclusion in the 'worst fighter' list.



I think a little clarification may be order. 
Now I am guilty of leaving out words on occasion (many occasions) myself that change the meaning of sentences, but _By the time it was retired in late 1942 there were 16 squadrons that partially or wholly operated it as a night fighter. _paints a rather false impression. A word or two left out?? It happens. 

16 squadrons had been equipped, either wholly or partially during that time period, with the Defiant but there were very few by the summer/fall of 1942. One Squadron was declared operational on Defiants in the beginning of Aug 1941 and was receiving it's first Beaufighters by the end of the month. 

The claim it was The most successful RAF nightfighter for 2/3ds of it's career may need looking at too. Some of the forum members has much more access to records or books than I do but some things just don't seem to line up well. Perhaps somebody was very selective in picking the dates for that 2/3rds of it's career or something? 
No 604 squadron was equipped with Blenheims at the start of the BoB, how many had radar I don't know, first Beaufighters started to trickle in Sept of 1940.
John Cunningham (and is gunner/radar operator Jimmy Rawnsley) were to claim 13 (?) German aircraft by June of 1941, another 604 pilot Roderick Chisholm was to claim 7 from March of 1941 to July of 1941. Both were flying Beaufighters. The squadron claimed 50 (or 36?) victories by mid May of 1941. 

Maybe the claims didn't hold up? 
But 50/36 claims by one squadron in 7-8 months makes one wonder what the rest of the Beaufighters were doing during the "career" of the Defiant that Defiant can claim to be Britain's most successful night fighter for any period of time.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 6, 2018)

OK SR, I know you refuse to accept any positive comment on the Defiant, but I'll clarify for you. Slip of the keyboard, actually 14, not 16 fighter squadrons wholly or partially operated the Defiant night fighter - I did not specify when or at what time, I merely stated that compared to only two as a day fighter (actually three, but 307 Sqn became a night fighter unit shortly after receiving its Defiants in September 1940).

To go into specifics, those listed in five different books I have (Boulton Paul Defiant by Alan Hall, Aircraft of the Royal Air Force since 1918 by Owen Thetford, The Defiant File by Alec Brew, Profile Publications Number 117 The Boulton Paul Defiant, Camouflage and Markings RAF Northern Europe 1936 - 45 Number 8 Bolton Paul Defiant): 2, 85, 96, 125, 141, 151, 153, 255, 256, 264, 307, 409, 410, 456. (2 Sqn is listed as an Army Co-operation unit, but flew night fighter operations, and 2 and 85 were the partial squadrons; 85 also operating Hurricanes).



> Perhaps somebody was very selective in picking the dates for that 2/3rds of it's career or something?



No, actually. The Defiant entered service in December 1939 and was relegated to night duties at the end of August 1940, that's around 8 months, so between August 1940 (264 Sqn scored its first night fighter kill on 15 August) and July 1942, when 264 Sqn relinquished the last of its Defiants was 23 months, just under two years. That means that yes, roughly two thirds of its career as a front line fighter it served with success.

Apart from the books I've already listed, it would pay to read Allied Wings No.8 Boulton Paul Defiant by Phil Listemann and Andrew Thomas, and The Turret Fighters by Alec Brew. The former specifically deals with the Defiant's record as a day fighter with 141 and 264 Squadrons and is a statistical analysis of the first 8 months of the type's 'career'.

Thought I'd throw in this from Wiki:

"In the opening months of 1941, as the German night bombing campaign reached its peak, increasing numbers of Defiant night fighter-equipped squadrons became operational and commenced night patrols although, according to Bowyers, there were relatively few claims across many Defiant sorties. As a counterpoint, aviation author John Taylor noted that during the _Blitz_ on London of 1940–41, the four Defiant-equipped squadrons were responsible for shooting down more enemy aircraft than any other type in the theatre"

From here, sources listed at the bottom, including those that I've listed already: Boulton Paul Defiant - Wikipedia

Now it really is bed time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 7, 2018)

> John Cunningham (and is gunner/radar operator Jimmy Rawnsley) were to claim 13 (?) German aircraft by June of 1941, another 604 pilot Roderick Chisholm was to claim 7 from March of 1941 to July of 1941. Both were flying Beaufighters. The squadron claimed 50 (or 36?) victories by mid May of 1941.
> 
> Maybe the claims didn't hold up? But 50/36 claims by one squadron in 7-8 months makes one wonder what the rest of the Beaufighters were doing during the "career" of the Defiant that Defiant can claim to be Britain's most successful night fighter for any period of time.



To answer this, I've turned to a few other books within my collection, notably the following; Defiant, Blenheim and Havoc Aces and Beaufighter Aces of World War Two, both written by the same author, Andrew Thomas and published by Osprey. Before anyone gets any scepticism over the publisher - and remember that Osprey is a publishing house, not a writer - that employs a large number of different authors to scribe its books, Andrew Thomas is very authoritative and thorough in his research, interviewing surviving pilots, checking their log books, accessing squadron ORBs and Combat Reports from the RAF Museum and The National Archive, so he's done his homework. He has also authored books on the Brewster Buffalo and P-40 in RAF service, both of which have the same attention to detail and which I also have on my shelf.

I also referred to Blenheim Squadrons By Jon Lake and The Defiant File by Alec Brew for cross checking Blenheim and Defiant information. Reading through Thomas' assessment of the Beaufighter as a night fighter, it was undoubtedly successful, Beaufighters just weren't in the majority between August 1940 and mid 1941, in which time the majority of the Defiant kills were made. There were only a handful of Beaufighter night fighter units in this time, of which 219, 600 and 604 were the most successful (50 claims by end of May 1941! Found on 604 Sqn's wiki page - putting this into perspective however, 264 (Defiant) Sqn claimed 32 kills in one day!); 219 Sqn scoring its first kill in February 1941 and scoring 20 victories by the end of May. In the same time period, as I claimed in my previous post, there were 13 Defiant night fighter squadrons and one AC unit.

From Autumn 1940 through winter 1941, Beaufighters arrived with their squadrons in ones and twos, delivery and operational readiness taking a lot longer than what was envisaged. From when the first Beau fighter units received their aircraft in the summer of 1940 until February 1941, there were only two Beaufighter night victories, both by Cunningham as pilot. Defiant night kills were three times that in the same time period. The first Beaufighter night kill was on 19 November 1940, it was the first Beaufighter AI kill and was the origin of the 'Catseyes' nickname Cunningham received. (As well as the propaganda ministry's claim that Cunningham ate lots of carrots, which gave him extraordinary eyesight at night!) Cunningham became the first Beaufighter ace, with a kill on 7 April 1941.

This meant that in this time the Defiant squadrons were doing the bulk of the night fighter work, with Blenheim, Havoc and Hurricane units also active. That winter was quite severe weather wise and intercepts, let alone kills were few and far between, with the LW taking a hiatus in night ops during the worst weather, naturally. This was a period of frustration for night fighter crews as lessons needed to be learned and their inexperience showed from failed intercepts and general lack of success, as well as a high accident rate, both at squadron level and OTU level.

By April and May however, things heated up for all the night fighter units with the Blitz in full swing. All the night fighter units did well in this period. By June 1941 Defiants were giving way to Beaufighters as numbers increased from the factories and then on, the Beaufighter became the predominant British night fighter, with a handful of Defiant units lasting until July 1942 (96, 151, 264). Havocs also remained active, and oddly, despite its lack of any success whatsoever, the Turbinlite flights remained until mid 1942, but Beaufighters dominated and the first Mosquitoes were arriving; 264 (Defiant) Sqn receiving its first Mosquito in April 1942.

I haven't finished collating information on kills, based on the reports in these books, which will take time, but from the appendicies in Defiant, Blenheim and Havoc Aces, there were 57 fighter aces that scored kills on these three types, of these 26 were flying Defiants, 19 Blenheims and 12 Havocs. These are not indicitive of the actual number of kills, but highlight the higher proportion of Defiant aces compared to the other types in that period - the list only records aces with five or more kills, too. Unfortunately the number of Beaufighter aces in the same period cannot be collated since there is no means of comparing within the same time frame from the lists.

Suffice to say, in conclusion, there were not that many Beaufighters around until May and June 1941, when they were able to step down Defiant units for transitioning to the Beaufighter - 141 Sqn relinquished its Defiants for Beaus in April '41. The high rate of Beaufighter kills by fewer individuals in fewer units compared to the Defiant showed the inadequacies of that type in that it had no radar and was too slow. These were known issues with the type, but the slowness of the Beaufighter to enter service meant the Defiant was around for longer than anticipated and was able to rack up an impressive tally. This illustrates that the Defiant's rate of interceptions was remarkable - it did better than what was expected, given its limitations. An issue that initially plagued the Beaufighter however, was the awful handling of the NF.II Merlin engined fighter, which resulted in numerous accidents on take off and landing and ground loop incidents.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 7, 2018)

First, I would like to thank you for your detailed reply and the effort it took to look into this. I have "Defiant, Blenheim and Havoc Aces" and while an interesting read , it is not the easiest book to get the results we are looking for from. I am not saying anything about the accuracy, just that the Author will bring a pilot in and out of the narrative and not refresh our memories as to what type of plane he was flying (or sometimes what squadron he was flying with at the time). When dealing with a book on one type of aircraft that may be perfectly fine. When dealing with 3 aircraft not so much. So thanks again for going through this. 

The problem with the Defiant (for me anyway) is that it served for a long time. From Dec 1939 to July of 1942 in combat squadrons although for many of those months it was just one or two squadrons. That in itself it not an issue as many other aircraft had slow introductions and/or slow fade-outs from service. 
The problem/s start to come with statements like "For two thirds of its front line career it was the most successful RAF night fighter, bringing down more German bombers over Britain between August 1940 and August 1942 than any other type"

Now even if we shorten it's career to Aug 1940 to Aug 1942 that is 24 months and 2/3rds of that is 16 months. 
The Peak activity of the German night bombing was from Sept 1940 to May of 1941, about 8 months. During those 8 months the Defiants were not equipped with radar. They may have, in some months made up a fair number of the night fighter forces, I haven't crossed checked many references, but one says eight squadrons by May of 1941, By way of Wiki " aviation author John Taylor noted that during the _Blitz_ on London of 1940–41, the four Defiant-equipped squadrons were responsible for shooting down more enemy aircraft than any other type in the theatre." Which rather leaves four squadrons of Defiants out of it? Or they were only formed up at the very end of the Blitz? And whether there were 14 squadons or 16 total that flew the Defiant at night in it's career is rather imaterial to the fact that many of those squadrons (at least 6?) didn't fly them until the major German effort was over and German activity was so low that many of the night fighters (even with better radar) weren't getting much in the way of intercepts. 
According to one book (Night Fighters) by Bill Gunston the British night fighters claimed 96 German aircraft destroyed (?) in the first two week of May which is asmany (or more) than for the entire period of Sept to the end of April (and April was 48 claimed destroyed). He does not break it down by type and he could obviously be in error. Or Defiants could have shot down a large percentage of that 96 and held on to the claim of shooting down more in theater than any other type. 
We also run into the problem of what a particular author considers the "Blitz" in regards to time period to be counted. I am sure to some people on the ground the _Blitz_ ended when the last bomb fell. To some people it ended when the Bulk of the Luftwaffe headed for Russia in the last 1/2 of May 1941. To others it was somewhere in between. 

Wike does not help with statements like " In September 1941, 264 Squadron became the first to receive the Defiant Mk II, bringing them into operational use by mid-September. The principal uses of the Mk II night fighter were 96, 151, and 262 Squadrons.[34] As the radar-equipped Defiants began filtering through to operational squadrons, the _Luftwaffe'_s bombing campaign petered out as German forces had become heavily engaged on the Eastern Front as they embarked upon the invasion of the Soviet Union.[34]"
The Luftwaffe's bombing campaign over Britain was petering out in the last 2 weeks of May and June let alone Sept/Oct/Nov of 1941. If anything the German forces left in the west _might _have become more active in the fall of 1941 than in the summer due to the increasing length of the nights compared to the summer? 

As far as the Beaufighter IIF goes, the first production aircraft didn't fly until March 22nd 1941 and it equipped only four squadrons by the end of 1941. So whatever it's handling problems may have been, they didn't affect it's operational performance during the "Blitz" which ended (?) in May of 1941. First Squadron to use the Beuafighter IIF was Nos 406 squadron in June 1941. 
For the winter of 1940 and the Spring of 1941 it was the Beaufighter I. 

Trying to filter though all the claims (not aircraft victory claims, they are a subject all their own) ) made about some of the aircraft involved is difficult because some of the timelines don't seem to line up. 

And some of the pilots reports/accounts are a bit discouraging. Flg Off Stuart of No 264 squadron is supposed to have scored the only victory by No 264 squadron while using a radar equipped Defiant which was done on April 18th 1942. This was supposed to be No 264's 97th victory and the 15th at night. 
Defiant aces can also be confusing as Flg Off Michael Young shows, 7 kills and 6 shared he scored a kill on an intruder mission on May 9th 1941 but it was his only night victory. 

And we comments like "_In September 1941 _(125)_the squadron moved to RAF Fairwood Common and became fully operational, with the Defiant proving to be a more than effective night fighter. By March 1942, 125 Squadron started converting to the twin-engined Beaufighter._"
Now when going through "Defiant, Blenheim and Havoc Aces" you can find several references to No 125 squadron but no mention of either a kill or claim by the squadron during the time it had Defiants. With no kills (or indeed no mention of even an unsuccessful intercept) how does that turn into the Defiant being a more than effective night fighter? 

Not kills/claims recorded in that "Aces" book or the author of the Wiki article embellishing things or????? 

The Length of service is a problem in that one can take selective slices out of the length of service and make a claim that might be statistically true for for that slice of time but if you extend that "slice" a few month it is no longer true. The Defiant did give good service in getting large numbers of aircrew and ground crew up to speed in a difficult time and did so with a minimum of accidents and needless problems.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 11, 2018)

SR, I'm hoping to go into this in more depth later; busy right now, but a few things to begin with. Firstly, good to see you are reading about the Defiant rather than just dismissing it out of hand without doing so. Secondly, the statement I made was generic for the purposes of this thread, which, of course does warrant further explanation, but thus far you haven't really provided anything other than questioning time periods of service to really discredit it. At least I have provided supporting evidence from quantifiable sources.

Thirdly, yes, the time period I specify refers to the fact that it was in service for that entire time, regardless of what or how many squadrons used it at any given time within that period; it makes no difference whether x squadron used it for only a month and then changed to Beaufighters, or y squadron used it for the majority of that period. The Defiant was still a front line night fighter from August 1940 through until July 1942. It was in service in that role with as many as 13 night fighter squadrons at differing times throughout that period. That is indisputable. Fourthly, questioning the premise based on the activities of only one squadron's use of the type is never going to provide you with any real measureable result. Fifthly, the Beaufighter II was mentioned not to prove its inferiority within the time frame specified, but to emphasise that it was a handful for young pilots at OTU level, which did not endear it to its operators. There was a high rate of incidents and accidents resulting from its handling.



> The Defiant did give good service in getting large numbers of aircrew and ground crew up to speed in a difficult time and did so with a minimum of accidents and needless problems.



This is quite possibly the nicest thing you've ever written about the Defiant! I will take umbrage with the fact that there were minimum accidents, though. The accident rate was high. The unit that operated more Defiants than any other was 60 OTU, which was formed at Leconfield for a few months only, but was at East Fortune for over a year and there was a high accident rate there, although not caused by any defect within the type, but because of pilots' inexperience in operating at night. Nevertheless, the Defiant had docile handling, described by test pilot Eric 'Winkle' Brown as being almost viceless, which would have been much help for struggling tyro pilots.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 11, 2018)

Grant, I recall reading ages ago that the performance of the Defiant without it's turret was compared to the Hurricane, but a "delight to fly".

I don't recall if this was in regards to the P.82 or the P.94 airframe.

Like I mentioned, this was a long time ago (longer than I'm willing to admit), are you aware of this comment and who may have made it?


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 11, 2018)

The prototype Defiant K8310 was delivered to A&AEE early December 1937.
The turret was not installed. A metal fairing took its place. Its maximum speed
was 320 mph. It was fitted with the 4-gun turret in February 1938 and its speed
fell to 303 mph. With this 17 mph. different taken into consideration the Mk.II
would have had a maximum speed of 330 mph. or possibly more.

I can not remember where I read that one historian felt that the Defiant
would have been a much more valuable fighter if the turret had been
removed and the standard 8 x 0.303 in armament in the wings was
fitted. Another note is that the Mk.II Defiant was capable of reaching
a maximum climb rate of 2,780 fpm at 10,700 ft. I believe without the
turret, extra crew and ammunition the Mk.II would have been over
3,000 fpm.

No folks, in no way shape or form can this aircraft be considered the
worst fighter of WW2.
, Jeff


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 11, 2018)

I have done a quick and dirty tally of the kills (and damaged/probables) as listed in "Defiant, Blenheim and Havoc Aces" and will fully agree that it is only one book, and some other source/s may be more complete and authoritative.

With that said it appears that as a _nightfighter _The Defiant scored 1 kill in Aug 1940, 1 kill in Sep, 1 in Oct, 0 (?) in Nov and 1 in Dec 1940. Jan saw 1 kill, 2 in Feb,
7 (?) in March followed by 16 (?) in April and 18-19 (?) in May of 1941. 

Bill Gunstons book claims night fighters shot down 48 German aircraft in April ( Defiant, Blenheim and Havoc Aces says 58 aircraft but includes aircraft shot down by British intruders over European airfields). I included aircraft claimed as damaged or probably in the above numbers as sometimes confirmation came days later than the claims (or were sometimes confirmed for the book by German records). I may have miscounted by I am trying to give the Defiant the benefit of the doubt. 
Blenheims appear to have shot down about 20-21 Aircraft at night from July of 1940 through Dec and then either none or 1-2 in the spring of 1941?

Havocs appear to have shot down 7-8 aircraft from Sept through Dec of 1940 and 8-9 from Jan through May of 1941. Often on intruder sorties. 

I have no numbers for Hurricanes or Beaufighters or anything else the British may have put up at some point over that Fall/Winter/Spring. 

Over the winter the number of kills of the whole Nightfighter force was so low as to make nonsense of trying to pick a "best" fighter type. Oct may have seen 2-4 kills as did Dec. November saw no kills by the 3 types in the book, Beaufighters and Hurricanes _might_ also have zero kills for Nov? March sees the start of significant numbers of kills/claims. 
The Defiant scored about 1/3 of the kills in March and April and perhaps 25% (or less) in May. Once the Bulk of the Luftwaffe heads for Russia the number of kills per month drops back to single digits (or close to it) per month over the summer. 

The Defiant may not have been the worst fighter of WW II but the claims that it was Britain's best nightfighter for any period of time over a few months seems to be an exaggeration. The British also shot themselves in the foot by modifying about 20 Bostons to tow the long arial mine (LAM) and also started converting Havocs to the turbinelite scheme rather than use them as conventional intruders (no radar) or nightfighters and thus deprived themselves of several squadrons worth of useful nightfighters during the spring of 1941. 

It would appear that the bulk of the victories claimed by night fighter forces in March, April and May of 1941 were done by Beaufighters and Hurricanes.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 20, 2018)

Oh gawd. Since you can't present figures for the Beaufighter or Hurricane, your claim they were more successful rings a bit hollow, because, what exactly are you basing that on? I do agree the Beaufighters was definitely more successful than the Defiant overall, but I was specifying a particular time period. Nevertheless, the Defiant was a success in the role, and I guess we can agree on that. It might be an exaggeration, but it might not, too, since you can't provide definitive figures and that a couple of noted authors have made the statement. it's also good to see you examining the evidence, rather than making not entirely accurate and ill-considered sweeping statements about the Defiant, though, SR.

So, moving on, I would place the Me 163 Komet as one of the worst fighters of WW2. From Wikipedia: "Combat operations continued from May 1944 to spring 1945. During this time, there were nine confirmed kills with 14 Me 163s lost."
Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet - Wikipedia

Let's not forget its volatile habit of spontaneously exploding under certain conditions, which surely makes it the most unpredictably dangerous combat aircraft of WW2.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 20, 2018)

A good candidate for the "worst" might be the Bachem Ba349.

36 were built out of the 200 ordered (Luftwaffe: 50, SS: 150).
None were ever used in combat but still managed to kill one person - a test pilot (Lothar Seiber).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Dec 20, 2018)

Staying on your list I voted Messerschmitt 210. Not ready for series production and cost Herr Messerschmitt control of his company. Although it quickly evolved into the much better Me410 that however ended up been a plane without anything role it was really useful for. The practicality of the daylight "Zerstroyer" twin was over by 1941.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 21, 2018)

taly01 said:


> Staying on your list I voted Messerschmitt 210. Not ready for series production and cost Herr Messerschmitt control of his company. Although it quickly evolved into the much better Me410 that however ended up been a plane without anything role it was really useful for. The practicality of the daylight "Zerstroyer" twin was over by 1941.


However, the Hungarian Air Force did use the Me210 with great success.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 21, 2018)

Having voted for the Roc, I'm intrigued to see the tallies to-date. Interesting that the PZL P11c has zero votes. I'm intrigued to know what that didn't get a single vote and yet aircraft like the Buffalo and Me210 get over 17% of the votes.


----------



## taly01 (Dec 22, 2018)

> However, the Hungarian Air Force did use the Me210 with great success.



I have a bias against the Me210 cause it messed up the german nightfighter capabilities for almost a year from the stopped then restarted Bf110 production due to Me210 early design problems. The fixed Me210C seems to have been good for Hungarians, yet the Germans themselves never mass produced it and moved on to making the even faster Me410.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 22, 2018)

nuuumannn said:


> Oh gawd. Since you can't present figures for the Beaufighter or Hurricane, your claim they were more successful rings a bit hollow, because, what exactly are you basing that on? I do agree the Beaufighters was definitely more successful than the Defiant overall, but I was specifying a particular time period. Nevertheless, the Defiant was a success in the role, and I guess we can agree on that. It might be an exaggeration, but it might not, too, since you can't provide definitive figures and that a couple of noted authors have made the statement. it's also good to see you examining the evidence, rather than making not entirely accurate and ill-considered sweeping statements about the Defiant, though, SR.



No, I can't present figures for the Beaufighter or Hurricane, but we can use the process of elimination. 

We have one book, which could be in error giving total claims for ALL night fighters in March, April and May (first two weeks) and we have 2nd book detailing claims for the Defiant, the Blenheim and the Boston/Hovac. the numbers are off substantially. 

We _know_ that Hurricanes and Beaufighters were being used by the night fighter forces at that time, perhaps another type or two in small numbers?
Picking on April, first book says 48 german aircraft shot down. 2nd book says 58.
BUT of that number (or either one) only 16 are shot down by Defiants. 2 are shot down (maybe or maybe there were other spring months) by Blenheims and the Hovac claimded 8-9 from Jan through May, how many in April? Let's say two for arguments sake, adjust as you see fit.

so 20 out of 48 (or 58?) are shot down by those 3 fighters doing night fighter duties,

What shot down the rest? How many other types of fighters was the nightfighter force equipped with?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 29, 2018)

Well, I don't have the answers, SR, and I've conceded that the Daffy might not have been the highest scorer at that time, but it was the most available at the time and I have also read (James Kightly, contributing author to Aeroplane Monthly and various other aviation magazines - can't find the exact source) that it had the highest intercept to kill ratio within a specific time period, between end of 1940 and early 1942, which doesn't necessarily mean highest number of kills. This impressive for two reasons, no radar (except in the Mk.II, but as we know, only one enemy aircraft was claimed shot down by a Defiant using AI radar) and the fact it gets lambasted so often for being a rubbish fighter.


----------



## Conslaw (Jan 5, 2019)

My nominee fpr worst fighter of WWII would be the A7M Reppu, the planned successor to the A6M Zero. The reason is that it was the plane that Japan needed the most but it never entered regular production, despite design work having begun in 1940.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 5, 2019)

I haven't voted yet. Im trying to tackle the issue of what makes "worst". I am thinking probably the aircraft that had the most resouces lavished on it and which delivered the least return for that investment. 

An aircraft designed an built in 1930 and still around in 1940, but still provided some service to its country isn't necessarily the worst. if it can do the job expected of it, it helps as well. 

The real losers are the ones for which massive resources were expended and which basically returned zip.. Aircraft that might fill that criteria might include: Me 163, A7M, as well as numerous allied types that just couldn't do what they were supposed to do. .

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 5, 2019)

While not a fighter, the Curtiss SO3C is a textbook example of a disaster that was allowed to happen.

The SO3C was a US Navy Observation-Scout floatplane that was put into service in 1942. It had development issues that caused a delivery delay, difficult to maintain, was unstable in flight and woefully underpowered. 

The Seamew was such a flop, that the Navy brought the SOC Seagull, which had first went into USN service in 1935, back from retirement to serve theough the end of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 5, 2019)

The US XP-75 might qualify with up to 14 built for no results. 
The Russians may have few batches of of planes that are in the running. However it gets a bit tricky as some were just variants of otherwise successful aircraft that were fitted with underdeveloped engines. Build 50 - 100 aircraft, park them for months and then refit with older engines? 

Lots of countries had failed designs/prototypes that they built 1-4 of. 
For a truly spectacular fail a country would have had to invest in production tooling/ factory space at the very least or produced enough aircraft to equipe one or more squadrons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> For a truly spectacular fail a country would have had to invest in production tooling/ factory space at the very least or produced enough aircraft to equipe one or more squadrons.


The SO3C certainly falls into that category, with nearly 800 units manufactured and put into service with the USN and Royal Navy.
With insufficient Kingfisher numbers, the USN scrambled to get as many SOCs back into service as possible - which was no easy feat, considering the Seagull only numbered less than 400 units delivered in the 30's and after thier initial retirement, were dispersed to training centers or stored, thier numbers reduced by both operational incidents and attacks by the Japanese.


----------



## taly01 (Jan 9, 2019)

> The Russians may have few batches of of planes that are in the running.



Reminded me of the LaGG-1 to 3, the early models were so bad the I-16 usually outperformed it and the designers Gorbunov and Gudkov were expelled from the company.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## aircro (Apr 25, 2019)

My vote for the worst is - He 162. 
To produce wooden jet after Ta 154 fiasco... and instead to be flown by hitlerjugend, become experienced pilot - killer.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Apr 25, 2019)

aircro said:


> My vote for the worst is - He 162.
> To produce wooden jet after Ta 154 fiasco... and instead to be flown by hitlerjugend, become experienced pilot - killer.


Nothing wrong with wooden jets _per se_. Witness the de Havilland Vampire, which carried on (in parts) the Mosquito pattern of moulded wood construction.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 25, 2019)

aircro said:


> My vote for the worst is - He 162.



You know, the He 162 gets a bad rap, but experts who flew it comment favourably about its virtues. Here's what our Scottish correspondent in-absentia has to say about it in his book Wings of the Luftwaffe:

"In view of the fact that the He 162 never saw combat, we are left with the intriguing if purely academic question of how it would have made out if it had been used in anger. It would certainly have been an effective gun platform, and its small dimensions would have rendered it difficult to hit. Even if somewhat underpowered, it had a good performance - it could certainly have run rings around the contemporary Meteor - but it was no aeroplane to let embryo pilots loose on, and it would have demanded more than simply a_ good _pilot to operate it out of a small airfield. Nevertheless, as a back up for the formidable Me 262 it could conceivably have helped the Luftwaffe to regain air superiority over Germany had it appeared on the scene sooner.

Personally, I shall always recall the He 162 with affection as it gave me some exhilarating hours in the air, and I cannot help but fell that the Allies were fortunate for, had another month or two and the necessary fuel been available, the He 162 might well have got in among our bombers in numbers at a time when desperate measures might just have chieved sensational results."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 25, 2019)

KiwiBiggles said:


> which carried on (in parts) the Mosquito pattern of moulded wood construction.



Yes indeed, also, the first two seat Vampire was the NF.10, whose cockpit cross section dimensions were exactly the same as the Mosquito. The same section was also used on the T.11 trainer as well.


----------



## taly01 (Apr 26, 2019)

> You know, the He 162 gets a bad rap, but experts who flew it comment favourably about its virtues. Here's what our Scottish correspondent in-absentia has to say about it in his book Wings of the Luftwaffe:



He162 is intriguing plane, the main fault was the tail unit would fall off! Not surprising when you look at the incredibly small fuselage section it was attached to. Victim of its rushed development, could have been fixed with testing and normal development cycle of course.

It did have ejector seat and was a very small target, as a cheap disposable interceptor, better than Me163 and Me262. Been so light and small I bet it accelerated well for an early jet. Its 2x20mm was not great knock down power , but a good burst would wreck a plane from service.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 26, 2019)

Actually, a good number of the He162s were armed with Mk108 30mm cannon (A-1 series).
And due to it's size (weight to thrust), it was one of the fastest warplanes of WWII.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 22, 2019)

CatTheCool said:


> Blackburn roc!


From the choices offered I would have to agree, though the design philosophy involved was that the Roc was never meant to indulge in fighter-vs-fighter combat, but only for intercepting slower seaplanes far from shore. But at least the Roc achieved one victory over a very capable opponent, a Ju-88, on 28th May 1940.
My personal choice would be the CAC Boomerang, simply because it failed to rack up a single air combat victory, despite having a reasonable engine (compared to its opponent, the Nakajima Ki-43) and excellent armament (2 x 20mm Hispano and 4 x .303 Browning). The same Twin Wasp engine at least got some results in the Buffalo and Wildcat, and with much lighter firepower in either of the American fighters. 
To make matters worse for the Boomerang, even the trainer it was developed from, the Whirraway, achieved at least one aerial victory (on 12th December 1942) in the same theatre against the same Japanese fighters as the Boomerang failed against. To emphasize the skill (and guts!) of that Whirraway's pilot, Pilot Officer John S. "Jack" Archer, he shot down a Ki-43 with only the two cowl-mounted, synchronized Vickers .303 MGs, in a trainer-cum-bomber with a 600hp engine!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 22, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> "In view of the fact that the He 162 never saw combat....."


 IIRC, the last RAF loss in the ETO was a Typhoon credited to an He.162.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 22, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Having voted for the Roc, I'm intrigued to see the tallies to-date. Interesting that the PZL P11c has zero votes. I'm intrigued to know what that didn't get a single vote and yet aircraft like the Buffalo and Me210 get over 17% of the votes.


It might be because the Polish P11c actually managed to shoot down quite a few more modern Luftwaffe aircraft in 1939.
And, IIRC, the twelve Philippine Army Air Corp Peashooters available scored four victories, despite being massively-outnumbered, against Japanese bombers over the Philippines. P-26s also scored against the Japanese in the hands of the Chinese in 1937, and held their own against the very similar Mitsubishi A5M Claude, so not exactly a failure.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 22, 2019)

The P-26 was a first generation monoplane fighter; in 1941, it was past its best used-by date. It actually preceded the Gladiator into service

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Jun 24, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> The P-26 was a first generation monoplane fighter; in 1941, it was past its best used-by date. It actually preceded the Gladiator into service



With a top speed of 230 MPH give or take most of the biplane fighters of the mid-1930s were faster than the P-26. The Gloster Gladiator I had a listed top speed of 253 MPH. 

The Japanese Army's biplane Ki-10, which didn't even fly until 1935, had a similar top speed to the Gladiator, but also had surprising stats in its climb rate 1000 m/s (3,280 ft/sec) and service ceiling, 11,500 meters (37,730 ft). That service ceiling is higher than any of Japan's mass-produced fighters of World War II.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wirbelwind (Jun 26, 2019)

parsifal said:


> I haven't voted yet. Im trying to tackle the issue of what makes "worst". I am thinking probably the aircraft that had the most resouces lavished on it and which delivered the least return for that investment.
> 
> An aircraft designed an built in 1930 and still around in 1940, but still provided some service to its country isn't necessarily the worst. if it can do the job expected of it, it helps as well.
> 
> The real losers are the ones for which massive resources were expended and which basically returned zip.. Aircraft that might fill that criteria might include: Me 163, A7M, as well as numerous allied types that just couldn't do what they were supposed to do. .



Also the Blackburn Firebrand.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 29, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> IIRC, the last RAF loss in the ETO was a Typhoon credited to an He.162.



Hmm, my mistake. It was a Tempest, however, not a Typhoon. In Typhoon and Tempest At War by Chris Thomas and Chris Shores is the following: "Even on this last day of real action [4 May], a loss was suffered by 486 Sqn - the last of the war - when Fg Off Austin was brought down to force-land and became a prisoner. Although reportedly to Flak, it now seems that his aircraft was the sole victory to be claimed for the new He 162 jet, Lt Schmidt of IJG 1, just operational on this type, making a claim for a 'Typhoon' on this date."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Freebird (Jun 29, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I have done a quick and dirty tally of the kills (and damaged/probables) as listed in "Defiant, Blenheim and Havoc Aces" and will fully agree that it is only one book, and some other source/s may be more complete and authoritative.
> 
> With that said it appears that as a _nightfighter _The Defiant scored 1 kill in Aug 1940, 1 kill in Sep, 1 in Oct, 0 (?) in Nov and 1 in Dec 1940. Jan saw 1 kill, 2 in Feb,
> 7 (?) in March followed by 16 (?) in April and 18-19 (?) in May of 1941.
> ...



40 or so kills by the Defiant from Mar-June is a very substantial number, far more than the Roc or P-26 could dream of.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2019)

Freebird said:


> 40 or so kills by the Defiant from Mar-June is a very substantial number, far more than the Roc or P-26 could dream of.




We are constantly told that the Defiant was one of Britain's best night fighters during the night Blitz of 1940-41.

Like Wiki quoting John Taylor. "As a counterpoint, aviation author John Taylor noted that during the _Blitz_ on London of 1940–41, the four Defiant-equipped squadrons were responsible for shooting down more enemy aircraft than any other type in the theatre "

I believe there were more than 4 squadrons of Defiants by the spring of 1941. perhaps 7 squadrons?

Over 90 Aircraft were claimed by night fighters in the first two weeks of May and if only 18-19 were shot down by Defiants what was shooting down the rest?
The Blenheim was being phased out by May, the Boston/Havoc was being used as in intruder into France and being horrible misused in the turbinlite scheme so they weren't shooting down much.
Hurricane night fighters?

How about the Beaufighter? Just perhaps that was the most successful night fighter in the "theater".

I have no idea why you are bringing in the P-26 as a WW II fighter, sure it was in the Philippines but let's remember it went into service about year before the Gloster Gauntlet and 3 years before the Gloster Gladiator. The last one came off the production line in 1936.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 30, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I have no idea why you are bringing in the P-26 as a WW II fighter


Spanish Civil War (no kills, by the way), China and then the Philippines.

So *technically* speaking, it is included in aircraft involved in WWII and the fact that the Philippine Air Force pilots were able to down some A6Ms during the Philippine invasion is remarkable and a shining example of sheer determination in the face of overwhelming odds.

But the P-26 was not unique in being an anachronism in the whirlwind - there was the Polikarpov I-15 and Po-2 (U-2), the Tupolev Tb-3, Bristol Bulldog (provided first Finnish kill of the Winter War) and even a Vickers Valentia saw action in North Africa with the SAAF in the early 40's.
There's several other examples, but the bottom line is that there is a strange attraction to the underdog...

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 30, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> We are constantly told that the Defiant was one of Britain's best night fighters during the night Blitz of 1940-41.



It was. I mean, what else was there? Yes, the Beaufighter was better overall, but the Turbinlite was terrible, the Havoc was found wanting in the role, as was the Blenheim. Yes there were also Hurricane night fighters, so what are you left with? What exactly are you comparing it with?



Shortround6 said:


> How about the Beaufighter? Just perhaps that was the most successful night fighter in the "theater".



Yes, it quite possibly was, but I think the point behind the Defiant is that it did have a far better career as a night fighter than as a day fighter - it was successful *by the standards of the day*, let's not forget that. The Beaufighter was better, hands down; it had radar, which the earlier Defiants didn't (even then only one scored a kill using radar), and this made all the difference. What the Defiant did however, was impressive given the limitations it faced. Had the Beaufighter not been fitted with radar (because, let's face it, the radar was unreliable and prone to failure, but when it worked it was worth its while) its arguable that its successes might not have been any better that the Defiant's.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 30, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Over 90 Aircraft were claimed by night fighters in the first two weeks of May and if only 18-19 were shot down by Defiants what was shooting down the rest?



Probably the Beaufighter and Hurricane. Just looking at the numbers, according to _Squadrons! No.19 The Boulton Paul Defint Day and Night Fighter _by Phil H. Listerman, in the first two weeks of May, 96 Sqn claimed 4 e/a, 141 Sqn, 6, 151 Sqn, 4, 255 Sqn, 6, 256 Sqn, 5, 264 Sqn, 6 and 307 Sqn 1 for a total of 32 in a two week period. So that equates to a third of the "over 90 aircraft claimed". Again though, the Beaufighter was responsible for the majority of those remaining, then that means the Defiant shot down more than the Hurricane, which means it definitely _was_ "one of the best British night fighters" at the time. If someone could produce a list of Hurricane night kills in the first two weeks of May, that'd help.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Freebird (Jul 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> How about the Beaufighter? Just perhaps that was the most successful night fighter in the "theater".
> 
> I have no idea why you are bringing in the P-26 as a WW II fighter, sure it was in the Philippines but let's remember it went into service about year before the Gloster Gauntlet and 3 years before the Gloster Gladiator. The last one came off the production line in 1936.



I mentioned the Roc or Peashooter because they were other poll options.
The BP Defiant wasnt a "great" WWII fighter, but it wasn't the worst.


----------



## Juha3 (Jul 5, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Hmm, my mistake. It was a Tempest, however, not a Typhoon. In Typhoon and Tempest At War by Chris Thomas and Chris Shores is the following: "Even on this last day of real action [4 May], a loss was suffered by 486 Sqn - the last of the war - when Fg Off Austin was brought down to force-land and became a prisoner. Although reportedly to Flak, it now seems that his aircraft was the sole victory to be claimed for the new He 162 jet, Lt Schmidt of IJG 1, just operational on this type, making a claim for a 'Typhoon' on this date."



in later Shores & Thomas, 2nd TAF Vol 3 (2006) _"...There is possibility that his [Austin's] may have been the only 2nd TAF aircraft to fall to an He 162 jet, Lt R. Schmitt of I./JG 1 claiming a Typhoon shot down on this date; however, Austin had been experiencing engine trouble with his Tempest before this exploded, forcing him down_" And there was also a suitable claim by a flak unit.
And definitely not the last RAF loss in ETO. This loss happened around 0710 o'clock but around 1100 o'clock 183 Sqn Typhoon IB was hit by flak and/or debris and S/L Cullen force-landed onto Fehmarn Is becoming a PoW.

Juha3
ex-Juha, ex-Juha2

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Jul 5, 2019)

JG1 lost thirteen He 162s and 10 pilots. Only 2 were shot down by the enemy. IMHO the worst cfeature was the very short flying time, of course not an unique feature among early or even a bit later, jet fighters. IIRC French noted that also after the war when they used 2? He 162s as jet familiarization planes.

Juha3
ex-Juha, ex-Juha2


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 15, 2019)

The Vultee Vanguard seems to be unloved. Rejected the US and Britain, until dumped onto the Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Dec 15, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> I'll go one better.
> 
> Here's the operational history of the P-26 at Joe Baugher's site.
> Operational History of Boeing P-26



There is a PAF airbase named after Jesus Villamor next to Manila Airport (NAIA), also the location of the PAF Museum, worth a visit. Villamor also taught Ike to fly and flew bombers in the USAAF. If anyone is interested, the museum also displays the equipment of Japanese Second Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, who finally surrendered in 1974.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## -JJH- (Jan 3, 2020)

Buffalo on the list ... interesting, considering that app. 500 was ever made, but still the type produced 40 aces 

-JJ-

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pgf_666 (Apr 27, 2020)

-JJH- said:


> Buffalo on the list ... interesting, considering that app. 500 was ever made, but still the type produced 40 aces
> 
> -JJ-


My father met Villamor--Pops was a cadet in charge of the Link Trainer, and some brainiac decided Villamor had to qualify. Dad was known for throwing the kitchen sink at operational pilots, and usually they failed the first flight. Nothing he threw at Villamor phased him, but kept flying 500 feet or so to one side of the 'beam', until, at the last moment, he sweeps in to a proper landing, after he crossed the 'fence'. Pop asked him why he'd done that. The Answer: "The Japanese also know how to fly the beam" Dad always replied, when asked which pilot he'd known impressed him the most, 'Villamor', much to the confusion of most of the questioners.

Oh, and any plane that destroys more of itself than the enemy has got to be at the top of the list--Me-163 B, no question....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 2, 2020)

What was the plane that was called a guaranteed flying coffin by the USSR?


----------



## CORSNING (May 2, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> What was the plane that was called a guaranteed flying coffin by the USSR?


*Very early versions of the LaGG-3.* I would still rather fly it than the Blackburn Roc.

Funny you should mention this one. I am in the middle of researching and posting this A/C on excel.


----------



## tengu1979 (May 30, 2020)

Caudron C.714 takes it for me. On first look it looks modern-ish but everything is wrong with it:

Caudron C.714 - Wikipedia

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 30, 2020)

tengu1979 said:


> Caudron C.714 takes it for me. On first look it looks modern-ish but everything is wrong with it:
> 
> Caudron C.714 - Wikipedia



It just needed about 250 more horsepower to be competitive. I wonder how the C.760 version would have worked...

The entire lightweight fighter scheme was a bad idea. It is not comparable to the USAF program that resulted in the F-16 and, later, the USN program for the F-18. Those aircraft were only light in comparison with the F-15 and F-14.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tengu1979 (May 30, 2020)

we'll never know. But fielding 500hp wooden fighter in 1940 was doomed from the start at least 4 small caliber mgs is not the worst it could have. 

F-18 is vastly bigger than YF-17 Cobra and not that much smaller than f-15 really. And Super Hornet is even closer.


----------



## Hornchurch (Jul 3, 2020)

Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV said:


> If you have any more please inform me.





I noticed you'd missed-out the abysmal French fighter, the *Caudron C.714*


Almost makes the Blackburn Roc look GOOD (or so I'm told)


POST EDIT ; WENT STRAIGHT TO THE POLL, 1ST, WITHOUT SCROLLING THRU POSTS, then saw the discussion, above.  


.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Aug 1, 2020)

Hornchurch said:


> I noticed you'd missed-out the abysmal French fighter, the *Caudron C.714*
> 
> 
> Almost makes the Blackburn Roc look GOOD (or so I'm told)
> ...



The list is rather short of French fighters, of which there were many terrible examples. The best French fighter of the War, the Dewotaine D.520, was initially unliked by its pilots, who preferred the slower but more predictable Morraine-Saulnier MS.406. RAF trials commented on how the D.520 had a serious stability issue with fuel in the wing tanks, which were also unprotected.
The MS.406 itself was woefully slow and under-armed, but at least has the bragging rights that a MS.406 pilot shot down German ace Werner Molders.
Other French options? The Bloch MB.151, developed from the MB.150 which originally couldn't even get off the ground! The initial production batch of MB.151s accepted by the French had to be grounded due to problems with the tailplane. That was the ones delivered in a flyable state - many had been accepted without vital components like gunsights and propellers! The MB.152 was supposed to be the combat-ready version, but had problems dealing with the ME110, let alone the ME109, and couldn't get up enough speed to catch many of the German bombers. It was so unmanouvrable that it suffered the most losses of all French fighters.
But probably the epitome of awful French designs has to be the* Loire 210 seaplane fighter*, accepted into service in August 1939. It had to be withdrawn from use after three months because the wings kept falling off! The Loire 210 actually makes the Blackburn Roc look effective.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 1, 2020)

The D.520 was used by several Axis nations, particularly the Royal Bulgarian Air force, who had considerable success with the type.


----------



## Mad Dog (Aug 1, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The D.520 was used by several Axis nations, particularly the Royal Bulgarian Air force, who had considerable success with the type.


I did say it was the best available French design, just that that's the best of a pretty poor bunch, especially the little-known Loire 210. Just to illustrate how bad the Loire 210 was, the floatplane-fitted Roc was faster even though it carried two crew to the Loire's one, and the hefty turret! Given that the Roc is rated the worst of the selection offered, I'd have to say the selection needs to be widened to include some Gallic offerings.

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


----------

