Recent content by Focke Wulf Meister

Holy crap! That pilot's head is HUGE!!! I just now noticed that from the profile I attached of the Me-110 on Post #90. LOL. He must be related to Hermann Goering. (“Education is dangerous - Every educated person is a future enemy" - HG)

Jane's wasn't available to me at the time.:D

Actually, I believe you stated in an earlier post that if an aircraft could not effectively perform its primary role or function, it was NOT considered a good wartime aircraft. The PZL P.7a was a fine plane - it maneuvered and handled very well. I believe it was the first all-metal monoplane...

Now that I know the criteria for "worst", here are my candidates: Worst Bomber: Breda Ba.88 Lince Two Italian groups were equipped with the Breda Ba.88 in June 1940, operating initially from Sardinia against the main airfield of Corsica. The crews found that the Bredas were extremely...

Stats for P-38J: Max speed at critical altitude, 25,800' (60.0" Hg. Man. Pr. 3000 rpm) = 421.5 mph Max speed at sea level (60.0" Hg. Man. Pr. 3000 rpm) = 345.0 mph Rate of climb at sea level (60.0" Hg. Man. Pr. 3000 rpm) = 4000'/min. Rate of climb at critical altitude, 23,400...

The Me-110 was designed as a heavy fighter/destroyer. It succeeded in early WWII campaigns against inferior opponents, but failed miserably as a daytime fighter in the Battle of Britain. As a night fighter later in the war, it did very well. It also excelled in the ground support role in Russia...

I would take the P-47. Love the Jug. Here are some interesting stats on the two planes: According to Chance Vought, Report No. 7289 dated 21 May 1947 the F4U-4 had a high speed @ airplane critical altitude (29,900 feet) of 383 knots. Its time to climb to 10,000 feet was 3.9 seconds. Time...

Thank you, Elvis, for informing me of your guys' criteria and meaning of "worst". That clears things up tremendously. Have a great day.:occasion5:

In a dogfight? Mossie vs. P-38? Or, Mossie vs. Axis Fighter compared to P-38 vs. same Axis Fighter? Or, Ground attack on the same target? Altitude? Weather conditions? There are so many variants of both types, how are we deciding which versions are going up against each other? I'm not trying...

I'll bet it meant something to the poor bastards who were in those 323s. So, we're to judge "the worst plane of WWII" in a vacuum? What is the criteria of "worst" in this debate anyway? Flight characteristics, armament, flight worthiness, maneuverability, length of service, numbers...

No. The C-47 was a much more useful aircraft than the 323. The 47 had a much more lengthy service life and saw action on multiple TOs and multiple wars. The same cannot be said for the 323. And, unlike the 323, no where near all of the C-47s produced were lost in combat. 8)

I'll give you that. Ju52s were true target drones without fighter escort. My second choice for worst WWII aircraft was the Douglas TPD Devastator. It was only "devastating" if you were unlucky enough to be flying it on a one-way Midway torpedo run. What a deathtrap. God bless those Navy...

I beg to differ. While the Lancaster and B-17 took terrific losses, they also inflicted much more damage than 323s. How many enemy aircraft were downed by Lancasters and B-17s compared to the Me-323? Did the enemy have to continually develop new aircraft to take on the waves of Lancasters...

The best kill-to-loss of any fighter in the Second World War (26-to-1) was garnered by an aircraft that is widely considered the worst fighter of the war - the Brewster B-239 (U.S. Navy designation F2A) used by the Finnish AF against the Ruskies. Although it barely saw service with the U.S...

Worst plane of WWII? I'm assuming we're talking about aircraft that actually saw combat. In that case, I'd have to go with the Messerschmitt Me 323 Gigant. The Me-323 was a powered variant of the Me-321 combat glider. It was the biggest aircraft of the war, and as such, one of the...