This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Apr 9, 2005
Colorado, USA
We always talk about how good a fighter or bomber is, but what if you're stuck flying a "Dud?" For example, if I was a relatively new pilot I wouldn't be too happy flying the following in WW2....

Fairey Battle
Brewster Buffalo
Curtiss CW-21B
Douglas Devestator
Breda Ba.65

If you had to fly a "dud" which would you choose? :rolleyes:
I think the CW-21B would of been fun to fly, but taking it into combat would of been another story. I call the CW-21B the "American Zero."
Fairey Barracuda.
From what I have read it was disliked intensly by both the Pilots and the ground crews as it flew like a pig and maintenance was a nightmare.
For me its a the Battle. Easy to fly, reasionable payload so I could take plenty of beer and food. Room in the back for jolly flights and a decent range, so if I had to go into battle I could fly as far as possible in the other direction.
I'd pick the P-40, but it ain't a dud :p

I wouldn't mind flying the Cr-42 and Gladiator, Stringbag, the bipe's in Pisis' sig, Stuka, P-36 (Finns used em well), MS 410/Morane, Po2
The Brewster Buffalo or the P-40 would be my choice, they are easy to fly and rugged. The Mig-1 probably has the best performance (men, one of the prototypes made 651 Kp/h or 404 mp/h!) but is a tricky plane, bad for newcomers anyway...
Really, the Re-2000 could turn inside a Fiat Cr 42? That's amazing.
If evan felt the need to mention the P-36 as a possible dud, I'm taking that because it was better than the Spitfire Mk.I in everything but speed.
Hmmm..I mentioned the P-36 because it was the predecessor to the P-40. I don't know much about the P-36 though. I am assuming that the P-40 should have been better than the P-36 as it was after, but I could be wrong.

Users who are viewing this thread