Which Fighter was least successful? (1 Viewer)

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

bigZ

Senior Airman
545
4
Jan 18, 2007
Which operationial fighter plane do you think was the least successful of WWII?
 
Well, I suppose a whole bunch of biplanes which still served in the beginning of the war would be good candidates. So wouldn't it be better to limit ourselves to aircraft still in production during WW2? Perhaps you can change your initial post to include this...

One good candidate would be the CR.42

Kris
 
I would imagine that some aircraft with good performance were unsucesful because they were not used long enough. Good example of this is Rogožarski Ik-3 fighter of Yugoslav design. Although these aircraft was capable to dogfight Bf 109E on more-less equal terms, only 13 examples were ever build and this were used only for short time in April 1941.

Another example would be He 112 maybe, operationally used only by Romanians and Spaniards in small numbers. Then there was Czechoslovak Avia B.135 modern monoplane fighter... I'm sure there are more examples.
 
Last edited:
I would nominate the Me110 for one of the least successful fighters in a day fighter role. It was a good nightfighter and successful jabo, but a poor fighter in the BoB.
 
I'm no fan of the Me-110. Germany should have produced the Fw-187 instead. However I'm not convinced it performed all that poorly during the Battle of Britain.

The Battle of Britain - 1940
It appears to me the Luftwaffe had 90 Me-110 long range bomber escort aircraft committed to the Battle of Britain as of 7 September 1940. (Additional Me-110s were committed for recon and as light bombers. These are not bomber escorts.) Once the very short legged Me-109Es turned for home these 90 Me-110s had to face 10 times their number of RAF fighter aircraft. Do you think the P-51D would have been successful if it had been outnumbered 10 to 1 over Germany?
 
No brainer - it was the Boomerang. Designed as a fighter but never achieved a single air combat victory.

Of course that's not the whole story - it was excellent in the close air support role and it mostly operated in areas of low enemy air activity. However, I still don't think you can beat a kill-to-loss ratio of 'n' losses for 0 kills!:rolleyes:

I now await the outpouring of vitriol from Boomer defenders!:)

KR
Mark H (LKBS)
 
There are probably others that at least equal the record - the Blackburn Roc springs to mind (although there were at least a couple of claims that it damaged a couple of German aircraft (or at least made them nervous for a few moments). Then there's the Me163 which was as much a threat to its pilot as it was to the enemy. However, the whole "divide by 0" problem for the Boomerang still tips it for me.
 
I'm no fan of the Me-110. Germany should have produced the Fw-187 instead. However I'm not convinced it performed all that poorly during the Battle of Britain.

The Battle of Britain - 1940
It appears to me the Luftwaffe had 90 Me-110 long range bomber escort aircraft committed to the Battle of Britain as of 7 September 1940. (Additional Me-110s were committed for recon and as light bombers. These are not bomber escorts.) Once the very short legged Me-109Es turned for home these 90 Me-110s had to face 10 times their number of RAF fighter aircraft. Do you think the P-51D would have been successful if it had been outnumbered 10 to 1 over Germany?

900 RAF fighters? Where did you get that number from?

Wasn't the Boomerang a stop gap fighter until better fighters arrived?
 
Was the Boomerang ever pitted against enemy planes?

Depends what you mean by "pitted against". Did it operate in the front line? Yes. Was it a fighter? Yes. Were there enemy aircraft in the vicinity? Yes. Were a number of Boomers shot down by enemy aircraft? Yes. By my thinking, it was "pitted against" enemy aircraft. Does that match your meaning?

KR
Mark H
 
Wasn't the Boomerang a stop gap fighter until better fighters arrived?[/QUOTE said:
I really don't like the term "stop gap" since technological evolution means any aircraft is a stop gap until something better comes along. However, it was still designed as a fighter, whichever way you caveat it.
 
Depends what you mean by "pitted against". Did it operate in the front line? Yes. Was it a fighter? Yes. Were there enemy aircraft in the vicinity? Yes. Were a number of Boomers shot down by enemy aircraft? Yes. By my thinking, it was "pitted against" enemy aircraft. Does that match your meaning?

KR
Mark H

That answers my question :)
No option but to agree that Boomer is a strong competitor for the accolade of worst fighter.
 
Not worst...just least successful. There's a whole 'nother thread on the worst fighter of WWII (although, perhaps not surprisingly, it comprises a fairly similar list of candidates!):)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back