Which Fighter was least successful?

[Butters]

I've got a pretty thick hide, so I'm gonna brave the slings and arrows certain to come my way, and nominate the He-162 for this particular honor.

Saying that a fighter with a nil victory record is the 'least successful' might seem a reasonable claim, but it seems to me that a fighter with a record of killing more of its own pilots than those of the enemy, is even more 'least successful'...

A null record is better than a negative one...

Oh, yeah. I also nominate the Me-163 as runner-up. I'd put it in first place, but at least that explosive little deathtrap was never touted as being suitable for novice pilots, unlike the unforgiving Salamander...

JL

 

[buffnut453]

According to the list of Boomerangs in Wilson's book on the Boomer, Wirraway and CA-15, 2 were "lost in combat" with a third "missing after combat" which suggests an aerial engagement (compared to other references to Boomers being "lost on ops" or "lost over enemy territory"). Although of no real relevance, a couple of Boomers were also shot down by Allied fighters.

 

[buffnut453]

a fighter with a record of killing more of its own pilots than those of the enemy, is even more 'least successful'...

Hi Butters,

I bet a comparison of losses due to accidents compared against kills obtained would reveal a fair number of WWII fighters actually killed more of their own pilots than the enemy's (think Operational Training Units, landing accidents, engine failures etc). Semantics aside, though, the He162 is a pretty good contender even though it was put into service (with phenomenal alacrity) under the worst possible operational conditions. And it did achieve at least 1 confirmed kill.

KR
Mark

 

[Colin1]

The Bf109
33,000+ manufactured and they still didn't win

*Colin dons his tin hat and ducks under the table*

 

[Clay_Allison]

Hi Butters,

I bet a comparison of losses due to accidents compared against kills obtained would reveal a fair number of WWII fighters actually killed more of their own pilots than the enemy's (think Operational Training Units, landing accidents, engine failures etc). Semantics aside, though, the He162 is a pretty good contender even though it was put into service (with phenomenal alacrity) under the worst possible operational conditions. And it did achieve at least 1 confirmed kill.

KR
Mark

The He-162 had a lot of promise, it was just started far too late and without good glue. Slightly more development and available materials would have made it terrifying.

 

[Negative Creep]

He 162? Nazi leaders had high hopes for it but I'd say a fighter that never shot anything down wasn't a roaring success

 

[Amsel]

I like the He162. It was too late in the war to help the axis though, but was the fastest fighter of its time.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Bf109
33,000+ manufactured and they still didn't win

*Colin dons his tin hat and ducks under the table*

Not going to throw anything, but you are kidding right?

 

[Colin1]

Not going to throw anything, but you are kidding right?

Of course!

 

[bigZ]

To be honest I had forgotten the Boomerang. It beatsmy suggestion of the Avia B.135. It had been in production before the start of the war and only had one confirmed kill a B-24 in 1944.

 

[herman1rg]

What about the Westland Whirlwind?

 

[Colin1]

What about the Westland Whirlwind?

I don't believe the Whirlwind suffered from a notable lack of success, more a notable lack of support.

 

[Jabberwocky]

What about the Westland Whirlwind?

Whirlwind was actually highly successful. The fate of the aircraft was decided before it ever entered service. On air-to-air kills alone, it has a positive service record. It did suffer quite badly at the hands of low level Flak though, and it was hampered by the draggy bomb shackles later in the war.

 

[davebender]

I'd say a fighter that never shot anything down wasn't a roaring success

How many aircraft did the P-51H shoot down? How about the modern day F-22 and Eurofighter?

I doubt anyone would consider these aircraft unsuccessful just because they haven't had a chance to prove themselves in combat.

 

[Colin1]

How many aircraft did the P-51H shoot down? How about the modern day F-22 and Eurofighter?

I doubt anyone would consider these aircraft unsuccessful just because they haven't had a chance to prove themselves in combat.

...is the answer to a slightly more general question than the one posed by the thread originator...

Which operationial fighter plane do you think was the least successful of WWII?

 

[Milosh]

He 162? Nazi leaders had high hopes for it but I'd say a fighter that never shot anything down wasn't a roaring success

Supposedly a He162 got a Tempest.

 

[davebender]

The first He-162 prototype did not fly until 6 December 1944. No other aircraft was considered operational 4 months after first flight. He-162s flying during April 1945 were prototypes / pre-production aircraft forced into combat by extreme circumstances.

 

[Jerry W. Loper]

Well, the Me-210 was made operational, but then proved so unstable and dangerous to its own crews that it was yanked, heavily re-designed and even given a new designation, Me-410, to make sure its crews knew this was a different plane from the 210.

 

[imalko]

And yet, Hungarians used Me 210 successfully in the "schnellbomber" role and their pilots were quite satisfied with its performance...

 

[buffnut453]

...is the answer to a slightly more general question than the one posed by the thread originator...

Agreed. There are plenty of fighters that never actually saw combat because there wasn't a war going on when they were in service. The question was about WWII which, last time I checked, was the genuine article as far as wars are concerned (with all the very sad consequences that entail ).