Which Fighter was least successful?

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

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
 
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.
 
Butters said:
a fighter with a record of killing more of its own pilots than those of the enemy, is even more 'least successful'...
Click to expand...

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.
 
I like the He162. It was too late in the war to help the axis though, but was the fastest fighter of its time.
 
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 said:
What about the Westland Whirlwind?
Click to expand...

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.
 
I'd say a fighter that never shot anything down wasn't a roaring success
Click to expand...
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.
 
davebender said:
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.
Click to expand...

...is the answer to a slightly more general question than the one posed by the thread originator...
bigZ said:
Which operationial fighter plane do you think was the least successful of WWII?
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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.
 
Colin1 said:
...is the answer to a slightly more general question than the one posed by the thread originator...
Click to expand...

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 ).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

N
How capable was the Ki-44?
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
10K
Irregualr23
I
Why was it?
2
Replies
27
Views
6K
nuuumannn
American fighter ops, 1944 and beyond
Replies
5
Views
2K
Barrett
B
C
Tricycle Training(?) for Fighter Directors
Replies
5
Views
2K
EAIAnalog
S
Allied Bombers and Fighter Bombers in 1942:, North Africa, China, Burma, Pacific, Aleutians
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
Steamed_Banana
S
Menu
Log in
Register