Which Fighter was least successful?

[paradoxguy]

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

The Me 210 that the Hungarians used successfully was modified, including lengthening the fuselage, which rectified the bad flying characteristics. This became the basis for the Me 410.

 

[Watanbe]

The Boomerang was designed and flow in such a short time, it wasn't up to standard in the period that it was released. However, remember by the time it was ready and in production Australia had P-40's and Spitfires available and they occupied the fighter role. I think I would be correct in saying it saw very limited service as a fighter. As has been said earlier, it was a very effective close support plane.

Whilst as a fighter in was inadequate, I don't think it saw enough frontline service as a fighter to be considered the least successful, how about something that had a length of time to prove itself, yet still failed badly.

The Defiant got massacred as a day fighter, but was a fairly successful NF.

 

[Watanbe]

What about the MiG-1 and 3. In terms of a plane that saw extensive service, it was hopelessly outclassed. Sure it was a decent high altitude performer, but at the altitudes at which combat was actually fought on the Eastern front it didn't rival the Luftwaffe

 

[Glider]

The one fighter that no one has mentioned which I suggest stands head and shoulders above the other nominees as being the worst fighter to enter operational service in WW2 has the be The Blackburn Roc.

The worst case of lunacy you will ever find.

 

[tomo pauk]

What about the MiG-1 and 3. In terms of a plane that saw extensive service, it was hopelessly outclassed. Sure it was a decent high altitude performer, but at the altitudes at which combat was actually fought on the Eastern front it didn't rival the Luftwaffe

Since Mig-1/3 series were second fastest (fully) operaional fighter in 1941, they were surely weren't outclasses. Some numbers to back up the claim it candidates being 'least successful' would be appreciated.

 

[tomo pauk]

The one fighter that no one has mentioned which I suggest stands head and shoulders above the other nominees as being the worst fighter to enter operational service in WW2 has the be The Blackburn Roc.

The worst case of lunacy you will ever find.

Yep, Roc is a strong contender for the title.
The term 'lunacy' is to use for describe people that ordered it though.

 

[Arsenal VG-33]

What about the Do-335? Seems like a lot of technical trouble to overcome before finally this bird in the air. I'm unsure if it shot down any aircraft.

 

[Colin1]

What about the Do-335? Seems like a lot of technical trouble to overcome before finally this bird in the air. I'm unsure if it shot down any aircraft.

Operational sorties by the Do335 were so scarce that it makes it a little difficult to quantify wrt to the thread title. Problems weren't completely solved, rear engine fires could and did happen and the nose gear was also prone to the odd collapse.

 

[buffnut453]

The one fighter that no one has mentioned which I suggest stands head and shoulders above the other nominees as being the worst fighter to enter operational service in WW2 has the be The Blackburn Roc.

The worst case of lunacy you will ever find.

Glider,

I mentioned the Roc at post #15 so it has been mentioned. How could it not be????

KR
Mark

 

[Glider]

Glider,

I mentioned the Roc at post #15 so it has been mentioned. How could it not be????

KR
Mark

True I admit, but how can you think that the Boomerang was worse than the Roc?

Put it another way which would rather go to war in, you take the Roc and I will take the Boomerang

 

[Civettone]

Here comes mr Broken Record again ...
the Me 163 is NOT the least succesful fighter of WW2 !

First of all, it was not the self exploding death trap some of you called it. It was relatively safe and once operational the aircraft suffered few losses, both operational as non-operational. It managed to shoot down around 13 heavy bombers while losing fewer of their own. As the Me 163 was a small and cheap fighter and just a fraction of the cost of a heavy bomber, I think it did quite well.

Problem was that few actually saw combat because of poor positioning of the Me 163 bases and because of lack of fuel.

I think I will still stick to the CR.42 as the Boomerang or Roc didn't see much action anyway. And the Defiant at least performed well for a couple of days
Kris

 

[Vincenzo]

C.R. 42 was used for around 1year and half in day fighter units they were old (the design was old the planes were new) but no so unsuccessful like Roc or Boomerang

Also the early C.R. 32 i think had some sucess as fighter

 

[Arsenal VG-33]

I imagine the Bachem Ba. 349 could qualify.

 

[Nikademus]

C.R. 42 was used for around 1year and half in day fighter units they were old (the design was old the planes were new) but no so unsuccessful like Roc or Boomerang

Also the early C.R. 32 i think had some sucess as fighter

The CR-42 is considered by some to have been the best biplane fighter design from among the final examples produced. It preformed credably during the early stages of WWII, even managing to hold close to a 1:1 exchange with enemy Hurricanes though as time progressed it's effectiveness diminished but by then the Italians were succeeded the design with Macchi's. The British learned to have a healthy respect for the nimble biplanes and had to adopt the same tactics against it that 109 pilots did against Hurricanes (Slashing attacks). Nothing i've read suggests the Falco was a poor airplane. It was a simply a last fine example of a dying breed.

MiG-3 i saw mentioned. Don't feel it was a "bad" design. It simply ended up fighting in an element outside it's optimum design evelope. What would opinions on the P-47 be had it been restricted to low alt ops? I think the LaGG 3 was more of a disapointment in intial service than the MiG-3 though it would eventually be evolved into the excellent La-5.

Probably would be hard to beat the Defiant in the role of worst fighter, due to the failed idea of the "turret fighter" concept. No way to really fix it without scrapping the entire idea and go back to the drawing board.

 

[Shortround6]

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

I have noted before that it amazes me that plane that was supposed to have troublesome engines and whose engines went out of production in 1941 was still flying combat missions in squadron service at the end of 1943.

Maybe the engines weren't quite as troublesome as some claim?

 

[Colin1]

Maybe the engines weren't quite as troublesome as some claim?

They had problems
but so did the Merlin and the Peregrine's woes were as nothing compared to those of the Napier Sabre. I can't find any evidence to suggest that the Peregrine's engine bugs could not have been resolved relatively easily.

There were many unsavoury reasons why the Whirlwind's career met such an untimely end but one of the more legitimate (and understandable) reasons was the arrival of its greater-potential stable-mate, the Merlin itself.

 

[Civettone]

The Bachem Natter was never used operationally so that cannot have been the least succesful fighter. And for what it's worth I think it could have been the best interceptor for Germany at that time...

The MiG-3 was not that unsuccesful, the Germans held it in quite high regard. But mentioning the MiG-3 brought me to a very very good candidate which I don't know anyone has mentioned yet: the MiG-1 !

I have never seen any figures on any kills vs losses by Italian fighters! So whatever information you guys can provide, I would be very grateful. What I have read about the CR.42 is that it could hold its own against the Gladiator but that is it. It got beaten badly against the French, in the BoB and in North Africa. Many Italians preferred the CR.32 over the CR.42 because of manoeuvrability. So that seems to indicate to me that the CR.42 fell between the CR.32 and the C.200.

Given the whole fighter career of the CR.42 I think it can be seen as the least succesful fighter. If it had been withdrawn back in 1941 I would not have considered it. (I know that many were relegated to ground attack but many still remained in fighter units.)

Kris

 

[buffnut453]

True I admit, but how can you think that the Boomerang was worse than the Roc?

Put it another way which would rather go to war in, you take the Roc and I will take the Boomerang

Glider,

The question wasn't about better or worse it was about the least successful. Simple performance comparisons show the Boomer out-performed the Roc (not a hard task - an asthmatic octegenarian could move faster than a Roc on full power). And, as I mentioned in my post, there were other contenders, of which the Roc was one, for the pole position of a fighter that achieved no kills...there may be others.

I'm not defending the Roc, neither am I attacking the Boomer but in success terms as fighters (ie numbers fo kills achieved) they are virtually on a par. Now, taking wider performance and utility into the equation and the Roc wins hands-down as the least useful in any role (except, perhaps, target tug!).

KR
Mark H

 

[buffnut453]

Given the whole fighter career of the CR.42 I think it can be seen as the least succesful fighter. If it had been withdrawn back in 1941 I would not have considered it. (I know that many were relegated to ground attack but many still remained in fighter units.)

Sorry, Kris, have to disagree. I don't see how the CR42 can be classed as the least successful when there's a book out there with the title "Fiat CR.42 Aces of World War 2" from Osprey.

KR
Mark H (LKBS)

 

[Civettone]

Yeah if it's in the Osprey books it must be right

Hkans Aviation page - Known claims with the Fiat CR.42 Falco over Malta 1940-42 for CR.42 claims over Malta. Many if not most are overclaims. And how many were lost?
The damn plane struggled to reach 430 kmh. Enough said if you ask me ...

Kris