Worst aircraft of WW2?

[Lightning Guy]

And the fact that 37 out of 41 were lost in one battle has got to say something about the quality of an aircraft. Every aviation historian I've read comment on the TBD comments that it was obsolete before the war started.

The thing about the speed means the aircraft takes longer to reach the target area. By the time the TBD reaches a point 250 miles away its target may have moved 60 miles! And even then with a top speed of 125mph it is extremely vulnerable even before it starts its run.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

mind you that's what they said about the stringbag............

 

[cheddar cheese]

And didnt it prove everyone wrong...this can only prove one thing...Brits are luckier than Yanks

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

what the stringbag did was not down to luck........

 

[redcoat]

And the fact that 37 out of 41 were lost in one battle has got to say something about the quality of an aircraft. Every aviation historian I've read comment on the TBD comments that it was obsolete before the war started.

and I'm not disagreeing with them
But there were lots of obsolete aircraft which flew in WW2.
The point which I keep attempting to explain is,
the TBD was indeed obsolete, but it wasn't bad enough to be put in the 'worst aircraft of WW2' thread

 

[Adolf Galland]

the reason y the traniers are s'pose 2 be the worst aircraft cuz if they are good, y not use them in combat? so the old junks are use 4 traniers(some of them are light planes w/ weak engines)

 

[evangilder]

But some aircraft are specifically designed as trainers and were never designed for combat. That does not make them bad airplanes. The North American AT-6 is a great example. Over 20,000 of them were made and today, over 1,000 of them are still flying! They are durable and great to fly.

 

[Adolf Galland]

i also got a really bad plane to show u and here it is:
Boeing P-26 Peashooter
(s'pose to be a)fighter, 500HP, Range 300miles w/ fuel tanks, max speed 233mph, ceilig 27400, remained in sencond line duty in WWII.
picture:
<a href"http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/photos/p-26.jpg">http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/photos/p-26.jpg</a>

 

[Adolf Galland]

evanglider:
wut i mean by that is the ones that are retired from front line duty cuz it prove to be sitting ducks for the enemy.

 

[evangilder]

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

The P-26 was the very first all metal skinned fighter the Americans had, but was very obsolete by the time the war broke out. It first flew in March of 1932 and for it's day, was faster and could outclimb the biplanes. It was one of the first allied aircraft to shoot down a Japanese plane though.

Edit:
Most of those P-26s that had been stationed in the Philippines had been sold to the government of the Philippines by the time of the Japanese attack. The Philippine government acquired 12 P-26As beginning in July of 1941. Some of these P-26s were serving with the 6th Pursuit Squadron of the Philippine Army Air Force based at Batangas Field at the time of the Japanese attack. Despite their total obsolescence, the Filipino P-26s succeeded in scoring some victories against the Mitsubishi A6M Zero during the first few days of the Japanese attack. One of the Philippine P-26s is credited with shooting down the first Japanese plane destroyed during the early attacks on the islands. The best-known action took place on December 12, 1942, then a group of six Philippine P-26s led by Capt. Jesus Villamor shot one bomber and two Zeros with the loss of three P-26s. However, the few P-26s operated by the Philippine Army Air Force were quickly overwhelmed by the onslaught of the Japanese Zero fighters, and the surviving P-26s were destroyed on the ground by Filipinos to prevent them from falling into enemy hands.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p26_6.html

It is amazing, or truly lucky that they managed to get Zeroes with the P-26, but they did.

 

[mosquitoman]

That's why the Battle became a trainer, some combat aircraft were so bad though that they never even reached operational squadrons, worst example- the Botha

 

[Lightning Guy]

The Stingbag would have been slaughtered if it had ever faced the situations that the TBD did.

So what constitutes a 'worst aircraft?' The TBD's performance stank. It was obsolete at the start of the war. Within 6 months of war virtually everyone produced had been destroyed. And the only thing it did was to earn a bunch of guys Purple Hearts . . . posthumously.

 

[mosquitoman]

The worst aircraft would have to be the one that had incredibly bad handling, woefully underpowered and had inadequate armament/payload, the sort of plane that nobody wanted to fly

 

[Lightning Guy]

Sounds like a descritption of the TBD to me . . .

 

[mosquitoman]

At least the Devastator made combat, the Botha was considered more dangerous to the airmen inside it than to anything else

 

[Lightning Guy]

But the Devastator never should have been committed to combat.

 

[Kongo Otto]

Worst WW2 Plane?

Me-163B
Killed more Pilots in accidents,than by enemy action.

 

[mosquitoman]

It was just too far ahead of it's time, it some of the best performance of any plane in the war

 

[Lightning Guy]

I agree. I think the 'worst plane' would be a time that was too far behind its time.

 

[cheddar cheese]

Yep. If it were not for the volatile fuel the Me-163 wouldnt have been so bad.

I also agree with that statement LG, but the Swordfish was behind its time and that had success. Still, I see what you're saying and am beginning to see what you're on about with the TBD.