That I will agree with, it was a crap aeroplane, but is it as bad as the Breda BA.88...
Worst aircraft of WW2?
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
at the same level i.e. only fit for scrap
I knew a Helldiver Pilot - he said the same - Cmdr. Bill Chin told me that besides the maintenance issues, it was a matter of training. Bill stated that the Helldiver was a heavy aircraft to fly but once learned was found to be sturdy and relianble. He also said it was easier to land on a carrier than a Corsair...
Nonskimmer said:
- Thread starter
- #425
cheddar cheese
Major General
At least Bothas went for training purposes, Ba-88's were just stripped ofuseful equipment and left as decoys 
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
Ok, you have a point.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
cheddar cheese said:At least Bothas went for training purposes, Ba-88's were just stripped ofuseful equipment and left as decoys
I think based on that the Ba.88 has got to get the title!!!
Gets my vote!
102first_hussars said:
I agree.
Based off of what has been said here though, I think the Ba-88 is my worst aircraft.
The Nerd
Airman
I personally believe that the aircobra was bad, mabye not the worst, but it was crud.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Ho hum..... 
If the P-39 was so bad, why did the men of the 39FS, 5th AF achieve about a 1.5 to 1 kill ratio over the Japanese over Rabual with the P-39? Many notable P-38 aces got their first kills in the -39 and if you look at statistics the -39 really didn't do as bad as people may think in the Pacific.
Crud?!? What are you backing that up with?!? You have squadron history, infomration or statistics?!?
Just as a hint - here's a site for the Tuskeegee airmen, Look at a few P-39 kills...
http://tuskegeeairmen.org/images/stats.pdf
You ever hear of Buzz Wagner?!?
"As soon as partial sight was restored to his injured eye, Wagner led a combat mission flying a P-39. His flight was hit by enemy fighters that shot down four of the P-39s. Before the action ended, four enemy fighters were downed, three of them by Wagner, bringing his victory total to eight."
http://www.afa.org/magazine/valor/0996valor.asp
I haven't even brought up the Russians!
So much for "Crud."
If the P-39 was so bad, why did the men of the 39FS, 5th AF achieve about a 1.5 to 1 kill ratio over the Japanese over Rabual with the P-39? Many notable P-38 aces got their first kills in the -39 and if you look at statistics the -39 really didn't do as bad as people may think in the Pacific.
Crud?!? What are you backing that up with?!? You have squadron history, infomration or statistics?!?
Just as a hint - here's a site for the Tuskeegee airmen, Look at a few P-39 kills...
http://tuskegeeairmen.org/images/stats.pdf
You ever hear of Buzz Wagner?!?
"As soon as partial sight was restored to his injured eye, Wagner led a combat mission flying a P-39. His flight was hit by enemy fighters that shot down four of the P-39s. Before the action ended, four enemy fighters were downed, three of them by Wagner, bringing his victory total to eight."
http://www.afa.org/magazine/valor/0996valor.asp
I haven't even brought up the Russians!
So much for "Crud."
The Nerd
Airman
sorry, but ive read that the plane was junk, thats why we lend-leased it to the Russians and no I
The Nerd
Airman
sorry bout that, and I dont have any info about any of that, but I am entitled to my own opinion.
You certainly are entitled to an opinion, but when discussing history surely some facts to back up that opinion would serve you well. After all, history is fact and you cannot running around calling the P-39 a poor performer if you have nothing to back that notion up.
Personally, I would call the P-39 a "less than adequete" fighter. The USAAF had many superior planes to fill it's role such as the P-51, P-47 and P-38. The P-39 was good, but not as good as the premier fighters of World War II.
Personally, I would call the P-39 a "less than adequete" fighter. The USAAF had many superior planes to fill it's role such as the P-51, P-47 and P-38. The P-39 was good, but not as good as the premier fighters of World War II.
The P-39 was, quite rightly, replaced as soon as possible in the Western Allied air forces. And it was not a performer for the ETO, but there are reasons for this.
When the XP-39 was rolled out on to the pan and test flown, it was quickly understood as being one of the best fighters in the world for it's day. Heavily armed, extremely fast and quick to altitude. But this centered around it's turbo-supercharger which, to cut a long story short, was deleted because the inlet caused too much drag. A massive mistake, amongst the others such as the increase in fuselage size, reduction in wing-span and reduction in cockpit size. Bell couldn't stop these changes, being in debt and having no political strength to stop anyone doing anything.
The P-39 itself was a poor performer at altitude, which leads to it's awful reputation in the ETO where high altitude combat was the norm. The RAF dispised the P-39 and many pilots refused to fly it. On the other hand, some RAF pilots did comment that the P-39 could match a Bf-109E in a dogfight below 10,000 feet. And this is what leads to the success of the P-39 in VVS hands; on the Eastern Front combat generally took place below 10,000 feet, in fact most of the time it was below 6,000 feet all the way down to tree top height and this is where the P-39 was in it's element. It was a capable plane at these heights but I would much prefer to be in a Bf-109F or Fw-190A.
Basically, for the ETO it wasn't suited.
The P-39 served with the RAF, VVS, Free French and USAAF in the PTO, ETO, MTO and Eastern Front. It's hardly a record of a "crud" fighter.
When the XP-39 was rolled out on to the pan and test flown, it was quickly understood as being one of the best fighters in the world for it's day. Heavily armed, extremely fast and quick to altitude. But this centered around it's turbo-supercharger which, to cut a long story short, was deleted because the inlet caused too much drag. A massive mistake, amongst the others such as the increase in fuselage size, reduction in wing-span and reduction in cockpit size. Bell couldn't stop these changes, being in debt and having no political strength to stop anyone doing anything.
The P-39 itself was a poor performer at altitude, which leads to it's awful reputation in the ETO where high altitude combat was the norm. The RAF dispised the P-39 and many pilots refused to fly it. On the other hand, some RAF pilots did comment that the P-39 could match a Bf-109E in a dogfight below 10,000 feet. And this is what leads to the success of the P-39 in VVS hands; on the Eastern Front combat generally took place below 10,000 feet, in fact most of the time it was below 6,000 feet all the way down to tree top height and this is where the P-39 was in it's element. It was a capable plane at these heights but I would much prefer to be in a Bf-109F or Fw-190A.
Basically, for the ETO it wasn't suited.
The P-39 served with the RAF, VVS, Free French and USAAF in the PTO, ETO, MTO and Eastern Front. It's hardly a record of a "crud" fighter.
Parmigiano
Senior Airman
I fully subscribe PlanD posts about P39
To reinforce my post, I quote Bud Anderson a USAAF pilot who flew the P-39 in 1942 before being transferred to the P-51 later in the war.
"It was a good-looking airplane. If looks counted for anything, it would have been a great airplane. And the Russians absolutely loved them, and wound up with most of them. Under 15,000 feet, the P-39, called the Airacobra, was a decent if underpowered performer.
But the Airacobra was mincemeat above 15,000 feet, and useless in Western Europe, where virtually all of the flying and fighting was at double that altitude. ...
But in October of 1942, I was thrilled to be flying it. It was unique, with its engine behind the cockpit, and the propeller drive shaft running between the pilot's legs. It had a tricycle landing gear, unlike anything in our arsenal except the P-38. And the cockpit was more like a car's, with a door instead of a swing-up or sliding canopy, and windows that actually rolled up and down with a crank. You could taxi the thing while resting your elbows on the sill, like cruising the boulevard on a Saturday night."
And the showing of the P-39 on the Eastern Front proves the true performance of the P-39 was not too bad, if limited:
"Several of the Red Air Force's ranking aces flew the P-39 for a major portion of their combat sorties. The top ace in the P-39 and number four overall was Guards Major Gregoriy Rechkalov, who shot down 50 of his total 56 kills while flying a P-39. Guards Colonel Aleksandr Pokryshkin, who finished the war as the number two Soviet ace with 59 individual and 6 shared kills, reportedly flew the P-39 for 48 of his kills. Another high scorer in the P-39 was Guards Major Dmitriy Glinka, who destroyed 20 German aircraft in 40 aerial engagements in the summer of 1943, and finished the war with an even 50 kills, 41 of them while flying the P-39. Third-ranked Soviet ace Guards Major Nikolay Gulaev transitioned to the P-39 in early August 1943 with 16 individual and 2 shared kills. He flew his last combat sortie on 14 August 1944 (ordered to attend higher military schooling), leaving the battlefield with an additional 41 individual victories and 1 shared kill after just over one year in his P-39."
"It was a good-looking airplane. If looks counted for anything, it would have been a great airplane. And the Russians absolutely loved them, and wound up with most of them. Under 15,000 feet, the P-39, called the Airacobra, was a decent if underpowered performer.
But the Airacobra was mincemeat above 15,000 feet, and useless in Western Europe, where virtually all of the flying and fighting was at double that altitude. ...
But in October of 1942, I was thrilled to be flying it. It was unique, with its engine behind the cockpit, and the propeller drive shaft running between the pilot's legs. It had a tricycle landing gear, unlike anything in our arsenal except the P-38. And the cockpit was more like a car's, with a door instead of a swing-up or sliding canopy, and windows that actually rolled up and down with a crank. You could taxi the thing while resting your elbows on the sill, like cruising the boulevard on a Saturday night."
And the showing of the P-39 on the Eastern Front proves the true performance of the P-39 was not too bad, if limited:
"Several of the Red Air Force's ranking aces flew the P-39 for a major portion of their combat sorties. The top ace in the P-39 and number four overall was Guards Major Gregoriy Rechkalov, who shot down 50 of his total 56 kills while flying a P-39. Guards Colonel Aleksandr Pokryshkin, who finished the war as the number two Soviet ace with 59 individual and 6 shared kills, reportedly flew the P-39 for 48 of his kills. Another high scorer in the P-39 was Guards Major Dmitriy Glinka, who destroyed 20 German aircraft in 40 aerial engagements in the summer of 1943, and finished the war with an even 50 kills, 41 of them while flying the P-39. Third-ranked Soviet ace Guards Major Nikolay Gulaev transitioned to the P-39 in early August 1943 with 16 individual and 2 shared kills. He flew his last combat sortie on 14 August 1944 (ordered to attend higher military schooling), leaving the battlefield with an additional 41 individual victories and 1 shared kill after just over one year in his P-39."
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Thank you D!! 
evangilder
"Shooter"
Good work, D! It goes to show that sometimes, reputations of airplanes are unfounded.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
So Nerd, you're entitled to your opinion, but at the same time, things aren't always what they seem....
