Focke Wulf Meister
Airman
- 15
- Jul 22, 2009
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hi,
C54!!!!
Were there many about in WW2?
I love the C-54/DC-4. I dunno why, but I think they're a gorgeous airplane. I wish we had more in Australia (only got 1 and I think it is being restored by HARS - who have the Constellation)
river
Now, that is a kill ratio you can be proud of, Herman. Nice.
The Gigant is not the worst aircraft of WWII, its not even the worst transport of WWII
Correct. That title would have to go to the Junkers Mammut. A tank tranporter that could not carry tanks as the floor wasn't strong enough.
The Ba.88 with military equipment installed could not complete its mission. It could not sustain climb on one engine and performed poorly, again when configured for its military mission.Well, FW Meister, you suggested the use of categories, I name these:
Worst Plane Misuse: Breda Ba.88 Lince
I agree with you, BUT the Ba.88 was not a bad airplane. It just wasn't suited for large loads, as the bombs a bomber has to carry. If somebody decided to use a B.17 as a fighter, the result would be the same.
It was a fast plane, had good range, maybe the italians should have used it as a reconnaissance plane.
But they had decided it would take bombs...
Worst Fighter: Bloch MB.150
A fighter which just isn't able to even FLY, is quite useless. 'Nough said.
(nobody else as even HEARD of this plane? It's a sure winner in this class!).
Actually there was nothing wrong with the PZL P.7a - in its day it was one of the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world. It was obsolete by the start of WW2 - that was its only problem.
I suggest you look up the word obsolete Any fighter from any country a generation behind the Bf 109 would have been handed the same losses -Period!Actually, I believe you stated in an earlier post that if an aircraft could not effectively perform its primary role or function, it was NOT considered a good wartime aircraft.
The PZL P.7a was a fine plane - it maneuvered and handled very well. I believe it was the first all-metal monoplane fighter to be mass-produced with state-of-the-art construction. With the P.7, he Polish Air Force became the first air force entirely equipped with all-metal fighters.
But, it was designed as a "fighter". In peacetime, 1933 to 1938, it performed well. However, in its wartime role, it failed. Period. No buts, no ifs. It was a failure. Although it was being phased out in favor of the P.11, there were still a number of them being used as fighters in the Polish Air Force when hostilities broke out in September 1939. And in that role as fighter, it failed.
It depends how and where obsolete aircraft are used - the obsolete aircraft you talk about had very specialized roles that enabled them to somewhat survive. Place them in the right situation and they were dead meat.It is irrelevant that the aircraft was "obsolete" at the start of WWII. The Russians used "obsolete" aircraft to great effect in the war. The Germans used the "obsolete" Me-110 in daytime attacks on U.S. bomber formations to good effect fairly late into the war. The Japanese used "obsolete" fighters and bombers to considerable effect as kamikazes. The Italians used "obsolete" aircraft throughout much of the war to much better effect than the Polish did with the PZL7.
I realize you were commenting on the Me-210, but FWIW, its always been my belief that the Bf-110 was a good airplane throughout the war, it was simply placed in the wrong application.The Me 210 was designed to replace the Bf 110 in heavy fighter role....The failure of the Me 210's development programme meant that the Luftwaffe was forced to continue fielding the outdated Bf 110, to mounting losses.
Parsifal - you know what "obsolete" means!I fail to see how equating "obsolete" to "worst" is a valid measure. And even if this is viewed as a measure of "worst", the P-7 just isnt the worst. There are scores of aircraft that just didnt perform their mission profiles because of that.....here are a few. The Hawker Hind/Audax (in service with the Persians, not one even got airborne whilst the country was being invaded), the Fury (in service with the Yugoslavs, did not even get airborne, Fairey Fox III. Belgian airforce, failed to halt the German advance even a little, over 100 were lost in less than 48 hours, Avions Hurricane, Belgian Airforce, failed to get airborne, totally destroyed on the ground, systemic gun failures. There are dozens of stories like this, the P-7, by comparison got airborne, shot down enemy aircraft, and was latterly used to distract enemy fighters and aircraft rather than as a true fighter. The Polish air force resisted better and for longer than nearly all the other minor nation air forces of the war yet it is continualy held up as having not been responsible for a fercious defence. The PAF destroyed alamost as many German aircraft as the French did, in its 3 weeks of existence (more or less) as compared to the first threee weeks of the FAF first three weeks of effort in May 1940.
Moreover, comparing an I-15 to a the P-7 is not a balanced comparison. The P-7 final production was in 1932, BEFORE even the first flight of the I-15. The I-15, and its derivatives were under production right up to the war....the I-153 did not enter production until May 1939!. In a sense the I-15 was a design 10 years younger, yet it does not show in the technology of the two types....a P-7 would have done quite erll against any of the I-15 derivatives. In fact, the Rumanians did use quite a number of P-7s in the opening phases of Barbarossa, though they were rapidly withdrawn because of spares issues, they continued in the training role and as emergency point defence aircraft until 1943, not bad for an aircraft by then more than ten years old.......
The P-7 was perhaps the oldest fighter to see extensive service, and that did show, but it gave some return of value, and in my opinion that amounted to excellent value, given that it had also served for nearly ten years before that.
The P-7, incidentally when it was introduced was considered revolutionary and a world beater. Try comparing apples to apples, and look at the P-7 in the context of its contemporaries......you will find its performance and abilities to be superior to nearly all of them
No worries - you hit the nail on the headapologies if I warmed this up a bit
Thanks for the idea for a new thread! (a search shows that question has not been asked yet).The P-7 was perhaps the oldest fighter to see extensive service
Excellent post! Claiming that any aircraft which was used once obsolete, is inherently a bad aircraft simply doesn't hold water!I fail to see how equating "obsolete" to "worst" is a valid measure. And even if this is viewed as a measure of "worst", the P-7 just isnt the worst. There are scores of aircraft that just didnt perform their mission profiles because of that.....here are a few. The Hawker Hind/Audax (in service with the Persians, not one even got airborne whilst the country was being invaded), the Fury (in service with the Yugoslavs, did not even get airborne, Fairey Fox III. Belgian airforce, failed to halt the German advance even a little, over 100 were lost in less than 48 hours, Avions Hurricane, Belgian Airforce, failed to get airborne, totally destroyed on the ground, systemic gun failures. There are dozens of stories like this, the P-7, by comparison got airborne, shot down enemy aircraft, and was latterly used to distract enemy fighters and aircraft rather than as a true fighter. The Polish air force resisted better and for longer than nearly all the other minor nation air forces of the war yet it is continualy held up as having not been responsible for a fercious defence. The PAF destroyed alamost as many German aircraft as the French did, in its 3 weeks of existence (more or less) as compared to the first threee weeks of the FAF first three weeks of effort in May 1940.
Moreover, comparing an I-15 to a the P-7 is not a balanced comparison. The P-7 final production was in 1932, BEFORE even the first flight of the I-15. The I-15, and its derivatives were under production right up to the war....the I-153 did not enter production until May 1939!. In a sense the I-15 was a design 10 years younger, yet it does not show in the technology of the two types....a P-7 would have done quite erll against any of the I-15 derivatives. In fact, the Rumanians did use quite a number of P-7s in the opening phases of Barbarossa, though they were rapidly withdrawn because of spares issues, they continued in the training role and as emergency point defence aircraft until 1943, not bad for an aircraft by then more than ten years old.......
The P-7 was perhaps the oldest fighter to see extensive service, and that did show, but it gave some return of value, and in my opinion that amounted to excellent value, given that it had also served for nearly ten years before that.
The P-7, incidentally when it was introduced was considered revolutionary and a world beater. Try comparing apples to apples, and look at the P-7 in the context of its contemporaries......you will find its performance and abilities to be superior to nearly all of them