Worst aircraft of WW2?

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

Sorry Cromwell, I think I need to explain why I am saying what I am trying to say. Frankly it is because you have confused me, because of how you are saying it. I do not know what you are trying to say. :lol:

When you said this...

He also reminds me of Rudel - gloriously unrepentent !
Click to expand...

in conjunction with this...

I was pointing out that both of them did not bend to the idea that by fulfilling their duties as combat pilots they were de facto war criminals in that *specific* context.
Click to expand...

It made me think that it was being implied that they were war criminals, as you said "de facto war criminals".

I believe we just have a case of classic misunderstanding.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Sorry Cromwell, I think I need to explain why I am saying what I am trying to say. Frankly it is because you have confused me, because of how you are saying it. I do not know what you are trying to say. :lol:

OK no worries - perhaps I should be clearer in my communication, or not communicate at all sometimes !

We are friends - in the words of Borat "High Five!"
Click to expand...
 
The worst for me was P-69 Airacobra, it wasnt how the other WWII system, it was modern for the '40 years...I don't like but P-69 was a good fighter, used over 200 missions
 
Bullo Loris said:
The worst for me was P-69 Airacobra, it wasnt how the other WWII system, it was modern for the '40 years...I don't like but P-69 was a good fighter, used over 200 missions
Click to expand...
Was it 'the worst' or 'a good fighter'?
What do you mean by 'used over 200 missions'?
What does "it wasnt how the other WWII system" means anyway?
 
This may have been said before, and I apologize for not reading all 100 some-odd pages, but it depends what one means by worst? There are those planes which were excellent when introduced in the 1930's but had become hopelessly obsolete when forced to fight against much more modern types in WW2 - planes like the P-26, Gladiator, Ki-27, and Polikarpov I-15/16 series. I don't think it's fair to include these. Then there are planes that were never as good as it was hoped they would be, or that were designed to meet obsolescent ot foolish specifications - planes like the Battle, F2A, P-39, Stuka, Ki-43, Skua, Defiant, Bf-110, etc. Then there are planes which were simply design failures that, because of poor planning had to enter service way too early - like the Me-210 or the He-177, or like the Ju-288 never entered service (funny that all my examples are German). But my vote goes to the Me-163. Superficially a revolutionary and "hot" plane that completed acheived its performance objectives, but that failed to make any real difference in WW2. A complete waste of effort.
 
I agree with your distinctions as to defining 'worst' but for me I still think the worst was the Blackburn Botha. Designed to be a Torpedo bomber, if could hardly even fly and was despised by its own test pilots. I can't believe the same team came up with the Buccaneer!
 
his fellow 357th ace, Bud Anderson, gave a good synopsis on it....

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. ...

Bell P-39 Airacobra - Fighter Airplane Used by Russia in WW2 <<<< that's the website.

the air war over the soviet union was not at the high altitudes as it was in the west. so the 39 was inside its threshold of performance. going from the UK bombers were above 20K most of the time and up to and over 30 K feet often enough up. at that altitude the P-39 would not have been able to match the LW aircraft and provide adequate bomber ecsort. as a low level fighter and ground support AC it could have functioned but we had ample supply of better performing AC at that juncture of the war. Its not the worse aircraft...like any other...it had to be used within the confinds of its performance.
 
The only possible reason one might bring up is the removal of supercharging that made the P-39 a disappointing dog performance-wise. But that was the USAAC's fault not Bell. As has been noted the Soviets put the plane to very good use. The P-39 was a very disappointing plane as far as the USAAF and RAF were concerned. But there was nothing inherently faulty with the design and in capable Soviet hands it was able to hold its own against Bf-109s and Fw-190's at low altitudes. In any lists of "worsts" the P-39 needs an asterix.
 
In a low altitude dogfight with a P-39, you kow for sure you can't afford to take a shot from the cannon. There's some psychological advantage there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
A
Worst liquid-cooled, V12-powered, single-engine, single-seat, monoplane, retractable undercarriage fighters of WW2?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
4K
yulzari
yulzari
CHen10
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
235
CHen10
CHen10
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
581
Shortround6
S
S
WW2 aero engine fuel consumption comparison
Replies
19
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
Back