Worst aircraft of WW2?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That is a very impressive kill Ratio. WOW!

 

[Dogwalker]

Not to forget that the Finns gained a similar kill ratio even operating whit the puny G-50, that even his creator Gabrielli described as "a machine substancially too big for it's engine".
It depends of the pilots.

 

[kiwimac]

Ah, so the only thing saving the Buffalo from being a complete waste of metal were the Finns?

Seems fair somehow.

Kiwimac

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ah, so the only thing saving the Buffalo from being a complete waste of metal were the Finns?

Seems fair somehow.

Kiwimac

Yep! I guess it did well as a trainer...Probably a good role for it!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ah, so the only thing saving the Buffalo from being a complete waste of metal were the Finns?

Seems fair somehow.

Kiwimac

LOL

 

[SpitTrop]

Brewster - I'd say that apart from the Finns, who used it against a VERY WEAK Red airforce, using obsolete biplanes like the I-153 in 1939-40, the Buffalo was not a particular success in its appointed role as a fighter in WW2. Just ask those poor RAF and USMC pilots who had to take on Oscars and Zero's!
There are others, the Fairey Battle and the TBD were both swatted from the sky with ease, yet both were modern designs when they were first conceived, and both should have had better fighter support, so I think its unfair to include them. The Ju-87 was just as easily shot-down, but that doesn't make it a failure.
When it comes down to it, it really depends on the situation that the warplane is used in I guess.
The Blackburn Botha is an odd one to choose as it was very much a prewar aircraft! At least I don't recall reading anything about them in combat in WW2 anyways!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I personally like to think of either the the MS.405 or the P.11 as the worst aircraft. The MS.405 was a good solid fighter when it came out but was outclassed by the wars begin and that is why over 400 of them were shot down to only 175 enemy kills. The P.11 was outdated before the war even started, but I give it up to the Polish pilots who flew the P.11 against the Germans. They new they were outclassed and they bravely flew against them during the battle for Poland.

 

[cheddar cheese]

The P.11 cant be considered bad as for what it was it was quite good and extremely manoeverable...

This is why I dont think an aircraft can be bad for being simply outdated...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Brewster - I'd say that apart from the Finns, who used it against a VERY WEAK Red airforce, using obsolete biplanes like the I-153 in 1939-40, the Buffalo was not a particular success in its appointed role as a fighter in WW2. Just ask those poor RAF and USMC pilots who had to take on Oscars and Zero's!

This very very weak Red Air Force outnumbered the Finns like 6 to 1, despite the obsolete aircraft they used they should of pounded the Finns in days and the Soviet aircraft contingency did not consist solely of I-153s - in fact the I-153 was one of the best bi-plane fighters of its day.....

The Finns fought well and figured out how to get the best from their Buffaloes -

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

This is why I dont think an aircraft can be bad for being simply outdated...

i see what you mean but the question asks for the worst aircraft of WWII, and in the context of WWII, aircraft like the battle a Ba-88, whilst good when they first came out, were rubbish in WWII.............

 

[cheddar cheese]

But the Ba-88 was only good in its original record breaking form, the military aircraft was totally different and couldnt really fly

Ba-88 is still the worst.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The P.11 cant be considered bad as for what it was it was quite good and extremely manoeverable...

This is why I dont think an aircraft can be bad for being simply outdated...

I understand that, but compared to what the Germans through against it ie. Bf-109 it did not stand a chance and after that it practically did not exist anymore.

 

[Dogwalker]

But the Ba-88 was only good in its original record breaking form, the military aircraft was totally different and couldnt really fly

It's not completely true.
the Ba-88 was used to bomb Corsica, and ended it's life as dive-bomber trainer.
Only in North Africa, where the sand filters lowered the power of the engines and the external bomb raks enanched the drag, the Ba-88 proved to be useless, and 28 of them were finally used as decoy.

It's however a good candidate for the title of the "less economical efficient airplane", since it was even expensive to build, decisely too much for a trainer.

 

[cheddar cheese]

I forgot the fact that it was only the North African ones...Its still pretty shoddy though.

From what ive read it also seems the the Ba-65 was a poor aircraft too.

 

[Dogwalker]

Definitely, and essencially for the same reason, the particular structure studied by the designers Giuseppe Panzeri and Antonio Parano.

 

[book1182]

Does anyone have any pictures of the Ba-88 or 65? I don't think I have ever seen one of these aircraft before.

 

[Gnomey]

Ba-65

History/Specs: http://www.comandosupremo.com/Bredaba65.html

Ba-88

History/Specs:http://www.comandosupremo.com/Bredaba88.html

All sources on right click.

 

[Dogwalker]

Oh, I'm late. But I want to post some more.

The Ba-88, heavvy fighter, light bomber.

The real ancestor of Ba-88, the recognitor Ba-75.

images out of copyright

the Ba-65 was an assault aircraft, proposed in two versions, with or without the gunner

www.airwar.ru

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

The F2A buffalo was good in the hands of experienced finnish pilots who went up against rookie russian pilots in inferior planes. I would rate the buffalo as the worst fighter in the pacific, since the A6M2 Zero could fly circles around it and blow it out of the sky.

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

dude, they were probably still fighting when the La-5s came into service, and the Finnish version was better cause it was lighter, more maneuverable and had a better power-to-weight ratio