Worst aircraft of WW2?

[kool kitty89]

And thus none survive today. =(

Only 16 left, okay that's too few to bother with training pilots for, and not enough to be useful. I was thinking if maby 30 or 40 were airworthy it would have been worth it and I doubt it was truly obsolete in a ground role, as its best performance was down low and it outpaced many other fighters while at optimum. Plus the cannons had already prooven effective in the groun role, so good for close suport. (I think it was faster than the P-40 at SL, definitely the E and earlier, and the hurricane too, maby the coarsair, though it was more agile than the F4U I think)

 

[magnocain]

you all know deep down that the p-51 was the worst plane of ww2

 

[magnocain]

just kidding!

but anyway this is the WORST plane of ww2 not A KIND OF BADest plane of ww2. the Buffalo was pretty bad, but it wasnt the worst plane of ww2.
The hawker furry flew in yuchloslavocava (lol) ww2, and i think it was horribly out of date by then

my 2 cents

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

just kidding!

but anyway this is the WORST plane of ww2 not A KIND OF BADest plane of ww2. the Buffalo was pretty bad, but it wasnt the worst plane of ww2.
The hawker furry flew in yuchloslavocava (lol) ww2, and i think it was horribly out of date by then

my 2 cents

More like a half a cent.

 

[kool kitty89]

It's hard to tell how good the Buffalo could have been since the highest performing (overall) version, the F2A2, never saw combat. The Finns were verry sucessful with their B239 models, though this was due largely to the skill of the pilots. The F2A-3 used by the Marines was probably the worst model, very underpowered, realitively slow, and overweight. The B339E was about as bad, despite being converted from the F2A-2, it had less power and was much heavier, as well as a reduced armament. So no wonder these two models got a bad reputation, especially when facing zeros.

Though even the F2A-3 had slightly higher performance (slightly faster, more agile, and better climb) than the F4F, but the Wildcat was alot tougher, which was its only distinct advantage aganst Japanese fighters, though it was still generally outmached by Zeros. The USN couldn't realy meet the Japanese on even odds until they had the F6F and F4U available. But still with good pilots, I'd say the F2A-2 would be superior to an F4F-3 or F4F-4 in a dogfight. Faster (344 mph top speed), better climb (~2,500 ft/min), more maneuverable, better visibillity, equal armament to the F4F-3 and longer firing time than the F4F-4 (plus the F2A had 2x nose guns which were more acurate than wing-guns), and somewhat better range. Though the F2A2 was a bit more fregile than the Wildcat it was alot harder to get a bead on and still was tougher than Japanese planes, particular in respect to pilot protection.

Also, at Midway, remember that the USMC pilots flying the F2A-3s were inexperienced, and tried to engage in WWI style dogfights with the Japanese. I doubt they would have fared much better in Wildcats, or even F2A-2s for that matter. Though they might have done better in P-40s (or maby even P-36s) since they had good maneuverabillity, decent speed and power, good armament, simple and easy to fly, and were quite tough.

As a note on the P-39, in most respects it was superior to the P-40, and both performed rather poorly above 20,000 ft, the British even found their Airacobras more maneuverable at high-speed than the Spitfire iirc (the stick was heavier at low speeds, but was much lighter than the Spit at high speeds). However it was not thet easy to fly and had some nasty stall characteristics, (though the flat spin was only noted when the nose was improperly loaded) though buffeting usualy gave enough warning as long as the pilot was attentive. It was probaby no trickier than the P-38 overall.

 

[magnocain]

I would like to point out that with a good pilot (and a ton of luck) a Buffalo could take out a me262 or a p51, even a battleship if it hit it in just (and i mean JUST) the right place.

my half cent

 

[pbfoot]

I would like to point out that with a good pilot (and a ton of luck) a Buffalo could take out a me262 or a p51, even a battleship if it hit it in just (and i mean JUST) the right place.

my half cent

so could a J3

 

[magnocain]

Did you know that Erich Hartmann once took out a French dreadnought with a j3 and a 2 by 4?

all my cents are gone now...ill try to get some more

 

[kool kitty89]

The biggest problem with the Buffalo, besides the steady decline in performance following the F2A-2 (due to overloading), was that Brewster had management problems which greatly limited the quality, and in particular, quantity of aircraft they were able to produce. This also led to problems with keeping (or, more accurately, not keeping) to production deadlines. Maybe they should have outsoursed production...

 

[Civettone]

I know about the production delays. But what quality problems are you talking about??


Kris

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There were quality problems and production delays at Brewster. Eventually the government took control of the factory and ousted most of the management.

 

[kool kitty89]

Yup, and probably the biggest advantage of the Wildcat, besides its durrabillity, was the numbers it was produced in. Only around 500 Buffalos were produced in all types, less than 200 being used by the US (more might have been used had orders not been diverted to foreign markets), compared to over 7,700 Wildcats produced.

 

[Civettone]

So which were these quality problems which were the result of bad management?


Kris

 

[kool kitty89]

I think the structural problems like with the landing gear were hampered by the management problems, while they didn't cause it outright, poor management made it difficult to effectively and efficiently redesign the airframe. Though I think the quality problem was not really that bad. The real problem was with production delays, which were experienced in almost every aircraft that Brewster produced, including their F3A Corsairs IIRC. This was the major reason that the Government seized the factory.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

So which were these quality problems which were the result of bad management?


Kris

I think everything from schedule to the overall quality of the aircraft coming off the line were problems at Brewster and I think this was mainly encountered on the Corsair line. When you're building an aircraft and it is being done in jigs there's little one could screw up unless they're untrained or don't care. In the middle of all this there were union problems and their union actually struck in the middle of the war! From Wiki...

"During WWII it became apparent that Brewster was mismanaged. The company had grown from a relatively minor aircraft parts supplier to a fully-fledged defence giant in only a few years. Jimmy Work had hired Alfred and Ignacio Miranda as the company salesmen. They had been involved on frauds, spending two years in prison for selling illicit arms to Bolivia, and had over-promised Brewster production capabilities to customers. As WWII had swelled the defense industries, the quality of the newly hired work force was inferior in skills and often motivation, and the work was plagued by illicit strikes and even outright sabotage was suspected. The Navy installed a George Chapline as president of the company, easing out Jimmy Work, in the hopes of speeding up production, but then in early 1942 Jimmy Work regained control of the company, just in time to be sued for US$10 million for financial misdeeds. In May 1942 the Navy simply seized Brewster and put the head of the Naval Aircraft Factory in charge.

When the Navy cancelled Brewster's last contract, for assembly of the F3A-1 Corsair, the company was in serious trouble. In October, after reporting a large loss, the management decided to shut down the company, and on April 5, 1946, the Brewster Aeronautical Corporation was dissolved by its shareholders."

 

[kool kitty89]

It's just sad what happened to that company. Their designers had some good ideas, but the company's mismanagement and burocracy killed most of them. Who knows what the F2A could have become if Brewster had had the stabillity and management of established firms like Grumman...

 

[Civettone]

Thanks for the answer guys!!


Yeah Brewster had some good designs.

Kris

 

[kool kitty89]

And it took Grumman 3-4 redesigns to the F4F to beat the F2A design.

And even the F2A-3 was still decent with a minimum fuel load (~600mi range) but with the max load for 1600+ mi (~6 hour) patrols it was overweight and under-performing, unless it came into contact with the enemy after burning half its fuel. The F2A-3s at midway probably entered with a full combat load (gross weight ~7000 lbs) and were thus at a disadvantage to begin with. Not to mention the Marines tried to engage Zeros in turn-and-burn WWI style dogfights, plying on the Zero's turf.

 

[Pflueger]

My vote goes to the Breda 88, for an AC that held such promise only a few years prior to the war (set world speed record in '37) and for such a studly-looking machine to end its service parked on runways as a bombing decoy is unfathomable.

The other candiates pictured on page 5 of this thread have the look of true clunkers (love the tureted fighter concept) - but not the Breda: the thing looks like an @ss-kicker. How in the world did this experiment go so wrong?

 

[kool kitty89]

Maby we shoul set up a poll for this, voting on the worst of this thread... So it would be the worst of the worst.