Worst aircraft of WW2?

[FLYBOYJ]

The I153 was a generation before the Bf109, but not a bad airplane, better than the german biplanes which it fought in the spanish civil war.

If I remember right the few that made it to Spain performed well and was even more maneuvable than the early Bf 109s it faced.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

The I-153 failed miserably as a fighter though, being massively outperformed by the 109.

I'd blame it's failure against the 109 on the commanders who committed it to that losing fight, not to the aircraft. There were still Claudes being flown against USN aircraft near the end of the war. They didn't stand much chance because they were obsolete, not because they were lousy aircraft. When the Claude came out, it was a tremendous advancement. The Japanese just kept using them for too long.

BTW, another loser I haven't seen much about is the Bell P-59. That was a failure as a fighter, being no faster than exisiting prop jobs and it had a bad snake at speed, making it a lousy gun platform.

CD

 

[Marcel]

If I remember right the few that made it to Spain performed well and was even more maneuvable than the early Bf 109s it faced.

It was definitely more manoeuvrable than the Bf109. The 109 was faster though and the Germans used zoom 'n boom tactics which gave them considerable success, even against more manoeuvrable opponents

 

[Gundrium]

I notice how NO ONE has even MENTIONED the F3F Brewster 'buffalo' as of yet, the thing was very possibly THE WORST aircraft of the entire war!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I notice how NO ONE has even MENTIONED the F3F Brewster 'buffalo' as of yet, the thing was very possibly THE WORST aircraft of the entire war!

It was mentioned earlier in the thread - there was also discussion about the export version that went to Finland where it had one of the best, if not the best kill to loss ratio of the entire war!!!!

 

[Soren]

The Finnish had even better succes with the 109.

 

[Soren]

As for the I-153, very maneuverable yes, but painfully slow. The 109 massively outperformed the I-153.

The I-153 is one of the very worst a/c of WW2 IMO, being completely useless from start till finish. Heck even the Brewster Buffalo out performed it.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Finnish had even better succes with the 109.

Most of their top aces got most of their kills in the Buffalo or in the Fokker XXI

As for the I-153, very maneuverable yes, but painfully slow. The 109 massively outperformed the I-153.

The I-153 is one of the very worst a/c of WW2 IMO, being completely useless from start till finish. Heck even the Brewster Buffalo out performed it.

Again the I-153 was a good fighter in its day, it was just outclassed by modern German fighters, but as stated could hold its own against early 109s - that was proven over Spain.

It would be like having He 51s fight against Spitfires...

BTW - I-153, top speed about 260 mph
Bf 109B had a top speed of about 290.

 

[Soren]

The I-153 got its ass kicked by the 109 over spain FLYBOYJ.

Anyway we're talking WW2 here and IMO the I-153 was as useless as could be in that war. And I really don't think that just because it was built for the early 30's that this justifies that it can't be called the worst of WW2. Heck if it's that way round why not bring up the Red Baron's Fokker triplane, it kicked ass in WW1, so surely it can't be called crap in WW2. See what I mean ??

The "Crappy'ness" of an a/c in war shouldn't be based on its performance at its introduction date, but rather on its performance in that very conflict, and the I-153 in short sucked as a fighter in WW2.

 

[claidemore]

The I-153 got its ass kicked by the 109 over spain FLYBOYJ.

Anyway we're talking WW2 here and IMO the I-153 was as useless as could be in that war. And I really don't think that just because it was built for the early 30's that this justifies that it can't be called the worst of WW2. Heck if it's that way round why not bring up the Red Baron's Fokker triplane, it kicked ass in WW1, so surely it can't be called crap in WW2. See what I mean ??

The "Crappy'ness" of an a/c in war shouldn't be based on its performance at its introduction date, but rather on its performance in that very conflict, and the I-153 in short sucked as a fighter in WW2.

Actually, the 1-153 never flew in Spain. That was the I-15 (Chato)or I-152;both had fixed landing gear, the 153 had retractable gear.

The I-153 was actually built because of the 'success' of the other two earlier types in Spain which convinced Soviet planners in the 30s that hightly maneuverable bi-planes could still be effective in modern warfare.
The I-153 was not operational until 1939, and remained in service until 1943. They build 3437 of them, armed initally with 4 x 7.62mm, later with 2 or 4 x 12.7mm or 2 x 20mm.

It was considered to have done better against the Japanese Ki-27 than either the I-15bis or I-16.

There were 11 Soviet pilots who achieved 'Ace' status flying the Polikarpov biplanes during WWII. Alexander Ardeyev was one of them, with 12 kills flying I-153s. 56 kill ace Rechkalov also got 3 kills in a I-153.

Definately not a great plane, but also definatley not the worst plane of WWII.

 

[magnocain]

What about the Hawker Furry? It was in ww2 and was probily a lot worse than the I-153.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The I-153 got its ass kicked by the 109 over spain FLYBOYJ.

Did it????
ON THE POLIKARPOV I-153 IN SPAIN

Anyway we're talking WW2 here and IMO the I-153 was as useless as could be in that war. And I really don't think that just because it was built for the early 30's that this justifies that it can't be called the worst of WW2. Heck if it's that way round why not bring up the Red Baron's Fokker triplane, it kicked ass in WW1, so surely it can't be called crap in WW2. See what I mean ??

The aircraft performed per it's design requirement - it would be like putting the Bf 109 aganist an F-86 and saying the Bf 109 was crap, just the opposite of your example.

The "Crappy'ness" of an a/c in war shouldn't be based on its performance at its introduction date, but rather on its performance in that very conflict, and the I-153 in short sucked as a fighter in WW2.

I disagree - the I-153 was outclassed, was flown by inferior pilots who deployed inferior tactics- it was a generation behind what it was fighting against - it would be like He 51s fighting Spitfires (as I stated earlier). But had it fought against an air arm whose best fighter was the He 51, I think things would of been very different as it older brother the I-15 did very well against the He51 over Spain.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Actually, the 1-153 never flew in Spain. That was the I-15 (Chato)or I-152;both had fixed landing gear, the 153 had retractable gear.

The I-153 was actually built because of the 'success' of the other two earlier types in Spain which convinced Soviet planners in the 30s that hightly maneuverable bi-planes could still be effective in modern warfare.
The I-153 was not operational until 1939, and remained in service until 1943. They build 3437 of them, armed initally with 4 x 7.62mm, later with 2 or 4 x 12.7mm or 2 x 20mm.

It was considered to have done better against the Japanese Ki-27 than either the I-15bis or I-16.

There were 11 Soviet pilots who achieved 'Ace' status flying the Polikarpov biplanes during WWII. Alexander Ardeyev was one of them, with 12 kills flying I-153s. 56 kill ace Rechkalov also got 3 kills in a I-153.

Definately not a great plane, but also definatley not the worst plane of WWII.

Agree....

 

[Soren]

FLYBOYJ,

That article just reinforces what I said, the Polikarpoc series gots its ass kicked over Spain by the 109.

Moving on..

If any WW2 fighter was used in the Korean war in the 50's it would've been the worst of that conflict FLYBOYJ, the Jet's would massacre it.

The Polikarpov series were useless in WW2 and can therefore be called the worst of that conflict. Heck they did miserably over Spain against the Bf-109C B's.

 

[Elvis]

I notice how NO ONE has even MENTIONED the F3F Brewster 'buffalo' as of yet, the thing was very possibly THE WORST aircraft of the entire war!

The Finns would beg to differ, along with a number of USN pilots who flew it in testing.

Elvis

 

[Elvis]

Actually, the 1-153 never flew in Spain. That was the I-15 (Chato)or I-152;both had fixed landing gear, the 153 had retractable gear.

Wouldn't that then make it an I-16 with a top wing and some struts tacked on?
Of course, I think it pre-dates the I-16, but just saying.


Elvis

 

[FLYBOYJ]

FLYBOYJ,

That article just reinforces what I said, the Polikarpoc series gots its ass kicked over Spain by the 109.

No - it said it might not have ever seen combat - and that was also the point by claidemore

Moving on..

If any WW2 fighter was used in the Korean war in the 50's it would've been the worst of that conflict FLYBOYJ, the Jet's would massacre it.

Agree

The Polikarpov series were useless in WW2 and can therefore be called the worst of that conflict. Heck they did miserably over Spain against the Bf-109C B's.

Are you talking about the I-16? It was outclassed but did hold it's own against the early 109s. US Mercenary Frank Tinker shot down a Bf 109 flying an I-16. Overall I agree the early 109 was a superior aircraft when compared to the I-16 (or I-153) but again the I-15, I-16 and the I-153 fulfilled their role during the period they were intended to be used in, that being the late 1930s. Again the I-153 should be compared with the last of the biplane fighters, the Gloster Gladiator, the CR 42, the Avia and the He 51.

To me a bad aircraft is one that is not only outclassed but can't perform it's intended design role - and the perfect example was the Ba 88

 

[Graeme]

Wouldn't that then make it an I-16 with a top wing and some struts tacked on?
Of course, I think it pre-dates the I-16, but just saying. Elvis

The I-15 flew first, followed 2 months later by the I-16.

The I-153 chronologically was Polikarpov's last biplane fighter, whose top wing reverted to the Chajka (Seagull) layout as seen on the I-15. The I-153 has been described as "probably the best of all biplane fighters".

The I-153 didn't participate in the Spanish Civil War, according to Gerald Howson who believes the confusion arises from one exhibited in a French museum said to have escaped after the war. His research revealed that it was manufactured six months after the war.

 

[Elvis]

2 months?!

I thought there was much more time difference between the two.

Thanks for the info, Graeme.





Elvis

 

[claidemore]

A brief look at some biplane fighters which served in WWII.

Avia B-534- 380mph, 3x7.92mm, Czech plane, Germany tried to adapt it for carrier service, then used it as a trainer.

Curtis Hawk II-335mph, 2 x .30 Brownings, used in China
Curtis Hawk III-386 kmh, 2 x .30 Brownings, used in China

Fokker DXVII-335 khm, 2 x 7.92 mg, flew 3 sorties in WWII for Netherlands, engine often needed complete overhaul after only 2 hours use. Good candidate for worst WWII plane.

Fairey Fox- 365 khm, 2 x machineguns, flew 100 sorties for Belgium, damaged/probably destroyed one Bf109.

Bristol Bulldog, 360 khm, 2 x mg, Finnland

CR-32 - 360khm, 2 x 12.7mm and 2 x 7.7mm Italy and Hungary
CR-42 - 430 khm, 2 x 12.7mm, Italy, Hungary, Germany, and others, 2nd fastest bi-plane fighter, one of top 3 biplane fighters.

Gloster Gladiator, 410 khm, 4 x .303, used by RAF/FAA, Finland, and others. Finns claimed 43 kills with Gladiators, RAF used them in France, BoB, Norway, Malta and Western Desert. One of the top 3 biplane fighters.

Hawker Fury -359 khm, 2 x .303, 7 kills claimed by Yugoslavia and SAAF.

Japanese biplanes, they had various biplane fighters which saw limited service in China, mostly phased out by the time the war really got going.

I-15 - 360 khm, 4 x 7.62, service in Spain, USSR

I-152 - 370 khm, 4 x 7.62, Spain, China, USSR

I-153 - 450 khm, 4 x 7.62 or 2 x 12.7or 20mm, China, Finland, USSR, fastest bi-plane fighter ever, one of top 3 biplane fighters. Last kill by a Finnish I-153 was in 1944 against a P39 Airacobra.

Excellent link about WWII biplanes:

Hkans Aviation page - Biplane Fighter Aces from the Second World War