Worst aircraft of WW2?

[HealzDevo]

I think the truth is though the Defiant has to take the idea of worst actual implemented idea for an actual fighter aircraft. That big turret affected flight performance massively. It was also easy to avoid the danger zone of the fire from the Defiant and attack from underneath. Therefore it has to be said that it had initial effectiveness but it was very easy to counter. This is a better idea for defending bombers rather than using as armament on a fighter due to the need for the fighter to have manevourability and speed to make the intercept and the hopeful kill.

The Defiant thinking impinged on both these facts, which makes it potentially the worst fighter of WW2. Admittedly it did achieve success as a night-fighter but still it was no good in its original role...

 

[tomo pauk]

Out of all WW2 "turret fighters", Defiant was the best...

 

[Juha]

Hello Tomo
yes, Defiant cannot be the worst because there was Roc.

Juha

 

[tomo pauk]

You....old fox 8)

 

[HealzDevo]

I still think of the Defiant as the worst to see active service. ROC never saw active service did it?

 

[vikingBerserker]

It did see active service with at least the 801 806 Squadron. However, I'm not sure if they ever really saw combat

 

[buffnut453]

It did see active service with at least the 801 806 Squadron. However, I'm not sure if they ever really saw combat

VB,

The recent Roc GB on this forum was in the markings of the aircraft flown by Sqn Ldr Clarke when he attacked and damaged a German floatplane. Despite making several passes, the floatplane refused to be shot down. This was a second-line aircraft, however, and not part of a truly operational unit.

HTH,
BN

 

[Airbus380]

but atleast it did something during the war, not like the battle...........

Not quite true!

The Battle went into action in May 1940 as well as it could. It was totally

inadequate and the losses were horrendous. It says a lot for the crews who

knew they were facing total wipeout, that they tried their best with what they'd

got. Rather like the crews of the Devastators and Dauntlesses at Midway.

Rgds. Airbus380

 

[Njaco]

Not quite true!

The Battle went into action in May 1940 as well as it could. It was totally

inadequate and the losses were horrendous. It says a lot for the crews who

knew they were facing total wipeout, that they tried their best with what they'd

got. Rather like the crews of the Devastators and Dauntlesses at Midway.

Rgds. Airbus380

I'm not so sure that would be totally accurate as far as crew anticipation was - hindsight being hindsight. I don't think many of those machines had such awful track records at the time that crews woud get sweaty hands because of the plane they were flying. Your point about Midway is fine except what other battle experice did SBDs have prior to Midway? Coral Sea. Of course after those engagements, the Battles and Devastators were pulled.

 

[HealzDevo]

Then again for design we could always consider the He-177 Grief supposedly nicknamed by the German aircrew "The Flying Coffin" as a potential honorary mention due to the habit its twined engines had of creating flaming wrecks...

 

[Kryten]

May I nominate the Fairy Fulmar as possibly one of the worst aircraft of ww2?

 

[Marcel]

I sometimes check this thread just because someone always mentions the Brewster Buffalo in it.

Come on people, how can you say that the Brewster Buffalo was THE worst aircraft of WW2?

In the Finnish Eastern front, in Summer 1941, it was simply the best fighter available on either side. Why? From the all Finnish fighters, it was the fastest, had the best range, best armament, and was probably most reliable and durable.

Of course, the FAF fighter inventory then was not anything to cheer about:

Fokker D.XXI (totally outclassed in every way)

As a Fokker-lover (and being Dutch) I have to object Finish airforce did quite well with this "outclassed" Fokker. Also the ML D.XXI's did quite well, considering the circumstances.

 

[tomo pauk]

May I nominate the Fairy Fulmar as possibly one of the worst aircraft of ww2?

It would be good to say why, whether Fulmar or any other plane.

 

[PatR1012]

An article came out on cracked yesturday called 7 Planes Perfectly Designed (to Kill Their Pilots). It is seriously amazing, and will hopefully put an end to the debate once and for all. Natter was the worst.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

An article came out on cracked yesturday called 7 Planes Perfectly Designed (to Kill Their Pilots). It is seriously amazing, and will hopefully put an end to the debate once and for all. Natter was the worst.

The Natter was an experiment and was never used operationally. It actually made it through a flight test stage and showed some conceptual promise. Although the pilot was killed during its one and only test flight, it probably could have worked.

 

[GrauGeist]

PatR1012, I would put as much credibility on that article's author as I would with a politician's promise...I'm guessing this person is just posting this stuff to make thier blog interesting.

#1. The Flying Bomb Fieseler FI 103R-IV "Reichenberg"
First off, the heading image is a conceptual image of a Me262B-1 two-seat trainer with Argus engines...nothing to do with the Reichenburg. The concept of the manned "V1" was to get it on target and bail out, unlike the Japanese Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka, which was an actual suicide machine. Oh, the author failed to mention that.

#2.The Disposable Heinkel He-162 Volksjager
Where'd this clown get his info? There is truth to the loss rate, because of the inexperience of the pilots, but the plane flew well with a light touch on the controls, the instrumentation was simple and yes, the plane was rushed into construction from conception in a short time...due to the dire need for a simple economical defense fighter. It also had an ejection seat for the pilot's safety, something very few Allied fighters had at that time...

#3.The Easily Torched Mitsubishi G4M "Betty"
Much like the Zero and other Japanese aircraft of the early stages of WWII, Japan had air superiority and a need to cover large distances. With those being key factors, self sealing fuel tanks and armor protection for the crew were unnessecary weight expendatures. In all actuality, the G4M was a remarkable plane and served the Japanese well for the duration.

And the rest is pretty much the same BS...

If the author is trying to be funny with thier article, they're falling way short of the mark.

If they're trying to be informative, then they earn a major FAIL

And for a bonus: read the user comments...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

PatR1012, I would put as much credibility on that article's author as I would with a politician's promise...I'm guessing this person is just posting this stuff to make thier blog interesting.
...

I have not yet looking into this individuals' background and expertise to give such a critique, but I'm guessing he's an "armchair" and if not I will apologize accordingly. If so I will puke on him accordingly.

EDIT!!!!

I just looked him up on line - here's what he says about himself on "cracked."


"My name's Pat Riordan. I'm an Aerospace Engineering major at U of I, and my abs are considered a precious metal by most nations. Here is a fact:

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/members/RocketScientist#ixzz16jw4CK9Y"


Pat - you're an armchair - STFU! Pray that I'm never in you're company after eating 5 beef and bean burritos and drinking 4 pitchers of cheap beer!

 

[Milosh]

I hope he never works on designing an airplane that I have to fly in.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I hope he never works on designing an airplane that I have to fly in.

 

[Civettone]

Almost like a NGC documentary


Kris