Worst liquid-cooled, V12-powered, single-engine, single-seat, monoplane, retractable undercarriage fighters of WW2?

[Admiral Beez]

Excluding air cooled V12 fighters like the Caudron C.714 or fixed undercarriage fighters like the prototype-only Miles M.20, which were the worst liquid-cooled, V12-powered, single-engine monoplane, retractable undercarriage fighters of WW2? IMO, contenders would include the LaGG-1, LaGG-3 and Rogožarski IK-3. I'm less sure about the Heinkel He 100 or Reggiane Re.2001. While not a production aircraft, the Kawasaki Ki-60 was reportedly deeply flawed, but led to the competitive Ki-61.

 

[cherry blossom]

The Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 has most of those beat (if that is the right word). The Re 2001 would have it for breakfast.

 

[MIflyer]

LaGG-3 and Mig-3. Also a P-322 with one engine missing.

 

[Just Schmidt]

If we are including fighters that didn't go into production or become operational, it will be rather difficult to decide.

 

[glennasher]

The Defiant comes to mind. Great engine, of course, but that didn't make up for the rest of it.,,



Ooops, single seat, never mind...............

 

[Just Schmidt]

The Defiant comes to mind. Great engine, of course, but that didn't make up for the rest of it.

you're right, of course. With the gunner missing it dosn't stand a chance.

 

[cherry blossom]

The LaGG-3 certainly has the best nickname Lakirovanny Garantirovanny Grob or "guaranteed varnished coffin".

 

[GregP]

The Defiant comes to mind. Great engine, of course, but that didn't make up for the rest of it.,,



Ooops, single seat, never mind...............

They DID make a single-seat version of the Defiant.

No word on how it flew other than that it DID fly and wasn't selected for production. That MAY just mean that, while it flew well, it wasn't better than what was already being built.

For worst single-seat fight including prototypes, I offer the Ambrosini SS.4 canard fighter:

Reportedly the prototype crashed on it's second flight, and the first flight was a short hop. It looks cool, but so did the Hindenburg as it approached New Jersey late one afternoon on 6 May 1937.

Another contended would be the Aviotehase PN.3 which reportedly was satisfactory to the Estonians, but they didn't have time to put it into production before being overrun by the Soviet Union. It says something about the PN-3 that the Soviets, who desperately needed better airplanes, didn't apparently want it produced, either!

 

[Just Schmidt]

I belive the Caudron 714 is a 'strong' contender.

 

[SaparotRob]

They DID make a single-seat version of the Defiant.

View attachment 767472

No word on how it flew other than that it DID fly and wasn't selected for production. That MAY just mean that, while it flew well, it wasn't better than what was already being built.

Just for a larf, could you computery-jiggery a bubble cockpit on the Defiant? Maybe set it back a skosh for aesthetics?
No, I'm not saying as a what-if production model. Just that it might look pretty nice.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Just for a larf, could you computery-jiggery a bubble cockpit on the Defiant? Maybe set it back a skosh for aesthetics?
No, I'm not saying as a what-if production model. Just that it might look pretty nice.

 

[Shortround6]

Prototypes?

XP-54

XP-55

XP-60A

So may contenders, so little time.

 

[SaparotRob]

The XP-54 definitely has the best nickname.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 has most of those beat (if that is the right word). The Re 2001 would have it for breakfast.

That's the lump I was thinking of, the Morane-Saulnier M.S.406.

They DID make a single-seat version of the Defiant.

True, but was it a contender for the worst single engined fighter? I think given a good Merlin and four 20mm cannons the single seat Defiant had potential to be an early Typhoon-like train cracker.

 

[MIflyer]

True, but was it a contender for the worst single engined fighter? I think given a good Merlin and four 20mm cannons the single seat Defiant had potential to be an early Typhoon-like train cracker.

The Defiant was built under the assumption that enemy bomber formations would have to fly too far to have fighter escort. Why would you build a single seat Defiant rather than more Spits and Hurricanes or buy more P-40's? I guess that it might have had the potential for more range, but for Heaven's sakes, Limeys, if that is what you want, talk to the Yanks about drop tanks, which they were using back with the P-6E, and you own innovators could make them out of paper..

 

[Admiral Beez]

If we are including fighters that didn't go into production or become operational, it will be rather difficult to decide.

Agreed. Let's stick to aircraft that entered operational service.

 

[Shortround6]

Narrows things down a lot.
We either have early (1935-39 aircraft) with low powered engines (Bf 109C ?) or later airplanes with poorly built engines. Japanese K-61 or Soviet airplanes with M-106/M-107s.
Typhoons are a possibility depending on year and charitable intentions

 

[MIflyer]

P-46? No better than a P-40E.

 

[SaparotRob]

View attachment 767503

Well, at least you didn't say "fixed it."

 

[Admiral Beez]

P-46? No better than a P-40E.

View attachment 767518

If you re-open your post you can grab the corner of the image and reduce its size. The resizing doesn't take if you do it on the first posting, only with edits. I do this with most of my posts so that I do not overwhelm the viewer's screen. Like this....