Worst mass produced, monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2?

[swampyankee]

So a simple "chopping off" a length for balance wouldn't have helped (center of gravity)? I was thinking of improving a bad plane by taking stuff out and using less critical materials.
I never knew the FM-1 was not an improvement.

It was the Bell FM-1, a bomber destroyer that was slower than the bombers it was supposed to shoot down. It doesn't fit the criteria for this thread, as it had a crew of five , two engines (plus an APU that powered everything, including the fuel pumps supplying the engines), and (thank God!) only about a dozen were built. It did have retractable gear, though.

 

[SaparotRob]

I thought you meant the GM built Wildcat. I forgot about the Aircuda. It was called the Aircuda, right?

 

[swampyankee]

I thought you meant the GM built Wildcat. I forgot about the Aircuda. It was called the Aircuda, right?

I think it was Airacuda, but no matter.

The Defiant was a good design to a bad spec; the Airacuda was a poor design to a bad spec.

 

[Kevin J]

I think it was Airacuda, but no matter.

The Defiant was a good design to a bad spec; the Airacuda was a poor design to a bad spec.

At least with both the Defiant and Roc, you ended ended up with some useful target tugs.

 

[TheMadPenguin]

Could the Bismarck and Tirpitz be included? heavily armed and good at low level with advanced RADAR?

No.
<500 built, and no retractable undercarriage.

 

[Schweik]

I'll have to dig out my Bloody Shambles, but IIRC even the Buffalo had good kill ratios against the Oscar. Of course a few dozen Bufffaloes would be overwhelmed by the number of Oscars. I suppose any aircraft in this category is deadly.

This vid of the Oscar is well done. I'll do some reading on the Buffalo and see if I can find any references to Oscar kills.

The Oscar did quite well against most Allied fighter opposition. Especially the Buffalo.

 

[Schweik]

P-11 doestm meet criteria of retractable undercarriage and closed cockpit. As for armament P. 11a and b had only two MGs. P11c (and not really built g variant) had 4 but 2 of them were field removed to Save weight andimprove speed.

Well if that is the case why are they talking about the I-16? Most of them were open cockpit.

 

[SaparotRob]

I just found a thread from October, 2019 "Single seat Defiant".
You're right Shortround6. It gives us nothing.

 

[NevadaK]

No.
<500 built, and no retractable undercarriage.

And yet, somehow the Japanese managed to pull it off. Just too late to turn the tide of the war.....

 

[TheMadPenguin]

And yet, somehow the Japanese managed to pull it off. Just too late to turn the tide of the war.....View attachment 585138

That's a Yamato-class ship. Not a Bismark class.
And there are <500 of either class, nor do they have retractable landing gear.

As for turning the tide of war: They'd not need oil, having controlled fusion; nor would they lack for metal ores since the whole asteroid belt is open to them; and sinking our whole fleet would be tossing grenades into a barrel of fish.

 

[NevadaK]

That's a Yamato-class ship. Not a Bismark class.
And there are <500 of either class, nor do they have retractable landing gear.

Touche!

 

[swampyankee]

No.
<500 built, and no retractable undercarriage.

Also, they didn't have one-man crews and had multiple engines.

 

[Schweik]

I think the Spaceship Yamato did not have any landing gear though, fixed or otherwise. Once it was launched it stayed aloft forever.

 

[Schweik]

At least with both the Defiant and Roc, you ended ended up with some useful target tugs.

I don't think it's an apt comparison really, "Airacuda" considering two pusher engines, high caliber guns, 5 crew etc. etc. , was a much more radical experiment as a fighter (or 'bomber destroyer') and a much bigger aircraft, but it (almost literally) never got off the ground. It was little more than a weird experiment, which nobody was dumb enough to put into regular production, only 12 were made and it only ever equipped a single experimental squadron. It was considered so unreliable they never flew without chase planes. Defiant was much more widely used, until 1942, and they built 1,000 of them...

 

[SaparotRob]

It's officially Space Battleship Yamato. It could land on large bodies of water making it a flying "boat".

 

[swampyankee]

I don't think it's an apt comparison really, "Airacuda" considering two pusher engines, high caliber guns, 5 crew etc. etc. , was a much more radical experiment as a fighter (or 'bomber destroyer') and a much bigger aircraft, but it (almost literally) never got off the ground. It was little more than a weird experiment, which nobody was dumb enough to put into regular production, only 12 were made and it only ever equipped a single experimental squadron. It was considered so unreliable they never flew without chase planes. Defiant was much more widely used, until 1942, and they built 1,000 of them...

It was still, in my opinion, a poor design. Why? Leaving aside the armament, the idea of using a single APU to power all the electrical systems on the aircraft, including the electric fuel pumps needed to keep the engines running, was, at best, misguided and tends to approach the blatantly stupid.

 

[SaparotRob]

It looked cool.

 

[Schweik]

It was still, in my opinion, a poor design. Why? Leaving aside the armament, the idea of using a single APU to power all the electrical systems on the aircraft, including the electric fuel pumps needed to keep the engines running, was, at best, misguided and tends to approach the blatantly stupid.

I agree! It was a terrible design. Maybe more precisely a huge design overreach that shouldn't have gone past the back of a napkin phase. Totally agree about the APU. But luckily for it's potential aircrew and the overall war effort, it was basically strangled in the crib. And it was kinda cool looking...

 

[tyrodtom]

Well if that is the case why are they talking about the I-16? Most of them were open cockpit.

View attachment 585137

I don't know which they made more of.
The I-16 had a strange sort of canopy, the windscreen and sides were one piece, and slide forward, so lots of time in pictures you're actually looking at a I-16 with a enclosed canopy. but it's slid forward and open.

 

[SaparotRob]

I believe the I-16's canopy was defective. It would slam shut at the wrong time. The VVS just fixed them to stay open.