Just a question; what do you mean by worst? Worst in terms of contemporary measured performance? Worst in terms of perception by the pilots that flew them? Worst in terms of historical reputation? Worst in terms of the manner in which they were used? Worst in economic terms? Worst to maintain? There is no one aircraft in the greater than 500 operational units category, at least in terms of usage in WWII, that could fulfill all of the above.
Worst mass produced, monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #302
Admiral Beez
Major
I think worst by contemporary measured performance. With the right industrial might, logistical chain and expertise any challenges in production or maintenance can be overcome, but if you've made a lemon there's little hope without significant rethink and rework.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Without bothering to look it up, my beloved Buffalo would be a contender as they made 500 of 'em. By most assessments it stunk without my having to define stunktitude. Perhaps the same can be said of early MiGs and Laggs as well. I'm not familiar with VVS equipment. There was a Laag whose acronym was turned into "lacquered coffin". The FAA had a fighter and a dive bomber rolled into one. Again, contenders all. The F2A did, however, have its moments.
Well I guess you could call the P-40A and the Spitfire Mark I and the BF-109B and the early model P-47s and P-51s dogs. They all required at least some rethinking and rework to turn into what they became. Production usually has less to do with an aircraft being a dog. By the standard of complex design not designed for mass production; the Lockheed P-38 could fit that description. One of the things that surprised the USAAF people was the ease of maintenance on most German aircraft of that time. Some years back I read a report of an AAF General who was I think an attache in Berlin and who had been invited to a maintenance demonstration by Luftwaffe personnel on a BF-109. He reported back to General Hap Arnold that he had been told to time the maintenance crew as they swapped engines and the armorers crew as the reloaded the weapons. The engine swap took 15 minutes while the reloading needed 17 after which a pilot took off in the plane performed a number of manuvers and landed it. For the AAF such speed in maintenance was unheard of. Was the Brewster F2A a dog or did the nation that built it not have the industrial might, logistical chain and expertise to turn it into a fighter at least as good as other contemporary aircraft if not better? I think a dog is more a product of wishful thinking rather than bad design. The Bell YFM-1 Airacuda might fit that description.
- Thread starter
- #305
Admiral Beez
Major
Was that where you were taking us with your initial question? If those are your dogs I'd say you're in the minority.
When I look at the early marks / versions of an aircraft, fighters in particular, and compare them to the later variants, I could see where one would call them a dog. However, compared to the majority of planes being produced at the same time, they each stood out. Then look at what they evolved into and I can' help but think they had outstanding DNA to allow such maturation.
Cheers,
Biff
Cheers,
Biff
When looking at the history of aircraft design, especially fighters, it's clear that no aircraft manufacturer's design team set out to build a 'Dog'. What I'm saying is that simply because I have 20/20 hindsight doesn't put me in the position to judge the efforts of those aircraft engineers who tried to do their level best for their employers and ultimately their countries. Some companies went with the tried and true approach and came out with airplanes like the PZL or the Hawker Hurricane while others like Supermarine took the S.6B and the 224 to bring out the Spitfire. Willi Messerschmitt took a chance on designing the BF-108 Taifun (an excellent aircraft even by today's standards) which led to the 109. The Spit Mk.1 and the 109A both showed promise but were not in themselves what they would become. They both required improvement. The P-39 and F2A both stood out as showing promise in much the same way as the P-36 or the Seversky P-35. There are many that would label the P-35 a 'Dog" even though its lineage can be traced forward through the P-43 Lancer to the P-47. If the same level of effort had been put into improvements in aircraft like the P-39, the F2A and others as well, there would be a larger number of aircraft memorable as outstanding designs.
- Thread starter
- #308
Admiral Beez
Major
Let's keep it simple. A single-seat, single-engine, monoplane, retractable undercarriage WW2-era fighter needs a competitive combination of speed, agility, firepower, protection, robustness and (determined by its intended role) endurance in order to match opposing fighters and bombers. Throw in tech like reliable engines, guns, gunsights and radios.
Some, like the Spitfire, Mustang, Fw 190, etc. do this well. Others, like the LaGG-1/3 and MS. 406 not so much. The A6M Zero neglected five of the above seven elements to focus on agility and endurance, resulting in an unbalanced design that was doomed once its one trick and the related compromises were exploited by the enemy, IMO. It would have been interesting to see what Jiro Horikoshi would have designed had Mitsubishi sourced a competitive engine in the late 1930s.
Some, like the Spitfire, Mustang, Fw 190, etc. do this well. Others, like the LaGG-1/3 and MS. 406 not so much. The A6M Zero neglected five of the above seven elements to focus on agility and endurance, resulting in an unbalanced design that was doomed once its one trick and the related compromises were exploited by the enemy, IMO. It would have been interesting to see what Jiro Horikoshi would have designed had Mitsubishi sourced a competitive engine in the late 1930s.
Good point. Look at the Arsenal VG-33... too few produced to be considered here, but IMO it had the DNA to become something superlative.
Last edited:
glennasher
Senior Airman
IIRC, the earliest Buffaloes outclimbed the earliest Wildcats enough to get the contract before Grumman got theirs. Then, they added on armor, self-sealing fuel cells, etc. and that ended the excellent climbing of the early Buffs. I expect it was the same across the board, for all the pre-war purchases.
When they decided they needed armor, more guns, etc., then the aircraft ceased it's earlier attributes and became "something else".
When they decided they needed armor, more guns, etc., then the aircraft ceased it's earlier attributes and became "something else".
Glider
Captain
I think the MS406 would be a contender. Slow, unreliable poor climb, poor range
The early Hurricane Mk 1 and early versions of the Bf109s may have been dogs in terms of later performance but their job was actually to get a modern airforce off the ground, to train pilots and ground crew. The deficiencies of the Hurricane could be overcome in an afternoon, change the wings, change the prop and put new fuel and armour in. To call an early P-51 a dog is terminological inexactitude, it served until the end of the war almost unchanged and the RAF would have taken more at any time. The Spitfire needed improvement and it was improved remaining a competitive prop fighter from 1938 until prop fighters themselves were obsolete. If it didnt need improvement you are in the fantasy situation of Spitfire MkXIVs ripping the LW out of the sky in the BoB.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Unfortunately for the Japanese it wasn't Mitsubishi that sourced the engine. Once their Zuisei engine proved not powerful enough in the first prototype/s The Navy ordered Mitsubishi to use the Nakajima Sakae instead of Mitsubishi's proposed substitution of their own Kinsei engine.
The Kinsei may not have given the desired range however. The Navy continued to deny Mitsubishi's proposals to use the Kinsei engine until the A6M8.
- Thread starter
- #313
Admiral Beez
Major
M.S. 406, yet another example of following the 'Tried and True' approach to fighter design rather than going out on a limb and trying for higher performance.
Shortround6
Major General
Trouble is you sometimes need both. If you bet your country's future on going out on a limb you can wind up with an air force with stuff like this.
or
Or see, Dewoitine D551
Looks cool but it had a much smaller wing than the D 520 (higher wing loading and landing speed) and used a tail skid. How practical that was service use I have no idea.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I guess this is where industrial advantage comes into play. With a big enough industrial base, a nation could go with both "tried and true" and go out on limb as well.
- Thread starter
- #317
Admiral Beez
Major
Indeed. Having six distinct fighter programs was not a smart move for a smaller industrial power like France.
Could France make due with just two fighters?
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #318
Admiral Beez
Major
If there's one nation that could have benefited from a universal fighter it's Japan. Use the Ki-44 for both navy and army, like how the F-4 Phantom II was used universally across all three US air services. Yes, I know that the army and navy couldn't cooperate so it's a dead horse, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't have benefited. Same goes for twin engined bombers, make one for each size to serve both IJN and IJAF.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 904
- Feb 16, 2013
Do you think the Ki-44 could have been adapted for carrier use?
- Thread starter
- #320
Admiral Beez
Major
As the British demonstrated, pretty much everything from a Spitfire to a Mosquito can be adapted for carrier use.
The Ki-44 was the semi-successor to the Ki-43 whilst the A6M didn't have one. The Ki-44 had a more balanced design, with better armament, protection for the pilot, etc. Start with that and modify it. Or scrap it and make something that can suit both air arms.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
