Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.Which is the worst mass produced (>500 units), monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2? By "mass" produced I'm setting a limit of at least 500 units, so no Vultee Vanguards and its <150 units. The Buffalo stands out, but the Finns did very well with theirs.
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.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.
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.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.
Was that where you were taking us with your initial question? If those are your dogs I'd say you're in the minority.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.
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 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.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
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....look at what they evolved into and I can't help but think they had outstanding DNA to allow such maturation.
It would have been interesting to see what Jiro Horikoshi would have designed had Mitsubishi sourced a competitive engine in the late 1930s.
Agreed. It's amazing that someone thought well enough of the MS406 to save one.I think the MS406 would be a contender. Slow, unreliable poor climb, poor range
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.Agreed. It's amazing that someone thought well enough of the MS406 to save one.
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.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.
Indeed. Having six distinct fighter programs was not a smart move for a smaller industrial power like France.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.
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.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.
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.
As the British demonstrated, pretty much everything from a Spitfire to a Mosquito can be adapted for carrier use.Do you think the Ki-44 could have been adapted for carrier use?