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

[RW Mk. III]

It took off from a trolley and landed on a retractable skid. Occassionally, the pilot's back was broken during landing. Also, if there was fuel and oxidizer left, if anything went wrong with the landing, it could leak onto the pilot and dissolve their skin.

Even if nothing went wrong, the Me163 couldn't taxi (it was a glider) and had to wait for a vehicle to tow it off the runway. I'm sure this was a prized assignment for Luftwaffe ground crew: collecting a glider with remnants of hypergolic, corrosive, toxic, and generally unpleasant propellants while Allied fighters were strafing the field.

To further this I think it's worth pointing out that hypergolic fuel is a mad idea in a combat scenario full stop. Admittedly the German regime was quite mad so there you have it. Years later the dangers and drawbacks of hypergolics were considered just about acceptable in ballistic missiles that sat in silos peacefully awaiting their one and only use, until it was realized that it was still a bad idea. And even then there were some terrible accidents, read about the Damascus Titan explosion, a single socket dropped caused it...

Me163 was very impressive, and kinda-sorta effective had it been developed further? But it's heavily reliant on an extreme disregard for acceptable losses, and pilot and aircrew safety. A typical wunderwaffe, willfully blind of the cost-benefit analysis end of technological warfare. Of all the things the LW was short of, pilots was possibly the worst deficiency. In that light, the Me163 was doubly insane.

I would point out that although incidents of pilots being melted (to one degree or another) may be Apocryphal, they were extremely possible, if not probable if the thing had stayed in use. Even with fuel depleted it takes a small amount of this stuff to burn tissue, and the fumes from the reaction are also toxic. If cross-contamination of the fuel tanks occured, even in a fuel-depleted state there would be more than enough left to blow the thing up.

 

[swampyankee]

The corrosive nature of the fuel and oxidizer wasn't the only issue. It was inevitable that some small amount of each component would remain in the tanks/pipes at the end of the sortie. Landing damage risked inadvertent mixing of the 2 chemicals which would then spontaneously combust.

It must have been terrifying for a pilot who hurt his back during landing, knowing he's sitting in a mostly wooden airframe, to then see fire break out with often explosive ferocity.

Interestingly, one book (the first version of The World's Worst Aircraft) had a Luftwaffe pilot claim the Me163 had some of the best in-flight handling of any German fighter.

 

[TheMadPenguin]

The Me 163 fuel/oxidizer was hydrazine-methanol and Hi-Test hydrogen peroxide.
They were hypergolic (splash together and you get instant flame/blast)
Perhaps I will be indulged, or at least forgiven, in thinking these were both hypergolic with pilots as well as with each other.

 

[swampyankee]

The Me 163 fuel/oxidizer was hydrazine-methanol and Hi-Test hydrogen peroxide.
They were hypergolic (splash together and you get instant flame/blast)
Perhaps I will be indulged, or at least forgiven, in thinking these were both hypergolic with pilots as well as with each other.

They weren't hypergolic with pilots; that would be chlorine trifluoride (see Lowe, Derek, "Sand won't save you this time", Sand Won't Save You This Time). ClF3 sort of defines "scary chemical." The nazis thought of using it for incendiary devices, but they decided it was too unsafe for their troops to handle.

Hydrazine and methanol are both toxic; one of the reasons that hydrazine has gotten so expensive is the costs of disposal. Several space agencies are considering reverting to hydrogen peroxide, which is much safer to handle. Concentrated hydrogen peroxide isn't toxic, but a) its composition is catalyzed by an enzyme, catalase, in human blood and b) it's a strong oxidizing agent. It's used at 30% concentration as biocide in food preparation plants as it destroys cell walls and oxidizes DNA.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

They weren't hypergolic with pilots; that would be chlorine trifluoride (see Lowe, Derek, "Sand won't save you this time", Sand Won't Save You This Time). ClF3 sort of defines "scary chemical." The nazis thought of using it for incendiary devices, but they decided it was too unsafe for their troops to handle.

Hydrazine and methanol are both toxic; one of the reasons that hydrazine has gotten so expensive is the costs of disposal. Several space agencies are considering reverting to hydrogen peroxide, which is much safer to handle. Concentrated hydrogen peroxide isn't toxic, but a) its composition is catalyzed by an enzyme, catalase, in human blood and b) it's a strong oxidizing agent. It's used at 30% concentration as biocide in food preparation plants as it destroys cell walls and oxidizes DNA.

The following video contains a demonstration of the danger of the fuel at the 2.40 mark:

 

[cherry blossom]

As it is mentioned in "Sand won't save you this time", can I recommend "Ignition! An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants" by John D. Clark which is available free at Ignition!: An informal history of liquid rocket propellants : John D. Clark : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive.

 

[Hardlydank]

Do early model I-16s qualify for this list? They had worse performance than the Buffalo and G.50 but they were about 5 years old by Barbarossa so idk if they are really "of WW2" like the title says.

 

[cherry blossom]

If we are willing to reduce the criterion to 250 aircraft built, the Commonwealth Boomerang might be a contender as the "fighter" with the worse performance of aircraft introduced in 1943 or later. However, the Boomerang did have a useful career as a ground attack aircraft.

 

[RW Mk. III]

I think this is going to get very circular. Nothing sufficiently bad as to get anything close to consensus would have been made in large enough numbers. Basically Lagg3, Buffalo, P39, Ms406, throw a dart at those? Am I missing any?

 

[tyrodtom]

The problem with this discussion is the requirement that 500 aircraft had to be produced to make the list.
Most of the real junk produced was outed as junk way before 500 aircraft got produced.
Nobody was brain dead enough to waste that much resources on something that plainly didn't meet the requirements.

Except for the 3rd Reich, of course.

 

[Kevin J]

The problem with this discussion is the requirement that 500 aircraft had to be produced to make the list.
Most of the real junk produced was outed as junk way before 500 aircraft got produced.
Nobody was brain dead enough to waste that much resources on something that plainly didn't meet the requirements.

Except for the 3rd Reich, of course.

Well the Luftwaffe reckoned they destroyed half the LaGG-3s produced as opposed to only a quarter of all Spitfires. So I'll go with the Luftwaffe, the LaGG-3.

 

[RW Mk. III]

I think this is going to get very circular. Nothing sufficiently bad as to get anything close to consensus would have been made in large enough numbers. Basically Lagg3, Buffalo, P39, Ms406, throw a dart at those? Am I missing any?

Well the Luftwaffe reckoned they destroyed half the LaGG-3s produced as opposed to only a quarter of all Spitfires. So I'll go with the Luftwaffe, the LaGG-3.

The Luftwaffe reckoned they destroyed the RAF in August 1940 so I would feel more comfortable with Soviet statistics on the Lagg3 losses.

 

[Kevin J]

The Luftwaffe reckoned they destroyed the RAF in August 1940 so I would feel more comfortable with Soviet statistics on the Lagg3 losses.

BoB, July to October 1940. RAF starts with 1000 Hurricanes and Spitfires, one third in reserve. Production: Spitfire, 150 pcm, 600 total; Hurricane, 300 pcm, total, 1200. RAF admitted 915 losses IIRC, Luftwaffe claimed 1200 Spitfires, 2000 Hurricanes. I think everyone's lying about both actual losses and actual victories.

 

[buffnut453]

BoB, July to October 1940. RAF starts with 1000 Hurricanes and Spitfires, one third in reserve. Production: Spitfire, 150 pcm, 600 total; Hurricane, 300 pcm, total, 1200. RAF admitted 915 losses IIRC, Luftwaffe claimed 1200 Spitfires, 2000 Hurricanes. I think everyone's lying about both actual losses and actual victories.

What part of the RAF loss number is a lie?

 

[Kevin J]

What part of the RAF loss number is a lie?

Hurricanes you could fix easily even re-manufacture, and there were a lot of bent Spitfire wings and fuselages. Planes wore out just like pilots did. Same number of Spitfires and Hurricanes at end of BoB as at start so overall losses including combat must have been 600 Spitfires and 1200 Hurricanes not the officially recorded 915 in combat. After the BoB, front line Spitfire squadrons upgraded to the Mk II, the remainder of the 1650 Mk Is built went to OTUs. The Hurricanes didn't get replaced in Fighter Command until the end of 1941. Here, have a look at this: http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....-war&catid=48:production-statistics&Itemid=61 . Generally speaking, a squadron in the front line got thru 50 fighters in a 6 month period.

 

[buffnut453]

Hurricanes you could fix easily even re-manufacture, and there were a lot of bent Spitfire wings and fuselages. Planes wore out just like pilots did. Same number of Spitfires and Hurricanes at end of BoB as at start so overall losses including combat must have been 600 Spitfires and 1200 Hurricanes not the officially recorded 915 in combat. After the BoB, front line Spitfire squadrons upgraded to the Mk II, the remainder of the 1650 Mk Is built went to OTUs. The Hurricanes didn't get replaced in Fighter Command until the end of 1941. Here, have a look at this: http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....-war&catid=48:production-statistics&Itemid=61 . Generally speaking, a squadron in the front line got thru 50 fighters in a 6 month period.

What you're identifying isnt a lie. The RAF claimed 915 losses due to combat. Clearly there will be other non-combat losses. I'm unaware of any military force that included all losses in calculations. For example, the 8th AF daylight raids cited losses as a direct result of combat for aircraft engaged in the raid. They didn't count training losses that happened in the UK while the raid was happening (why would you? It's nonsensical).

 

[Kevin J]

What you're identifying isnt a lie. The RAF claimed 915 losses due to combat. Clearly there will be other non-combat losses. I'm unaware of any military force that included all losses in calculations. For example, the 8th AF daylight raids cited losses as a direct result of combat for aircraft engaged in the raid. They didn't count training losses that happened in the UK while the raid was happening (why would you? It's nonsensical).

Because its more realistic. So your opponent over claims by 100 maybe 200 %, one's own losses are double overall because of non operational reasons.

 

[swampyankee]

Because its more realistic. So your opponent over claims by 100 maybe 200 %, one's own losses are double overall because of non operational reasons.

The planners know the total losses; they report them differently because they mean different things to the populace at large and to the pilots and aircrew. What were the non-combat losses of the Luftwaffe?

 

[wuzak]

Hurricanes you could fix easily even re-manufacture, and there were a lot of bent Spitfire wings and fuselages.

Obviously because the Spitfire was lightly constructed and weak.

Whereas the mighty Hurricane could be rebuilt by a teenager with a bicycle and some sheets?

After the BoB, front line Spitfire squadrons upgraded to the Mk II, the remainder of the 1650 Mk Is built went to OTUs. The Hurricanes didn't get replaced in Fighter Command until the end of 1941. Here, have a look at this: http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....-war&catid=48:production-statistics&Itemid=61 . Generally speaking, a squadron in the front line got thru 50 fighters in a 6 month period.

So Spitfire squadrons in the front line upgraded to the latest model and Hurricane squadrons didn't until the end of 1941? What of the Hurricane II, which was in production before the end of 1940?

I believe that the Spitfire II was being delivered to operational squadrons during the BoB.

Or do you mean that the Hurricane wasn't replaced by Typhoons and Spitfires until after 1941? Which is a totally different argument.

And how is the production chart support your argument (whatever that is)?

 

[Kevin J]

Obviously because the Spitfire was lightly constructed and weak.

Whereas the mighty Hurricane could be rebuilt by a teenager with a bicycle and some sheets?




So Spitfire squadrons in the front line upgraded to the latest model and Hurricane squadrons didn't until the end of 1941? What of the Hurricane II, which was in production before the end of 1940?

I believe that the Spitfire II was being delivered to operational squadrons during the BoB.

Or do you mean that the Hurricane wasn't replaced by Typhoons and Spitfires until after 1941? Which is a totally different argument.

And how is the production chart support your argument (whatever that is)?

Generally speaking, Spitfires needed to be returned to the maintenance units for repairs, Hurricanes could be repaired at Squadron level.
Small numbers of Hurricane IIs and Spitfire IIs were operational in the Bob. There's not a lot of performance difference between them.
IDK what we're arguing about here, do you?