In general no factory can work 24/7 week after week, I never worked at one that did. Machines need maintaining, if you don't stop and do it properly very quickly things break or malfunction. Also when at war, as well as working 12 hrs many were working in other roles as volunteers and others were kept awake by raids and having to move from bombed out houses, some were killed and injured.
Worst mass produced, monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
buffnut453
Captain
Not entirely sure what point having aircraft left over at the end of the war has to do with wastage rates during the war. In well-managed wartime logistics chains, production is at least sufficient to meet wastage (combat losses plus non-operational losses, including write-offs). Given that the protagonists don't know when the war will actually end, production continues unabated with aircraft at various stages of the supply chain, to include those operating with squadrons that are still suitable for combat operations, when peace is finally declared. However, those excess aircraft would mostly be scrapped in pretty short order as forces are reduced after the war. That still doesn't change the fact that most surviving aircraft are not combat veterans, with the preponderance being later marks (because the earlier versions were scrapped to be replaced by more advanced variants).
Kevin J
Banned
Okay let's give a start date for the BoB of 26 June 1940 when the Luftwaffe started their nuisance raids. This follows a week after Churchill's "the battle of France is over, the Battle of Britain has begun". So from w/e July 29th to w/e November 2nd, 1135 Hurricanes and 595 Spitfires were produced plus 40 Canadian Hurricanes. Also 278 Mohawks were received from France and USA and held at maintenance units. An average of 450 single seat single engine fighters pcm which matches my figures. The Germans regard the BoB as ending when the Blitz ended. The figure I've seen is that a squadron in the front line will use up, 50 aircraft every 6 months. So if at the end of the BoB, the official figure is 900 losses then clearly this is economical with the truth as 1800 must have been lost. Between w/e April 6th and w/e 22nd June, 206 Spitfires and 632 Hurricanes were produced. So how many were lost over France and Belgium? 500 or so?
Kevin J
Banned
The most you can do is 10 days in a row on a continuous basis. I know because I've done it.
Kevin J
Banned
I have worked in a factory that operated 24/7. They're still out there. So they close for 2 weeks per year for maintenance.
I really don't know what your point is. In terms of a battle the figures normally quoted would be those lost in battle with the enemy. People don't quote infantry losses including those run over by a bus in London on leave (as happened to my wifes great uncle). As I have explained 1800 were lost, actually more, some parts of aircraft may have been lost many times and recycled while others were lost before they were ever received by the RAF. I believe Al Deere was involved in 7 aircraft write offs in France and the BoB. Spitfires weren't just used for the BoB in the BoB they were used to train pilots and there were many aircraft and pilots lost even with experienced pilots like the Poles forgetting to put down landing gear just as the pilot who first displayed a Spitfire to the public did.. Also there were PR Spitfires the first MkIII of 40 ordered entered service in March 1940.
Conslaw
Senior Airman
The CAC Boomerang was pretty bad, but they "only" made about 250 of them.
I wish I could think of one that y'all missed, but the selection criteria make that difficult.
EDIT: moved the biplanes to the lower list
Here is my list, within the criteria:
MiG-3 - I believe it had the worst record of all the Soviet fighters in the first year of the war. Very slow at low altitude and terrible handling.
LaGG-1/3 - Seemed to have the worst production quality of the early Soviet fighters (which is saying something). Too heavy. Eventually improved and also led to La 5 series.
MS. 406 - Good for when it first came out, .
Bloch 150 / 152 - Poor handling, inherent instability, power plant problems.
Fiat G.50 - not a terrible design but too temperamental and fragile.
PZL P.11 - good for when it came out, with some advanced features, but not quite up to par
CAC Wirraway (to the extent it was used as a fighter, though most weren't so it probably doesn't qualify)
Worst if you include biplanes, 2 crew, 2 engines, and / or drop the production criteria to 250+:
I-153 - Used in numbers far too late for a biplane. Too slow. Took horrific losses.
CR 32 - Obsolete by WW2
CR 42 - Obsolete. Came out too late for a biplane. Too slow.
Gladiator - Good design, obsolete by WW2, still held it's own for the first few months
Blakburn Skua / Roc - just barely effective for the first few months of the war, after that it was really marginal. The only thing that saved it was short legs of German land based fighters.
Boulton Paul Defiant - zany idea that was doomed to fail. Turret had some potential but enabling it to shoot forward was too complex. Zany.
Fairey Fulmar - Bad design spec. Not only unable to handle enemy fighters, but too slow and too low flying to intercept enemy bombers half the time. They should have made a few of these for long range recon / navigation / pathfinding, and made a single-seat version with a smaller wing as the main CAP / Escort fighter.
Fairey Firefly - Waste of a powerful engine! Too slow for when it came out!
Me 210 - Bad wing. Fixed (too late) with 410.
P-51A - Poor aileron design contributed to a very lackluster combat record as a fighter. The British had luck with the similar Mustang I (etc.) for recon. Fixed with the P-51B etc.
PZL P.24 - Similar to PZL 11, not quite enough, gull wing design was probably the main issue besides engines
Caudron 710 - Too slow
Me 110 - had potential as a night fighter but it never reached it's intended potential as a longer ranged day fighter and was basically a waste of resources
Ki-45 - similar problems to Me 110
Bristol Blenheim "fighter"
Worst in 50+ category:
VL Myrsky - Bad design all around
CAC Boomerang - bad concept poorly executed.
P-400 - marginal early version of P-39 made worse by design changes and lack of certain parts / supplies (O2)
Obviously some of these were bad because they were just obsolete. They weren't so bad earlier in the war. Others were bad because of just bad design requirements. And others started out bad but got a lot better. There were also a lot of planes which looked like good designs on paper but couldn't be made to function in a war environment. Most of the late war Japanese fighters fall into that category, as do a lot of the German jets and rockets.
I would say the I-16 wasn't quite in the bottom category because though many died flying it, there seemed to be a higher percentage of Soviet pilots (many future aces) who kind of got the knack of fighting with it and managed to score a few victories in spite of it's flaws, and survive until they got something better. The later marks were able to manage over 300 mph, and by the time you get to the later model I-16s with the 20mm guns they were just below the threshold of competitive in the hands of a good pilot. Speed was close and their agility and small size helped (some of) them survive. The I-15 / 153 by comparison was just too slow, hyper-maneuverability helped a bit but not enough to survive that brutal battlefield.
There were also other planes which had a really long and painful teething process, starting out bad though ending up pretty good. The P-38, Corsair, and Typhoon would fit in that category IMO. P-38 issues are well known, the Corsair had a lot of small problems which added up to a maintenance nightmare particularly in the Pacific. Of course it got better though.
EDIT: moved the biplanes to the lower list
Here is my list, within the criteria:
MiG-3 - I believe it had the worst record of all the Soviet fighters in the first year of the war. Very slow at low altitude and terrible handling.
LaGG-1/3 - Seemed to have the worst production quality of the early Soviet fighters (which is saying something). Too heavy. Eventually improved and also led to La 5 series.
MS. 406 - Good for when it first came out, .
Bloch 150 / 152 - Poor handling, inherent instability, power plant problems.
Fiat G.50 - not a terrible design but too temperamental and fragile.
PZL P.11 - good for when it came out, with some advanced features, but not quite up to par
CAC Wirraway (to the extent it was used as a fighter, though most weren't so it probably doesn't qualify)
Worst if you include biplanes, 2 crew, 2 engines, and / or drop the production criteria to 250+:
I-153 - Used in numbers far too late for a biplane. Too slow. Took horrific losses.
CR 32 - Obsolete by WW2
CR 42 - Obsolete. Came out too late for a biplane. Too slow.
Gladiator - Good design, obsolete by WW2, still held it's own for the first few months
Blakburn Skua / Roc - just barely effective for the first few months of the war, after that it was really marginal. The only thing that saved it was short legs of German land based fighters.
Boulton Paul Defiant - zany idea that was doomed to fail. Turret had some potential but enabling it to shoot forward was too complex. Zany.
Fairey Fulmar - Bad design spec. Not only unable to handle enemy fighters, but too slow and too low flying to intercept enemy bombers half the time. They should have made a few of these for long range recon / navigation / pathfinding, and made a single-seat version with a smaller wing as the main CAP / Escort fighter.
Fairey Firefly - Waste of a powerful engine! Too slow for when it came out!
Me 210 - Bad wing. Fixed (too late) with 410.
P-51A - Poor aileron design contributed to a very lackluster combat record as a fighter. The British had luck with the similar Mustang I (etc.) for recon. Fixed with the P-51B etc.
PZL P.24 - Similar to PZL 11, not quite enough, gull wing design was probably the main issue besides engines
Caudron 710 - Too slow
Me 110 - had potential as a night fighter but it never reached it's intended potential as a longer ranged day fighter and was basically a waste of resources
Ki-45 - similar problems to Me 110
Bristol Blenheim "fighter"
Worst in 50+ category:
VL Myrsky - Bad design all around
CAC Boomerang - bad concept poorly executed.
P-400 - marginal early version of P-39 made worse by design changes and lack of certain parts / supplies (O2)
Obviously some of these were bad because they were just obsolete. They weren't so bad earlier in the war. Others were bad because of just bad design requirements. And others started out bad but got a lot better. There were also a lot of planes which looked like good designs on paper but couldn't be made to function in a war environment. Most of the late war Japanese fighters fall into that category, as do a lot of the German jets and rockets.
I would say the I-16 wasn't quite in the bottom category because though many died flying it, there seemed to be a higher percentage of Soviet pilots (many future aces) who kind of got the knack of fighting with it and managed to score a few victories in spite of it's flaws, and survive until they got something better. The later marks were able to manage over 300 mph, and by the time you get to the later model I-16s with the 20mm guns they were just below the threshold of competitive in the hands of a good pilot. Speed was close and their agility and small size helped (some of) them survive. The I-15 / 153 by comparison was just too slow, hyper-maneuverability helped a bit but not enough to survive that brutal battlefield.
There were also other planes which had a really long and painful teething process, starting out bad though ending up pretty good. The P-38, Corsair, and Typhoon would fit in that category IMO. P-38 issues are well known, the Corsair had a lot of small problems which added up to a maintenance nightmare particularly in the Pacific. Of course it got better though.
Last edited:
I always thought the exhaust looked pretty badass.
Looks like it was stolen from the Grease or Batman
movie and had the red yellow and white paint stripped off.
Missle, that is really good info, I saw they carried a somewhat more sophisticated rocket than the other allies. If they could see a large formation and let loose a volley that is very believable.
wuzak
Captain
- Thread starter
- #193
Admiral Beez
Major
Ha. Sometimes I think these threads are an intelligence and attention ability test.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,311
- Jun 25, 2013
We may need another thread "Worst mass producers of monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2?" The trouble is that it would be very short.
Ok, ok, modified the list. Don't get your panties in a bundle...
Or just vision, I was reading the thread & posted from my phone. Sorry, my eyes aren't what they used to be.
- Thread starter
- #198
Admiral Beez
Major
Considering the need to shoot down enemy aircraft, which of this category has the weakest armament? For example, the first few versions of the Ki-43 Oscar had just two machine guns, starting with a pair of .303s like an old biplane. Did any fighter in this category do any worse than that?
Kevin J
Banned
Yes, the La-5F with one cannon and a turbo behind the pilot. Ten built, distributed around key strategic locations. Designed for use against the Ju 388.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
