SamPZLP.7
Airman
At the Fargo Air Museum we volenteers have had a lengthy discussion on the worst Naval Plane of WWII.
Much appreciated!
Much appreciated!
Worst Naval Plane of WWII
- Thread starter SamPZLP.7
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
Other.
Curtiss Seamew.
.
One of the few planes that was replaced by it's predecessor.
Curtiss Seagull, planes were pulled from second line units and re-issued to front line units to replace the Seamews.
Curtiss Seamew.
One of the few planes that was replaced by it's predecessor.
Curtiss Seagull, planes were pulled from second line units and re-issued to front line units to replace the Seamews.
Not the Skua; although one of the ugliest aircraft of the war, it was the most advanced machine the FAA was equipped with at the outbreak of WW2 and the RN really got their money's worth out of it. Sank a German cruiser, the Konigsberg during the Norwegian campaign. Its even uglier sibling the Roc, however, was truly bad; being slower than the bombers it was sent to intercept, it was as useful as a chocolate teapot.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
At the risk of being accused of French bashing, I would say one of the french types in the aeronavale. There was a floatplane , the name of which forget at this minute, that was introduced in 1939, and withdrawn 2 months later because of disappointing performance and an unnerving abaility to throw crankshafts whilst in flight. Then there was the Levasseur PL, which wiki had this to say:
The first flight was in 1928, and during testing, aspects of the design underwent fine-tuning, including engine choice and the design of the wing struts and tail fin. Eventually presented to the Navy, an order for 15 aircraft was placed in 1929. However, the Navy had reservations about the wing design, and ordered five of these machines to be delivered with their spans shortened from the 18.00 m (59 ft 1 in) original down to 16.50 m (54 ft 2 in) and built to different wing areas, and a sixth machine with its span shortened to 17.25 m (56 ft 7 in). These miscellaneous types were all put into service together aboard the carrier Béarn in July 1930. After testing, one of the 16.50 m wing designs was selected as the standard, and 30 new aircraft were ordered with this wing. Ten of the existing PL.7s were also thus modified.
The PL.7s were grounded in July 1931 after two aircraft had disintegrated in flight, losses that were attributed to vibration problems. They were returned to service in September 1932 having reinforced wing bracing and engine mounts, and new three-bladed metal propellers. In 1934, they were relegated to shore duties, but were put aboard the Béarn again in 1936, where they were still in service (albeit now thoroughly obsolete) at the outbreak of the Second World War.
The intended french carrier based fighter, the Dewoitine D-371 also had the dubious reputation of engine failures whilst airborne......
No wonder the French were heading towards using US types as replacements
The first flight was in 1928, and during testing, aspects of the design underwent fine-tuning, including engine choice and the design of the wing struts and tail fin. Eventually presented to the Navy, an order for 15 aircraft was placed in 1929. However, the Navy had reservations about the wing design, and ordered five of these machines to be delivered with their spans shortened from the 18.00 m (59 ft 1 in) original down to 16.50 m (54 ft 2 in) and built to different wing areas, and a sixth machine with its span shortened to 17.25 m (56 ft 7 in). These miscellaneous types were all put into service together aboard the carrier Béarn in July 1930. After testing, one of the 16.50 m wing designs was selected as the standard, and 30 new aircraft were ordered with this wing. Ten of the existing PL.7s were also thus modified.
The PL.7s were grounded in July 1931 after two aircraft had disintegrated in flight, losses that were attributed to vibration problems. They were returned to service in September 1932 having reinforced wing bracing and engine mounts, and new three-bladed metal propellers. In 1934, they were relegated to shore duties, but were put aboard the Béarn again in 1936, where they were still in service (albeit now thoroughly obsolete) at the outbreak of the Second World War.
The intended french carrier based fighter, the Dewoitine D-371 also had the dubious reputation of engine failures whilst airborne......
No wonder the French were heading towards using US types as replacements
otftch
Staff Sergeant
Brewster Buccanneer/Bermuda. All the problems of the Buffallo with a larger airframe.
Ed
Ed
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Blackburn Firebrand. From wikipedia The aircraft had killed two test pilots and, although after six months' modification Dennis Cambell did manage the first successful deck landing, the type was generally regarded as one of the war's worst aircraft.
I agree with Ed. How could it not be considered the worst? A carrier plane that failed carrier qualifications and was never used ship-board. This HAS to take the cake. The Buffalo at least made it to the fleet. Case closed.
Glider
Captain
Roc is my suggestion, total disaster and waste of effort
The Skua was arguably the most advanced naval strike bomber in operational use in Sept 1939. It performed very well for a naval aircraft in that time frame, being fast, very well armed, long ranged and it had folding wings. If it had appeared in any other navy it would have been hailed as a triumph. Unfortunately, it doesn't compare as favorably with naval aircraft in use in 1942, which is why it so many aspersions are cast upon it - but this is typical of the general trend when examining FAA aircraft.
The Devastator, OTOH, was a flying death trap with performance in service far below its manufacturer's specs and should have been retired long before Dec 1941.
The Devastator, OTOH, was a flying death trap with performance in service far below its manufacturer's specs and should have been retired long before Dec 1941.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The TBD performed as advertised in 1935. By 1941 it should have been long gone, but actually did well up to the Battle of Coral Sea, argue pilot skill or luck. To call it a "flying death trap" meant it was unsafe anytime it was in the air. History has it placed accordingly. It's an aircraft that one would not want to being into combat in 1942, but it was far from a "flying death trap" unlike an aircraft like the Breda Ba.88.
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
IMHO, one of the biggest problems with the TBD was its primary weapon. The early torpedoes used by the USN were, frankly, abominations. Too many good men were thrown away trying to deliver such an ineffectual weapon against heavily defended targets.
The other problem faced, both by Devastator and Avenger during the Battle of Midway, was the lack of effective fighter cover. Avengers were shot down there too, but no one talks today bad about them. The USN air torpedo launching envelope was restrictive one, the plane was to fly low slow - not a good prospect vs. a decent AAA and CAP.
The SBD have had the 'luxury' of being a dive bomber, ie. it was to fly at higher altitude speed, hence making a more demanding target for the defending CAP. The sacrifice of torpedo bombers also meant that CAP flying low and, mostly, without cannon ammo, was unable to perform it's task.
The SBD have had the 'luxury' of being a dive bomber, ie. it was to fly at higher altitude speed, hence making a more demanding target for the defending CAP. The sacrifice of torpedo bombers also meant that CAP flying low and, mostly, without cannon ammo, was unable to perform it's task.
Shortround6
Major General
The only other carrier based torpedo bombers in any numbers in 1941/early 1942 were the Swordfish and Albacore and the Nakajima B5M2. I am not sure how they were any less of death traps if flown on similar missions with similar escorts or lack of escort.
Perhaps if the US had ordered a MK II version with a 1050-1100hp version of the R-1830 it might have gone a bit faster but since the Japanese aircraft had no armor, no self sealing fuel tanks, basically a Lewis gun for rear defense and speed advantage of about 10% I am not seeing a huge advantage here.
Perhaps if the US had ordered a MK II version with a 1050-1100hp version of the R-1830 it might have gone a bit faster but since the Japanese aircraft had no armor, no self sealing fuel tanks, basically a Lewis gun for rear defense and speed advantage of about 10% I am not seeing a huge advantage here.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Even if the TBD had a little more horse power, I doubt you would have gotten any more speed out of her. If I'm not mistaken I believe the wing used on the TBD favored "lift" in lieu of speed (probably a consideration given for the aircraft being underpowered). As stated, the TBD should have been long gone by 1941 but I think if any of its contemporaries were placed in the same situation as Torpedo 8 at Midway, they too would have been cut to ribbons.
In all, making a low level torpedo run in a slow moving aircraft on a heavily defended target without fighter escort was suicide. Doing it while carrying a torpedo that didn't work half the time just made matters worse.
In all, making a low level torpedo run in a slow moving aircraft on a heavily defended target without fighter escort was suicide. Doing it while carrying a torpedo that didn't work half the time just made matters worse.
Vassili Zaitzev
Master Sergeant
Did not vote on this matter, but will discount the TBD as being the worst. The TBF saw action at Midway, with 5 out of 6 shot down without a single torpedo hit, with the last one shot up with a dead gunner. Will discount the F2A as well. It wasn't a bad aircraft, if the -3/Mk. I model was underpowered. It had the misfortune of being up against one of the most agile fighters of the war, with the experience and training of their pilots above the Buffs.
Shortround6
Major General
It might have matched the B5M2, it might not have. B5M1 used an under 900hp 9 cylinder radial.
US skipped the Devastator II and asked for designs leading to the Avenger in 1939.
US skipped the Devastator II and asked for designs leading to the Avenger in 1939.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I agree any flat top with a squadron of each in 1939 would have had the best most up to date air arm. Just because they became obsolete within 2 years doesnt mean they were the worst.
VinceReeves
Airman
- 47
- Feb 5, 2013
I agree that none of the planes listed in the poll should be there. Anybody who thinks that the Skua was a bad plane doesn't know anything about it.
It's a toss-up between the Seamew and the Buccaneer, and I'm going with the Seamew.
It's a toss-up between the Seamew and the Buccaneer, and I'm going with the Seamew.
