Worst Naval Plane of WWII

Discussion in 'Polls' started by SamPZLP.7, Jan 3, 2013.

?

What is the worst naval plane?

  1. Blackburn Skua

    14 vote(s)
    35.0%
  2. Brewster F2A Buffalo

    1 vote(s)
    2.5%
  3. Douglas TBD Devastator

    10 vote(s)
    25.0%
  4. Other (Please State)

    15 vote(s)
    37.5%
  1. SamPZLP.7

    SamPZLP.7 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    volunteer t the Fargo Air Museum; student pilot
    Location:
    Fargo,ND,USA
    At the Fargo Air Museum we volenteers have had a lengthy discussion on the worst Naval Plane of WWII.
    Much appreciated! :D
     
  2. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    Other.

    Curtiss Seamew.

    300px-SO3C_with_floats.jpg .

    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.

    300px-Curtiss_SOC-1.jpg
     
  3. nuuumannn

    nuuumannn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3,743
    Likes Received:
    439
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Engineer
    Location:
    Nelson
    #3 nuuumannn, Jan 3, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2013
    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.
     
  4. parsifal

    parsifal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    10,676
    Likes Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Urban Design/Strategic Studies Tutor
    Location:
    Orange NSW
    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 There was a floatplane , the name of which forget at this minute, that was introduced in 1939, and withdrawn 2 months later because of disappointing performance and an unnerving abaility to throw crankshafts whilst in flight.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
     
  5. Aozora

    Aozora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ditto the Curtiss S03C Seagull/Seamew:

    From Steve Ginter "The Reluctant Dragon" 1999
    1-Seagull 1-page-001.jpg 1-Seagull 2-page-001.jpg

    Why 795 were built is unknown...
     
  6. otftch

    otftch Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,384
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    retired
    Location:
    Franklinton,NC
    Brewster Buccanneer/Bermuda. All the problems of the Buffallo with a larger airframe.
    Ed
     
  7. fastmongrel

    fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,336
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motor Mechanic
    Location:
    Lancashire
    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.
     
  8. Capt. Vick

    Capt. Vick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    7,872
    Likes Received:
    637
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Long Island, New York
    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.
     
  9. Glider

    Glider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,160
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Consellor
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    Roc is my suggestion, total disaster and waste of effort
     
  10. RCAFson

    RCAFson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,389
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
     
  11. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,198
    Likes Received:
    784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    #11 FLYBOYJ, Jan 6, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2013
    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.
     
  12. buffnut453

    buffnut453 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,174
    Likes Received:
    227
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Virginia, US of A
    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.
     
  13. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,989
    Likes Received:
    434
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
     
  14. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    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.
     
  15. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,198
    Likes Received:
    784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    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.
     
  16. Vassili Zaitzev

    Vassili Zaitzev Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,099
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Substitute teacher; graduate student
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States
    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.
     
  17. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    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.
     
  18. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,989
    Likes Received:
    434
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I'm not really sure why the three choices* are these airplanes? Each of them was breaking a new ground when introduced, the monoplanes replacing biplanes.

    * I know that 4th choice is 'other'
     
  19. fastmongrel

    fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,336
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motor Mechanic
    Location:
    Lancashire
    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.
     
  20. VinceReeves

    VinceReeves Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    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.
     
Loading...

Share This Page