Worst Naval Plane of WWII

[pattle]

I think there are a number of different reasons why people consider certain types of aircraft as being bad, aircraft that were easily shot down, aircraft that were of a bad design, aircraft that were designed to fulfil a flawed requirement and aircraft that had become obsolete.
Badly designed aircraft are the worst in my book because they will always be completely useless, obsolete aircraft may have been the best in the world when they first came out and along with aircraft that were easily shot down or built to a flawed requirement they could be used for other purposes.
Out of the three choices I don't think any were bad designs, but I pick the Devastator as it was the least successful in my view.

 

[swampyankee]

Curtiss Seamew. There were some other less-than-stellar aircraft, but the Seamew is almost the definitive failed project for the USN. I'll leave anything by Brewster out of this sort of list. There's something supremely incompetent about a company that's building combat aircraft losing money during a major war.

 

[razor1uk]

Is it me, or does the Seamew apart from having a less than stellar name to inspire its crews and the naval erks, look like a 'floated' Helldiver powered by an licence built Argus inverted V12 - did the US trade the Hamilton Prop licence for an Argus one with Germany prior to the 41 DoW?

Off-topically - if so, was some of this related to what grandpa Bush (Prescot/Prescott) was involved with, for which he nearly got 'black booked' almost imprisoned for?

 

[stug3]

Im going to have to nominate the Zero. Of course it was a great dogfighter as far as being extremely maneuverable and adequately armed. It also had great range. But the lack of armor and self sealing fuel tanks (though contributing to its light weight), were fatal flaws, as was the failure to develop more powerful engines to "keep up with the Joneses".

 

[RCAFson]

I still nominate the TBD as worst strike aircraft, but the F2A has to rate has the worst naval fighter given that the USN was never really able to get it to reliably work on their carriers, with the only carrier based F2A-3 VF squadron being largely grounded within days of Pearl Harbour, due to landing gear failure.

 

[redcoat]

Blackburn Roc.
It's most useful role was in the Battle of Britain where a number were used as stationary light AA positions on FAA airfields

 

[Shortround6]

Is it me, or does the Seamew apart from having a less than stellar name to inspire its crews and the naval erks, look like a 'floated' Helldiver powered by an licence built Argus inverted V12 - did the US trade the Hamilton Prop licence for an Argus one with Germany prior to the 41 DoW?

The Fairchild company had been working on the V-12 since about 1932/33. Since they were already making an air-cooled straight 6 the V-12 is a natural progression. A lot of companies that made 6 cylinder air cooled engines at least tried a V-12. De Havallind, Isotta-Fraschini, Renault, Walther.

 

[razor1uk]

Cheers Shortround, I didn't know of the Fairchild Engines, stupidly I assumed they were just an airframe manufacturer like they were for the A10..

 

[swampyankee]

The Fairchild company had been working on the V-12 since about 1932/33. Since they were already making an air-cooled straight 6 the V-12 is a natural progression. A lot of companies that made 6 cylinder air cooled engines at least tried a V-12. De Havallind, Isotta-Fraschini, Renault, Walther.

I think, though, that we can't blame the cooling issues just on the engine, as cowling design is usually done by the airframe manufacturer. I think Curtiss was having problems with its engineering staff at the time, as the Seamew had some fairly serious handling problems, which had no relation to the engine selection.

I also wonder what alternatives Curtiss had with regards to engines. If the Ranger V-12 was underpowered, the plane would need something with 600 hp or so, and there just wasn't much in that category: Pratt's R-1340 was it. Wright's R-1300 didn't enter service until 1945, and Ranger never seemed to have gone anywhere with their V-920. So, the choices were a) Ranger V-770 b) Pratt R-1340 (probably the best plan) c) go way up in power, to at least the R-1535 d) do something odd like an entirely new engine, like 6 cylinder derivatives of the Allison V-1710 Ford V-1650 (GAA), or half an R-2800.

 

[Shortround6]

By the time they knew the Seamew was in trouble (Ranger-770 was not going to cut it) the R-1535 had been out of production for several years. Cutting an R-2800 in half was a several year job as was any major modification of an existing engine (a 6 cylinder Allison.) Wright 1300 is 1/2 an R-2600.

Ranger was working an a new model V-770 with aluminium fins on the cylinder barrels and other improvements ( the "D" series) but I don't think it made it in time. A Seamew did wind up at Langley in the full sized wind tunnel in an effort to solve the cooling problem.
The P W R-1340 was the only real choice.

 

[R Pope]

How about the Bf109T? It never even landed on a carrier! Oh.....Wait.........

 

[redcoat]

How about the Bf109T? It never even landed on a carrier! Oh.....Wait.........

They saw service with the Luftwaffe in Norway. I believe a Bf 109T is credited with the first Luftwaffe victory over a B-17(in RAF service)

 

[parsifal]

These debates about Bf109s and Zeroes are really badly biased IMO. We need to go back and determine criteria for what makes a bad aircraft....In my opinion its an aircraft unable to coiomplete or potentially undertake its assigned role. At the top of the list are those that are designed so badly that they are unsafe to fly, independant of any enemy action. Then there are aircraft that due to operational limitations, like por performance, cannot be safely operated under any conditions in enemy airspace.

Lastly, perhaps, there are those aircraft that were simply unsuited to the doctrine or purpose for which they were built. These aircraft might fly well, have sufficient performance, but simply dont do, or are unsuited to the role they are assigned.

Examples of aircraft that are simply not airworthy migt inlude the Loire 210. 20 produced, entered service September 1939, withdrawn from service November 1939, 25% of airfranes suffered structural failures

Aircraft so old or lacking performance that they could not complete their mission. Again i would nominate French aircraft in this category. I would nominate the Levasseur PL.7, with performance that made the Swordfish look like a hot high perfomance machine

Lastly there are machines properly designed, but thrust into a role for which they were unsuited. Something like the Zero really does fit that category....it was an offensive fighter, designed almost exclusively for attack, when forced into a defensive situation, did not perform so well. Early Seafires were similar failures, as was the American Corsair (which was not given carrier clearance until very late in the war).

 

[Mishal Kennedy]

Wish the Fairey Fulmer was listed... It, and the two turreted fighter designs (oh, what a useless concept...) made by blackburn, had to be some of the worst carrier aircraft available. As for the Buffalo? The Finns used her with remarkable success. I doubt she deserves the bad rep. I did, however, vote devastator... Boy, was that a disaster.

 

[stug3]

The flaws of the Zero accelerated the attrition of experienced Japanese pilots, which was a contributing factor to the failure of Japanese strategy. The success or failure of a plane like the Seamew had no effect on the outcome of the war.

 

[Shortround6]

Wish the Fairey Fulmer was listed... It, and the two turreted fighter designs (oh, what a useless concept...) made by blackburn, had to be some of the worst carrier aircraft available. As for the Buffalo? The Finns used her with remarkable success. I doubt she deserves the bad rep. I did, however, vote devastator... Boy, was that a disaster.

The Fulmar actually did a decent job of defending the fleet in the Med. Not great but not a disaster. There was only ONE turreted naval fighter and it was never deployed on a carrier, at least it flew without breaking itself.

The Devastator gets a really bad rap. The newest aircraft at Midway were about 2-3 years old, not design but time from factory door. the Devastator first flew 15 April 1935, I doubt that ANY seven year old design without any upgrades could make a daylight attack on a major fleet without fighter escort and survive any better. Douglas was NOT responsible for the lousy torpedoes.

Loire was responsible for the poor structural strength of their aircraft. Curtiss was responsible for the handling problems, power to weight ratio and cooling problems of the Seamew.

 

[parsifal]

Yeah, a good summary SR. I agree with all that you say.

What is it with your American compatriots, that they must clobber the Fulmar at every opportunity. Fulmar was a good compromise, given the poor state of the fleet air arm, and the absolute need to get something into the fleet defence role, and also able to undertake mutirole functions. The RN was at war in 1940, and needed something right away. It took the Americans more than 2 years to get the Hellcat in large scale squadron service, and even the Wildcat had a longer lead time than the Fulmar. If the RN had tried to go the way of the USN, it would have forced the surrender of much important objectives, possibly war changing events.

Credit should be given for the speed of its deployment, and the tasks and gaps that it filled.

 

[Mishal Kennedy]

Well, I'll have to agree fully. Thanks for the reply! Forgot about the Fulmer's success in the Med.

 

[pattle]

I thought the Blackburn Roc was briefly flown from carriers during the Norway campaign? Unlike the Seamew the Roc was not a dangerous aircraft, it was just a useless one. The Roc was basically just a Skua with a turret on it's back, and to think that somebody was actually paid to come up with that idea! as though the Skua wasn't bad enough without putting a turret on it!

 

[redcoat]

Wish the Fairey Fulmer was listed...

Don't you insult an aircraft my grannie helped build