Worst Piston Monoplane Fighter of WWII

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by GregP, Jul 1, 2012.

  1. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,905
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    We have been having a lively discussion about the merits or lack of merits of the Brewster Buffalo in another thread. Until I participated in that thread, I had no idea that the Buffalo had any fans out in the world. Some of them are quite vocal about the good characteristics of the portly little fighter and that got me wondering ... some monoplane fighter of WWII HAS to be the worst one. For me, it is the Brewster Buffalo.

    But, I now realize that many people out there LOVE an underdog, and it makes me wonder what THEIR "worst fighter" might be. There has to be one ...

    I nominate:

    1. Brewster Buffalo. Slow, underarmed and underpowered.
    2. Polikarpov I-16. Flew with a rearward CG that made it maneuverable but dangerous. Underarmed unless it had the wing cannons, slow, open cockpit, extremely short range.
    3. Macchi MC.200. Great handling but underpowered, underarmed with extremely short range.

    What do YOU think the worst one was?

    As a single requirement, I think it should have been produced for the Military, if only in small numbers. Prototypes don't count since they were never accepted for service.
     
  2. ssnider

    ssnider New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    First one to come to mind is theBoulton Paul Defiant
     
  3. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I agree.

    The I-16 was a good aircraft at the time it entered sevice. So was the U.S. P-26. It's unreasonable to expect such old designs to still be competative during WWII. The Defiant doesn't get that excuse because it's as recent as the Me-109 and Spitfire.
     
  4. oldcrowcv63

    oldcrowcv63 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,923
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Tired and Retired
    Location:
    Northeast North Carolina
    Bouton Paul Defiant
    its Royal Naval Counterpart: Blackburn Roc
    Curtiss Wright CW-21B
    F2A-3 / B-339 series
    Mitsubishi A5M
    Nakajima Ki-27
     
  5. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,905
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    #5 GregP, Jul 1, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2012
    The Defiant is a good candidate for the worst. I always thought ity could have been a pretty good fighter if they deleted the turret, second crew member, and installed forward-firing armament. Alas, they never did and it was really pretty poor, wasn't it?

    What about the Messerschmitt Me-210?
     
  6. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    The Me-210 was a light bomber. And a good one too after they got the bugs fixed.
     
  7. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    I don’t be very fond of these "The Best…” or ”The worst…” threads but

    1.One version of your Number one had 26,5:1 or 28:1 positive exchange rate (depends on whether one was shot down by heavy AA or a La-5, sources differ on that one) and because Finnish B-239 pilots got 476 officially accepted kills (so official but not necessary real) the exchange rate of all F2As must be clearly positive and clearly F2As got credit on more kills than the total F2A production was (509 IIRC), IMHO rather good for the worst fighter.
    2) Of those few countries which really had experience on I-16 and on Hurricane at least two (Finns and Soviets) generally thought that I-16 was a better fighter in eastern front conditions.
    3) Italians, who really should knew best chose MC 200 over Fiat G.50.

    Juha
     
  8. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,905
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    #8 GregP, Jul 1, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2012
    Juha, the Finns had a good experience with the Buffalo, as everyone in here knows. Their experience was due in large part to both poor-quality opposition and good Finnish training. In general service, outside Finland, the Buffalo was a disaster. The I-16 was OK when it debued, but is a strong candidate for the worst piston monoplane fighter.

    You seem to like to disagree with me whenever I post but, in the first post of this thread, I asked for your candidates for the worst, not a debate about mine that is merely a continuation of another argument in another thread.

    My candidates stand as posted. Maybe you could post YOUR candidates instead of arguing mine? Logically, if you LIKE the Buffalo, then you must have some other "worst" in mind. Let's hear it. I won't argue about your list and am not interested in your arguments about mine; my candidates are MY opinion, not yours. So, let's hear yours since you obviously disagree with mine.

    Remember, it must be a production monplane fighter.

    As for the Me-210, I believe it was primarily used as a heavy fighter and attack aircraft and they never fixed its faults. What they did was to come out with the Me-410, admittedly a further development of teh me-210, but it was NOT an Me-210 airframe. The Me-210 made the production requirement in that they completed 90 with 320 partially completed. The Me-210 was withdrawn from service, as I recall.
     
  9. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    #9 Juha, Jul 1, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2012
    Hello Greg
    Now Finns were the only ones who used F2A-1/B-239 in combat and also Dutch seemed to have thought that their B-339D was better than Hurricane Mk II Trop.

    Not bothering to look all those obscure fighters there were around in 38-45, but from top of my head
    Blackburn Roc, hopeless fighter
    NA P-64, at least Peru got them, (to be more precis, Peru got Na-50As which was an earlier verion of the same concept), those (NA-68s) on the way to Thailand were confiscated and used by USAAC as fighter trainers, USAAC designation was P-64, but the AF of Peru used them as fighters, all 7 of them. And these have some war experience.
    Seversky/Republic P-35

    Juha

    PS, thinking more carefully on it, my list is
    Roc
    Caudron CR. 714
    PZL-7a
    PZL-11c
    Blenheim IF and IVF
    Fokker D. XXI
    P-64, based solely on its specs, I have no info on what Peruvian fighter pilots thought about it
    P-35
    P-66 Vanguard
    Me 163
     
  10. DonL

    DonL Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Occupation:
    IT
    Location:
    Niedersachsen
    This isn't correct!

    The Me 410 is the Me 210 airframe with a lengthened fuselage and new leading edge slats and stronger engines! Nothing more!

    Model's
    Me 210 A, B, C, D renamed in Me 410

    The difference between a Ju 88A-4 and a Ju 88 G1 or G6 is much more major then between a Me 210 C and a Me 410!
     
  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
    Also consider combat record as well as operational capability. Did the aircraft fulfill or exceed its design requirement? Was it obsolete when it entered combat?
     
  12. Njaco

    Njaco The Pop-Tart Whisperer
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,053
    Likes Received:
    994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Animal Control Officer
    Location:
    Southern New Jersey
    Defiant for me. It seems to me to be another design where someone figured that excess in one area would overwhelm a lack of design in another. Similar to "We don't need more guns on the bomber as it will fly faster than any fighter!" mentality.
     
  13. 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
    Some people liked their versions of the Buffalo and some did not.

    Did anybody like the P-43?

    The Blackburn Roc?

    The Bloch MB.150-152?

    The Messerschmitt Me-163 Komet?

    Combat record of the P-66 is none to good either.
     
  14. Njaco

    Njaco The Pop-Tart Whisperer
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,053
    Likes Received:
    994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Animal Control Officer
    Location:
    Southern New Jersey
    I know someone who would argue the merits of the I-16 but.......
     
  15. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    On Me 210
    as DonL wrote its worst problems were fixed in 210C, but because of its bad reputation, it was decised to give the refined 210D a new designation Me 410.
    Hungarians liked their licence produced 210Cas, both the heavy fighter and fast bomber versions.

    Juha
     
  16. Vincenzo

    Vincenzo Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    none
    Location:
    Lazio
    max range of Macchi C.200 was 890 km (cruising at 402 km/h with full fuel load). was underpowered but was light so was not so underpowered not as might think just seeing the power of the engine. the weapons were considered enough before of pop up of allied four engined bomber.

    probably the worst were some very limited producted fighters or the turret fighters
     
  17. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,905
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    I like Juha's list, but I had thought the Dutch LIKED the Fokker D.XXI and have read its handling was good for a fixed-gear monoplane. Perhaps I recall wrong .... I'll check on it since, while Juha and I do not always agree( ! ), he is at least usually on solid ground.

    I disagree with the P-64. I helped build one in Arozona and it flew just great comnpared with an AT-6. Of course, with the extra power to weight ratio, it SHOULD have! I believe it was intended as an export fighter for places where first-line equipment was not expected as the competition. It met its specs, but I might have to disallow that one based on the fact that onoly 13 were made originally. I do not think it was accepted for Military service, at least by the USAAC. I'm not sure it qualifies as "production," but will not eliminate it quite yet until I find out for sure.

    I know of two that were completed by modifying AT-6 airframes in the 1980's and 1990's, both at Deer Valley, Arizona (a Phoenix, AZ airport).
     
  18. rank amateur

    rank amateur Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Credit Manager
    Location:
    Uithoorn, Holland
    From what I have read about the D21 was well liked by the Dutch fighter pilots but it was also appreciated as being inferior to the bf109e. I don't recall the Finns not liking it. I remember reading that they have investigated the posibility of an retractable landing gear.

    About the Buffalo: maybe it wasn't the worst WW2 monoplane fighter, it more than probably was the worst fighter in US service.
    Nevertheless Greg, wouldn't you like a flying b239 for planes of fame? ;)
     
  19. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    The Luftwaffe got a portion of the Hungarian produced Me-210Cs. Everything I have read suggests German pilots liked them also.
     
  20. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    How about the Caudron 714, 180 ordered but later reduced, maybe 60 delivered. Nobody seemed to like them.

    Some 80 ordered by the Finns for the winter war, but after a few were delivered, the Finns decided it wouldn't do.

    A Polish squadron flew them even after they were officially grounded in the Battle of France, because it was the Caudron or nothing.
     
Loading...

Share This Page