Worst Piston Monoplane Fighter of WWII

[Shortround6]

Caudron 714, if the Finns don't want them it must have really been lacking something.... or a bunch of things.

 

[GregP]

Hi Rank Amateur,

Absolutely, and a Buffalo, too. My favorite Swedish fighter of WWII was the FFVS J-22. Wish we had one of THOSE! Heck I wish YOU ahd one of those in flying condition.

The Buffalo was definnitely the worst of the American fighters. I'm sure there was SOME plane worse ... but it is hard to think of one. The people who say the losses in the pacific were due to circumstances and poor training seem to conveniently forget the very similar but opposite circumstances that occurred during the Finnish experience with the Buffalo. If they had come up against good planes flown by veteran pilots, they might not like the Buffalo so well and might well be losses instead of Aces. If circumstance work against you sometimes, then they also almost certainly sometimes work FOR you, as in the case of the Finnish Buffalos.

 

[Juha]

...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 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).

Hello Greg
As rank amateur wrote, Dutch pilots liked D XXI but even if it had fairly good climb rate, Soviet I-153 and I-16 climbed still better and turned better and were faster. The only ace D XXI pilot had was that D. XXI was a sturdy plane and if they had enough altitude the D XXI pilots could always disengage by deep dive. But all Finnish D. XXI pilots i am aware of thought that B-239 was significantly better plane, most of those who had fought during the the Winter War began the Continuation War flying in B-239s, some who convert to Fiat G.50 were also happy with the new type they thought was a better one. I put D. XXI into my list because I could remember only a few planes I thought were worse than D XXI. I-153 and I-16 were better according to Finnish fighter pilots. And during Khalkin-Gol Ki-27 was at least as good to I-16 Type 10, IIRC A5M4 was more or less equal to Ki-27 etc. But if Finns were ready during the desperate times of early 40 to dumb CR. 714 out of hand after a few flights, it must have been almost as bad fighter as Roc.

As I wrote I chose NA-50A/-68/P-64 only becaus eof its poor specs, I really knew very little on it.

Juha

 

[Juha]

Hi Rank Amateur,

Absolutely, and a Buffalo, too. My favorite Swedish fighter of WWII was the FFVS J-22. Wish we had one of THOSE! Heck I wish YOU ahd one of those in flying condition.

The Buffalo was definnitely the worst of the American fighters. I'm sure there was SOME plane worse ... but it is hard to think of one. The people who say the losses in the pacific were due to circumstances and poor training seem to conveniently forget the very similar but opposite circumstances that occurred during the Finnish experience with the Buffalo. If they had come up against good planes flown by veteran pilots, they might not like the Buffalo so well and might well be losses instead of Aces. If circumstance work against you sometimes, then they also almost certainly sometimes work FOR you, as in the case of the Finnish Buffalos.

Hello Greg
The vast majority of claimed 476 kills by Finnish Brewster B-239 pilots were against fighters, which incl 48 Hurricanes, 41 LaGG-3s, 45 MiG-3s, 27½ Yak-1s, 23 La-5s, 13 "Spitfires" (Yak-1s and 7s in reality), 4 P-40s and 2 Yak-7s.

And in fact some of the Soviet pilots were very good, after all VVS was one of the few AFs which had recent combat experience, from China, from Spanish Civil War and from skirmishes/frontier wars against Japanese. IMHO VVS pilot ability varied greatly, maybe more than in most AFs, from highly motivated excellent pilots to tyros who tried to avoid combat as much they could.

I also like very much FFVS J-22, they have lovely restored J-22 at Swedish AF Museum in Linköping.

Juha

Juha

 

[tyrodtom]

The Finns flew a lot of different aircraft, anything captured, if repairable, they used. A lot of the aircraft the Germans captured after the fall of France, they sold to Finland.

In the Winter War, and early Continuation War, Russian pilot qualities and aircraft may not of been the best, but later in the war Russia improved in every department. I really don't think the Soviets singled out substandard pilots just for the Finland front. The Buffalos fought till the end even against the better Russian pilots and aircraft late in the war.

The Finns used a lot of aircraft that are on everybodies crap list, and made them work for them, but even they didn't want the Caudron 714.

 

[GregP]

Juha, to give you your due, the NA P-64 had specs that were lower performance than most other fighters, so maybe it belongs on the bottom of the list. I could argue it both ways, but will not do so either way.

A lot of the European aircraft produced in lesser numbers are not very well known to me, at least with accompamnying pilot reports and combat reports. For instance, I know very little about the early PZL monoplane fighrters except what the written, and that isn;t much. It would be nice for some Poles, Czechs, Romanians, Swedes, Fins, etc. ect. to post some pilots thoughts about their aircraft made in low numbers. That way, we'd have something to read about them instead of being left to draw conclusions rather in the dark except for the specs.

At least there are several sources for stories about the IAR 80 series, but I have read very little about the Myrsky, Pyorremyrsky, SM.92, etc.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I will say one thing for you Greg, you don't let facts and data get in your way. Soviet's actually had a lot of combat experience having fought in the Spanish Civil War, Khalkin Gol, and volunteers that fought with the Chinese against the Japanese. They had more combat experience then the Finns did. The US Marines meanwhile were fresh out of flight school going against combat veterens. BTW comparing the early Buffalos with the later ones is like comparing the FM-1 with the F4F-2. Same in name only.

Of all the fighters mentioned, the Me-163 would be IMO the top candidate. IIRC it killed far more pilots then it destroyed enemy aircraft.

 

[tyrodtom]

You all know how I love to unload on the German wonder weapons, i'd definitely vote for the Me163, but it isn't a piston powered monoplane, though it does have that itty bitty prop up front.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Dangit - forgot about that little requirement! Thanks Tom!

 

[Milosh]

BTW comparing the early Buffalos with the later ones is like comparing the FM-1 with the F4F-2. Same in name only.

Of all the fighters mentioned, the Me-163 would be IMO the top candidate. IIRC it killed far more pilots then it destroyed enemy aircraft.

Have you actually researched the number of pilots killed in the Me163 vB?

 

[Juha]

Hello VikingBerserker
while true that Soviets had combat experience before the Winter War it still true that Finnish had better tactics, Finns had made a pair their basic tactical building block already in 1935, so even before LW while VVS still strickly adhered to tight vic. And Finns shooted better on average. But one must remember that most of Finnish kills duringthe Winter War were bombers, Finns tried to avoid fighter vs fighter combats because of vast numerical superiority of Soviet fighters, of which vast majority were better dogfighters than Finnish D. XXIs,

Juha

 

[vikingBerserker]

Have you actually researched the number of pilots killed in the Me163 vB?

IIRC I came across it being mentioned in a book. I'm looking for it now in Luftwaffe Classics Me 163 Vol2 by Rasom and Cammann as I feel they would be the most reliable source of all the books I have on the topic. I'm curious about it even though it would not quality for this thread.

Hello VikingBerserker
while true that Soviets had combat experience before the Winter War it still true that Finnish had better tactics, Finns had made a pair their basic tactical building block already in 1935, so even before LW while VVS still strickly adhered to tight vic. And Finns shooted better on average. But one must remember that most of Finnish kills duringthe Winter War were bombers, Finns tried to avoid fighter vs fighter combats because of vast numerical superiority of Soviet fighters, of which vast majority were better dogfighters than Finnish D. XXIs, Juha

I agree with you for the most part and I'll have to take your word about the bombers as I really don't know. Regardless f the lack of combat experience, they were still some dam fine pilots!

 

[nuuumannn]

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?

No, it wasn't. I can't belive you guys have put the Defiant down in this list!!! You disappoint me! Call yourselves knowledgeable?!

Here are some passages from an article on the Defiant I had published this year:

"First flying on 11 August 1937, as a result of a high loss rate in combat between May and August 1940, the Defiant has been tarnished with not entirely deserved disrepute. A lack of understanding of its intended role and ignorance of its weaknesses led to its poor showing in the Battle of Britain. Losses suffered during day operations led to a dismissal of the turret fighter as unworkable, but in its defence, the Defiant was not designed to tackle single-seat fighters. As a result of these failures, it was withdrawn from day fighter duties in late August 1940.

As a night fighter the Defiant excelled however and far from being "relegated" to the role as post-war authors like to claim, it was always intended as a specialist night fighter. It is interesting to note that more enemy bombers were shot down by Defiants than by any other British night fighter between late 1940 and late 1942."

"Ultimately, the Defiant was intended as a Bomber Destroyer, designed specifically for attacking unescorted formations of enemy bombers. According to RAF tactics prepared before the war, turret fighters were to operate in conjunction with single-seat fighters; the two-seaters attacking the formations in groups of four aircraft, aiming a high concentration of small calibre gun fire into their victim's less well protected areas. Flying underneath and alongside enemy bombers would enable the turret fighters to strike at their foe's vulnerable areas; their bellies and along their flanks. These concentrated attacks would cause the defensive formations to break up, at which point the single-seaters would pick off those straying from the formation.

At the time that Specification F.9/35, to which the Defiant was built was released, it was believed that enemy bombers would have to fly unescorted from bases in Germany since no single-seat fighter had the range to match the bombers. RAF strategists were clearly not banking on Germany invading France again.

One persisting criticism of the Defiant is that it lacked fixed forward firing armament. There is much speculation that had the Defiant been so fitted and flown tactically like the Bristol Fighter was in World War One, then it would have been more successful as a day fighter. This does not take into consideration the Defiant's intended role as a Bomber Destroyer as outlined above. Bearing this in mind, guns in the wings were unnecessary; the extra weight of which would have been detrimental to the aeroplane's performance, not sparking as it was even by the standards of the day. Although the gun turret could fire forward under control of the pilot via a push-button trigger on his spade-grip joystick, the guns' minimum elevation pointing forward was 19° and he did not have a gun sight."

I suspect this won't be enough to convince most of you that its poor reputation is not deserved, but if you want a debate about it; bring it!

 

[GregP]

Well Vikingberserker, you don't mince words. Can'y say I agree with you.

OK, the Soviets had some comabt experience in Spain. Didn't seem to do them any good because they were shot out of the sky at the beginning of WWII in droves. I think maybe it is you who don't let the facts get in your way, huh? Read your history, particularly the aerial history of early WWII. The Soviet Air Force from 1939 to 1941 or a bit later were targets. Maybe if you don't think so, you are reading different books than I am.

It wasn't until about April 1941 that they flew the Yak-3 and mid-1942 when they flew the La-5. By that time, most of the older planes of the Soviet Air Force had been shot down with little or no resistance. After that time, the Soviet Union came into their own right as a modern, well-equipped Air Force and drove the Germans from their skies gradually from autumn of 1943 onward. In late 1944, a German plane could not hope to live long in a Soviet sky.

But in 1940, it was like shooting sitting ducks, and the Fins DID, even with Buffalos. I'm sure they were happy about the outcome, but better planes might have done much better.

So, hurl your insults after you read up on the early Russian Front aerial war. I think I am on solid ground here. Naturally, you disagree ... I don't mind or take offense, but you might at least be civil. Go eat some South Carolina BBQ and chill.

As for the Defiant, its combat record is pretty well known and speaks for itself ... it was miserable. It wound up as a target tug and was used for some experimental radar formations.

Sure it was decent-looking, but the combat performance was not even marginally good.

 

[norab]

I'd nominate the Breda 88, with maybe the Boomerang as a runner up

 

[Marcel]

If one is putting the D.XXI in the list, one should also consider the Italian fighters like the G.50. They are in the same league. And of these I would pick the D.XXI anytime. In a dogfight it could hold it's own well against the BF.109 as the the fight at Den Helder showed. The big problem that the D.XXI was that it was too slow. Although it was quite fast for a fixed gear aircraft with 460km/h (Dutch version).
As for worst aircraft, I also don't go with the Buffalo. It was as bad as all Allied aircraft in the Pacific. In my view it's just apology-talk from the US marines for their defeat at Midway (stepping a few toes there).
The Defiant and the Rock are good candidates as the idea they were designed for was flawed.

 

[GregP]

Well, it appears as if every nomination generates some staunch defender of the type. Go figure.

C'mon guys, I asked for YOUR lists of the worst, not a heated debate of same. I don't care at all if you think one list is good or bad, I'm looking for the opinions of the members, not arguments. I'm not trying for consensus, I'm trying to get opinions. You know, when someone who has been a keen follower of WWII aviation for more than 50 years has an opinion, it is usually for cumulative reasons and data acquired over decades from many sources. You won't change my mind and I never set out to change yours or start a debate over the worst.

I was only seeking lists of YOUR proposed worst. Then I could compile the lists and put them out there for a vote.

Your votes may or may not match mine but, really, I was and am looking for YOUR opinions in the form of your proposed list of the top 3 - 5 worst fighters of WWII, not an acrimonious debate. Juha kindly supplied a list of 10. Thanks, Juha. Let's be civil and stick to the thread topic. There is no point in arguing when you ask someone else for their opinion. After all, it is not put forth as your opinion; it is someopne else's, and they have it for a reason ... and ... I asked for it in the form of a list of their proposed worst fighters. If you disagree, please just supply your own alternate list as a retort.

Can we please stop the arguments? If we don't, maybe that is why I can't get many lists of proposed worst fighters. People don't want to be slammed in a public forum.

So, how about it? Peace? ... and lists?

If a plane had multiple uses and one included the monicker "fighter", as in fighter-bomber or heavy fighter or fighter escort, it is a candidate. That means even the P-70, which was basically an A-20, is suitable if you think it was among the worst.

 

[Juha]

Hello Greg
IMHO you have too dim view on VVS, after all it beat the JAAF in the end at Khalkin Gol in summer 39, mostly because it had numerical superiority and was able to exhaust the smaller JAAF formations in the area but also partly by transferring units led by officers with recent combat experience in Spain and introducing better fighters like newer I-16 versions and I-153s. And the same JAAF, still mainly using the same planes as they had used at Khalkin-Gol beat RAF/RAAF in Malaya a bit over 2 years later.

Juha

 

[Juha]

If one is putting the D.XXI in the list, one should also consider the Italian fighters like the G.50. They are in the same league. And of these I would pick the D.XXI anytime. In a dogfight it could hold it's own well against the BF.109 as the the fight at Den Helder showed. The big problem that the D.XXI was that it was too slow. Although it was quite fast for a fixed gear aircraft with 460km/h (Dutch version).
As for worst aircraft, I also don't go with the Buffalo. It was as bad as all Allied aircraft in the Pacific. In my view it's just apology-talk from the US marines for their defeat at Midway (stepping a few toes there).
The Defiant and the Rock are good candidates as the idea they were designed for was flawed.

Hello Marcel
Finns definitely thought that Fiat G.50 was a better fighter than D. XXI. While D.XXI climbed better (I'm talking about the Mercury powered version, the Wasp powered [R-1535-SB4-G Twin Wasp Junior, installed only because no better engines were available], was real turkey), Fiat G.50 was somewhat faster, dived even better and had better handling. One plus for D.XXI was that it was easier to maintain, G.50 and Morane-Saulnier MS 406 were the most problematic fighters from maintenance POV the FiAF had during the WWII.

Juha

 

[Njaco]

Greg, unfortunately with a question such as yours, you will get the heated debates, etc. - especially on the 'net. As long as everything stays civil, we really shouldn't have a problem.

But it does seem you're getting a very varied response!