Worst Piston Monoplane Fighter of WWII

Hello rank amateur
Yes, but it was a Skua, the RN dive-bomber - fighter, from which the Roc was developed as turret fighter.

The first RAF kills, unfortunately own goals:
6 Sept 39 The Battle of Barking Creek, Spitfires of "A" Flight of 74 Sqn shot down 2 Hurricanes of 56 Sqn (1 KIA)

The first confirmed RAF kill, later found invalid:
20 Sep 1939 - Sgt F Letchard, a gunner in a Fairey Battle, claims the first RAF victory of the war, he claimed a German Bf 109 during a patrol near Aachen. Later confirmed by French troops. There was in fact no LW losses.

The first true kill by a a/c of the UK armed forces
26 September 1939
The first Luftwaffe aircraft is shot down during operations against the United Kingdom. A Dornier Do18D flying boat of 2/Küstenfliegergruppe 506 is shot down by a Blackburn Skua of No.803 Squadron, Fleet Air Arm, operating from the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal

The first RAF kill Wednesday, 27th September 1939.
JGr.152 Messerschmitt Bf109D-1. Shot down by return fire during attack on No.103 Squadron Battles west of Hornbach and crashed near Bockweiler, 1230 hrs. Gefr. J. Scherm killed. Aircraft a write off.

rank amateur said:

BTW I've done some reading and I haven't come up with the reason why the BA 88 was such a lousy fighter.

Click to expand...

For starters, because it couldn't get off the ground?

FLYBOYJ said:

For starters, because it couldn't get off the ground?

Click to expand...

Indeed but I would not have used that eufemistic 'not living up to the expectations' about the engines. If these don't have enough power for lift off that's just plain failure in my book and not one for which I can blame the Breda company. Or should I blame them for not trying other engines. Why didn't they?

rank amateur said:

Indeed but I would not have used that eufemistic 'not living up to the expectations' about the engines. If these don't have enough power for lift off that's just plain failure in my book and not one for which I can blame the Breda company. Or should I blame them for not trying other engines. Why didn't they?

Click to expand...

Don't know, but there was another report of one taking off and not being able to turn (probably because of fear of stalling). Lastly being used as a target decoy, I think some really lost some faith in the aircraft!

I won't try to say the Breda 88 was in any way a good aircraft, but in defense of it those times in when it couldn't take off were in Africa, during the summer, very high density altitude, equals less power, less lift. There's also some question if they might have been operated without their sand filters for a while, so the engines might have been pretty worn out. And the sand filters themselves also sapped power. Being underpowered in the first place meant it didn't take a lot going wrong to tip the balance toward not enough power to fly.
I can remember some times in Vietnam that the temps got up so high that some of the piston powered helicopters were grounded, they didn't have enough excess power to safely fly.

The Breda definitely deserves 1st. If an aircraft's best use in the war was to be a bunch of decoys on the ground drawing attention, you know it's a pathetic aircraft!

As for runner up? I think the Blackburn Botha deserves a mention. It was infamously known as a flying death trap. Quoting a test pilot: "that thing is bloody lethal, but not to the Germans, I never want to see it again". Another famous quote "access to this aircraft is difficult. It should be made impossible"

The British certainly had their share of "WTFWTT" (what the F*** were they thinking) aircraft but the Botha escapes THIS list because it was not a fighter

For a list of worst Piston engine bombers it may manage to escape below the radar because the British at least had the sense to to send any to a combat squadron.

Another poster child for why NOT to order off the drawing board.

Hi Vikingberserker,

I went back and read my post ... and you are right. I unloaded on you rather unnecessarilty. Apologies and I sent you a PM of apology as well. When I lost my temper a bit, I didn't mean to take it out on YOU, just vent a bit and you happened to be the post I replied to ... but it was a buildup of other posts, too.

Just goes to show you, venting a bit can easily be construed as an adolescent attack. Sorry, it wasn't meant the way it now sounds to me; it was frustration at best and rather churlish of me. Since I usually endeavor NOT to be a churl, mea cupla. Hopefully, I am not a repeat offender. Somebody slap me, please.

I apoligize as well for my part, but I am NOT going to hug you!

The B.88 reminds me of the LWS Zubr. It was originally designed for one engine and a much more popwerful one was substituted ... without restressing the airframe. That meant the Zubr had airframe stress issues in the extreme. It wound up being hardkly used at all, except in training and, in that guise, was very short-lived. Alotgether useless.

Vikingberserker, thanks for the non-hug ...

Using Greg's criteria for the Buffalo, then the P-39 is right up there as well. It sure didn't have a stellar career with any of the Western Allies. It did have a good career with the VVS despite the so-so pilot training.

I think the P-39 was a pretty darned good fighter ... below 15,000 feet ... albeit with a BAD cannon in the nose. Not much to recommend it, is there?

Still, if they had fitted the turbocharger and a decent cannon, then maybe it would have been a good one.

Alas, in real life, Milosh is right and it IS on the worst-of list but, at least on mine, not at the bottom. Maybe 3rd or 4th up, or even a bit higher considering Juha's list and the B-88.

Blackburn Roc would get my vote. Slow (even a Stuka could outrun it), underarmed, miserable climb, heavy and I don't know if they shot anything down.

Click to expand...

Yep, pretty awful all round, really, although somewhat unbelieveably the Roc is credited with shooting down enemy aircraft from the ground whilst stationary! They were so bad as a fighter that Rocs were used as fixed airfield anti-aircraft defence! Fitted with floats it could barely get airborne. One is credited with shooting down a Ju 88 in 1940 though, but still, a miserable aeroplane.

Most of you will not be surprised to learn they were bult by Boulton Paul and were chosen over a naval fighter version of the Defiant. Naturally BP was not very happy with having to build an inferior product than the one it offered.

Which brings us back to the Defiant as a day fighter. Let's not forget that it wasn't designed as a fighter, but as a specialised bomber interceptor.

It was not an abject failure as statistics show. Between May and August 1940 Defiants claimed 88 enemy aircraft for the total loss of 32 Defiants - from all causes. During this time it equipped only two squadrons, one of which had devised tactics to enable its turret to gain a bead on its enemies. Both squadrons were also carrying out night fighter patrols at this time too. In almost every case in which Defiants were shot down in numbers, the British were confronted by superior numbers of enemy fighters.

On 19 July 1940 the event that killed the reputation of the Defiant took place; 9 aircraft of 141 Sqn were bounced by what is claimed to be thirty Bf 109s. six were lost with four Defiants shot down in less than a minute. Two Bf 109s were claimed. The 141 Sqn CO had ignored advice from 264 Sqn's CO Sqn Ldr Philip Hunter about utilising the aircraft's turret to his advantage and so his sqn was decimated.

The biggest problem behind the use of the Defiant in the BoB was that although it was recommended before the war that it should avoid conflict with the Bf 109, the squadrons were placed with 11 Group, rather than with either 12 or 13 Group, where its true role - that of bomber interceptor could be exploited.

The first RAF kills, unfortunately own goals:
6 Sept 39 The Battle of Barking Creek, Spitfires of "A" Flight of 74 Sqn shot down 2 Hurricanes of 56 Sqn (1 KIA)

Click to expand...

The first combat kills of the Supermarine Spitfire! Brilliant start!

Almost a good as the Germans, who with one He 111 managed to do something the British couldn't in the first few months of the war, sink two German destroyers in one sortie!

GregP said:

I think the P-39 was a pretty darned good fighter ... below 15,000 feet ... albeit with a BAD cannon in the nose. Not much to recommend it, is there?

Still, if they had fitted the turbocharger and a decent cannon, then maybe it would have been a good one.

Alas, in real life, Milosh is right and it IS on the worst-of list but, at least on mine, not at the bottom. Maybe 3rd or 4th up, or even a bit higher considering Juha's list and the B-88.

Click to expand...

In convesations with pilots that flew both the P39 and P40 in combat, the biggest difference in the two planes was the P40 could be depended on while some system broke on the P39 every mission. One pilot told me he never had a mission in the P39 that everything worked.

It's interesting that three of the aircraft mentioned here are often in these worst aircraft lists, but still have their protagonists. These aeroplanes have had their reputations irrepairably quashed, but perhaps don't deserve all the negative publicity they receive.

The P-39 - not the most reliable machine, but quite an advanced concept when it flew - perhaps it was introduced into service before it had its bugs ironed out. nevertheless, Chuck yeager flew them was quite praiseworthy of the P-39, not to mention Russian experience vindicating the design. If the Russians with their harsh conditions and basic equipment could make something of a complex and frequently malfunctioning aircraft means that perhaps its reputation is not entirely deserved.

The same can be said for the Brewster Buffalo; certainly not the most capable fighter, but not a complete dud. Sure, it's undercarriage design left a lot to be desired, but its poor reputation largely came about from its participation in a scenario that it could not influence nor change, that was the Fall of Singapore, in which had the British been equipped with better aircraft, could not have changed the outcome. Nevertheless, like the P-39, a foreign country made something of the type and it gained fame as the mount of aces in an especially harsh environment, one that its detractors probably did not expect it to succeed in.

Next, the Defiant; with all intents and purposes, an excellent aircraft that performed superbly in the role it was designed for - as a specialised bomber interceptor. Unlike the P-39 and Buffalo, the Defiant was not stricken with unreliability issues and very few of the pilots that flew it did not enjoy the experience. Of course in combat against enemy fighters they changed their perspective, but somewhat unfairly, it was placed into an arena it was not designed for nor for which could it adequately cope.

It is a shame that it is thought of because of the Battle of Britain, which constituted only three months of a five year service career in which it performed every other duty it was tasked with well and with some satisfaction, it is infamously remembered. What is even more surprising is that the role for which it is most remembered is one that it was not designed to undertake. The worst thing about the Defiant's reputation is that it was not considered so poorly during the war - the airmen who were told they were going to undertake solely night ops in the summer of 1940 were actually quite surprised and shocked by the move. It has only been since the end of WW2 that it is thought of so negatively.

If you compare these three aircraft with some of the real duds here, such as the Breda 88 Lince or the Blackburn Roc, they fare pretty well if you consider their overall combat experience and not focus on their reputations alone.

VERY well said!

I wish I had your grasp of the words to post the real potential of the platforms. They probably weren't so bad when compared with their situations and the likely outcomes of different scenarios.

Nice post!

I have always thought the P-39 should have and could have performed the way it looked. It is very streamlined compared to some fighters of the era and if it had a supercharged engine should have been comparable in performance to P-40 and Hurricane and maybe early Spits and 109s?

Tankworks said:

I have always thought the P-39 should have and could have performed the way it looked. It is very streamlined compared to some fighters of the era and if it had a supercharged engine should have been comparable in performance to P-40 and Hurricane and maybe early Spits and 109s?

Click to expand...

The P-39 did have a supercharged engine - it was basically the same as the one in the P-40.

VERY well said!

I wish I had your grasp of the words to post the real potential of the platforms. They probably weren't so bad when compared with their situations and the likely outcomes of different scenarios.

Nice post!

Click to expand...

Thanks Greg, very kind of you.