Worst Piston Monoplane Fighter of WWII

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

GregP

GregP

Major
9,166
5,884
Jul 28, 2003
Chino, 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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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).
 
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? ;)
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Worst liquid-cooled, V12-powered, single-engine, single-seat, monoplane, retractable undercarriage fighters of WW2?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
3K
yulzari
yulzari
herman1rg
Best piston engined fighter of 1945?
5 6 7
Replies
130
Views
7K
GrauGeist
GrauGeist
tomo pauk
Best piston engine(s) for fighters of 1945?
4 5 6
Replies
106
Views
6K
drgondog
drgondog
A
Your favourite open cockpit monoplane fighter?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
D
Total number of USAAF fighter pilots enlisted in WW2
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
J.A.W.
J.A.W.
Back