Worst ww2 fighter

[buffnut453]

Having voted for the Roc, I'm intrigued to see the tallies to-date. Interesting that the PZL P11c has zero votes. I'm intrigued to know what that didn't get a single vote and yet aircraft like the Buffalo and Me210 get over 17% of the votes.

 

[taly01]

However, the Hungarian Air Force did use the Me210 with great success.

I have a bias against the Me210 cause it messed up the german nightfighter capabilities for almost a year from the stopped then restarted Bf110 production due to Me210 early design problems. The fixed Me210C seems to have been good for Hungarians, yet the Germans themselves never mass produced it and moved on to making the even faster Me410.

 

[Shortround6]

Oh gawd. Since you can't present figures for the Beaufighter or Hurricane, your claim they were more successful rings a bit hollow, because, what exactly are you basing that on? I do agree the Beaufighters was definitely more successful than the Defiant overall, but I was specifying a particular time period. Nevertheless, the Defiant was a success in the role, and I guess we can agree on that. It might be an exaggeration, but it might not, too, since you can't provide definitive figures and that a couple of noted authors have made the statement. it's also good to see you examining the evidence, rather than making not entirely accurate and ill-considered sweeping statements about the Defiant, though, SR.

No, I can't present figures for the Beaufighter or Hurricane, but we can use the process of elimination.

We have one book, which could be in error giving total claims for ALL night fighters in March, April and May (first two weeks) and we have 2nd book detailing claims for the Defiant, the Blenheim and the Boston/Hovac. the numbers are off substantially.

We know that Hurricanes and Beaufighters were being used by the night fighter forces at that time, perhaps another type or two in small numbers?
Picking on April, first book says 48 german aircraft shot down. 2nd book says 58.
BUT of that number (or either one) only 16 are shot down by Defiants. 2 are shot down (maybe or maybe there were other spring months) by Blenheims and the Hovac claimded 8-9 from Jan through May, how many in April? Let's say two for arguments sake, adjust as you see fit.

so 20 out of 48 (or 58?) are shot down by those 3 fighters doing night fighter duties,

What shot down the rest? How many other types of fighters was the nightfighter force equipped with?

 

[nuuumannn]

Well, I don't have the answers, SR, and I've conceded that the Daffy might not have been the highest scorer at that time, but it was the most available at the time and I have also read (James Kightly, contributing author to Aeroplane Monthly and various other aviation magazines - can't find the exact source) that it had the highest intercept to kill ratio within a specific time period, between end of 1940 and early 1942, which doesn't necessarily mean highest number of kills. This impressive for two reasons, no radar (except in the Mk.II, but as we know, only one enemy aircraft was claimed shot down by a Defiant using AI radar) and the fact it gets lambasted so often for being a rubbish fighter.

 

[Conslaw]

My nominee fpr worst fighter of WWII would be the A7M Reppu, the planned successor to the A6M Zero. The reason is that it was the plane that Japan needed the most but it never entered regular production, despite design work having begun in 1940.

 

[parsifal]

I haven't voted yet. Im trying to tackle the issue of what makes "worst". I am thinking probably the aircraft that had the most resouces lavished on it and which delivered the least return for that investment.

An aircraft designed an built in 1930 and still around in 1940, but still provided some service to its country isn't necessarily the worst. if it can do the job expected of it, it helps as well.

The real losers are the ones for which massive resources were expended and which basically returned zip.. Aircraft that might fill that criteria might include: Me 163, A7M, as well as numerous allied types that just couldn't do what they were supposed to do. .

 

[GrauGeist]

While not a fighter, the Curtiss SO3C is a textbook example of a disaster that was allowed to happen.

The SO3C was a US Navy Observation-Scout floatplane that was put into service in 1942. It had development issues that caused a delivery delay, difficult to maintain, was unstable in flight and woefully underpowered.

The Seamew was such a flop, that the Navy brought the SOC Seagull, which had first went into USN service in 1935, back from retirement to serve theough the end of the war.

 

[Shortround6]

The US XP-75 might qualify with up to 14 built for no results.
The Russians may have few batches of of planes that are in the running. However it gets a bit tricky as some were just variants of otherwise successful aircraft that were fitted with underdeveloped engines. Build 50 - 100 aircraft, park them for months and then refit with older engines?

Lots of countries had failed designs/prototypes that they built 1-4 of.
For a truly spectacular fail a country would have had to invest in production tooling/ factory space at the very least or produced enough aircraft to equipe one or more squadrons.

 

[GrauGeist]

For a truly spectacular fail a country would have had to invest in production tooling/ factory space at the very least or produced enough aircraft to equipe one or more squadrons.

The SO3C certainly falls into that category, with nearly 800 units manufactured and put into service with the USN and Royal Navy.
With insufficient Kingfisher numbers, the USN scrambled to get as many SOCs back into service as possible - which was no easy feat, considering the Seagull only numbered less than 400 units delivered in the 30's and after thier initial retirement, were dispersed to training centers or stored, thier numbers reduced by both operational incidents and attacks by the Japanese.

 

[taly01]

The Russians may have few batches of of planes that are in the running.

Reminded me of the LaGG-1 to 3, the early models were so bad the I-16 usually outperformed it and the designers Gorbunov and Gudkov were expelled from the company.

 

[aircro]

My vote for the worst is - He 162.
To produce wooden jet after Ta 154 fiasco... and instead to be flown by hitlerjugend, become experienced pilot - killer.

 

[KiwiBiggles]

My vote for the worst is - He 162.
To produce wooden jet after Ta 154 fiasco... and instead to be flown by hitlerjugend, become experienced pilot - killer.

Nothing wrong with wooden jets per se. Witness the de Havilland Vampire, which carried on (in parts) the Mosquito pattern of moulded wood construction.

 

[nuuumannn]

My vote for the worst is - He 162.

You know, the He 162 gets a bad rap, but experts who flew it comment favourably about its virtues. Here's what our Scottish correspondent in-absentia has to say about it in his book Wings of the Luftwaffe:

"In view of the fact that the He 162 never saw combat, we are left with the intriguing if purely academic question of how it would have made out if it had been used in anger. It would certainly have been an effective gun platform, and its small dimensions would have rendered it difficult to hit. Even if somewhat underpowered, it had a good performance - it could certainly have run rings around the contemporary Meteor - but it was no aeroplane to let embryo pilots loose on, and it would have demanded more than simply a good pilot to operate it out of a small airfield. Nevertheless, as a back up for the formidable Me 262 it could conceivably have helped the Luftwaffe to regain air superiority over Germany had it appeared on the scene sooner.

Personally, I shall always recall the He 162 with affection as it gave me some exhilarating hours in the air, and I cannot help but fell that the Allies were fortunate for, had another month or two and the necessary fuel been available, the He 162 might well have got in among our bombers in numbers at a time when desperate measures might just have chieved sensational results."

 

[nuuumannn]

which carried on (in parts) the Mosquito pattern of moulded wood construction.

Yes indeed, also, the first two seat Vampire was the NF.10, whose cockpit cross section dimensions were exactly the same as the Mosquito. The same section was also used on the T.11 trainer as well.

 

[taly01]

You know, the He 162 gets a bad rap, but experts who flew it comment favourably about its virtues. Here's what our Scottish correspondent in-absentia has to say about it in his book Wings of the Luftwaffe:

He162 is intriguing plane, the main fault was the tail unit would fall off! Not surprising when you look at the incredibly small fuselage section it was attached to. Victim of its rushed development, could have been fixed with testing and normal development cycle of course.

It did have ejector seat and was a very small target, as a cheap disposable interceptor, better than Me163 and Me262. Been so light and small I bet it accelerated well for an early jet. Its 2x20mm was not great knock down power , but a good burst would wreck a plane from service.

 

[GrauGeist]

Actually, a good number of the He162s were armed with Mk108 30mm cannon (A-1 series).
And due to it's size (weight to thrust), it was one of the fastest warplanes of WWII.

 

[Mad Dog]

Blackburn roc!

From the choices offered I would have to agree, though the design philosophy involved was that the Roc was never meant to indulge in fighter-vs-fighter combat, but only for intercepting slower seaplanes far from shore. But at least the Roc achieved one victory over a very capable opponent, a Ju-88, on 28th May 1940.
My personal choice would be the CAC Boomerang, simply because it failed to rack up a single air combat victory, despite having a reasonable engine (compared to its opponent, the Nakajima Ki-43) and excellent armament (2 x 20mm Hispano and 4 x .303 Browning). The same Twin Wasp engine at least got some results in the Buffalo and Wildcat, and with much lighter firepower in either of the American fighters.
To make matters worse for the Boomerang, even the trainer it was developed from, the Whirraway, achieved at least one aerial victory (on 12th December 1942) in the same theatre against the same Japanese fighters as the Boomerang failed against. To emphasize the skill (and guts!) of that Whirraway's pilot, Pilot Officer John S. "Jack" Archer, he shot down a Ki-43 with only the two cowl-mounted, synchronized Vickers .303 MGs, in a trainer-cum-bomber with a 600hp engine!

 

[Mad Dog]

"In view of the fact that the He 162 never saw combat....."

IIRC, the last RAF loss in the ETO was a Typhoon credited to an He.162.

 

[Mad Dog]

Having voted for the Roc, I'm intrigued to see the tallies to-date. Interesting that the PZL P11c has zero votes. I'm intrigued to know what that didn't get a single vote and yet aircraft like the Buffalo and Me210 get over 17% of the votes.

It might be because the Polish P11c actually managed to shoot down quite a few more modern Luftwaffe aircraft in 1939.
And, IIRC, the twelve Philippine Army Air Corp Peashooters available scored four victories, despite being massively-outnumbered, against Japanese bombers over the Philippines. P-26s also scored against the Japanese in the hands of the Chinese in 1937, and held their own against the very similar Mitsubishi A5M Claude, so not exactly a failure.

 

[swampyankee]

The P-26 was a first generation monoplane fighter; in 1941, it was past its best used-by date. It actually preceded the Gladiator into service