Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Worst Fighter Plane of WW II

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Worst Fighter Plane of WW II

    In another thread the question was asked.....What is the worst fighter plane of WW II.

    My vote goes to the F2A Brewster Buffalo. Despite some success in the hands of Finnish forces against the Russians it was the worst "fighter" forced upon US and British air forces.

    A close second choice would be the woefully obsolete Italian CR.42.
    Lance W.

    Peace through superior firepower.

  • #2
    Re: Worst Fighter Plane of WW II

    Originally posted by Lance Williams
    In another thread the question was asked.....What is the worst fighter plane of WW II.

    My vote goes to the Brewster Buffalo. Despite some success in the hands of Finnish forces against the Russians it was the worst "fighter" forced upon US and British air forces.

    A close second choice would be the woefully obsolete Italian CR.42.
    I'll second that. Though the Buffalo was taken out of service as soon as more modern replacements were available, it saw service at both Midway and Wake, I believe.

    Other candidates are the Soviet I-153 biplane (bomber I think, but don't remember), and the Yak-1 fighter.
    Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
    (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Re: Worst Fighter Plane of WW II

      Originally posted by hogdriver
      I'll second that. Though the Buffalo was taken out of service as soon as more modern replacements were available, it saw service at both Midway and Wake, I believe.

      Other candidates are the Soviet I-153 biplane (bomber I think, but don't remember), and the Yak-1 fighter.
      If you mean "taken out of service" is a euphanism for being shot down.

      They were at Wake and used by the British in Burma. I don't think any were left by Midway. I believe all of the fighters on Midway were Wildcats.
      Lance W.

      Peace through superior firepower.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Re: Re: Worst Fighter Plane of WW II

        Originally posted by Lance Williams
        If you mean "taken out of service" is a euphanism for being shot down.

        They were at Wake and used by the British in Burma. I don't think any were left by Midway. I believe all of the fighters on Midway were Wildcats.
        Actually, Red Parks fighter squadron had Buffalos and the attack squadrons had Vindicators. There was a MOH won by Captain Richard E. Fleming for flying a Vindicator.

        But the worst fighter of WWII? Hmmmmmm. I disagree with the CR-42 as in capable hands it could be a handful. I guess for me the worst fighter of the war was the Bolton Paul Defiant.

        Below is a nice link to a nice page for the Marine fighters at Midway.

        http://www.danford.net/midwayx.htm
        Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

        "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

        What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Re: Re: Re: Worst Fighter Plane of WW II

          Originally posted by RStory
          Actually, Red Parks fighter squadron had Buffalos and the attack squadrons had Vindicators. There was a MOH won by Captain Richard E. Fleming for flying a Vindicator.

          But the worst fighter of WWII? Hmmmmmm. I disagree with the CR-42 as in capable hands it could be a handful. I guess for me the worst fighter of the war was the Bolton Paul Defiant.

          Below is a nice link to a nice page for the Marine fighters at Midway.

          http://www.danford.net/midwayx.htm
          I stand corrected regarding Buffaloes at Midway.

          The CR.42 was manoeverable, but come on, it was out classed in Spain in 1936.

          As for the Bolton-Paul Defiant you might have something. The concept of a fighter with no fixed forward armament does make you wonder about its creators logic. It shot down a few unlucky enemies that attacked from the rear when first introduced, but after that everyone attacked it head on and it was defenseless.
          Lance W.

          Peace through superior firepower.

          Comment


          • #6
            Any one new to the forums have any thoughts on this question?
            Lance W.

            Peace through superior firepower.

            Comment


            • #7
              No, nothing new...but I'll second the Bolton Paul Defiant. The turret-only armament package was a novel concept...until the Luftwaffe learned how to tell the difference between a Hurricane and a Defiant.

              The Brewster Buffalo was actually chosen over the Wildcat by the Navy...fortunately they figured out it was a mistake in time to re-equip most of their Fighting Squadrons prior to Pearl Harbor...
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #8
                No with the worst fighters the obvious selections are so bad it is clear.

                I would say Defiant over the Buffalo since atleast the Finns did have a bit of luck with it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The Buffalo. As a fighter, it lived up to its namesake. unmanuverable and slow. Not exactly what you want to be covering your six.
                  Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm going with the Defiant. It had one good day over Dunkirk when they surprised some Bf109s who attacked them but after that they were history.

                    Another fighter that did not have much success was the Westland Whirlwind, that only ever equipped one squadron. Unfortunately, it had a poor power plant and did not live up to expectations. I believe that if it had been powered by merlins, it may well have gone on to be an outstanding aircraft.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by michammer
                      Another fighter that did not have much success was the Westland Whirlwind, that only ever equipped one squadron. Unfortunately, it had a poor power plant and did not live up to expectations. I believe that if it had been powered by merlins, it may well have gone on to be an outstanding aircraft.
                      The engines it was designed for where never delivered. The engines it got (Pergrins?) were horribly mismatched to the plane. The Whirlwind would have been a good plane if it got the right engines.


                      :flag:
                      Attached Files
                      Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

                      "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

                      What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        If prototypes are allowed into this poll then I vote for the Soviet Silvansky I-220 because this was one of the most shocking airplane engineering screw-ups in history. The plane was designed in 1939 and began testing in 1940.

                        Silvansky designed his plane with a propeller that was too large, almost touching the ground during engine runs! It would have certainly hit the runway on takeoff because of the compressibility of the shock absorbers.

                        The designer promptly fitted his bird with a smaller propeller but this cut the thrust dramatically and the airplane could barely get airborne despite an incredibly long takeoff run. Of course, its other flying characteristics were terrible too.

                        Stalin must have been furious because after the I-220 nothing was heard of Silvanski's fighter aircraft design efforts again. Perhaps Stalin put him in charge of railway car production or something.

                        "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
                        --Frederick II, King of Prussia

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'd say the Me 163 Komet
                          Your Plane A'splode!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by the_redstar_swl
                            I'd say the Me 163 Komet
                            Your Plane A'splode!
                            Yep, I don't know which worse death in the Komet: exploding in midair or overturning on the ground and being dissolved by the flesh-eating fuel spilling into the cockpit. To make it more fun, the flesh eating fuel also caught fire as it ate your flesh because that's what it did when it contacted any kind of organic material. So the pilot could experience being dissolved and burned at the same time.

                            "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
                            --Frederick II, King of Prussia

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Boulton-Paul Defiant. The concept actually went right to WWI. All that was missing was a Lewis gun for the pilot!

                              Second choice would likely be the Bewster Buffalo.
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X