Worst Fighter Plane Of Ww2

You could make it a ram-fighter

 

I agree with the Defiant. Although not a fighter, Here's my contender...at least with the 163 you had a chance to make it back.






I do think that it is not a fighter, more a guided missile, albeit with a man as the guidance system.

 

I'll go with the defiant because of the turret concept which proved useless!

 

I know I'm going to sound like a spoil-sport (again!), but I have to take issue with the choice of the Defiant. As a day fighter, it was absolutely useless, but it's development pre-war was very much in keeping with the air doctorine for attacking bombers. The same could be said for the Spit and Hurricanes - their initial use was limited by the way that they were used (fortunately the quality of the plane won over the doctorine - not the case for the Defiant).

However, when the Defiants were transferred to the night-fighter role, they were successful, and managed to fill a niche that was wide-open, until the Germans developed faster bombers in 1942.

From:

Boulton Paul Defiant

"The limitations on the Defiant's manoeuvrability forced its eventual withdrawal from daylight operations in late August 1940. 264 and 141 squadrons became dedicated night-fighter units. The Defiant night fighters were painted all-black and fitted with flame damper exhausts. Success came quickly, with the first night kill being claimed on 15 September 1940. From November 1940, an increasing number of new night fighter squadrons were formed on the Defiant. Units operating the Defiant shot down more enemy aircraft than any other night-fighter during the German 'Blitz' on London in the winter of 1940-41. Initial operations were conducted without the benefit of radar. From the Autumn of 1941, AI Mk 4 radar units began to be fitted to the Defiant. An arrow type aerial was fitted on each wing, and a small H-shaped aerial added on the starboard fuselage side, just in front of the cockpit. The transmitter unit was located behind the turret, with the receiver and display screen in the pilot's cockpit. The addition of radar brought a change in designation for the Mk I to N.F. Mk IA, but the designation of the Mk II version did not change. By February 1942, the Defiant was obviously too slow to catch the latest German night intruders and the night fighter units completely re-equipped in the period April-September 1942" (bold mine)

 

I think that we have been specific in what role the aircraft was meant to have.

E.G. day fighter/interceptor. Nightfighter etc.


As a day fighter the defiant was a disaster and as we are talking about fighters rather than nightfighters then the old Boltoun Paul aircraft loses with flying colours.

 

I think that we have been specific in what role the aircraft was meant to have.

E.G. day fighter/interceptor. Nightfighter etc.

As a day fighter the defiant was a disaster and as we are talking about fighters rather than nightfighters then the old Boltoun Paul aircraft loses with flying colours.


OK, by that logic I choose the Hawker Typhoon:

From: The Hawker Typhoon and Tempest - Great Britain

"In the first nine months of its service life, far more Typhoons were lost through structural or engine troubles than, were lost in combat. Between July and September 1942, it was estimated that at least one Typhoon failed to return from each sortie, owing to one or other of its defects. Trouble was experienced in power dives--a structural failure in the tail assembly sometimes resulted in this component parting company, with the rest of the airframe. In fact, during the Dieppe operations in August 1942, when the first official mention of the Typhoon was made, fighters of this type bounced a formation of Fw 190s south of Le Treport, diving out of the sun and damaging three of the German fighters, but two of the Typhoons did not pull out of their dive owing to structural failures in their tail assemblies.... Despite this inauspicious start to its service career and the unenviable reputation that the Typhoon had gained, operations continued and the accident rate declined as the engine teething troubles were eradicated. However, the tail failures took longer to solve, despite immediate strengthening and stiffening as soon as the trouble manifested itself. In November 1942 No. 609 Squadron, led by Wing Commander Roland Beamont, was moved to Manston in an attempt to combat the near-daily tip-and-run raids which were being made by Fw 190s and could rarely be intercepted by Spitfires. The Typhoon enjoyed almost immediate success. The first two Messerschmitt Me 210 fighter bombers to be destroyed over the British Isles fell to the guns of Typhoons, and during the last comparatively ambitious daylight raid by the Luftwaffe on London, on January 20, 1943, five Fw 190s were destroyed by Typhoons."

As a fighter, pretty crap for most of its early history, as a ground attack aircraft (not it's initial intended role) superb.

 

OK, by that logic I choose the Hawker Typhoon:


As a fighter, pretty crap for most of its early history, as a ground attack aircraft (not it's initial intended role) superb.

The same could be said for the hawker hunter!

 

The Westland Whirlind, too, was originally designed as a high altitude fighter - and was actually considered as a sucessor to the Spitfire! But the lamentable performance of its two Rolls-Royce Perigrine engines ensured that it was confined to ground attack and anti-shipping. In all, only 110 were ever built, serving with only two RAF squadrons...

Thoughts anybody?
The Westland Whirlwind is considered to have been an highly effective aircraft in low level attack and anti-shipping.
It served nearly three years in this role, only being retired due to lack of replacements and spares. There was nothing wrong with its performance (at low level it was faster than the Bf 109E and Spitfire Mk II) the problem was the reliability of its engines, and the fact that Rolls Royce had decided to discontinue with the development, and production of the Perigrine engine even before the first flight of the prototype.
Due to this it was decided, before it had entered service, to halt production after the first batch of 114 aircraft had been built.

 

The same could be said for the hawker hunter!

Go wash your greasy fingers with soap! You are insulting the most beautiful man-made shape that ever flew in the Lord's sky!

:mad111:

 

Go wash your greasy fingers with soap! You are insulting the most beautiful man-made shape that ever flew in the Lord's sky!

:mad111:

I used to see this one everyday as I drove down the A40 on my way to work:



HAWKER HUNTER - PICTURES - SURVIVORS

 

Go wash your greasy fingers with soap! You are insulting the most beautiful man-made shape that ever flew in the Lord's sky!

:mad111:

The Hunter??? :wow:


Nah that title goes to the F-105 Thunderchief!!!! :elkgrin:

 

I would have to go with the Brewster Buffalo. That plane was so impractical to be of any use.

 

Nah that title goes to the F-105 Thunderchief!!!! :elkgrin:

Well, the Thud does not compare in sheer shape elegance with the Hunter, but it certainly has a lot of character, one of my pet planes too. But I also like the Skyraider so I guess I'm just weird.

 

Let's see now Gents - we are trying to say the worst fighter of WWII is the type in which Finnish fighter pilots claimed 494 aerial kills against 23 combat losses, more than a few of which were to AA gunfire! I don't think so!

While the Bufflo performed very poorly in the NEI, Malaya, and over Midway, in each case the aircraft were flown by basically raw pilots who were fighting against veteran opponents that were flying aircraft that the allied pilots had never seen, had little, if any, knowledge of, and were usually facing far greater numbers. Additionally, the British and Dutch pilots in the Far East usually were operating off miserable airfields, with poor maintenance facilites, and were subject to routine bombing attacks.

Interestingly, at Midway, the USMC pilots of the two divisions of F2A-3 Buffalos that made the initial interception took advantage of the poorly placed Japanese escort fighters and, in the first pass, inflicted substantial damage on a number of Hiryu kanko. A few minutes later, a third division bounced the Soryu kanko formation and diddled more than a few of them as well. Yes, in both cases the escorting Zeros, piloted by some of the world's most experienced pilots, caught them trying to come around again and, utilizing the Zeros vaunted maneuverability, about which their opponents knew NOTHING, shot down 13 aircraft and killed 12 pilots before they new what happened.

More to the point, however, even the over-weight F2A-3 actually performed on par with the F4F-3/F4F-4. The aircraft had an excellent roll rate and, as the Finns with their Brewster 239s showed, even after adding pilot armour, when flown by experienced pilots, using superb tactics, and full knowledge of their opponents aircraft and tactics, the stubby Brewster could more than hold its own - even in 1943 when flying against a new generation of Yak, La, and LaGG fighters!

Mark E. Horan

 

Don't worry Mark - I like the Buffalo. See my thread here:

 

I would say it is hands down the aforementioned Blackburn Roc. Take a Defiant and slow it down to a top speed of 195 mph on a good day, add sufficent weight that it is prohibited from any aerobatics as these could cause the aircraft to fatally stall due to its low top speed and then send it into combat. The FAA though so highly of the Roc that they generally left it sitting on an airfield for use as an antiaircraft gun emplacement!

Another possible choice is the Me 163 Komet. Here was an aircraft with such a short range the only way it could possibly get into combat was for the enemy to stupidly fly directly over its airfield. When you add the volitility of its fuel that caused more pilot deaths than the enemy and an armament of low velocity slug throwers that ensured that between it hurtling along at near sonic speeds with only a basic reflector sight it wasn't going to hit anything even if it got into an intercept position. At least the Bachem Natter had possibilities as a manned SAM.

Or, there is the Cauldron C 714. Here was an underpowered aircraft that had alot bad going for it. With a armament of four .30 caliber machineguns with little ammo it was not about to be a war winner.

Then there is the Me 328. A "throw-away" fighter powered by a pair of Argus pulse jets (V-1 buzz bomb engines). Aside from the little problem that it could not get airborne on its own with these, the engines caused so much vibration that the pilot could not aim the intended weapons. But, these were minor problems compared to the engines causing several of the prototypes to fail structurially and crash. Nothing like your engines shaking the wings off your airplane to instill confidence.

 

This guy was my choice, the Bell P-39 Airacobra.

 

The Westland Whirlwind is considered to have been an highly effective aircraft in low level attack and anti-shipping.
It served nearly three years in this role, only being retired due to lack of replacements and spares. There was nothing wrong with its performance (at low level it was faster than the Bf 109E and Spitfire Mk II) the problem was the reliability of its engines, and the fact that Rolls Royce had decided to discontinue with the development, and production of the Perigrine engine even before the first flight of the prototype.
Due to this it was decided, before it had entered service, to halt production after the first batch of 114 aircraft had been built.

There were a number of factors that prohibited the Whirlwind from being a success in its intended fighter role. Its performance above 15,000 being one, the inability of the pilot to transfer fuel between the main fuel tanks being another. However engine reliability was really only a factor in the early stages of its service and were, to the greater extent, solved. There is a claim that it couldn’t fly on one engine, however I have several accounts of it doing just this, and making it back home.

There are not many WW2 aircraft that can lay claim to being in front line service from late 1940 until October 1943, with very few if any modifications or subsequent marks. In fact when the Whirlwind was finally replaced by the Typhoon, the CO of 263 Sqn was quite upset, he considered the squadron to be somewhat elite in the fact that it was the only Whirlwind Sqn. He was sad that 263 would become just another Typhoon unit.

I have had the pleasure of corresponding with many Whirlwind pilots, and have been hard pressed to find any one with a bad word to say about the aircraft. For its day its low level performance was a match or even better than the comparable single engined fighter it was likely to meet in combat, on at least one occasion it locked horns with the FW190 and more than held its own. It could out dive almost any aircraft at the time and until the advent of the Typhoon it was unsurpassed, within the RAF, in the ground attack and anti-shipping role.

I find in strange that when ever anyone post a thread trying to debate the worst aircraft or fighter aircraft of WW2, the Whirlwind is always featured and comes in for unfair and unfounded criticism.

 

Roc and Skua.