Worst aircraft of WW2?

[magnocain]

I would like to point out that with a good pilot (and a ton of luck) a Buffalo could take out a me262 or a p51, even a battleship if it hit it in just (and i mean JUST) the right place.

my half cent

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by magnocain

I would like to point out that with a good pilot (and a ton of luck) a Buffalo could take out a me262 or a p51, even a battleship if it hit it in just (and i mean JUST) the right place.

my half cent

so could a J3

[magnocain]

Did you know that Erich Hartmann once took out a French dreadnought with a j3 and a 2 by 4?

all my cents are gone now...ill try to get some more

[kool kitty89]

The biggest problem with the Buffalo, besides the steady decline in performance following the F2A-2 (due to overloading), was that Brewster had management problems which greatly limited the quality, and in particular, quantity of aircraft they were able to produce. This also led to problems with keeping (or, more accurately, not keeping) to production deadlines. Maybe they should have outsoursed production...

[Civettone]

I know about the production delays. But what quality problems are you talking about??


Kris

[FLYBOYJ]

There were quality problems and production delays at Brewster. Eventually the government took control of the factory and ousted most of the management.

[kool kitty89]

Yup, and probably the biggest advantage of the Wildcat, besides its durrabillity, was the numbers it was produced in. Only around 500 Buffalos were produced in all types, less than 200 being used by the US (more might have been used had orders not been diverted to foreign markets), compared to over 7,700 Wildcats produced.

[Civettone]

So which were these quality problems which were the result of bad management?


Kris

[kool kitty89]

I think the structural problems like with the landing gear were hampered by the management problems, while they didn't cause it outright, poor management made it difficult to effectively and efficiently redesign the airframe. Though I think the quality problem was not really that bad. The real problem was with production delays, which were experienced in almost every aircraft that Brewster produced, including their F3A Corsairs IIRC. This was the major reason that the Government seized the factory.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Civettone

So which were these quality problems which were the result of bad management?


Kris

I think everything from schedule to the overall quality of the aircraft coming off the line were problems at Brewster and I think this was mainly encountered on the Corsair line. When you're building an aircraft and it is being done in jigs there's little one could screw up unless they're untrained or don't care. In the middle of all this there were union problems and their union actually struck in the middle of the war! From Wiki...

"During WWII it became apparent that Brewster was mismanaged. The company had grown from a relatively minor aircraft parts supplier to a fully-fledged defence giant in only a few years. Jimmy Work had hired Alfred and Ignacio Miranda as the company salesmen. They had been involved on frauds, spending two years in prison for selling illicit arms to Bolivia, and had over-promised Brewster production capabilities to customers. As WWII had swelled the defense industries, the quality of the newly hired work force was inferior in skills and often motivation, and the work was plagued by illicit strikes and even outright sabotage was suspected. The Navy installed a George Chapline as president of the company, easing out Jimmy Work, in the hopes of speeding up production, but then in early 1942 Jimmy Work regained control of the company, just in time to be sued for US$10 million for financial misdeeds. In May 1942 the Navy simply seized Brewster and put the head of the Naval Aircraft Factory in charge.

When the Navy cancelled Brewster's last contract, for assembly of the F3A-1 Corsair, the company was in serious trouble. In October, after reporting a large loss, the management decided to shut down the company, and on April 5, 1946, the Brewster Aeronautical Corporation was dissolved by its shareholders."

[kool kitty89]

It's just sad what happened to that company. Their designers had some good ideas, but the company's mismanagement and burocracy killed most of them. Who knows what the F2A could have become if Brewster had had the stabillity and management of established firms like Grumman...

[Civettone]

Thanks for the answer guys!!


Yeah Brewster had some good designs.

Kris

[kool kitty89]

And it took Grumman 3-4 redesigns to the F4F to beat the F2A design.

And even the F2A-3 was still decent with a minimum fuel load (~600mi range) but with the max load for 1600+ mi (~6 hour) patrols it was overweight and under-performing, unless it came into contact with the enemy after burning half its fuel. The F2A-3s at midway probably entered with a full combat load (gross weight ~7000 lbs) and were thus at a disadvantage to begin with. Not to mention the Marines tried to engage Zeros in turn-and-burn WWI style dogfights, plying on the Zero's turf.

[Pflueger]

My vote goes to the Breda 88, for an AC that held such promise only a few years prior to the war (set world speed record in '37) and for such a studly-looking machine to end its service parked on runways as a bombing decoy is unfathomable.

The other candiates pictured on page 5 of this thread have the look of true clunkers (love the tureted fighter concept) - but not the Breda: the thing looks like an @ss-kicker. How in the world did this experiment go so wrong?

[kool kitty89]

Maby we shoul set up a poll for this, voting on the worst of this thread... So it would be the worst of the worst.