Worst aircraft of WW2?

[Nikademus]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

It didn't see service in WWII though, did it? Maybe by the Brits, and just barely if that...

It saw service as a trainer and tower of targets. Hence my point. It was considered so bad, not even the plane starved British ever attempted to use them in combat...noone did, despite there being 771 being built. (examples being ordered by the USN, UK and Dutch...the latter batch being taken over by the USN as SB2A-4's)

One book I own stated it was classified as the worst American production aircraft of WWII. It is thought that many of them, after being test flown in the US were simply put in storage until being scrapped.

Thats bad.

[kool kitty89]

They were better in performance, armament, range, and bomb load to the Fairey Battle... (more than twice the armament and bombload)

And somewhat better than the SBD Dauntless in forward armament, range, and speed, though it probably was allot more vulnerable to enemy fire (very important for the bomber role) and probably not fit for the Dive-bomber role nearly as well (much lower max G's), plus had less than 1/2 the SBD's load...

The SB2A was good in its original scout/bomber role, and probably would have made an excellent scout for the navy if it was adapted for carrier service, and with longer endurance, stronger offensive and defensive armaments, and better speed, it would have been much better than the SBD was in this role. (which it served in but wasn't designed for)

[Nikademus]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

They were better in performance, armament, range, and bomb load to the Fairey Battle... (more than twice the armament and bombload)

And somewhat better than the SBD Dauntless in forward armament, range, and speed, though it probably was allot more vulnerable to enemy fire (very important for the bomber role) and probably not fit for the Dive-bomber role nearly as well (much lower max G's), plus had less than 1/2 the SBD's load...

I suspect, that like the other infamous Brewster (F2A), the real story lay behind the "stats." The quote I pulled from the book is actually about USN fighters of WWII and it had a whole chapter devoted to the Buffalo. (of whch within was a pic and a descriptive caption devoted to Brewsters other attempt to dominate the naval air market...the Brewster Bucanneer)

Given what was written about the Buffalo in terms of stability, quality/mismanagement issues with Brewster in general and given the comment about how after being "test flown" the planes (Bucanneers) being promptly put into storage, the RL preformance was less than optimal vs. what's on the specs sheet. I'm sure it was the "specs" that made the Dutch and UK order them initially.

['Lil'tyger]

the worst allied plane in the pacific theater i think was the "pby catalena" it was just BIG and SLOOOW

[Wildcat]

Not by a long shot...

[kool kitty89]

The initial test stats are what made the RAF so excited about the Airacobra, it was even designated the P-400 for the supposed 400 mph acheived in testing. However with full combat accessories (and nacessities) and without a turbo the craft dropped to around 360 mph (still significantly better than the P-40 of the same period though). She still should hve been capible of ~380 mph if the turbo had been retained... And still did far better than a "castrated P-38" (ie. Lightning Mk I). With the engine improvements of the P-39D-2's engine (1,300+ hp and even more in the N and Q models), 400 mph should have been possible. Hell, even the stock late-model P-39Q (without wing guns) could reach 395+ mph...

As said before, management and quality control were Brewster's biggest problems and are what ruined their aircrafts' development and destroyed the company...

Still, the basic Buccaneer Design would have made a good scout/patroll craft (somewhat similar to the Fw 189), these roles probably beeng the best for it as other US light bombers of equal size had much better bombloads and likely better survivability.

[Heinz]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Not by a long shot...

damn straight.

RAAF 11, 20 and 43 squadron did a fair bit of damage and got great reconnaissance against the Japanese.

All the thanks to the Cats long range.

Longest RAAF raid of the war was in the Cats, 18 hours and they could stay up their for 22.

Great aeroplane.

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by 'Lil'tyger

it was just BIG and SLOOOW

What's your logic behind this? Big and slow-therefore the worst?

[Nikademus]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

The initial test stats are what made the RAF so excited about the Airacobra, it was even designated the P-400 for the supposed 400 mph acheived in testing.

Yes, the P-39/400 design showed great promise on paper. The UK soon found it unsuited for the ETO environment. The Soviets found good use for it though in their environment and in the PTO under similar terms of usage it found a 2nd life.

Still, the basic Buccaneer Design would have made a good scout/patroll craft (somewhat similar to the Fw 189), these roles probably beeng the best for it as other US light bombers of equal size had much better bombloads and likely better survivability.

Would have is the key. The RL result was an aircraft so bad it was never flown in combat. Thats why I think it's a good nominee.

[kool kitty89]

What's weird is that on the History channel's "Dogfights," they said that the P-400's had more trouble fighting zeros than the F4F... This was on the Guadalcanal episode. The only reason that made sence was that these P-400s had no Oxygen equipment so they stayed at 12,000 ft. Otherwise the P-400 (basicly the same as the P-39D-1 in performance) smoked the F4F-3 (and the P-40s of the same date) in all performance categories. (except if the F4F had a high-alt supercharger, still the performance drop-off at altitude would still have the P-400 favorable to ~20,000 ft, much better at 15,000 ft)

[Nikademus]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

What's weird is that on the History channel's "Dogfights," they said that the P-400's had more trouble fighting zeros than the F4F... This was on the Guadalcanal episode. The only reason that made sence was that these P-400s had no Oxygen equipment so they stayed at 12,000 ft. Otherwise the P-400 (basicly the same as the P-39D-1 in performance) smoked the F4F-3 (and the P-40s of the same date) in all performance categories. (except if the F4F had a high-alt supercharger, still the performance drop-off at altitude would still have the P-400 favorable to ~20,000 ft, much better at 15,000 ft)

They did. It's because they tried to use them in the same way the F4F's were used, only at low and medium altitude where the Zeros could more easily capture alt advantage or maneuver better in the thicker air. The action in question occured on 8/30/42 with the Americans attempting a three tier CAP; A low tier of P-400's hovering over the stranded transport Burrows. (below 10K). The 2nd Tier patrolled at 14,000 feet and consisted of 7 x P-400's and the high tier consisted of Wildcats patrolling at 28,000 feet.

The Japanese at this point had switched to using fighter sweeps in an attempt to clear the area of fighters and they came in and made a mess of the P-400 contingent, attacking the middle tier in a climbing attack out of the clouds and downing two P-400's. Two P-400's of the lower tier were bounced and shot down for a total of four x P-400's downed for the day. The Marines got revenge though, the high tier CAP bouncing the Zeros while they were playing with the P-400's and shooting down an estimated 8 of them in trade for two Wildcats written off on force landing.

Nevertheless, the battle severely impacted the morale of the P-400 drivers and from that point on they were used in the ground support role in which they excelled. According to Richard Frank, it's effective ceiling, limited by lack of supercharger and proper oxygen equipment made them unsuited to tackle high flying Japanese bombers and was sucicidally low for fighting Zeros.

[kool kitty89]

It actually had a decently high ceiling, though performance dropped above 15,000 ft, and above 20,000 ft it was only good for patrol and cruise, but at least it would have the alt advantage... The Brits considdered the opperational ceiling to be ~24,000 ft, though performance was poor, and this wasn't really possible w/out oxygen equipment.Though the true service ceiling of the P-39D (which was virtually the same a/c as the P-400) was ~32,000 ft. (though it had virtually no performance at this height and top speed would be below 200 mph)

[Nikademus]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

It actually had a decently high ceiling, though performance dropped above 15,000 ft, and above 20,000 ft it was only good for patrol and cruise, but at least it would have the alt advantage... The Brits considdered the opperational ceiling to be ~24,000 ft, though performance was poor, and this wasn't really possible w/out oxygen equipment.Though the true service ceiling of the P-39D (which was virtually the same a/c as the P-400) was ~32,000 ft.

Problem was the Japanese usually flew upwards around 25-30K. If not for the coastwatchers and radar, the Wildcats too would have been hard pressed to meet them but it gave them just enough time to reach altitude and go after the bombers.

But even if they [the P400's] flew lower, as they did on Aug 30, they were no match for the agile Zeros, hence the move to ground attack support.

[kool kitty89]

Were the P-40s better matched to the zero in yout oppinion?

[Nikademus]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Were the P-40s better matched to the zero in yout oppinion?

compared to the P-39/400? Most definately!