Worst aircraft of WW2?

[Condora]

Well, FW Meister, you suggested the use of categories, I name these:

Worst Plane Misuse: Breda Ba.88 Lince
I agree with you, BUT the Ba.88 was not a bad airplane. It just wasn't suited for large loads, as the bombs a bomber has to carry. If somebody decided to use a B.17 as a fighter, the result would be the same.
It was a fast plane, had good range, maybe the italians should have used it as a reconnaissance plane.
But they had decided it would take bombs...

Worst Fighter: Bloch MB.150
A fighter which just isn't able to even FLY, is quite useless. 'Nough said.
(nobody else as even HEARD of this plane? It's a sure winner in this class!)

Worst Concept: The turret figher
Didn't somebody tell those guys that a fighter having a second crewmember waving a machine gun around had been dropped halfway through WW I?

Worst Bomber: Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe
Who was the genius that decided it should be a fast bomber? Oh, right... THAT guy.

I do not agree on a Ground-attack Award, the were few purpose-built airplanes during WW II, and they did their job quite well.

[Condora]

Originally Posted by Waynos

Correct. That title would have to go to the Junkers Mammut. A tank tranporter that could not carry tanks as the floor wasn't strong enough.

I didn't know about that one, it would fit perfectly as Worst Transport...

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Condora

Well, FW Meister, you suggested the use of categories, I name these:

Worst Plane Misuse: Breda Ba.88 Lince
I agree with you, BUT the Ba.88 was not a bad airplane. It just wasn't suited for large loads, as the bombs a bomber has to carry. If somebody decided to use a B.17 as a fighter, the result would be the same.
It was a fast plane, had good range, maybe the italians should have used it as a reconnaissance plane.
But they had decided it would take bombs...

The Ba.88 with military equipment installed could not complete its mission. It could not sustain climb on one engine and performed poorly, again when configured for its military mission.

Originally Posted by Condora

Worst Fighter: Bloch MB.150
A fighter which just isn't able to even FLY, is quite useless. 'Nough said.
(nobody else as even HEARD of this plane? It's a sure winner in this class!).

Nuff said

[Focke Wulf Meister]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Actually there was nothing wrong with the PZL P.7a - in its day it was one of the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world. It was obsolete by the start of WW2 - that was its only problem.

Actually, I believe you stated in an earlier post that if an aircraft could not effectively perform its primary role or function, it was NOT considered a good wartime aircraft.

The PZL P.7a was a fine plane - it maneuvered and handled very well. I believe it was the first all-metal monoplane fighter to be mass-produced with state-of-the-art construction. With the P.7, he Polish Air Force became the first air force entirely equipped with all-metal fighters.

But, it was designed as a "fighter". In peacetime, 1933 to 1938, it performed well. However, in its wartime role, it failed. Period. No buts, no ifs. It was a failure. Although it was being phased out in favor of the P.11, there were still a number of them being used as fighters in the Polish Air Force when hostilities broke out in September 1939. And in that role as fighter, it failed.

It is irrelevant that the aircraft was "obsolete" at the start of WWII. The Russians used "obsolete" aircraft to great effect in the war. The Germans used the "obsolete" Me-110 in daytime attacks on U.S. bomber formations to good effect fairly late into the war. The Japanese used "obsolete" fighters and bombers to considerable effect as kamikazes. The Italians used "obsolete" aircraft throughout much of the war to much better effect than the Polish did with the PZL7.

[Clay_Allison]

Amazingly, even the Philippinos managed to score some victories in the P-26.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Focke Wulf Meister

Actually, I believe you stated in an earlier post that if an aircraft could not effectively perform its primary role or function, it was NOT considered a good wartime aircraft.

The PZL P.7a was a fine plane - it maneuvered and handled very well. I believe it was the first all-metal monoplane fighter to be mass-produced with state-of-the-art construction. With the P.7, he Polish Air Force became the first air force entirely equipped with all-metal fighters.

But, it was designed as a "fighter". In peacetime, 1933 to 1938, it performed well. However, in its wartime role, it failed. Period. No buts, no ifs. It was a failure. Although it was being phased out in favor of the P.11, there were still a number of them being used as fighters in the Polish Air Force when hostilities broke out in September 1939. And in that role as fighter, it failed.

I suggest you look up the word obsolete Any fighter from any country a generation behind the Bf 109 would have been handed the same losses -Period!

Originally Posted by Focke Wulf Meister

It is irrelevant that the aircraft was "obsolete" at the start of WWII. The Russians used "obsolete" aircraft to great effect in the war. The Germans used the "obsolete" Me-110 in daytime attacks on U.S. bomber formations to good effect fairly late into the war. The Japanese used "obsolete" fighters and bombers to considerable effect as kamikazes. The Italians used "obsolete" aircraft throughout much of the war to much better effect than the Polish did with the PZL7.

It depends how and where obsolete aircraft are used - the obsolete aircraft you talk about had very specialized roles that enabled them to somewhat survive. Place them in the right situation and they were dead meat.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Focke Wulf Meister

The Me 210 was designed to replace the Bf 110 in heavy fighter role....The failure of the Me 210's development programme meant that the Luftwaffe was forced to continue fielding the outdated Bf 110, to mounting losses.

I realize you were commenting on the Me-210, but FWIW, its always been my belief that the Bf-110 was a good airplane throughout the war, it was simply placed in the wrong application.
It was originally meant as a long range fighter-escort, but obviously failed as a pure fighter.
Had it been pressed into the ground-attack / light bomber role from the get-go, it would probably be more favourably remembered.

JMHO.



Elvis

[parsifal]

I fail to see how equating "obsolete" to "worst" is a valid measure. And even if this is viewed as a measure of "worst", the P-7 just isnt the worst. There are scores of aircraft that just didnt perform their mission profiles because of that.....here are a few. The Hawker Hind/Audax (in service with the Persians, not one even got airborne whilst the country was being invaded), the Fury (in service with the Yugoslavs, did not even get airborne, Fairey Fox III. Belgian airforce, failed to halt the German advance even a little, over 100 were lost in less than 48 hours, Avions Hurricane, Belgian Airforce, failed to get airborne, totally destroyed on the ground, systemic gun failures. There are dozens of stories like this, the P-7, by comparison got airborne, shot down enemy aircraft, and was latterly used to distract enemy fighters and aircraft rather than as a true fighter. The Polish air force resisted better and for longer than nearly all the other minor nation air forces of the war yet it is continualy held up as having not been responsible for a fercious defence. The PAF destroyed alamost as many German aircraft as the French did, in its 3 weeks of existence (more or less) as compared to the first threee weeks of the FAF first three weeks of effort in May 1940.

Moreover, comparing an I-15 to a the P-7 is not a balanced comparison. The P-7 final production was in 1932, BEFORE even the first flight of the I-15. The I-15, and its derivatives were under production right up to the war....the I-153 did not enter production until May 1939!. In a sense the I-15 was a design 10 years younger, yet it does not show in the technology of the two types....a P-7 would have done quite erll against any of the I-15 derivatives. In fact, the Rumanians did use quite a number of P-7s in the opening phases of Barbarossa, though they were rapidly withdrawn because of spares issues, they continued in the training role and as emergency point defence aircraft until 1943, not bad for an aircraft by then more than ten years old.......

The P-7 was perhaps the oldest fighter to see extensive service, and that did show, but it gave some return of value, and in my opinion that amounted to excellent value, given that it had also served for nearly ten years before that.

The P-7, incidentally when it was introduced was considered revolutionary and a world beater. Try comparing apples to apples, and look at the P-7 in the context of its contemporaries......you will find its performance and abilities to be superior to nearly all of them

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by parsifal

I fail to see how equating "obsolete" to "worst" is a valid measure. And even if this is viewed as a measure of "worst", the P-7 just isnt the worst. There are scores of aircraft that just didnt perform their mission profiles because of that.....here are a few. The Hawker Hind/Audax (in service with the Persians, not one even got airborne whilst the country was being invaded), the Fury (in service with the Yugoslavs, did not even get airborne, Fairey Fox III. Belgian airforce, failed to halt the German advance even a little, over 100 were lost in less than 48 hours, Avions Hurricane, Belgian Airforce, failed to get airborne, totally destroyed on the ground, systemic gun failures. There are dozens of stories like this, the P-7, by comparison got airborne, shot down enemy aircraft, and was latterly used to distract enemy fighters and aircraft rather than as a true fighter. The Polish air force resisted better and for longer than nearly all the other minor nation air forces of the war yet it is continualy held up as having not been responsible for a fercious defence. The PAF destroyed alamost as many German aircraft as the French did, in its 3 weeks of existence (more or less) as compared to the first threee weeks of the FAF first three weeks of effort in May 1940.

Moreover, comparing an I-15 to a the P-7 is not a balanced comparison. The P-7 final production was in 1932, BEFORE even the first flight of the I-15. The I-15, and its derivatives were under production right up to the war....the I-153 did not enter production until May 1939!. In a sense the I-15 was a design 10 years younger, yet it does not show in the technology of the two types....a P-7 would have done quite erll against any of the I-15 derivatives. In fact, the Rumanians did use quite a number of P-7s in the opening phases of Barbarossa, though they were rapidly withdrawn because of spares issues, they continued in the training role and as emergency point defence aircraft until 1943, not bad for an aircraft by then more than ten years old.......

The P-7 was perhaps the oldest fighter to see extensive service, and that did show, but it gave some return of value, and in my opinion that amounted to excellent value, given that it had also served for nearly ten years before that.

The P-7, incidentally when it was introduced was considered revolutionary and a world beater. Try comparing apples to apples, and look at the P-7 in the context of its contemporaries......you will find its performance and abilities to be superior to nearly all of them

Parsifal - you know what "obsolete" means!

[parsifal]

apologies if I warmed this up a bit

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by parsifal

apologies if I warmed this up a bit

No worries - you hit the nail on the head

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by parsifal

The P-7 was perhaps the oldest fighter to see extensive service

Thanks for the idea for a new thread! (a search shows that question has not been asked yet).


Elvis

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by parsifal

I fail to see how equating "obsolete" to "worst" is a valid measure. And even if this is viewed as a measure of "worst", the P-7 just isnt the worst. There are scores of aircraft that just didnt perform their mission profiles because of that.....here are a few. The Hawker Hind/Audax (in service with the Persians, not one even got airborne whilst the country was being invaded), the Fury (in service with the Yugoslavs, did not even get airborne, Fairey Fox III. Belgian airforce, failed to halt the German advance even a little, over 100 were lost in less than 48 hours, Avions Hurricane, Belgian Airforce, failed to get airborne, totally destroyed on the ground, systemic gun failures. There are dozens of stories like this, the P-7, by comparison got airborne, shot down enemy aircraft, and was latterly used to distract enemy fighters and aircraft rather than as a true fighter. The Polish air force resisted better and for longer than nearly all the other minor nation air forces of the war yet it is continualy held up as having not been responsible for a fercious defence. The PAF destroyed alamost as many German aircraft as the French did, in its 3 weeks of existence (more or less) as compared to the first threee weeks of the FAF first three weeks of effort in May 1940.

Moreover, comparing an I-15 to a the P-7 is not a balanced comparison. The P-7 final production was in 1932, BEFORE even the first flight of the I-15. The I-15, and its derivatives were under production right up to the war....the I-153 did not enter production until May 1939!. In a sense the I-15 was a design 10 years younger, yet it does not show in the technology of the two types....a P-7 would have done quite erll against any of the I-15 derivatives. In fact, the Rumanians did use quite a number of P-7s in the opening phases of Barbarossa, though they were rapidly withdrawn because of spares issues, they continued in the training role and as emergency point defence aircraft until 1943, not bad for an aircraft by then more than ten years old.......

The P-7 was perhaps the oldest fighter to see extensive service, and that did show, but it gave some return of value, and in my opinion that amounted to excellent value, given that it had also served for nearly ten years before that.

The P-7, incidentally when it was introduced was considered revolutionary and a world beater. Try comparing apples to apples, and look at the P-7 in the context of its contemporaries......you will find its performance and abilities to be superior to nearly all of them

Excellent post! Claiming that any aircraft which was used once obsolete, is inherently a bad aircraft simply doesn't hold water!
I mean, some AFs used the P-51 until the 70s, that doesn't make it a bad fighter.

Kris

[Condora]

I recall that in Malta the "obsolete" Gloster Gladiators (just 4, I believe), kept in check the Italian Air Force, and later the Luftwaffe. The main difference between Gladiators and PZL P.7, as far as I know, was that Gladiators could wait for the enemy to get there, short on fuel, but the P.7 had the BF.109 arriving from close across the border... and the P.7 endurance was very bad.
I read someplace that german pilots just avoided a decision for a while, until the P.7 HAD TO land, and then shot them. Giving credit to that information, maybe the score would be something like:

P.7 6 kills and no losses while dogfighting;
BF.109 6 losses on dogfight, 22 kills when they were trying to land...

What's the better plane, if this was the case?

[Waynos]

The gladiator was far newer than the P-7. It entered service only in 1937, same year as the Bf 109 and Hurricane