Worst aircraft of WW2? (Continued)

Gnomey · 01-20-2006, 04:52 PM

That I will agree with, it was a crap aeroplane, but is it as bad as the Breda BA.88...

mosquitoman · 01-20-2006, 04:54 PM

at the same level i.e. only fit for scrap

CurzonDax · 01-21-2006, 01:06 AM

I knew a Helldiver Pilot - he said the same - Cmdr. Bill Chin told me that besides the maintenance issues, it was a matter of training. Bill stated that the Helldiver was a heavy aircraft to fly but once learned was found to be sturdy and relianble. He also said it was easier to land on a carrier than a Corsair...

[quote="Nonskimmer"][quote="102first_hussars"]

I think anything was easier to land a Corsair on a deck.

:{)

CurzonDax · 01-21-2006, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnomey

That I will agree with, it was a crap aeroplane, but is it as bad as the Breda BA.88...

Hmmmm, back to this plane. I think in the back of our heads this is the lemon of the war.
:{)

cheddar cheese · 01-21-2006, 06:45 AM

At least Bothas went for training purposes, Ba-88's were just stripped ofuseful equipment and left as decoys

mosquitoman · 01-21-2006, 07:48 AM

Ok, you have a point.

FLYBOYJ · 01-21-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheddar cheese

At least Bothas went for training purposes, Ba-88's were just stripped ofuseful equipment and left as decoys

I think based on that the Ba.88 has got to get the title!!!

Gnomey · 01-21-2006, 05:00 PM

Gets my vote!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-22-2006, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 102first_hussars

It did suck but it was not ugly, in fact it was beautiful plane.

I agree.

Based off of what has been said here though, I think the Ba-88 is my worst aircraft.

The Nerd · 01-24-2006, 12:19 AM

I personally believe that the aircobra was bad, mabye not the worst, but it was crud.

FLYBOYJ · 01-24-2006, 01:00 AM

Ho hum.....

If the P-39 was so bad, why did the men of the 39FS, 5th AF achieve about a 1.5 to 1 kill ratio over the Japanese over Rabual with the P-39? Many notable P-38 aces got their first kills in the -39 and if you look at statistics the -39 really didn't do as bad as people may think in the Pacific.

Crud?!? What are you backing that up with?!? You have squadron history, infomration or statistics?!?

Just as a hint - here's a site for the Tuskeegee airmen, Look at a few P-39 kills...

http://tuskegeeairmen.org/images/stats.pdf

You ever hear of Buzz Wagner?!?

"As soon as partial sight was restored to his injured eye, Wagner led a combat mission flying a P-39. His flight was hit by enemy fighters that shot down four of the P-39s. Before the action ended, four enemy fighters were downed, three of them by Wagner, bringing his victory total to eight."

http://www.afa.org/magazine/valor/0996valor.asp

I haven't even brought up the Russians!

So much for "Crud."

The Nerd · 01-24-2006, 01:15 AM

sorry, but ive read that the plane was junk, thats why we lend-leased it to the Russians and no I

The Nerd · 01-24-2006, 01:18 AM

sorry bout that, and I dont have any info about any of that, but I am entitled to my own opinion.

plan_D · 01-24-2006, 01:25 AM

You certainly are entitled to an opinion, but when discussing history surely some facts to back up that opinion would serve you well. After all, history is fact and you cannot running around calling the P-39 a poor performer if you have nothing to back that notion up.

Personally, I would call the P-39 a "less than adequete" fighter. The USAAF had many superior planes to fill it's role such as the P-51, P-47 and P-38. The P-39 was good, but not as good as the premier fighters of World War II.

plan_D · 01-24-2006, 02:04 AM

The P-39 was, quite rightly, replaced as soon as possible in the Western Allied air forces. And it was not a performer for the ETO, but there are reasons for this.

When the XP-39 was rolled out on to the pan and test flown, it was quickly understood as being one of the best fighters in the world for it's day. Heavily armed, extremely fast and quick to altitude. But this centered around it's turbo-supercharger which, to cut a long story short, was deleted because the inlet caused too much drag. A massive mistake, amongst the others such as the increase in fuselage size, reduction in wing-span and reduction in cockpit size. Bell couldn't stop these changes, being in debt and having no political strength to stop anyone doing anything.

The P-39 itself was a poor performer at altitude, which leads to it's awful reputation in the ETO where high altitude combat was the norm. The RAF dispised the P-39 and many pilots refused to fly it. On the other hand, some RAF pilots did comment that the P-39 could match a Bf-109E in a dogfight below 10,000 feet. And this is what leads to the success of the P-39 in VVS hands; on the Eastern Front combat generally took place below 10,000 feet, in fact most of the time it was below 6,000 feet all the way down to tree top height and this is where the P-39 was in it's element. It was a capable plane at these heights but I would much prefer to be in a Bf-109F or Fw-190A.

Basically, for the ETO it wasn't suited.

The P-39 served with the RAF, VVS, Free French and USAAF in the PTO, ETO, MTO and Eastern Front. It's hardly a record of a "crud" fighter.