Hi everyone! Im new here,i m glad to enter this detailed,interesting forum with nice people who are like 'experten' in knowledge about airplanes
this topic been a good idea. i read your replies carefully, let me share my opinion aswell.
i think we have to check the question first. Worst airplane. in my eyes its a plane,which suffered heavy losses due to various reasons, combined with unreliable abilities.i wont be able to tell which plane been THE worst.
but i can enlist my favourites. i seen some people posted the Gladiator or the cr42. i have to defend them,even if obsolete,they been very nice biplanes at that time. since im from hungary, i know a bit about hungarian aviation in ww2.the backbone of the hungarian royal airforce been fiat cr32 and 42 at the start of ww2.they prooved well against russian fighters like the rata on the eastern front,and before while border clashes in slovakia and yugoslavia against similar aircraft like avia biplanes. later hungary bought the licence of the reggiana re.2000 falco,which been used in small amounts only in the Italian Airforce.looking similar to seversky P-35 or even the Thunderbolt,it been promising to equip the airforce with modern aircraft beside the me-109 recieved from germany and also built in licence(btw.the hungarian airforce used/built more then 570 me-109,and been the largest foreign operator of the messer.italy,romania and finland never had this ammounts)and they started to build it.the plane been catastrophic,causing many lethal crashes while takeoff,even aces perished.
thats why i have the Re.2000 on my blacklist,among with the Me210 and He177. the reasons are unreliability of the engines, not the combat losses.the me163 Komet is also very high ranked on my list of worst planes,as you already posted,i agree. it had superb flying characteristics but it been simply too dangerous ,te landing,refueling and while 'sailing' to attempt a landing.they also been simply too fast to successfully intercept the bombers.
The Mitsu G4M been a deathtrap aswell,at the cost of great range it had to sacrifice armor and defensive armament.a single shot could turn it into a fireball.the crew disliked the betty ,just like luftwaffe pilots did the me210, or the he177 greif.the italian Breada ba65 and 88 ,the SM81 been truly terrible,obsolete or unreliable aswell.
these are axis. on the allied site i tend defend the brewster buffalo and the douglas devastator.they played a very important role, the slaughtering of these planes is obvious,against the outstanding zeros .and the devastator simply lacked defense armament,a single 12.7 and a 7.62 .cal mg wasnt enough. the losses been very high ,in one attack all of the 15 TBDs attacking were lost,but they caused enormous damage to the japanese fleet at the early stages of war before they get withdrown and replaced by the avenger.
i agree, the manchester because of the weak engines, i agree ,the roc and the skue,but they werent the worst.the skua played an important role in norway aswell. the roc been too slow, if im right its highest speed been 313kmh which is simply crap. weirdly the similar boulton paul defiant had a speed of 500+kmh.a better engine,better characteristics at all,the defiant suffered heavy losses aswell,later they been put into night fighting roles,where they achieved limited successes.the 4-gun-turret itself been a failure,so i have the roc/defiant on my list aswell.
Worst plane could mean unsuccessful,or already obsolete before entering service. Thats why i agree with you on Blackburn Botha. But i didnt find any posts about rareaircraft like the Saro Lerwick,or the Handley Page Hereford,the Vultee A-31 or the Vickers Wellesley.i would be pleased if you share your knowledge about the named planes with me,except those wgich we already talked about alot like the botha or the il-2.
The soviets had many rubbish planes,like the Mig-1,the szu-2 or even the famous sturmovik. i know,many gonna discuss my opinion about the il-2,but i stick to it. the Il-2 been built in highest numbers among warplanes,and favourized of Stalin and his regime. But the effectiveness compared to losses prooved to be extremely low. Sure,they played an important ground attack role,sure they destroyed thousands of german vehicles. but at which cost? once hit, the protecting armor's heavy weight caused to fly with the characteristics of a stone,no manouvres been possible anymore .until the very end of wear,the gunner had no protection at all.it been rare to fly more then 5 sorties,very few made it back.its not a well-known fact tho.but i considered the pro's and contras of the sturmovik,and i decided to put it on my list of worst aircraft.
thanks for reading,and sorry if it looks a bit chaotic ,i gt get use to this
Linear Mode
