Worst aircraft of WW2? (Continued)

[kool kitty89]

Still it performed well in most of those roles below 20,000 ft (as well as an interceptor as long as the bombers were lower than 25,000 ft). With a fuel capacity of only 135 gal. drop-tanks would have markedly improved this, and with bomb racks capable of 2x 100 lb bombs, 2x 75 gal tanks would be reasonible, assuming the plumbing was added, and this would more than double its capacity.

I wonder why the remaing Whirlwinds weren't sent to commonwealth operators after the RAF retired them in '43. They would hve been one of the best fighters with them if this had been done.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

I wonder why the remaing Whirlwinds weren't sent to commonwealth operators after the RAF retired them in '43. They would hve been one of the best fighters with them if this had been done.

263 sqn was over half 12 Canadian and 2 Americans plus 8 others when my source flew them

[kool kitty89]

I meant in the pacific, with the RAAF and RNZAF like was done with the Buffalo. Would have been a better ground attacker than the Buffalo, except for the slightly lower range. A good escort too, considdering they were using mostly Hurricanes for this. It might have needed to be tropicalized though.

Do you know how many were left by the time they were retired in 1943?


Also found some more info on the Brewster: Brewster F2A

I think the F2A-2 was the best of the line, heavier and lower climb then the F2A-1's (2,500 ft/min from 3060 ft/min), but well armed and armoured, decent range and bombload, and a top speed of 344 mph. At least as good as the Wildcat and more maneuverable faster and gave better visibility to the pilot. (even a limited vew below with the ventral window. (though I'd bet the F4F was still tougher) The biggest problem was Brewster's poor ability to manufacture the Buff, both in quantity and quality. (they should have stuck with this model and just worked on strengthening the airframe and landing gear, and improving production and company management.

"The Navy pilots were, nonetheless, generally pleased with their F2A-2s, and they regarded them as the best of the Buffalo variants that they had the opportunity to fly."

The F2A-3 was overweight and underpowered and the top-speed dropped to 321 mph. The climb dropped to 2290 ft/min.

even so:

" Many pilots actually preferred the F2A-3 to the F4F Wildcat, but one experienced Buffalo pilot said that he would have never have taken an overweight F2A-3 into combat."

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

I meant in the pacific, with the RAAF and RNZAF like was done with the Buffalo. Would have been a better ground attacker than the Buffalo, except for the slightly lower range. A good escort too, considdering they were using mostly Hurricanes for this. It might have needed to be tropicalized though.

The RAAF only used the Buffalo operationally over Singapore and Malaya at the start of the Pacific war. Apart from a handful used as PR a/c based in Darwin none were used in combat in 43. I reckon the RAAF was more than happy with its Beaufighters, P-40's and later Mosquitoes in the ground attack role (Beaufighters and Mossie being produced here BTW) therefore no need to ship obsolete a/c out this way!
As for the Hurricanes, the RAAF didn't use them in the PTO however I believe there was a Kiwi squadron that used them early on over Singapore and later Burma. As far as escort a/c for the RAAF in the Pacific is concerned, we had Spit V's and VIII's plus P-40's for this role. Again no need for the Whirlwind out here.

[FLYBOYJ]

There were Hurricanes over Singapore and later Burma. Read "Bloody Shambles."

[Wildcat]

Yeah I know that Joe, I was talking about the RAAF, we did not use Hurricanes in the PTO.

[FLYBOYJ]

OK...

[kool kitty89]

The RAAF used them in North Africa though.
I kind of got mixed up there though...

What did the RNZAF have that was better than the Whirlwind? (I wouldn't say the Hurricane was better just had different advantages) The Whirlwind probably would have done better in the PTO since there was alot more low-level duties, and it would have been great ad an interceptor. (that's what it was designed as after all)

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

The RAAF used them in North Africa though.
I kind of got mixed up there though...

No worries, it happens

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

What did the RNZAF have that was better than the Whirlwind? (I wouldn't say the Hurricane was better just had different advantages) The Whirlwind probably would have done better in the PTO since there was alot more low-level duties, and it would have been great ad an interceptor. (that's what it was designed as after all)

Well in '43 the fighter force of the RNZAF in the Pacific was equipped with P-40s'. however these were replaced in mid '44 with the corsair. So I guess its a case of which a/c was better, the Whirlwind or the Corsair? Keeping in mind the RNZAF Corsairs were heavily used in the air to ground role (Infact I believe they never shot down an enemy a/c?) in the Solomons and Bougainville. Still the whole Whirlwind in the Pacific is an interesting proposition. Would have looked great in RAAF colours pounding Japanese positions alongside our Beaufighters

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Do you know how many were left by the time they were retired in 1943?

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

I wonder why the remaing Whirlwinds weren't sent to commonwealth operators after the RAF retired them in '43. They would hve been one of the best fighters with them if this had been done.

There were only 16 left. By June 1944 they were deemed unservicable and obsolete. They were 'reduced to produce' in 1946 by the Airwork General Trading Company. One survived. Formally P7048, it was registered G-AGOI and used as a company hack for Westland, until it too was eventually reduced to produce in 1947.

[kool kitty89]

And thus none survive today. =(

Only 16 left, okay that's too few to bother with training pilots for, and not enough to be useful. I was thinking if maby 30 or 40 were airworthy it would have been worth it and I doubt it was truly obsolete in a ground role, as its best performance was down low and it outpaced many other fighters while at optimum. Plus the cannons had already prooven effective in the groun role, so good for close suport. (I think it was faster than the P-40 at SL, definitely the E and earlier, and the hurricane too, maby the coarsair, though it was more agile than the F4U I think)

[magnocain]

you all know deep down that the p-51 was the worst plane of ww2

[magnocain]

just kidding!

but anyway this is the WORST plane of ww2 not A KIND OF BADest plane of ww2. the Buffalo was pretty bad, but it wasnt the worst plane of ww2.
The hawker furry flew in yuchloslavocava (lol) ww2, and i think it was horribly out of date by then

my 2 cents

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by magnocain

just kidding!

but anyway this is the WORST plane of ww2 not A KIND OF BADest plane of ww2. the Buffalo was pretty bad, but it wasnt the worst plane of ww2.
The hawker furry flew in yuchloslavocava (lol) ww2, and i think it was horribly out of date by then

my 2 cents

More like a half a cent.

[kool kitty89]

It's hard to tell how good the Buffalo could have been since the highest performing (overall) version, the F2A2, never saw combat. The Finns were verry sucessful with their B239 models, though this was due largely to the skill of the pilots. The F2A-3 used by the Marines was probably the worst model, very underpowered, realitively slow, and overweight. The B339E was about as bad, despite being converted from the F2A-2, it had less power and was much heavier, as well as a reduced armament. So no wonder these two models got a bad reputation, especially when facing zeros.

Though even the F2A-3 had slightly higher performance (slightly faster, more agile, and better climb) than the F4F, but the Wildcat was alot tougher, which was its only distinct advantage aganst Japanese fighters, though it was still generally outmached by Zeros. The USN couldn't realy meet the Japanese on even odds until they had the F6F and F4U available. But still with good pilots, I'd say the F2A-2 would be superior to an F4F-3 or F4F-4 in a dogfight. Faster (344 mph top speed), better climb (~2,500 ft/min), more maneuverable, better visibillity, equal armament to the F4F-3 and longer firing time than the F4F-4 (plus the F2A had 2x nose guns which were more acurate than wing-guns), and somewhat better range. Though the F2A2 was a bit more fregile than the Wildcat it was alot harder to get a bead on and still was tougher than Japanese planes, particular in respect to pilot protection.

Also, at Midway, remember that the USMC pilots flying the F2A-3s were inexperienced, and tried to engage in WWI style dogfights with the Japanese. I doubt they would have fared much better in Wildcats, or even F2A-2s for that matter. Though they might have done better in P-40s (or maby even P-36s) since they had good maneuverabillity, decent speed and power, good armament, simple and easy to fly, and were quite tough.

As a note on the P-39, in most respects it was superior to the P-40, and both performed rather poorly above 20,000 ft, the British even found their Airacobras more maneuverable at high-speed than the Spitfire iirc (the stick was heavier at low speeds, but was much lighter than the Spit at high speeds). However it was not thet easy to fly and had some nasty stall characteristics, (though the flat spin was only noted when the nose was improperly loaded) though buffeting usualy gave enough warning as long as the pilot was attentive. It was probaby no trickier than the P-38 overall.