View Poll Results: What is the worst naval plane?

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • Blackburn Skua

    12 36.36%
  • Brewster F2A Buffalo

    0 0%
  • Douglas TBD Devastator

    9 27.27%
  • Other (Please State)

    12 36.36%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 61

Thread: Worst Naval Plane of WWII

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    318
    Post Thanks / Like
    How about the Bf109T? It never even landed on a carrier! Oh.....Wait.........

    cornell

  2. #32
    Senior Member redcoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Stockport
    Posts
    412
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by R Pope View Post
    How about the Bf109T? It never even landed on a carrier! Oh.....Wait.........
    They saw service with the Luftwaffe in Norway. I believe a Bf 109T is credited with the first Luftwaffe victory over a B-17(in RAF service)
    If in doubt........Panic!!!!!!!

  3. #33
    Senior Member parsifal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Orange NSW
    Posts
    8,499
    Post Thanks / Like
    These debates about Bf109s and Zeroes are really badly biased IMO. We need to go back and determine criteria for what makes a bad aircraft....In my opinion its an aircraft unable to coiomplete or potentially undertake its assigned role. At the top of the list are those that are designed so badly that they are unsafe to fly, independant of any enemy action. Then there are aircraft that due to operational limitations, like por performance, cannot be safely operated under any conditions in enemy airspace.

    Lastly, perhaps, there are those aircraft that were simply unsuited to the doctrine or purpose for which they were built. These aircraft might fly well, have sufficient performance, but simply dont do, or are unsuited to the role they are assigned.

    Examples of aircraft that are simply not airworthy migt inlude the Loire 210. 20 produced, entered service September 1939, withdrawn from service November 1939, 25% of airfranes suffered structural failures

    Aircraft so old or lacking performance that they could not complete their mission. Again i would nominate French aircraft in this category. I would nominate the Levasseur PL.7, with performance that made the Swordfish look like a hot high perfomance machine

    Lastly there are machines properly designed, but thrust into a role for which they were unsuited. Something like the Zero really does fit that category....it was an offensive fighter, designed almost exclusively for attack, when forced into a defensive situation, did not perform so well. Early Seafires were similar failures, as was the American Corsair (which was not given carrier clearance until very late in the war).
    Fr President Clemenceau’s speech to the AIF 7th July 1918: “ we expected a great deal of (Australians)… We knew that you would fight a real fight, but we did not know that from the beginning you would astonish the whole continent. I shall go back and say to my countrymen “I have seen the Australians, I have looked in their faces …I know that they will fight alongside of us again until the cause for which we are all fighting is safe for us and for our children”.



  4. #34
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like
    Wish the Fairey Fulmer was listed... It, and the two turreted fighter designs (oh, what a useless concept...) made by blackburn, had to be some of the worst carrier aircraft available. As for the Buffalo? The Finns used her with remarkable success. I doubt she deserves the bad rep. I did, however, vote devastator... Boy, was that a disaster.

  5. #35
    Senior Member stug3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    614
    Post Thanks / Like
    The flaws of the Zero accelerated the attrition of experienced Japanese pilots, which was a contributing factor to the failure of Japanese strategy. The success or failure of a plane like the Seamew had no effect on the outcome of the war.

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,455
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mishal Kennedy View Post
    Wish the Fairey Fulmer was listed... It, and the two turreted fighter designs (oh, what a useless concept...) made by blackburn, had to be some of the worst carrier aircraft available. As for the Buffalo? The Finns used her with remarkable success. I doubt she deserves the bad rep. I did, however, vote devastator... Boy, was that a disaster.
    The Fulmar actually did a decent job of defending the fleet in the Med. Not great but not a disaster. There was only ONE turreted naval fighter and it was never deployed on a carrier, at least it flew without breaking itself.

    The Devastator gets a really bad rap. The newest aircraft at Midway were about 2-3 years old, not design but time from factory door. the Devastator first flew 15 April 1935, I doubt that ANY seven year old design without any upgrades could make a daylight attack on a major fleet without fighter escort and survive any better. Douglas was NOT responsible for the lousy torpedoes.

    Loire was responsible for the poor structural strength of their aircraft. Curtiss was responsible for the handling problems, power to weight ratio and cooling problems of the Seamew.

  7. #37
    Senior Member parsifal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Orange NSW
    Posts
    8,499
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yeah, a good summary SR. I agree with all that you say.

    What is it with your American compatriots, that they must clobber the Fulmar at every opportunity. Fulmar was a good compromise, given the poor state of the fleet air arm, and the absolute need to get something into the fleet defence role, and also able to undertake mutirole functions. The RN was at war in 1940, and needed something right away. It took the Americans more than 2 years to get the Hellcat in large scale squadron service, and even the Wildcat had a longer lead time than the Fulmar. If the RN had tried to go the way of the USN, it would have forced the surrender of much important objectives, possibly war changing events.

    Credit should be given for the speed of its deployment, and the tasks and gaps that it filled.
    Fr President Clemenceau’s speech to the AIF 7th July 1918: “ we expected a great deal of (Australians)… We knew that you would fight a real fight, but we did not know that from the beginning you would astonish the whole continent. I shall go back and say to my countrymen “I have seen the Australians, I have looked in their faces …I know that they will fight alongside of us again until the cause for which we are all fighting is safe for us and for our children”.



  8. #38
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well, I'll have to agree fully. Thanks for the reply! Forgot about the Fulmer's success in the Med.

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    692
    Post Thanks / Like
    I thought the Blackburn Roc was briefly flown from carriers during the Norway campaign? Unlike the Seamew the Roc was not a dangerous aircraft, it was just a useless one. The Roc was basically just a Skua with a turret on it's back, and to think that somebody was actually paid to come up with that idea! as though the Skua wasn't bad enough without putting a turret on it!

  10. #40
    Senior Member redcoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Stockport
    Posts
    412
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mishal Kennedy View Post
    Wish the Fairey Fulmer was listed...
    Don't you insult an aircraft my grannie helped build
    Last edited by redcoat; 07-31-2013 at 07:26 AM.
    If in doubt........Panic!!!!!!!

  11. #41
    Senior Member redcoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Stockport
    Posts
    412
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by pattle View Post
    I thought the Blackburn Roc was briefly flown from carriers during the Norway campaign? Unlike the Seamew the Roc was not a dangerous aircraft,!
    They did make a floatplane version of the Roc but it was so slow it kept going into a stall when put into a turn. It didn't enter service.
    If in doubt........Panic!!!!!!!

  12. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,455
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by pattle View Post
    I thought the Blackburn Roc was briefly flown from carriers during the Norway campaign? Unlike the Seamew the Roc was not a dangerous aircraft, it was just a useless one. The Roc was basically just a Skua with a turret on it's back, and to think that somebody was actually paid to come up with that idea! as though the Skua wasn't bad enough without putting a turret on it!
    Blackburn Roc aircraft profile. Aircraft Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945

    " The aircraft operated from shore bases only, alongside Skua squadrons, and its front line career ended in June 1940"

  13. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Shortround6 View Post
    Blackburn Roc aircraft profile. Aircraft Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945

    " The aircraft operated from shore bases only, alongside Skua squadrons, and its front line career ended in June 1940"
    Sorry Shortround6, I am rubbish at computers and I don't know how to do links but if you go to the page you linked and click Blackburn Roc in the further information column at the bottom of the page it mentions the Roc flying from Ark Royal and possibly Glorious during the Norwegian campaign, there was only a few of them though.

  14. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,455
    Post Thanks / Like
    Good catch.

  15. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,260
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by pattle View Post
    Sorry Shortround6, I am rubbish at computers and I don't know how to do links but if you go to the page you linked and click Blackburn Roc in the further information column at the bottom of the page it mentions the Roc flying from Ark Royal and possibly Glorious during the Norwegian campaign, there was only a few of them though.
    I'm guessing this is the link you mentioned:

    Blackburn Roc, description and overview of service use.

    It does give an excellent summary of Roc performance and operations. It actually wasn't that bad of an aircraft, but was sensibly withdrawn from carrier service. Although with the long range tank, it would have been a useful recon and patrol aircraft, and it actually had some limited value as a dive bomber.

    and here's an excellent essay on the outstanding Skua:

    Blackburn Skua
    Last edited by RCAFson; 07-31-2013 at 01:00 PM.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 225
    Last Post: 01-11-2014, 05:50 PM
  2. Best Pacific Fighter II
    By Catch22 in forum Polls
    Replies: 222
    Last Post: 02-06-2012, 06:02 PM
  3. Worst aircraft of WW2?
    By cheddar cheese in forum Aviation
    Replies: 1879
    Last Post: 10-09-2011, 05:10 PM
  4. What If...?
    By cheddar cheese in forum Aviation
    Replies: 537
    Last Post: 05-28-2006, 04:53 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •