The quest for the worst combat aircraft in history...

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Vendor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_CR.42

Just looking on that Wiki page the aircraft seems quite good. Nearly 2000 built and quite maneuverable if somewhat outdated.

Originally Posted by JSLTIGER

I'm surprised no one has mentioned it thus far, so I will...I nominate the Brewster F2A Buffalo, another plane derided by its pilots as a flying coffin. The sad thing is that I grew up about a mile away from where they built these things back in WWII in Warminster, PA.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo

I'm sorry, but this one just has to take the cake...it's one fugly airplane.

The Buffalo was not so much a bad plane as a plane faced with a truly superior enemy- the Zero. The Fins did a lot of damaged with their Buffalos against the Soviets. The main reason the Zero was so much better was that it was not weighed down with extra gear (Armor, radios etc) like US fighters such as the Buffalo.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Just looking on that Wiki page the aircraft seems quite good. Nearly 2000 built and quite maneuverable if somewhat outdated.

Indeed, the CR.42 wasn't a bad aircraft when compared to planes like the Gladiator or the I-15/I-153.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

There have been quite a few "composite" ( # Turning and # Burning) aircraft over the years. Like the AJ Savage, Avro Shackleton and B-36 Peacemaker. The Fireball wasn't necessarily a bad aircraft it was more a stopgap solution outpaced by by technology. Don't forget that when the Fireball was built it was assumed their would be a massive apocalyptic battle for Japan and any edge our pilots could have would save lives.

And I would disagree, 2 power plants in a fighter is nuts. All that extra weight, plus it may have needed to use 2 different kinds of fuel. Not to mention the drag the prop would have caused in flight. I am also doubtful it would have handled well given the inherent problems of designing an aircraft for 2 separate power plants.

All of that equals bad idea.

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

And I would disagree, 2 power plants in a fighter is nuts. All that extra weight, plus it may have needed to use 2 different kinds of fuel. Not to mention the drag the prop would have caused in flight. I am also doubtful it would have handled well given the inherent problems of designing an aircraft for 2 separate power plants.

All of that equals bad idea.

Yeap. But you weren't the Admiral!



.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

And I would disagree, 2 power plants in a fighter is nuts. All that extra weight, plus it may have needed to use 2 different kinds of fuel. Not to mention the drag the prop would have caused in flight. I am also doubtful it would have handled well given the inherent problems of designing an aircraft for 2 separate power plants.

All of that equals bad idea.

You have it backwards I think. The jet on the Fireball was a booster, it couldn't fly with just the jet alone (not very well anyways). The prop created no (useless) drag it was essential to the aircraft's flight.

Also jets (in the US anyways) didn't have the thrust for carrier ops at the time meaning any jets (say the P-80) would need to be shore based and thus limited in operational range to the southern Japanese islands until airbases could be secured inland.

Originally Posted by Diopos

Yeap. But you weren't the Admiral!



.

Admiral Strike reporting for booty...

[Gerald]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_ITP

[Sailor Steve]

I'm confused. The title is "The quest for the worst combat aircraft in history..." and several of the bad ideas posted here are of experimentals. By nature they are not 'combat' aircraft, and it must be expected that some will be failures.

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

Is there a weird angle on this pic, or does that thing have one too many of... something?

It was an attempt at vertical takeoff and landing.

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Fokker Fodder
Nuff said!

Not really. The Fe-2 was developed before the Fokker, so its purpose was a valid one. It's like saying the Corsair was a bad idea because in Korea they were easy prey for MiGs.

I also agree with TLAM Strike: The CR.42 was not a bad aircraft when it came out. In the Med they did quite well against Gloster Gladiators.

My candidate:


http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/lewis_barling.php

Note that this source lists the maximum speed as 89 mph. Other sources say 95 mph. I've seen one book which claims that despite the 61 mph listed for cruise speed, that was actually the minimum flying speed, which gives a very small margin between staying up and falling down!

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Vendor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_ITP

Might have been good if they finished work on it earlier.

Note that this source lists the maximum speed as 89 mph. Other sources say 95 mph. I've seen one book which claims that despite the 61 mph listed for cruise speed, that was actually the minimum flying speed, which gives a very small margin between staying up and falling down!

don't turn around and fart in it, or it might stall out.

[Diopos]

Yakovlev Yak-38
A take on vertical landing/take-off by the USSR Navy. Well it seems that it did that, but only that.

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-38

AND considered opereational, too ...


.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Diopos

Yakovlev Yak-38
A take on vertical landing/take-off by the USSR Navy. Well it seems that it did that, but only that.

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-38

AND considered opereational, too ...


.

Yea I remember loosing entire groups of them them to sidewinder armed Nimrods in Harpoon 1.

A fighter that could be replaced by a decent long range SAM system.

[Gerald]

http://www.aviastar.org/air/italy/breda-88.php

http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_alb...40%20Lince.htm

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by JSLTIGER

I'm surprised no one has mentioned it thus far, so I will...I nominate the Brewster F2A Buffalo, another plane derided by its pilots as a flying coffin. The sad thing is that I grew up about a mile away from where they built these things back in WWII in Warminster, PA.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo

I'm sorry, but this one just has to take the cake...it's one fugly airplane.

Finns used the Brewster Model 239 during WW2.
The 44 Brewsters of FAF downed 479 enemy aircraft with the loss of 19 Brewsters, final kill ratio being 1/25.2.

[XabbaRus]

I thought the F-7 Cutlass apart from unreliable engines and hydraulics was actually quite good when it worked. I suppose that was the main problem.

Apart from that it looked cool.

That's the great thing about 1950s & 60s aviation there was so much experimentation as knowledge increased in leaps and bounds each month that within 6 months there would be a performance leap that made previous kit old. Led to some weird and wonderful shapes as I suppose the wind tunnels weren't so advanced so the only way to really check it out was to build a prototype.

Modern day planes are boring incomparison. They all are starting to look alike.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Not really. The Fe-2 was developed before the Fokker, so its purpose was a valid one. It's like saying the Corsair was a bad idea because in Korea they were easy prey for MiGs.

Er, it's a B.E.2, not a Fe-2 (or are they the same?). Please read the part: "Faults of the type" in the Wiki link. The gunner sat on the front seat which meant he couldn't shoot forward as there was the propeller, he couldn't shoot straight to the rear as there was the pilot, he couldn't shoot top or bottom left or right as there were the wings. Combine that with an underpowered engine, a small bombload and no manoeuvrability to speak of and you have a bad plane. .... I really wouldn't have wanted to fly one of those in WWI.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Vendor

http://www.aviastar.org/air/italy/breda-88.php

http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_alb...40%20Lince.htm

Never heard of that one. Very interesting.

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

I thought the F-7 Cutlass apart from unreliable engines and hydraulics was actually quite good when it worked. I suppose that was the main problem.

Apart from that it looked cool.

Agree! Fantastic looking jet.

That's the great thing about 1950s & 60s aviation there was so much experimentation as knowledge increased in leaps and bounds each month that within 6 months there would be a performance leap that made previous kit old. Led to some weird and wonderful shapes as I suppose the wind tunnels weren't so advanced so the only way to really check it out was to build a prototype.

Modern day planes are boring incomparison. They all are starting to look alike.

100% Agree. Every new aircraft was like an experiment in aerodynamics. Those decades really produces some strange looking birds the likes of which have not been seen since.

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Er, it's a B.E.2, not a Fe-2 (or are they the same?). Please read the part: "Faults of the type" in the Wiki link. The gunner sat on the front seat which meant he couldn't shoot forward as there was the propeller, he couldn't shoot straight to the rear as there was the pilot, he couldn't shoot top or bottom left or right as there were the wings. Combine that with an underpowered engine, a small bombload and no manoeuvrability to speak of and you have a bad plane. .... I really wouldn't have wanted to fly one of those in WWI.

Could the guy shoot himself? Dang forget WWI I wouldn't want to fly that thing in the Civil War!