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

[Raptor1]

Not sure if it counts, but how about the S-class Zeppelins?

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Not sure if it counts, but how about the S-class Zeppelins?

[Raptor1]

Yes.

[JSLTIGER]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Not sure if it counts, but how about the S-class Zeppelins?

I'd say that's probably a fairly good nomination.

Combat aircraft? Yes.

Slow, low payload, expensive to operate, huge target, and oh yeah, basically a flying bomb itself (thank you hydrogen, which + tracers = boom).

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Yes.

LOL

Originally Posted by JSLTIGER

I'd say that's probably a fairly good nomination.

Combat aircraft? Yes.

Slow, low payload, expensive to operate, huge target, and oh yeah, basically a flying bomb itself (thank you hydrogen, which + tracers = boom).

I'd agree....I was thinking of the Zeppelin earlier on

[tater]

The F2B did great for Finland. For kill to loss ratio arguably one of the best planes ever, actually.

F2Bs were not great, but they suffered from the primary problem of aircraft at the very start of the Pacific War. Lack of numbers. The Zero is too often credited with being grossly superior to what it fought. It was not. Often it was the better plane, but what drove the lopsided victories was simple NUMBERS. "Firstest with the mostest."

The IJNAF and IJAAF put many planes at the sharp end at once. In the NEI and Malaya, literally many dozens of japanese fighters with 2, 3, or 4 Brewsters to hold them off. It could have been 4 F6Fs, and they'd STILL have been slaughtered.

Quantity has a quality all its own.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by tater

The F2B did great for Finland. For kill to loss ratio arguably one of the best planes ever, actually.

F2Bs were not great, but they suffered from the primary problem of aircraft at the very start of the Pacific War. Lack of numbers. The Zero is too often credited with being grossly superior to what it fought. It was not. Often it was the better plane, but what drove the lopsided victories was simple NUMBERS. "Firstest with the mostest."

The IJNAF and IJAAF put many planes at the sharp end at once. In the NEI and Malaya, literally many dozens of japanese fighters with 2, 3, or 4 Brewsters to hold them off. It could have been 4 F6Fs, and they'd STILL have been slaughtered.

Quantity has a quality all its own.

Actually.....read about MOH Winner Cdr David McCampbell, the USN's leading ACE of WW II.McCampbell and his wingman, alone in two F6F Hellcats faced about 60(some say 90) Japanese planes in 1944, mostly fighters.McCampbell himself took out 9, his wingman downed several.

Quality of the plane in addition to pilot skill matters.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Actually.....read about MOH Winner Cdr David McCampbell, the USN's leading ACE of WW II.McCampbell and his wingman, alone in two F6F Hellcats faced about 60(some say 90) Japanese planes in 1944, mostly fighters.McCampbell himself took out 9, his wingman downed several.

Quality of the plane in addition to pilot skill matters.

Aircraft Quality and Pilot Skill matters a lot.
Wasn't their a Saber driver who took on a dozen MiGs and downed them all?

[Diopos]

Actually a good criterion would be losses in non combat situations. I mean If a plane "kills" you in peacetime, imagine at war!!! Mmmm....


.

[bookworm_020]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Quality of the plane in addition to pilot skill matters.

Chuck Yeager Said that a good pilot in a bad plane can beat a bad pilot in a good plane.

I read the the combat history of the Japanese Ace Saburo Sakai, He fought 6 F6F's off Iwo, despite being outnumbered, flying an outdated Zero and blind in one eye, he damaged one and managed to return to base without a single bullet hole in his plane!

Remember early in the war Japan had a large force of combat experienced pilots, but by the end of the war, most of the pilots were lucky to have more than a dozen flight hours.

[FIREWALL]

UGLY MILITARY PLANES PEOPLE!!!

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

Chuck Yeager Said that a good pilot in a bad plane can beat a bad pilot in a good plane.

I read the the combat history of the Japanese Ace Saburo Sakai, He fought 6 F6F's off Iwo, despite being outnumbered, flying an outdated Zero and blind in one eye, he damaged one and managed to return to base without a single bullet hole in his plane!

Remember early in the war Japan had a large force of combat experienced pilots, but by the end of the war, most of the pilots were lucky to have more than a dozen flight hours.

from what I recall from his memoirs, Sakai singlehandedly fought off 15 F6 in that battle off Iwo. He would wait until the fighter was in firing position on his tail and roll away before the pilot could react. When he got back to base, he said his whole body was mush from the stress and he had to be helped from the plane.

but the greatest performance was probably that of the japanese ace Muto over the japanese mainland in february 1945. He took on 12 corsairs (or hellcats, the accounts differ) in a Zero and shot down 4.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by JSLTIGER

I'd say that's probably a fairly good nomination.

Combat aircraft? Yes.

Slow, low payload, expensive to operate, huge target, and oh yeah, basically a flying bomb itself (thank you hydrogen, which + tracers = boom).

Those are Zeppelin problems in general, but the 'Height Climbers' had even worse problems on top of that. While they did achieve the primary design purpose of flying higher than British aircraft and air defences could reach, the men and equipment inside had no adequate protection against the cold and lack of oxygen at such high altitudes, making them rather dangerous to fly. The general navigation and accuracy problems that Zeppelins had were also made much worse thanks to the increased altitude. If that wasn't bad enough, the removed engine made them even slower than preceding classes and the lighter construction made them very fragile and vulnerable to the wind (Which was made even worse because of the altitude, of course).