Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

my vote goes for the Morane-Saulnier M.S.406. no armor, next to no firepower, and only 300mph if lucky.
foddler for German pilots.. whats your vote?

Ram-bro

My Feedback: (101)

P40 K, your get your feelings hurt here. I like your approach to the age old fire starter of a question. I will as usual get my bag of popcorn and beer,wait for Master Obi1 Level to show up and enjoy the show. My vote is the Me-110..

IL2windhawk

Boulton-Paul Defiant.

Me210 was worse than the Me110

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

Me 163...

Quite a few built. And almost completely a failure... More people died flying the things let alone landing them...

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

my feelings hurt? how so? + its not a 'fire starter' question. just genuinely interested in what others think.
I chose the french designed M.S.406 becouse the french are masters in building flying coffins. the Russians
were a close second in the same catagory.

Rebel Flyer

And there is Master Obi1 on que...This is just up his alley, like the useless knowlege thread.

I will go with pretty much anything French and agree with a M.S-406.

Rebel

I will sit back and wait to be linched now...

vallawyer

The Brewster Buffalo.

CorsairJock

My Feedback: (90)

a very good argument for that choice. TRUE, and oustanding interceptor, but too many pilots suffered a horrifing death from it's 'C' stuff/ 'T' stuff chemical properties, not to mention it's vulnerability when fuel supply was exhausted.

"it was the best of times, it was the worst of times', a very good argument for it being the worst performing fighter of the war, BUT: it achieved an astounding 37:1 kill ratio in the hands of axis pilots.

Interesting that 2 of the suggestions span the range of fighter development: 1 being arguably the worst performer, the other being arguably the best.

Boomerang1

Two fighters from me, both from the same maufacturer, almost the same aeroplane, both rubbish.

The Blackburn Skua & Roc. John.

jmohn

Anything French or Italian


Jeff

perttime

Brewster Buffalos were highly effective against the Russians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewste...o#Buffalo_aces
Of course, it had to be set up right...

-
Caudron C.714 wasn't all that great

Redback

Maybe when we're done with this we can debate what was the most average fighter of WW2

Terry

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

heres another one that could make the list..... Spitfire Mark I.. piece of junk.

lrb75

My Feedback: (12)

How about the Polish PZL P7 or P11? They didn't fare very well against the Germans.

paladin

My Feedback: (9)

I-16, what was the name of the russian by-plane? the Italians had a few bipes also.

p-47 was it a fighter or bomber? i personally think it was the american IL-2.

Joe

Johnnie Red

P-36 obsolete from the first day of combat!

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

so were most of the worlds aircraft (as compared toGermany) at the start of WWII. however,
with its 313mph speed, 3000+ft/min climb rate, 2-50cal & 4-30cal guns, excellent
handling, light control loads, and unparraelle turn & roll rates, and its nearly 20 year
service, it was hardly obsolete. and certainly wasn't the worst fighter.

F4u5

My Feedback: (81)

P-51 Mustang

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

well I'll give you that it certainly wasn't the best fighter. funny story about the P-51. High command needed an
excuse to justify the expence of purchasing those P-51's, which really wasn't needed. as the USAAF already had
the P-38 and P-47 who's ferrying range was excellent. by late 44/45 as one German pilot put it, the safest
plane over German skies was an Allied plane, bombers really didn't need escorts, nor did they need to
carpet bomb anything else in Germany. the B-17's were used as 'bait' so the P-51's could prove there 'worth'
by shooting down as manymostly German trainees as they could.

Take a look at the Legend of Y-29, one experianced 109 ace made 6 experianced.. yes six P-51 pilots look
like rookies. and yes, that pilot of the Me 109 was attacked by all six at the same time. If the lore of the P-51
was so great,one mustangaverage pilot should have been more then enough.

With P-47 escorts, those ships would take great punishment. there were cases of German piots emptying
all there guns into one and still couldn't knock it down. in my opinion, the P-47 was a much better ship
then the P-51. politics & contracts.. even in war thats what it boils down too.


Don't get me wrong though... I'm not taking away anything from those brave pilots in the P-51...

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

Ferry range is not combat range even with drop tanks.

Very few planes could fly as far as the P-51 with drop tanks.

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

The P.11, even as old and out of date as it was, gave the Germans fits. Remember it was designed in the 20's and first flew in 1931!

paladin

My Feedback: (9)

P-36 vs zero was a very interesting match theoretically. In real life the p-36 was way out numbered when ever it came up against the zero. But one on one the version without pilot armor could out turn the zero, while the zero was slightly faster.

P-51’s best maneuver was unequivocally the flying fuel tank. Nobody could beat it.

Joe

Experten109/40

My Feedback: (-1)

yes my mistake. but still its combat range was 800-1000miles.. depending of course on the load its carrying.

cimara

Gloster Meteor

Dont care how good an aircraft is if your afraid to put it in combat for fear of one being shot down and salvaged by the Germans.
That makes it a wast of war resources witch could have been used to produce aircraft your not afraid to lose. Might as well bombed your own factory same result.

Roary m

My Feedback: (67)

I give the P-39 my 'worst', although it was engineered to be a great ship; budget fever set in and out came the supercharger as well as some other goodies that made the prototypes fly so well. It was still a good air to ground plane although I don't remember that being the original concept in its entirety.