ORIGINAL: Evil_Merlin
Me 163...
Quite a few built. And almost completely a failure... More people died flying the things let alone landing them...
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.
ORIGINAL: vallawyer
The Brewster Buffalo.
"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.