The worst fighter...

[J.D.]

The other threads have been so good I thought this would be worth exploring.

A few nominations from me might include the Brewster Buffalo and the Boulton Paul Defiant. Basically, neither was effective in its intended role. The Buffalo was more successful in Finland - probably because of the ferocity of the pilots - and the Defiant had the most success as a night fighter in the Winter of 1940-41.

I would also nominate the Blackburn Roc, which was basically a cross between a Defiant and a Skua. It never actually saw combat, which was probably a relief for those who had to fly it!

[jaw]

All of those plus the Swift

John

[FalkeEins]

..have you read 'Empire of the clouds' ...there were hundreds of 'em ..most of them British...

all of those and ....Javelin

[J.D.]

..have you read 'Empire of the clouds' ...there were hundreds of 'em ..most of them British...

No but it's on the list.

I'd also add that anything which breaks the bank for no result could be worthy of consideration.

[Giorgio N]

There have been fighters that were bad because they were just badly designed, some that we see as bad because they entered combat when they were obsolete and others that were bad because they were properly designed to specifications that were proved wrong.

The Buffalo was not too bad in itself, but was almost obsolete when it entered service and entered combat when fully obsolete. The Fiat G.50 was another bad enough fighter for the same reasons (and as the buffalo found luck in finland).

The Defiant met its specification well enough, but was designed to a specification that was totally wrong.

The Roc though not only was designed to a wrong specification, but was also bad within the specification ! it's a kind of miracle that one even managed to shoot down a Ju-88.

If we include heavy fighters, then I'd say the the german Ar.240 and Me.210 should be included, although the former probably was never really operational.

Yet, I can't think of anything worse than the Roc for WW2.

Postwar there've been plenty of bad ones ! The Swft has been rightly mentioned, but a lot of the first jet fighters proved quite poor, expecially those intended for carrier use: the Attacker wasn't great, the Vought Pirate wasn't either, and the same applies to the FH Phantom, or the Fireball or even the Cutlass.

Others had more success even being little more than average: honestly the F-102 never was more than a barely adequate fighter, yet it was produced in mass and enjoied a long career. And so did the Javelin.

However I think the worst jet fighter was the Yak-38. It went through a lot of modifications but never achieved much useful performances, was considered dangerous by its pilots and in the end died quietly. The swift was probably worse (at least the Yak was innovative for its user) but at least found a niche where it cold be used for something.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Giorgio N

[Pat C]

I would also nominate the Blackburn Roc, which was basically a cross between a Defiant and a Skua. It never actually saw combat, which was probably a relief for those who had to fly it!

Didn't it serve as a ground-based AA installation on some FAA stations? Concievably it might have seen combat in that role?

Pat

[Hepster]

The Me 163 miust be a possible contender.

Nobody seems really sure whether any Me 163 successfully shot down anything, yet apparently lots of aircraft were lost along with their pilots after they exploded on takeoff or on landing because of the unstable fuel, whilst a successful landing often gave the pilot permanent back injuries.

There's even a myth that one pilot was dissolved after the Nitric Acid fuel tank ruptured.

It's no wonder the flying replica featured in Aircraft Illustrated recently is 'glide-only'...

The He 162 is another good pilot-murderer.

Incidentally, I think replies shoud be limited to service aircraft, since you expect prototypes to be a bit lethal. British ones in particular.

[Pat C]

all of those and ....Javelin

Was the Javelin that bad? I think it met the Air Ministry spec didn't it by the time the later marks came out (albeit it had taken some 10 years to get there!)? I suppose its performance looks somewhat unfavourable compared with the Lightning.

honestly the F-102 never was more than a barely adequate fighter

I know the designers were disapointed by its performance but once the area rule was sorted out did it not do a reasonable job particularly if its mission was to carry and launch a nuclear tipped missile in the direction of a bomber stream?

Pat

Edited January 17, 2011 by Pat C

[Tripehound]

I think I'm right in saying the Marcel Bloch MB 151 prototype failed to take off on what was meant to be its maiden flight. Given that it was markedly inferior to the Bf109s it met duing the Battle of France, French pilots may have wished it had never made it into the air.

[Flying Penguin]

The Starfighter? I know it was widely bought and generally long serving, but the terrible peacetime accident rate can't be simply written off as "teething issues"... For a fighter not built by people who were being bombed on a daily basis, that's gotta count as a screw up....

Jamie

[Obi-Jiff Kenobi]

Was the Javelin that bad? I think it met the Air Ministry spec didn't it by the time the later marks came out (albeit it had taken some 10 years to get there!)? I suppose its performance looks somewhat unfavourable compared with the Lightning.

Somewhere, in one of the many books in my collection, there's a quote from an ex-Javelin jockey that goes something like this: "The Javelin was a huge fighter, allegedly supersonic, but the only way you could get one to break the sound barrier was to throw it at the ground from a great height."

[andym]

The He 162 is another good pilot-murderer.

Not quite true. It actually was a good aircraft but needed an experienced pilot (which were in short supply at the end of the war).

HTH

Andy

[Giorgio N]

I know the designers were disapointed by its performance but once the area rule was sorted out did it not do a reasonable job particularly if its mission was to carry and launch a nuclear tipped missile in the direction of a bomber stream?

Pat

Yes, it did its job, but even after the area rule was introduced its performances were still disappointing, so much that it was supposed to be an interim fighter only, to be replaced by the F-102B (then renamed F-106). The fire control system was also very unreliable, but the same could be said for most such systems of those days. In the end it did a reasonable job defending the US and not only, albeit as the less performing of the 3 fighters used (the others being the F-106 and the F-101B). It also briefly served in vietnam, where one was shot down by a MiG. And it was finally used in action by Turkey during the battle for Cyprus. So not a bad career after all for an aircraft that was only intended as an interim type. But it still remained an aircraft that badly underperformed comparared to the expectations.

[Pielstick]

The Me 163 miust be a possible contender.

Going back (once again) to Eric Brown - the only pilot to have flown the Komet under power post-war.... he said it had astonishing performance but was a non-starter as a fighter. It was simply too fast and too dangerous to the pilot, not only because of the fuel but also because of it's speed - it was very easy to go too fast in the Komet and start experiencing compressibility effects.

The Starfighter?

The terrible accident rate suffered by the Germans was down to them using it in a role and environment it was totally unsuited for - a *very* fast aeroplane, which was notorious for biting pilots on the bum if they didn't keep on top of it.... used as a low level strike fighter in a part of the world which frequently experiences inclement weather. Recipe for disaster.

Remember the USAF never really wanted the F-104, it's combat career with them was extremely limited. They apparently couldn't wait to get rid of it. The spectre of bribery also casts a shadow over its successes in the export market.

For my money though I'm going to nominate the Me210 - an utter failure of an attempt to replace the 110. It was so bad they had to change it's name to the 410 just to try and expunge the atrocious reputation it had, and even in it's incarnation as the 410 it was still a bag of

[Pat C]

Somewhere, in one of the many books in my collection, there's a quote from an ex-Javelin jockey that goes something like this: "The Javelin was a huge fighter, allegedly supersonic, but the only way you could get one to break the sound barrier was to throw it at the ground from a great height."

But not neccessarily a fatal flaw if the mission is to hit streams of unescorted bombers heading towards you. Later marks had a good missile load plus cannon. I am sure the Javelin would have been a hell of a target in a dogfight however. Note to self - must dig out my Heller T3!!

Pat

[JohnT]

On the accident rate for the Starfighter I read somewhere a very long time ago that the loss rate was not dissimilar to the much loved Lightning and that the F104 loss rate was highlightened for political reasons. Anyone know if there is substance to that?

[Paul A H]

Surely a contender would be the Tornado F.2, complete with Blue Circle radar?

[davidelvy]

My nomination is also the Blackburn Roc. It was a fighter, but was slower than almost any bomber it was likely to meet. Not good for a turret fighter designed to sidle up to bombers and shoot them down with a broadside. In fact even its stablemate, the Skua (a dive bomber) made a better fighter. As for combat record, or lack of, I seem to recall reading about a Roc shooting down a German seaplane in the early part of World War Two. Their speeds were the same but the Roc had difficulty bringing its guns to bear as the "battle" was at low altitude over the sea and the guns would not depress below the horizontal. Oh yes, it also had a nasty habit of going into a spin with no warning and killing its crew (or was that the Skua?) All in all a particularly useless piece of machinery and the worst example of the Admiralty procurement process until the Barracuda came along.

[andy wood]

The Me 163 miust be a possible contender.

Nobody seems really sure whether any Me 163 successfully shot down anything, yet apparently lots of aircraft were lost along with their pilots after they exploded on takeoff or on landing because of the unstable fuel, whilst a successful landing often gave the pilot permanent back injuries.

There's even a myth that one pilot was dissolved after the Nitric Acid fuel tank ruptured.

No myth. Mano Zeiglers' book 'ROCKET FIGHTER' is full of examples of pilots and groundcrew suffering at the hands of t-stoff and c-stoff

[Pat C]

I seem to recall reading about a Roc shooting down a German seaplane in the early part of World War Two

It was an He59 and the Roc only damaged it and suffered damage itself!!

[Flying Penguin]

The terrible accident rate suffered by the Germans was down to them using it in a role and environment it was totally unsuited for - a *very* fast aeroplane, which was notorious for biting pilots on the bum if they didn't keep on top of it.... used as a low level strike fighter in a part of the world which frequently experiences inclement weather. Recipe for disaster.

Remember the USAF never really wanted the F-104, it's combat career with them was extremely limited. They apparently couldn't wait to get rid of it. The spectre of bribery also casts a shadow over its successes in the export market.

We come back to intended role really, I'm sure it did fine in the deserts of Nevada (although if the Americans wanted rid, that isn't exactly a selling point), but in the role it was sold/bought into it was pretty shocking. As a comparison, the Luftwaffe lost 30% of their fleet, which looks bad until you realise that the Canadians lost 50%!

Even in US service, the accident rate was higher than any other Century series fighter (26.7 Class A write offs per 100,000 flight hours as of June 1977, nearly double that of the F-102 and F-100). It's obvious that peacetime military flying isn't as safe as an EasyJet flight, but really?

And the downward firing seat didn't help either!

Either way, it was a fighter that the primary customer didn't like and whose export success is attributable to bribes, it had a short career with any air force with the money to replace it and it had a terrible safety record. For a major front line fighter that never really saw sustained combat use, that's a pretty piddle poor record.

Cheers

Jamie

[Mike M]

My vote would be for the Breda Ba.88 heavy fighter and ground attack aircraft. A fast clean design until it was fitted with all the various pieces of equipment required at which point its performance deteriorated to the point it was virtually unflyable! Most Series 1s ended up sitting on airfields being used as decoys whilst the Series 2 was just taken and scrapped straight away.

Edited January 17, 2011 by _Mike_

[pigsty]

We come back to intended role really, I'm sure it did fine in the deserts of Nevada (although if the Americans wanted rid, that isn't exactly a selling point), but in the role it was sold/bought into it was pretty shocking. As a comparison, the Luftwaffe lost 30% of their fleet, which looks bad until you realise that the Canadians lost 50%!

Either way, it was a fighter that the primary customer didn't like and whose export success is attributable to bribes, it had a short career with any air force with the money to replace it and it had a terrible safety record. For a major front line fighter that never really saw sustained combat use, that's a pretty piddle poor record.

I promise myself I won't get involved in threads like this, but ...

That red bit: you could say the same about the A-4 in Royal Australian Navy service. You have to correct for how long the thing was in service before figures like this carry their true meaning.

That blue bit: nonetheless, several countries kept their F-104s for a very long time (including Germany, hardly short of a bob or two) and missed them when they were gone.

[Flying Penguin]

I promise myself I won't get involved in threads like this, but ...

That red bit: you could say the same about the A-4 in Royal Australian Navy service. You have to correct for how long the thing was in service before figures like this carry their true meaning.

That blue bit: nonetheless, several countries kept their F-104s for a very long time (including Germany, hardly short of a bob or two) and missed them when they were gone.

Red Bit

Canada: 62 - 87

Luftwaffe: 63 -87 (front line service)

So they are pretty comparable.

Blue Bit

Everyone misses their mount when they are gone (unless they were absolutely shocking...). The only people that kept them for long were those nations that since WW2 haven't exactly shown their willingness to spend the money needed to stay on the bleeding edge of military tech...

Cheers

Jamie

Edited January 17, 2011 by Flying Penguin

[Giorgio N]

In the fairness to the F-104G a lot of the accidents it was involved in were the result of poor training of the pilots. Many german pilots at the beginning of the Starfighter career in the luftwaffe found themselves in a machine that was very unforgiving without knowing well what expected them. The use of the plane at very low level didn't help. Spain had the F-104 in service for around 10 years using them as high altitude interceptors only and never had a single accident.

Most pilots who flew the Starfighter have said that it was a great plan to fly, while aknowledging that it was not for novices. Had it been a really dangerous machine, the opinions would have been quite different.

The original USAF F-104A experienced a higher degree of technical problems, most of which were cured by the time the G version entered service in Europe. The J-79 engine gave its own contribution to the initial attrition rate, but when the problems were solved it became one of the best aero engines ever.

As to its career, Germany kept the Starighters in service for over 25 years and the same did Canada. Other european users had it for more or less the same time, as did Japan. Hardly what could be called a short career.

Over such a long career it's not surprising that many were lost. IIRC the F-101B also saw the loss of more than 30% of its fleet in USAF service, so nothing new here.

Said that, when the F104 was used in combat by Pakistan Vs. the indian forces, it didn't do particularly well.

As the Ba.88 has been mentioned, I'd rate that as one of the worst combat planes ever, if not the worst. However it was not a fighter but a ground attack plane. Or at least it was meant to be a ground attack plane...