Ok, we've done to death which was "best." Now, which was the worst? A qualifier: It has to be something actually used operationally and produced. Prototypes and experiments don't count.
Some choices right off:

The Boulton-Paul Defiant and its even more pathetic cousin the Blackburn Roc. Proof that there were insane people running the RAF's design specification offices.

The Caudron C 714. The lightweight fighter concept: No armament worth anything, no performance and, poor handling to boot all on a light airframe (which disintegrates under fire) made of non-strategic materials!

The North American P-64. Proof that even a good design company can ruin a perfectly good advanced trainer by turning it into a really marginal fighter.

The Me 163. A virtual death trap for the pilot who only needs worring about going into action if the enemy is so stupid as to fly directly over his airfield. A concept whose time was never...

The Curtiss-Wright CW 21. Another lightweight fighter for export. Proof you can sell desperate countries an unairworthy aircraft with no armament to speak of for lots of cash.

Well, that should get things started.....

The Messerschmitt 210 was a major goof as was the follow on the 410.

The Brewster Buffalo was good for the Netherlands and Finns but a death trap for the Marines and RAF crews.

The P.Z.I. P.11 from Poland did not stand much of a chance against Me-109s especially with only two small machine guns.

The P-59 would have been easy meat if deployed.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

Ju 87 for BoB operations.

The Me 110 as long range fighter as Göring wanted it.

__________________

If I had to pick just one it would be the Defiant, as mentioned by T A Gardner above.

The lives of many brave men were thrown away trying to get the best out of something designed for a different kind of war..... [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

I thought of putting Fairey battle here but it was a question of fighter planes...

ANyway, how about Mig-1:

The first prototype flew on 30 March 1940 and was quite likely the fastest fighter in the world at the time with a speed of 405 mph (651 kph). This speed came at a price as the handling was "totally unacceptable". The aircraft was deemed unacceptable for all but the most experienced of pilots as longitudinal stability was "hopeless" from the abbreviated rear fuselage. Range was also deemed much less than desirable. However, an order for 100 armed aircraft, as the MiG-1, was placed even before the first prototype was completed .

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/mig.html

The only thing it could do was to fly straight and fast.

http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft2/avion2/5376.html

Pics:

http://e.1asphost.com/migalley/mig1_13.html

[ 18. March 2004, 06:22 AM: Message edited by: Kai-Petri ]

__________________

I was looking at the Mig-1 pictures on the last link you gave and the Mig-13 looks like it is more unairworthy than the Mig-1 It reminded me of the Gee Bee racers of the 1930's.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

I would also have to go with the Defiant. What kind of country would create a fighter with the armament located in the rear only.

[ 18. March 2004, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: PzJgr ]

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

I'd agree with the Brewster Buffalo-as much use as Santa's sleigh against Zeros.


Regards,
Gordon

__________________
Regards,

Gordon
History Vault Bookshop
FortressScotland-http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y20/Historian/

I'd have a hard time faulting the Buffalo. When it was designed in the late 30's it was a decent aircraft. Even the late models were very flyable machines albeit too slow to compete with newer aircraft.
The Me 110 likewise, was just not up to snuff as a fighter. It didn't have vicious tendencies nor was it completely outclassed. After all, it did turn into a reasonable nightfighter.
If anyone seems to have taken the prize it has to be the early war British. The Defiant was just plain bad. Someone should have gone to prison for that plane. Then there are those early FAA fighters like the Skua, Roc or, Fulmar. None was even slightly competitive against even obsolesent land fighters like Italy's CR 42 biplane.
Oh, another high ranking loser the P-35. This plane was obsolete long before 1939 but still in service. But, the Defiant was worse. And, the Roc was worse than the Defiant (imagine that!). For those unfamiliar with the Blackburn Roc it was a modified Skua. The Skua was a combination dive bomber and fighter used by the Royal Navy in the opening years of the war. It had 4 .303 guns and a rear facing .303. It was slow, unmaneuverable, heavy and, a mediocre dive bomber let alone fighter. Now, take this albatross and remove the armament and put on the same Boulton-Paul turret the Defiant had. That is a Roc. The result was a slower and less maneuverable version of the Defiant.

[ 18. March 2004, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: T. A. Gardner ]

TA,
You just don't like British planes, do you?! [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Nah, you're right. They're all classic examples of desperate rearmament programmes, arising from discovering you're in mess and need to do something about it quick!
In fairness, the Defiant made a decent night-fighter once its drawbacks were realised. At least until the Beaufighter came along.

Regards,
Gordon

__________________
Regards,

Gordon
History Vault Bookshop
FortressScotland-http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y20/Historian/

Can't forget about those Brit. Swordfish.Such relics! [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]

__________________

And the Gloster Gladiator-just as bad.

Regards,
Gordon

__________________
Regards,

Gordon
History Vault Bookshop
FortressScotland-http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y20/Historian/

I'd agree that the Swordfish and Gladiator were relics ie outdated for WWII service. But when introduced, they were sound designs ( and remember, the Swordfish was never a fighter...) so I'd argue whether they qualify as 'worst' aircraft.

Whereas the Defiant was a faulty design concept from the outset and a death-trap for it's unfortunate crews, and as such to me fully deserves the 'worst...' epithet.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

And wasn´t the Swordfish stopping Bismarck in 1941and the Italian Navy at Taranto in 1940:



http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/5443/tar3b.htm

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarc...orpedohit.html

Not so bad....

http://www.magweb.com/sample/saow/saw23asd.htm

__________________

OK, I'll have to say a word in favour of the Defiant!

The problem was not the plane, nor even the concept, but the assumptions of the designers who were wrong-footed by events. The Defiant was meant to be an updated version of a famous line of two-seat biplane fighters which ended with the Hawker 'Turret Demon', one of the first planes to have a power-operated turret. They were designed to catch and destroy high-speed bombers.

The way they were intended to be used was to fly up underneath bomber streams and rake them from a favourable angle where they would be most vulnerable. The pilot's job was to put the gunner in the right place to do the job; forward-firing guns would have been a waste of space and weight.

This in itself was OK, but the wrong assumption was that enemy (= German) planes would have to fly all the way from Germany, much too far for them to be accompanied by fighters. The designers never anticipated that there would be hordes of enemy fighters sitting just across the Channel in northern France and Belgium, and swarming all around their bomber fleets.

So no great surprise that the Defiant turned out to be helpless in the face of fighters which it had never been intended to fight.

As an aircraft, it was OK - it flew all right, and after useful service as a night fighter as already mentioned (the upward-firing guns predated the Luftwaffe's Schräge Musik installations by years) it saw out its days usefully towing targets.

I find it a bit harder to justify the Roc, though...

The Gladiator was a fine fighter for a biplane, with excellent handling and performance and good armament. It was simply overtaken by events, but despite this did very well against more modern opposition in Malta.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

__________________
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

Wasn't there something else about the Defiant - in order to bale out, the turret gunner had to rotate the turret ; but if the engine had stopped or the hydraulics were damaged by those fighters that the designers hadn't thought about...then he couldn't get out ?

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Stuff I dug up on Defiant some time ago:

http://www.ww2forums.com/cgi-bin/ubb...=000706#000000

__________________

Tony's explaination makes sense as to how the concept came about. Just a waste of aircraft and crews when reality meets a 20mm cannon and the wrong concept.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

The Mig 13 (or I-250, its experimental designation) was an early attempt at a mixed propulsion aircraft. It had a low velocity ram jet in the tail as well as a conventional prop / engine. The MiG design bureau clearly had a lock on speed even if it was at the cost of everything else. Compare their Mig 1 -3 and the German Me 209. At least the Germans lacked the manufacturing capacity to put their equivalent "greyhound" into production if not for want of trying.....

In defense of the Fairey Fulmar it must be pointed out that it was one of the most successful FAA aircraft of WW2. It shot down more aircraft than any other FAA aircraft in WW2 and it had a Kill/Loss ratio of 2.8 to 1.

Can't argue about the Roc though, this was probably the worst British fighter of WW2, especially the float-plane version with a top speed of 183mph