Were These Three Of The Worst WW2 Fighters?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июн 2024
- Have you ever wondered what the very worst fighter aircraft of the Second World War were? Join me in this series to debate which fighters should go on our definitive list of the most woeful aircraft of WW2.
💗 If you'd like to support my channel please follow this link for more details: calibanrising.com/support/
📰 You can also support me by subscribing to one of these great aviation magazines: calibanrising.com/magazines/
💰 Want to start an online business with RUclips?
This RUclips channel is no accident and the success I've had so far was no mere fluke, it's all been planned out and executed in a very meaningful way. However, I can't take credit for knowing how to do all that, I had to learn and I learned from the best!
Listen to my advice for building a successful RUclips channel: • How Does Phil From Cal...
Follow me on my other channel, / passiveincomephil
3D print your own gaming controls
Get an Enders 3 Pro like me: amzn.to/3dFXts3
Go over to authentikit.org/
🕹️ My gaming equipment:
Joystick: amzn.to/2TP6h40
Rudder Pedals: amzn.to/38c3YAx
Elevator Trim: amzn.to/3oQWNn8
Head Tracking: amzn.to/34Qpvwd
Wishlist: amzn.to/385dXHD
Welcome to my channel where I share my love of history and aviation. I first fell in love with military aviation when reading Biggles books as a boy, then I studied history at university. I like finding interesting stories and sharing them with others.
I also followed this passion into the real world and managed to get a Private Pilot's Licence on 10th May 2014.
I'll share my gameplay from the IL2 Sturmovik Great Battles series as well as the Cliffs of Dover series and DCS series too, to give my stories drama. Feel free to subscribe, like and comment!
System Specs:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i-7 10700K CPU @ 3.80GHz 3.79 GHz
Ram: 32.0 GB
GPU: Geforce RTX 2070 SUPER
VR: Pimax 5k plus
Screen resolution (capture): 1920*1080
64-bit OS - Windows 10
⏱️ Timestamp:
0:00 Choosing the worst WW2 Fighters
0:47 Candidate #1: LaGG-3
3:06 Candidate #2: Caudron C. 714
7:06 Candidate #3: Curtis-Wright CW -21
#aviationhistory#history
🧥 Have you always wanted a distinctive and authentic leather flying jacket? Check out the fantastic range from Legendary USA here: calibanrising.com/flying-jacket/
If you would put a highly trained and determined Finnish pilot in the cockpit of a CW-21 it would be a world beater. They did wonders with Brewster B.239s and Fiat G.50s as well.
Honestly I know little about the Curtiss-Wright 21 but I knew it had a very good rate of climb despite being powered by the Wright R-1820-G5 Cyclone radial engine developing only 850 hp. It is good to remember that the Brewster B-239E of which many lacked self-sealing fuel tanks and cockpit armor. Was built with a more powerful and lighter engine the Wright R-1820-G5, producing 950 hp and was de-navalitsized. That said during a demonstration it could stay behind a Fiat G.50 although the Fiat was faster. Both the Brewster B-239E and the Fiat G.50 in the hands of good pilots it could hold it's own as well demonstrated in Africa when flown by good pilots against the Hurricanes. Admittedly the Russians were very green initially although quite aggressive...
Very much so. The FAF had to scrape the bottom of the barrel with the likes of the Brewster Buffalo, Fokker DX.21, The Morane-Saulnier, Curtiss Hawk ... and still managed amazing results with these obsolete aircraft. their first air-kill was done in a Bristol-Bulldog!
You really think the finns were that extraordinary? During the winter war it was well trained fighter pilots versus mainly bombers. Later a lot of the time when they were in their inferior planes they had air superiority, because the soviets also had to fight the germans.
You can read all of it up on the webpage of the finnish airforce.
@@miskatonic6210 I'm not only talking about the fighter pilots of the FAF, but all together the whole nation and its armed forces. Rarely seen so small forces giving constance headache for such a huge mass of military power what Soviets presented back than.
Well, Brewster B.239 engine worked better in the cold and were denavalized boeing lightened compared with regular B239.
I'd say one or both of the Me 163 and Me 210 deserve a place - both consumed a lot of development resources, were lethal to their pilots, and had little utility in their designed role.
At the very least, the Me 410 wasn't a complete failure
“Nobody sets out to design a bad fighter”.
Blackburn: “Hold my beer..”
lol
lol
Blackburn buccaneer 1958 is considered 1 of the Greatest designs ever made still liked today retired 1994.
I'd much rather hog podge Blackburn (Botha, roc)both 1938 or a (Skuas) then most of what the state's or France had at the start of WW2.
Blackburn made their own Engines on site
Blackburn Cirrus Major (1936)
Blackburn Cirrus Minor (1937)
Blackburn Cirrus Midget (1937)
Blackburn Cirrus Bombardier (c. 1954)
This meant even if highly inferior freed up royal Royce engines like Merlin's for more imports crucial theatres of war.
Most of Blackburn's planes aren't bad but just mediocre & ugly especially all his fighters like the ''roc'' mentioned but do keep in mind Roc's were 1st stationed in Royal Naval base at Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands, the Rocs proved ineffective; they were described by the squadron's commanding officer as a "constant hindrance", who requested that the type be replaced by additional Skuas.
After their use up north got replaced by better craft of all sorts the remaining roc's & skuas's ended up in middle east or similar theatres were they were not expecting anything of consequence.
Black burns planes served their purpose as cheap cheap junk made by a commercial airplane company
Botha was a four-seat reconnaissance and torpedo bomber being the only of his plane of Blackburn made above 220+3 units of firebrands.
580 Botha's for a small set up isn't to shabby so shy of 1/2 the time in world war 2 if in a Black burn it was likely a Botha so you recon or torpedo bomber.
Their are more tasks then a fighters.
Certainly not a top contender the (Blackburn Botha) but deserves some recognition
With context Blackburn's eye searing planes aren't as terrible as 1 might think as if you are in 1 you aren't going to be put in the main fray of the fight being relegated to the middle of nowhere!
I'd much rather sat on repetitive air surveillance bored on a base then get in a dog every few nights in a top of the line aircraft the enemy want to shoot down.
Great video, but just as a point of fact, the Curtiss-Wright CW-21 was NOT named the Demon. To be fair, this is a common and much-repeated misconception. When it was shipped to the far east the shipping documents had a line asking for the purpose of the consignment. A shipping agent, knowing that the plane was originally intended for demonstration purposes, abbreviated the word 'Demonstration' to 'Demon,' in the small space provided on the paperwork, and thus the mistake slipped into common usage.
I think it was commonly called Demon though
Wow, great fact Nigel. Thanks for the correction.
That is high grade trivia Nigel.
A good name for a fighter, one thinks
@@riazhassan6570 Right? As opposed to the Ryan Fireball… I never understood that one.🤣
My Dad's best friend owned a Curtiss CW22 trainer, which was derived from the CW-21 light fighter, but used an engine with only half the horsepower. I rode in it once as a young boy in the 1960s. Despite being underpowered by fighter standards, it was quite a thrilling flight. Tragically, Dad's friend was killed in it a few years later when the engine stalled on takeoff.
As an Australian, I'd like to see the CAC Boomerang featured
As I understood these were to be poor excuses for fighters. I had always thought of the CAC Boomerang as a close support aircraft that seconds as a fighter. I heard that it did well for itself within its limitations.
Kudos to you!
Your French prononciation was very good when covering the Caudron and this added to the authenticity of the topic. Well done 👍🏻
Merci!
As regards the LaGG3, it rather depended on which factory built it, there could be enormous differences in build quality between them.
not only the LaGG but to every mass produced materials
C.714 is uncanny valley material. It looks like a normal plane form a distance, but when you get close the cockpit is too far back and large, so the whole thing looks vaguely upsetting up close.
LaGG-3s were supposed to have an advantage - carpenters like furniture makers could build the wooden components freeing skill aerospace workers to build other planes. However Soviet carpenters were generally illiterate and unable to read plans, so parts often deviated from the specifications. It was not unknown for a LaGG to have different sized wings or tail planes or gaps where fuselage parts didn't fit together.
Well... That is not exactly true.
The initial problem was that new design burau didn't have enough experience and did not provide production blueprints to the factories. Each factory had to accommodate design blueprints (which differ to production ones as they do not describe how exactly parts should be made). It worked well with experienced constructors of prototypes, but didn't work at all in mass production. So at first each factory produced pretty much own version of LaGG-3.
The problem with low quality work force also persisted, of course, but not to the extend of disability to read blueprints. Also you should keep in mind that during the war there were starving kids and women who worked on the factories. Plus evacuation of the factories also played the role.
I've never heard of the CW 21. Thank you for covering it.
No problem! It was an interesting read.
@@CalibanRising Did you know that the CW21 wasn't actually called Demon? Apparently when being displayed in the US, on the aircraft schedule the entry had abbreviated 'demonstrator' to 'demon.' The name however has stuck.
@@andrewrobinson5837 I didn't actual know that, it's a great pub quiz fact!
Gloster Gladiator? Wiki: The Gladiator saw action in almost all theatres during the Second World War, with a large number of air forces, some of them on the Axis side.
The Gladiator was obsolete at the start of the war, but was a very important aircraft, more so than the "Spitfire".
Without the Gladiator, Malta would have been lost. Which would have been a disaster for our forces in the Mediterranean.
@@PieAndChips The Gladiators operated alone for several weeks (against less than enthusiastic Italians) before the Hurricanes showed up, so not really significant except for Britains propaganda & morale efforts. It was also used in Greece as a stop gap effort, again against a failed Italian effort to invade. Then the LW showed up.
📢 Enjoying my videos? Get involved and help me produce more videos like it. Head over to calibanrising.com/support/ and find out more.
Great video! I trained as an Airframe Fitter at Short Brothers, Belfast in the 1980's and I have always resented the fact that the Short Stirling ends up on the list of " worst Bombers of WW2." Are you planning any videos concerning Bombers? Also, do you have any thoughts on the Stirling; an aircraft which filled a vital role in Bomber Command in the early years of the war?
I read it was hampered by the Govt. Spec which necessitated it being able to fit in existing hangars which meant its wingspan was inadequate to give it the lift and performance it needed.
Great suggestion Rob, I think it might have to go on my video idea list!
@@spitfiremark1a768 That was one of the main issues with the Stirling from the start. However, Short Brothers put forward plans for a better performing aircraft; with a ceiling height of 30,000 feet and a heavier bomb load, but they were too late. The Air Ministry wanted brand new for engined planes and so the Stirling was doomed for front line service from 1942 onwards.
@@spitfiremark1a768 that's a myth. There's no such requirement in the specification, although the specification does mention the need for it to be stored outside. The RAF had hangars that were larger in terms of width, but might have still struggled with the Stirling due to its height.
@@robg5958 it was still produced for carrying paratroopers and for glider towing right up to the end of the war. But by 1942, the Lancaster - despite being designed originally to a specification with a much lower bomb load - could do the job.
this video is so much better than most ww2 airplane lists then I've seen on RUclips. This has good research and critical thinking.
Cheers Ted!
I'll probably catch flak for this, but I'm putting it out there: the Me-163b Komet - a rushed design created out of sheer desperation to intercept Allied bombers over Germany. Equipped with a temperamental, rocket engine with low endurance, which was fueled by the extremely corrosive T-Stoff (80% hydrogen peroxide and the remainder water) and C-Stoff (Water Methanol Hydrazine), the stubby fighter with swept back wings could be just as deadly to the pilot as it was to its target. The two fuels would ignite and explode on contact, if handled improperly, and T-Stoff would react and ignite instantly when in contact with organic mater such as leather, wood, cloth, and human skin. The pilot sat between two large fuel tanks in the cockpit.
Coming up in a future video!
And they almost fixed it with the Me 263, which was already in testing by the time the war ended. The use of an auxiliary thrust chamber for the rocket to extend powered flight, putting the fuel tanks further back and having a tricycle undercarriage for landing would have made the Me 263 actually tolerable to fly.
I think the Bachem "Natter" BA 349(?) Is a better candidate.
I hadn't heard of any of the aircraft on this list, although I recognized the French one as a racing plane conversion.
My thoughts.
The first two deserve to be on the list but not the CW 21, That one, I believe, should be put on a "never had a chance to shine" list.
You sir, have gained a subscriber.
In Warthunder on its battle rating. The CW-21 is awesome.
Great call on the CW-21. Not a bad plane just the wrong tactics and seat time.
Plus they were going up against some of the best combat pilots in the world. The Brewster Buffalo suffers from the same thing. The Finns proved that with well trained pilots and good tactics. The Buffalo was one of Greg "Pappy" Boyingtons favorite planes. Ditto with the Bell P-39 Airacobra, one of Chuck Yeagers favorites.
Well said Tom. The Buffalo and P39 are coming up on another video. Need to keep these things short!
Note that the Finns also stripped all the carrier operations gear (and a lot of the armor) off their Buffalos, resulting in significantly lighter aircraft.
Both Boyington and Yeager stated that their love for the respective planes did not extend to flying them in combat. They loved training in them, but had no desire to go to war in them.
Interesting points made about these 3 allied fighters and I agree that they each had strengths as well as weaknesses. Lagg and Mig contemporaries of the Yaks were especially unstable in flight! Thanks
Thanks for this quite educational lecture. Especially I enjoy the Caudron C.714 bit, as a couple of times I've been visiting the remains of the one example we have had here in Finland (now it is being restored in another museum in Krakow, Poland). I hold the opinion the Caudron should always have been kept as a racer, not adding all the deadly weight of machine guns and stuff. I saw a CW22 on static display in theTurkish Air Force museum, in Istanbul, some time in the early 2000s.
Although the LaGG 3 and Caudron C.714 were not great, I think the CW-21 was more the victim of circumstance than being a bad airframe unto itself.
At least it wasn't conceptually flawed, like the British turret fighters, or rushed through without proper flight testing and modelling, like the Me. 210.
Very 😎 cool to learn about some of the less known Aircraft . Thanks !😊
Great video!
I would add Brewster Buffalo to the list. Perfect example how to screw quite good design and how Fins could do anyway.
Thanks for watching. The Buffalo is coming up in another video in this series.
The Buffalo isn’t bad it’s just obsolete the fact that the Finns had great success with it against the Russians and the US and Dutch didn’t when fighting better pilots and aircraft of both the IJN and IJAAF
I used to fly the B.239 Buffalo on the Finnish side in the original IL2 Sturmovik game and did quite well with them, mostly against I-16s and I-153s. But were they over-modeled? We'll never know. Most of the flight models in sims like that are guesswork of the developers.
The Brewster Buffalo was on par with most of the planes at the time that came out in europe, it's performance dropped after having armor, self sealing fuel tanks, and heavier weapons than it was designed for, Finland proved that if it had stayed like it was before all that was added, and in the hands of a good pilot, it could hold it's own somewhat, and to be fair, The pilots in the pacific were fighting Japanese pilots with several years of combat experience from fighting in china. And to be fair, it was pretty much an interim fighter bridging the gap between bi-planes and mono plane design.
@@MegaWetwilly
That is why I said that original design was screwed up: adding armour/self-sealing fuel tanks and heavier armament without increasing engine power resulted in depletion of performance. Plus green pilots and here we have the complete recipe for Midway disaster.
Like the British Brewster's in the far east, the KNIL aircraft lacked spare airframes and parts, so apparently many were almost worn out from training, familiarisation and patrol flights by time the Japanese's attacked. Engines needed an overhaul and so power output was down, what ever the performance stats say, knock 10% and change off that. Also just being outnumbered.
Good one - well done.
I think that you should next discuss the Brewster Buffalo and the P-39 Aerocobra, which both performed badly for the U.S. in the Pacific but did very well on the Eastern Front for the Finns and Soviets respectively.
The Bell P-39 Airacobra was very popular in the USSR, being fast at low altitude, while useless for Britain in 1940, like the Curtiss P-40 Tomahawk due to their low rated Allison engines. Fun fact, the Airacobra was the very first Revell plastic model I built, in its USAAF brown livery. I still have it!
Some bits on the LaGG-3:
1. that dishonesting nickname was actually never given to the plane by the pilots, but by Yakovlev (within the frame of his unscrupulous methods of competitive struggle).
2. Later production blocks had the reputation of the most damage-resistant soviet fighters.
3. last 66th production series received the reputation of the best soviet fighter with a liquid-cooled engine. all the problems and insufficiencies were already removed and this model was much faster and maneuverable and in comparison with yaks much more durable.
The famous Yak 9 also used bakelite/plywood skins on fuselage and wings.
Excellent stuff bro
Thanks for the visit
"no one sets out to build a bad aircraft" ... BA.88 Lynx looks nervous
Think I need to research this one!
Worst plane Italy made :p It is like the BF110 you get from wish.... Envisioned as a Heavy fighter / close air support, it could not take off under its own weight with weapons onboard.... They ended up using it as bait on the airfield to lure bombs away from their real locations... even then i am sure it probably bounced the bombs off a wing onto the real airfields. :p
I highly recommend that you watch the specials being prepared by “The Warbird Mistress” regarding the CW-21. There is a third instalment in production right now, but the level of research is staggering.
This was a great “what if” design undermined by circumstances.
By the way, I love your channel!
Many of my family members worked for Curtis Wright in Paterson , NJ during WW2.
great stuff
The C21 reminds me in silhouette an AT-6 Texan especially from below.
I subscribed during your opening lines!
Thanks a lot Stan!
About the Caudron - from memoirs of Polish pilots, some of the failings (other then mentioned in the video) included the shell ejection chutes freezing at altitude, the engine cowling opening in a dive, and the airplanes were grounded after the control surfaces started falling off. The French sent their mechanics because "the Polish ones were not qualified." The mechanics looked at the Caudrons and told the French to ground them immediately. Poles ignored that order, because "it was better to fly in those wooden coffins than not fly at all..."
My TWO favorite WWII Fighter planes are The P51 Mustang & P38 Lightening Nicknamed by the enemy as THE "FORK TAILED" DEVIL
I’m like you in your opening statement about being obsessed with WW 2, except for me I always envisioned myself as an infantryman sergeant expert with rifle, pistol, BAR, rifle grenades, .30 cal machinguns, Thompson smg, and hand-to-hand combat. I made it happen for real when I joined the Army except I became an expert mortar sergeant in Vietnam. I later went to Germany spent time as an instructor before getting out after 9 years service. Still obsessed with WW 2, only now it’s books, models and movies about the subject, and videos, of course! I learned from this video as I had never heard of these foreign aircraft except the Soviet Lagg. Didn’t know anything about it’s performance though, so thanks for that. Good job.
Thanks for watching. I've always felt that infantrymen must have a special sort of bravery.
The cw-21 did well with the Dutch east India airforce. Being compared favorably to the ki-43 oscar.
The C 714 would be a beautiful civil plane as a playboys toy.
CW21 got screwed over by circumstance.
Really, Blackburn Firebrand and Blackburn Roc would be more fitting. The former made the Fairey Swordfish seem amazing in comparison and the later was a solid example of the failings of turret fighters.
Blackburn buccaneer 1958 is considered 1 of the Greatest designs ever made still liked today retired 1994.
I'd much rather hog podge Blackburn (Botha, roc)both 1938 or a (Skuas) then most of what the state's or France had at the start of WW2.
Blackburn made their own Engines on site
Blackburn Cirrus Major (1936)
Blackburn Cirrus Minor (1937)
Blackburn Cirrus Midget (1937)
Blackburn Cirrus Bombardier (c. 1954)
This meant even if highly inferior freed up royal Royce engines like Merlin's for more imports crucial theatres of war.
Most of Blackburn's planes aren't bad but just mediocre & ugly especially all his fighters like the ''roc'' mentioned but do keep in mind Roc's were 1st stationed in Royal Naval base at Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands, the Rocs proved ineffective; they were described by the squadron's commanding officer as a "constant hindrance", who requested that the type be replaced by additional Skuas.
After their use up north got replaced by better craft of all sorts the remaining roc's & skuas's ended up in middle east or similar theatres were they were not expecting anything of consequence.
Black burns planes served their purpose as cheap cheap junk made by a commercial airplane company
Botha was a four-seat reconnaissance and torpedo bomber being the only of his plane of Blackburn made above 220+3 units of firebrands.
580 Botha's for a small set up isn't to shabby so shy of 1/2 the time in world war 2 if in a Black burn it was likely a Botha so you recon or torpedo bomber.
Their are more tasks then a fighters.
Certainly not a top contender the (Blackburn Botha) but deserves some recognition
With context Blackburn's eye searing planes aren't as terrible as 1 might think as if you are in 1 you aren't going to be put in the main fray of the fight being relegated to the middle of nowhere!
I'd much rather sat on repetitive air surveillance bored on a base then get in a dog every few nights in a top of the line aircraft the enemy want to shoot down.
I'll wait patiently for the Boulton Paul Defiant.
The great weakness of the CW-21 versus the A6M Zero was its action radius. In their first action, the Dutch CW-21 were outnumbered 2 to 1, yet still managed to down 3 Zero's for the loss of only one of their own (to compare, the USAAF P-40s would not down a single Zero during the entire air campaign over East Java). However, the majority of the CW-21s in this sortie were lost when they had to land after running out of fuel, while the Zero's were still over the airbase. The few remaining operational aircraft were soon lost through attrition.
It's great to feature these relatively unknown aircraft of the Second World War. The viewer begins to understand in reality how very complex their histories are. It's rarely the case that these machines should have been ariel combat catastrophes. Thanks.
Thanks for watching Peter!
@@CalibanRising You're welcome, Phil. Keep producing this great content, and thank you for taking the time to respond to an individual viewer.
Ww2 planes were really something. Insane that a jet powered fighter existed this early.
"Hey what about me?"
- F2A Buffalo
Got you covered in this video: ruclips.net/video/z6ThHfVf1EI/видео.html
8:30 - I think those limb rates for the spitfire need to be fact checked when stacked alongside the Bf109. I think teh only time that the bf109 had that sort of climb advantage was when the RAF was operating the Mk I Spitfire with 2 speed variable pitch props and 87 octane fuel (ie. 1939 and throughout the battle for France). But the start of the BoB all frontline Spitfires in frontline squadrons had been upgraded with the Rotol constant speed prop and their Merlin’s were using 100 Octane fuel. immediately, the climb rate for the spit improved by 500 ft a minute. Obviously both the Bf109 and Spitfire kept improving their respective performance through successive marks, but (save for about 6 months in late 41 and through to the widespread introduction of the MkIX in 42) the spitfire mainly had the advance in rate of climb. By the time the Griffon engined spits were introduced 5000 ft per minute climb rates were being achieved.
3:00 to 7:00 At the beginning of 1940, the French government intended to send a military contingent to Finland, which would also include Poles. The 1/145 "Varsovie" Squadron, equipped with Caudron C-714C1 "Cyclone" aircraft, was to go to Scandinavia. In this way, the French would get rid of unwanted planes and an "inconvenient" ally. Ultimately, however, this contingent was not sent. Just a few months later, in May 1940, the German invasion of France begins, so sending troops abroad is out of the question. The first CR-714s were directed to the Lyon-Bron base, where Polish volunteers were located. They arrived there in March 1940 and soon began training flights on them. The delivered Caudrons (at least 11 copies) were used in the CWL Training Fighter Squadron for training fighter pilots. A few (3 or 4) of them later ended up in the GC 1/145 depot. The aircraft was considered very difficult to fly, among its disadvantages were: long take-off and landing, insufficient climb speed, low effectivness of ailerons, unreliable landing gear, overheating engines with a fragile crankshaft, quickly failing starter. However, the good concentration of armament and excellent maneuverability were appreciated. From 8 to 11 June 1940, they shot down a total of 12 German definitely: 4 Dornier Do-17 bombers, 3 Bf-109 fighters and 5 Bf-110 fighters and 3 probably planes. The price was loss in fightof only 3 CR-714 C1.
Thjis gives a score: 1:5
More read:
Bartłomiej Belcarz, Kari Stenman, Marek Ryś, Franciszek, Karolina Hołda, "Caudron-Renault CR.714 Cyclone. The Ultimate Story" Stratus 2019;
Pierre-François Rivière, La Bataille de France: les Polonais] Icare, Revue de l'Aviation Française, nr 183/ 2002.
Really surprised you didn't mention the Bolton Paul.Defient.
Good suggestion, it actually doesn't appear that highly on the common lists.
It's more a failed concept than a bad aircraft, UK hadn't bet the farm on it so it wasn't a complete disaster and it did okay as a night fighter.
The Defiant wasn't really a "Fighter" as such. At the time it was designed (1930's) it was meant to be a "Bomber destroyer", when Bombers were quite slow and not too well armed. The Defiant was meant to fly alongside the bombers and shoot from an angle which didn't give the Bomber's gunners a good chance of shooting them down. It was also not envisioned that the Bombers would come over in very large numbers or have escorting Fighters. Of course, by the time it entered service Bombers were faster, better armed, came over in numbers and had fighter escorts. This meant they also had to deal with fast, agile enemy fighters with highly skilled pilots.The Defiant did work quite well as a night fighter though.
Or the Roc
@Sean Perry. It had some limited success as a night fighter because of its ability to attack bombers from underneath where they were silhouetted against the sky. But when early airborne radar became available, the new Bristol Beaufighter with its two powerful Hercules engines proved far more able to handle the extra weight. It was faster and had four 20mm cannons as opposed to four .303 machine guns on the Defiant.
Well, How about the Ryan STM? Operated by the KNIL in 1941 as a trainer and later out of need as a fighter?
I have heard stories of a situation where a Ryan STM made it from the Dutch East Indies made it to Australia by carrying a drum of fuel in the copilot seat. Another one was downing of 2 Zeros by means of an Elephant-gun by the copilot. One with a direct hit and another by the spend casing released in the slipstream and that hit the pursuing Zero in the prop.
Great suggestion, I'll have to read up about this one.
@@CalibanRising Okay and thanks for your assessment of my suggestion, but how about the following:
>Fokker DXXI
>Fokker G1
>Fokker T5
>Brewster Buffalo.
Yes, I agree I have a certain Dutch and KNIL slant in my choices, but there are some quite interesting things to be mentioned that have often escaped the broader public.
You appear (and prove) to be a presenter how does not shy away from the more obscure and lesser known things that have nevertheless left their mark in (aviation) history. Thank you for that.
That sounds like one of the most humiliating ways to get brought down, getting hit by the waste product of someone shooting someone else.
@@jamespocelinko104 Well, there's the story of a Fokker DXXI pilot who was about ready to bail out because there was a ME109 uncomfortably close on his tail and punching holes where those are considered to be unhealthy. He jettisoned his canopy cover to scramble out of his cockpit and to his amazement saw the ME109 plunge helplessly towards the ground. He then decided to stay in his plane and finish his mission. Which he did.
Watched from Jamaica, very interesting, you could talk about the B-26 bomer Like the one that crash off our coast in 1945.
Interesting. I just listened to a story about B-26 pilots and issues they had with flying it in Europe.
CAC Boomerang - one of Australia's few real forays into military airplane design and build was quite the underwhelming fighter. From Wikipedia, "RAAF records show that the Boomerang was never recorded as having destroyed any enemy aircraft."
hey there,since i live in switzerland and there is only 1 aviation museum near me i go there pretty often (idk why i just like it) they have nice jets like vampire and bf 109 e3 p51 etc and they have a me262 engine too! they also have the gauges etc from the ju52!
they have some special stuff too like ww1 fighters aaa etc they also have my favourite thing there and thats the cockpit of a de havilland vampire and you can go inside and touch controls like control , throttle and look through the gunsight!
Is the 109 in Swiss livery? I have a vague memory of Swiss 109s shooting down German 109s during WW2, I'll have to look that one up again.
yea dude
interesting leading edge angle of the front side of the wing on the demon - a foreunner to a swept back wing?
the fins even had success with the Buffalo
I think you should mention the Blackburn Roc, The Defiant wasn't great but I think it gets unfairly judged. The I-16 Rata was great when it entered service but out classed by the German invasion.
Great suggestions.
The Defiant would be great if it was assigned a different role from the start, like night fighter. With its turret it was already Schräge Musik- ready. I think it was used successfully in this role in 1942 but its name was already tarnished by its performance as a 'turret fighter', a role that proved absurd by itself.
Also I wonder if its story would be any different if the turret was able to point the guns straight forward and relinquish firing control to the pilot, effectively turning it into a conventional fighter albeit underpowered and underarmed. I don't know if this was technically impossible. I also wonder what would happen if a cheeky pilot had some extra forward facing guns Installed. That should take some bf-109 pilots by surprise.
The question has to be qualified by time and location and the enemy being confronted. Without a doubt, the Hurricane pilots were on the verge of mutiny in Malta against the LW Me109F and Italian fighters. It was a travesty that Britain expected those pilots to defend Malta at that time with experienced LW squadrons arriving in Dec 1941. Outclassed Hurricanes continued to be used as day fighters in north Africa until the better P-40s and Spitfires arrived in 1942.
Brewster Buffalo out classed,Grumman avenger pilots died and the torpedo did not go boom. Devastator the vibrator out classed when built.
The CW-21 was called the Swift, never called the Demon and that said the C.714, LaGG-3, and CW-21 were all fine aircraft that in the hands of a skilled pilot would rip apart any adversary put against them
Great stuff Chap......Ta!
Many said brewster buffalo was the worst fighter of ww2, but this list just proved they are wrong
dutch buffalos with a 1200 hp engine were very good. same goes with p36 hawks.,
Very interesting video. I was glad to see aircraft that don't usually make such lists get a mention. It hasn't however changed my mind on that the Blackburn Roc was the worst fighter of WW II.
I couldn't agree more. 136 made and a grand total of ONE confirmed aerial kill ?? What more proof do you need ?
Not gonna lie, I thought the aircraft in the thumbnail was a Pilatus P-2. It's a Swiss training aircraft that was manufactured in 1942, and it was a pretty decent plane. It was also the type of fighter aircraft that appeared in Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade.
Great site... binge watching it...Vietnam Vet Helicopter Squadron 1968-69.
Thank you so much for watching Sir, it really means a lot coming from you.
Surely the Boulton Paul Defiant needs to be included?
Seems like CW21 woulda been a decent fighter in later configuration could come with 4x 50 cal or 30 cal MGs.. I guess more numbers and time spent flying it would have shown much better results
The Cr. 714 was quite bad in the perspective of the entire war, but the plane had its merits which enabled it to be semi-solid in the beginning. The reason it performed so relatively well in its service with the Poles is because it was a quite light and fast airplane, which could be very flexible in combat. There are far worse planes out there like the Gladiator or the CR. 42, which were biplanes in service during the hayday of the monoplane.
There are so many variables taken into account as to make any list subjected to the " if only or what if " argument. This can make a definitive list of any planes objectively illegitimate to many.
I should also add that it can be included with " Best fighters " as a valid assumption. As I guess with any listings of " Best and Worst of " any Aircraft from fighters, bombers, recon, stealth, cargo, modern Jets along with Gun ships, tank Buster's even VTOL and all the way up to the various Helicopters , remote flight large Drones even smaller handheld Drones i feel we will find a space for all weapons of war land sea air and marines sooner or later. The field is a vast And complex one, but what fun it would be to navigate this wonderful world of machines of defence attack and ever more complex and complete means of utter death and destruction. I look eagerly forward to all aspects. So I say to all content makers on RUclips please keep up the good works. You command a veracious audience who will always want more because our appetites are Never Satiated.
All air force in the world: How many bad plane Type you have in your air force? Regia Aeronautica: YES!
In my regard the C174 wins the prize. Good vídeo
Never heard of the Demon before ! Looks an amazing light fighter. BTW, don't you dare mention the Defiant, 264 Sqn handed them ok.
Poor old Defiant, 264 had far better luck and less casualties when they flew Mossies.
264 Squadron was the biggest overclaimer in Fighter Command! On 29th May 1940, across two missions during the Dunkirk evacuation, they claimed 39 Luftwaffe aircraft destroyed. The Luftwaffe did not even lose that many in total. The true figure was 3-4.
The CW21 was never called the Demon. Demon came from an abbreviation of Demonstrator.
The Warbird Mistress has a three part video about this very impressive but misused fighter.
Don’t take this criticism too hard. I love your channel and the work you do.
Thanks for the correction.
My impression, not being a WW2 fighter expert, is that there was a realm of adequate but "inferior" aircraft which could be winners in realistic circumstances and pilot skill and situational awareness. Examples would be F4Fs and P-40s, which when skillfully flown could hold their own. Also, that realm of adequacy shifted as technology progressed.
I agree, the F4F and the P-40 could be deadly in the right hands, but then again deadly in the wrong hands too.
The F4F and P-40 had the advantage of being very fast in dives and was also well protected against enemy fire by Japanese standards. In fact, the American Volunteer Group (aka Flying Tigers) figured out the best way to beat an A6M Zero was to literally out-dive the Zero.
exactly. Date, theatre of ops, air superiority/support, enemy confronted are all factors. P-40's were successful in north africa because German supply lines had already been compromised and the LW was outnumbered. As Stalin said, "quantity has a quality all its own".
I wouldn't even put the LaGg-3 as one of the worst fighters in WWII but would instead swap it out for another Soviet fighter aircraft, the MiG-3.
At the dawn of WWII, the Soviet Air Force, the VVS, was still flying the Ishak aka the "Polikarpov I-16". That was a good aircraft but the Soviets wanted more after looking at the BF-109 over the Spanish skies and asked for an enclosed, high speed high-altitude fighter. By 1939, there was a concept and within months, the plane was made by Polikarpov and his team of engineers but after he had fallen out of favour with Stalin, Stalin tore his team apart and passed the project to two of his engineers/designers, Mikhail Guverich and Artem Mikoyan (Hence the name, MiG) and they promptly named the project, "MiG-1" as their 1st aircraft. However... Things wern't smooth sailing.
The initial plan of the aircraft was made of light materials as per Polikarpov's plans but the materials he had designed upon was scarce in the USSR and both Mikoyan and Gurevich soon found themselves hitting a solid steel wall with no impasse. Then they remembered that they could use steel beams and wooden structures to construct the plane and make it fly like the LaGG-3 which, mysteriously, it worked and soon they plane was up for testing. Even weirder was that it beat the other aircraft that was in the same trial as the Yak-1 by Yakolev and Lavochkin's LaGG-3 as being the 1st plane to pass the trials in one swoop.
However, it soon became a desperation move as Stalin himself knew that the loss of equipment during the Winter War was huge and the war towards the west looked bleak, even after signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Hitler thus he ordered the VVS to quickly push for the aircraft to be made but what he didn't realize that his push doomed the pilots and the aircraft.
The plane, while passing trial in one go, was fraught with issues such as poor flight stability, horrendous landing characteristic due to poor plexiglass quality, hard to open canopy, heavy controls and have a strong tendency to just yank it's own control into a uncontrollable spin and possibly destroy itself and the pilot into the ground. It did achieve all the requirements the VVS tossed at it but the damn plane was just a wooden coffin at that point.
That didn't stop MiG tho. They took whatever they learnt and quickly tried to remedy the issue but... (You know where it goes...)
The MiG-3 became the "upgraded" version of the MiG-1 and improvements were made such as extra fuel tanks, uparmouring the backrest of the pilot seat, engine placement shifts and wing clippings to increase stability etc etc.
All these improvement did help in it's high altitude performance as it beat both the BF-109F, the mainstay aircraft of the Luftwaffe at that time and the Spitfire Mk V that the British RAF was using. However, it pales in comparison against both in low altitude fights as its speed was worse than both of the fighters. To make it even more uneven, the Germans and their Messerschmitt were all armed with cannons even before the F variant was launched and the MiG-3 was pitifully armed with just 1x 12.7mm MG and 2x 7.62 MGs which was woefully underarmed. Certain remedies were tried like adding gunpods with extra 12.7 MGs at each wing but that reduced the speed even greater by at least 20-50kmh which was hated by the pilots.
When the Germans crossed the border and started Operation Barbarossa, the MiG-3 was the most produced aircraft at that point of time but the plane remains a thorn and a bane for pilots as many of them were proficient with the more stable I-15 and I-16 and the sudden transition to the aircraft was quick for them that they can't grasp the odd nature of the MiG-3's handling. To make matters worse, the low altitude fights on the Eastern Front meant that the aircraft was downright useless for the fight was the BF-109 was better than the MiG-3 in every regards with better sights, better weaponry and could outspeed the MiG-3.
Pilots soon dreaded the plane and it soon shown as the plane had more destroyed tally than it got kills and it eclipsed all the other destroyed figures in the entire war.
The MiG-3 certainly takes the cake for being way worse than the LaGG-3.
My choice for the worst fighter is the Bf-110. The product of Goering's fantasy-world desire for an invincible heavy fighter, it had such poor agility, that it ended up requiring its own Bf-109 escorts.
Demon looks like the tail is about to snap off. Love it
I think the last one had promise. I think the first 2 were crap. The thing is though that if any side had got enough of them in the skies then the course of their war would have been very different. The wooden planes can be compared to our Hurricane, a quickly built fighter from materials capacity we had at hand. Our design was better as the laminated fabric skin made it quick to repair bullet holes. We were all desperate peoples back then as it dawned on them what was going on, getting air frames up and in number was the first priority. The peak design for this type of aircraft is the De Havilland Mosquito, whoever the engineer was who thought up that concept deserved his Christmas bonus that year.
Blackburn Roc. What a honker.
I'd vote on the Fokker D.XX1 as being the worse plane of W.W.II. There were biplanes that flew faster than it and it was a low-wing monoplane!! The Finns did okay with it but they did a heck of a lot better with Brewsters and Moranes and even captured Russian Polikarpov I-153s!! And maybe even did better with old British Gladiator biplanes, but not sure about that one. The Fokker was just super slow.
Interesting suggestion.😃 I think my recommendation would be the Blackburn Firebrand. It is the only true "worst fighter" in terms of performance, despite its long development period and high power engines.
an obscure but interesting list.
I've read several times that most the Dutch CWs in Burma didn't even get off the ground, as the airfield they were at suffered a viscous attack from the Japanese, destroying most of them on the ground. So I don't know where the video maker got his info from.
The Chinese used the CW-21 under combat conditions and the Dutch East Indies had a flight of four of them in Java that were deployed in combat
@@l.sabiabyrne9259 The few that got up were super outnumbered in dogfights. If they would have had more and their pilots got some experience, the Japanese might have had a bit of trouble.
If if and buts were fruit and nuts, then oh what a wonderful world would we live in.
How about the Brewster Buffalo?
C.714 is one of my best fighters!
The C21 should not be on the list. It had very little time for proper development and was a victim of the times.
Fokker DXXI was pretty damn horrible. We had them back in 1939, among others. It did not climb, it was slow, and entered to a inverted deathspin very easily when manouvered. Fiat G50 and Morane 406 were lot better. example. We still have one in pristine condition in a museum. What strikes you when you stand next to it is how huge it is, with them skis. It is a very large fighter, with a small engine. Hurricane I - the first ever production series - was no match against Brewster 239. Once, on a one intercept, our Brewsters shot down twelve Hurricanes at once. Soviet pilots of course were poor.
Well, LaGG-3 wasn't a good fighter, but its bad reputation was largely made up long after the war.
First, the entire "guaranteed varnished coffin" thing is most likely fiction:
a) Such long-winded nicknames rarely stick in military circles. Usually, nicknames, especially derogatory ones, are short and sharp, not a mouthful.
b) Production LaGGs, unlike the prototype, weren't varnished.
c) Mentions of the nickname first appeared only in the late 50s. When by strange coincidence, MiG and Tupolev (especially) design bureaus worked really hard on eliminating Lavochkin design bureau as a competitor through intrigues.
Second, at the time MiG-3 had a much worse reputation among soviet pilots than LaGG - it had poor performance and handling, especially at low altitudes, was difficult to fly, not reliable and had was very poorly armed
I can add that Soviet pilots preferred LaGG-3 (even of the early series) to Hurricanes any day of the year. So, there should be another candidate I guess. :)
@@AVlad-eg3ds exactly. The Hurricane was kept in front line service long after its useful days in the BoB. It was obsolete as a day fighter by late 1940.
I disagree regarding the LAGG-3. Once the aircraft received powerful enough engine, it became outstanding LA-5.
surprised the Bolton-Paul defiant wasn't on this list
Coming up in another video soon.
I'm rather less impressed with the CW21 for all its good points. As a transition design it had something to say for itself, but ultimately, didn't have the development potential. If Curtiss had been on the ball and went with the next iteration, then maybe the CW21 would rank alongside the P36. Was not to be.
The CW-21 appears to be more a case of too close to obsolete rather than poor design. And while it seems to have been a not good aircraft overall, i don't think it deserves being on a list of "worst".
The Caudron C714 however? It's too slow for its time, it has poor armament, a pathetically weak engine, unreliable, pilot unfriendly, had poor pilot visibility down/forwards and rearwards, so poorly designed that it would be impossible to really improve it... Yeah, it deserves to be on a list of worst. It has no redeeming features, only flaws.
The LaGG-3 was a maintenance mess, troublesome to fly and many other bad things, and yet... Despite everything bad about it, in the hands of good pilots it was definitely capable of achieving at least some success. And its single biggest problem seems to have been quality control rather than bad design. And just that it WAS effective against bombers means that it had a functional role that it could do well in. That makes a HUGE difference to something like C714 which was just overall BAD.
Not a great plane, but also not the worst.
Just for shit and giggles, how about we put these three in a battle royale? 😅
My forecast : the C 714 would be the first to fall, victim of its supbar performance, protection and armament. Then, the CW-21 could easliy stay above and behind the LaGG, but would have a hard time delivering a fatal blow with it's puny MGs. Eventually, I think the LaGG's superior firepower and ruggedness would allow it to shred the CW-21 to bits, maybe during a head-on pass...
@@razorback20 That, is actually a probably quite realistic expectation.
Everyone has a favorite fighter and they also have their favorite dog. Someone I don't remember who made a great observation. For any plane of the war you must ask, What year, What altitude, What model of the plane, What was its mission, how was it used, and lastly who was in the pilot seat? The Russians used P39 to great affect at low altitude.
I'm a P-47 Thunderbolt man, but my personal worst aircraft that I would take being court marshalled before I would be ordered to fly a Brewster Buffalo, what a POS!
Some other candidates: Brewster Buffalo, Paul-Boulton Defiant and Koolhoven FK58.
I have the Buffalo in an upcoming video, I'll have to research the FK58, good suggestion.
8:42 english electric lighting ...... hold my beer old chap
The Caudron, assembled by Renault, showed poor workmanship --as does every automobile carrying that Badge since WW2 through to today.
the difference between Hurricane and Spitfire performance was the version of the Merlin engine. The RAF choose to develop the Spitfire, hence the Spitfire got the more powerful engine. There was one Hurricane with an up to date engine. It’s performance was similar to rife Spitfire. (The engine was shipped in error), so the argument in this scenario that the Hurricane was slow is invalid. A as one correspondent pointed out, the most successful squadron, the Polish, flew Hurricane. This policy meant that Hawker had the manpower to develop the next generation Typhoon and Tempest
Sorry, but that's incorrect. The Hurricane II received the 2-speed Merlin XX that could have been used in the Spitfire III in the BoB. With that engine, the Spit III was a 400 mph fighter. Even the Spit Mk.II (single speed s/c) performance was still much better than the Hurricane II, which couldn't even do 400 mph in a dive. Hawker did nothing to improve the Hurricane airframe after that knowing that it was outdated with that thick wing and exposed radiator and heavy weight.
The Brewster Buffalo, Bolton-Paul Defiant...