Worst Fighter Aircraft

In addressing any negative comments about the F-4 Phantom II... it was a change in fighter design philosophy and most people who criticize it do not take the time to look into what its appeared weakness' were.
Could it dogfight in the horizontal plane with MiG-17, 19 &, 21s -NO, not well! It was better than them in the vertical plane. Below 10,000-ft (3050-m) and 250-mph (400-kph) it could turn with the MiG-21. Gee, what a surprise a carrier born fighter that had good control at low speed and low altitude.
It didn't have a gun but, the Mirage III and the MiG-21 were also designed without a gun. The Soviets lost faith in missiles and the Mirage III got its gun during negotiations with the Israeli AF. The IAF refused to accept a fighter without a gun. Israel was ready to cancel the purchase, so the French changed their minds on the gun issue.

The F-4 Phantom II was the plan-form for most heavy designs since then, the F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle, Su-27, etc. Good long range, heavy weapon's load, high top speed, great climbing ability, loaded with avionics, etc. Since the F-4/Viet Nam time frame, no major power has made a first-line fighter similar to the format of the MiG-21. They all are similar in many respects to the F-4.

While the USAF had poor success with the F-4, they never trained their pilots to dogfight. All their Phantom pilots were trained to intercept enemy bombers and shoot them down with missiles a long ways before they got near the target.
Capt. Steve Richie said he had flown the F-4 for two years before he got to Viet Nam and had never heard of barrel roll attacks, hi yo-yo, low yo-yo, etc.!! He learned about these maneuvers after he got back to the USA. He got his five kills using his instincts, not from any USAF training.

The US Navy's advanced fighter training program start during the 1968 bombing halt in the Viet Nam conflict -TOP GUN (see NOTE) is a very clear example of how well the F-4 Phantom could perform when well trained pilots were behind the stick. The Navy's kill ratio before the bombing halt was 2.9:1. After the bombing halt the TOP GUN graduates had a 13:1 kill ratio! The Navy did not use the bombing to change equipment like the USAF did. In the first two months immediately after the bombing halt ended and combat restarted, the USAF's kill ratio fell to 1:1! The USAF after the bombing halt used a gun pod with some success along with a few improvements with the Sidewinder and Sparrow missiles, yet their kill ratio went up only to 2.29:1.
NOTE:
A study of US pilot's performance (the Ault Report) before the bombing halt indicated the 65% of all missiles fired in combat were fired when either the target or the launch aircraft were out of missile launch parameters. Better training addressed this point.

The fact that in an exercise, "FRISIAN FLAG 2008" in the Netherlands, Luftwaffe F-4 Phantoms scored kills on Rafales! (Now, I do not know what the rules of engagement were.) I could only imagine it was BVR combat.

There can be opinions about worst fighters but, in all reality the F-4 Phantom II does not belong on the list... it has been to influential on modern fighters to be on a list such as that.
 
The Bolton Paul Defiant

The long period which passed between the first conception of the Defiant turret fighter and its operational acceptance impaired its usefulness. The delays in production, which resulted in only three aircraft being delivered before the outbreak of war, meant that it could not be used in 1940 in its originally planned role-that of standing defensive patrols and was forced into action as an interceptor alongside the Spitfire and Hurricane.
The first unit to equip with the type was No 264 Squadron, which moved to Martlesham Heath to take delivery in December 1939. Engine and hydraulic malfunctions caused a grounding order late in January 1940, which was lifted the following month. The Defiant first entered combat in May, and achieved a somewhat patchy record. Against bombers, the Defiant's extremely heavy turret armament was very effective; and by operating mixed formations of Defiants and Hurricanes the RAF could make use of the superficial resemblance between the two types to confuse and trap German fighters. However, when the Messerschmitts caught Defiants on their own, and recognised them for what they were, they inflicted appalling casualties. The technique of the pilot positioning his aircraft with the gunner's field of fire in mind was feasible against slow bombers but quite impossible in a fast dogfight. Aircrew losses were high in Nos. 264 and 141 Squadrons; in an emergency a Defiant gunner had very little chance of escaping from his turret
Powerplant: One 1,030 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin III twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled engine
Span: 39ft 4in (11.99m)
Length: 35ft 4in (10.77m)
Max Speed:304 mph (490km/h) at 17,000 ft (5,181m)
Armament: Four .303in Browning machine guns mounted in electrically-operated turret.
Accommodation: Pilot and air gunner.
Recognition: Most prominent feature from the side is the gun turret, mounted immediately behind the pilot's cockpit. Large, triangular tail. From below, thick, straight wings, with the outer section swept forward, house the wide main undercarriage.

Boulton Paul Defiant 3-angle view.
 
The Bolton Paul Defiant's most significant weakness was the total lack of forward facing guns, it's entire firepower was concentrated in the turret.

The F-104 Starfighter was an interceptor, not a fighter.

The WW II Italian air force was mostly equipped with hopelessly outdated aircrafts.

The Fairey Battle was no fighter, but whatever it was, it proved a disaster in that role as well.

The experimental rocket planes was not figthers either, most of them just desperate last ditch attempts of striking back.

As for the worst fighter aircraft, what about the Heinkel He-113?
Never had any confirmed kills, never saw any combat, never took to the wings, never even put into production, in fact it existed only on propaganda photoes....and still allied fighter pilots claimed to have shot them down on several occations...
That must have been the worst fighter ever! :mrgreen:
 
Ok time for some new names, what about the Australian "Boomerang" roughly 200 made and 0 kills or the Westland Whirlind Heavy Fighter.
 
84RFK said:
The Bolton Paul Defiant's most significant weakness was the total lack of forward facing guns, it's entire firepower was concentrated in the turret.

The F-104 Starfighter was an interceptor, not a fighter.

The WW II Italian air force was mostly equipped with hopelessly outdated aircrafts.

The Fairey Battle was no fighter, but whatever it was, it proved a disaster in that role as well.

The experimental rocket planes was not figthers either, most of them just desperate last ditch attempts of striking back.

As for the worst fighter aircraft, what about the Heinkel He-113?
Never had any confirmed kills, never saw any combat, never took to the wings, never even put into production, in fact it existed only on propaganda photoes....and still allied fighter pilots claimed to have shot them down on several occations...
That must have been the worst fighter ever! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

The defiant wasn't very fast or menuverable either (compared with the 109) as it was underpowered and burdened with the weight of the turret and gunner. It did do abit better as a night fighter

Its still my worst aircraft vote though, because not only was it a bad design it was a bad idea.
 
Monty B, 250 were made.
Was a great ground attack aircraft and could soak up a hell of a lot of punishment but against other aircraft, yes, she was second best!!!
 
Republic P-43. It never really saw combat, but all the better.'

What about the Blackburn Roc? Does that even count? I mean, at least the Defiant looked half decent...
 
The Defiant was taken out of service in 1940 and used to tow targets as it was so easy for the Germans to shoot down. It had no forward firing guns so the the Germans just attacked it head on knowing that they could not be touched
 
At least, the Defiant was very effective against bombers, if they were conserved, they might have been useful during the Battle of Britain. Surely, there's a worse aircraft?
 
The Defiant was taken out of service during the Battle of Britain as their losses were so heavy. The factories were making Spitfires and Hurricanes faster than the Germans were shooting them down, the problem was piolets as they take a time to train. The Defiant people were transferred to other fighter Squadrons
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top