There are countless books, dvds and websites about the great aircraft of World War Two. Almost everyone would recognize the Spitfire, P-51 Mustang, Me109 or Lancaster. However, there were hundreds of aircraft types used between 1939 and 1945, and, inevitably, some were abject failures. I’ve always enjoyed ‘worst of’ lists, and had an interest in aviation, so I thought it time to combine the two.
So what makes a bad aircraft? Is it the slowest, most outdated or poorest armed aircraft? It’s not that simple, as some aircraft massively overachieved despite being outdated (the Fairey Swordfish is a prime example.) So my criteria is simple: a bad aircraft is something that failed to do the job it was assigned to do. Some of the planes weren’t bad designs, just outdated. Others could have been great but were rushed into production and dogged by reliability issues. Others were simply bad full stop. Some you may know, but others have, quite rightly, faded into obscurity. There is a dark side to this list, as their deficiencies undoubtedly cost the lives of hundreds of young pilots. Although, on the other hand, you could also argue that in failing they could not inflict casualties themselves.
The first rule I had was that the aircraft had to have been used operationally, either for training or combat, as it’s pure speculation debating if a prototype would have been successful. The second was one entry from each of the major participants, if only for variety’s sake. There were still a surprising number of contenders for this list, so I have gone for those with an interesting story behind them, as reading “never saw combat and was used as a trainer” several times won’t be that interesting. This is the first list I’ve submitted, so feel free to comment.

First flown in 1936, the 3 seat Fairey Battle light bomber represented a major advance over its biplane predecessors. It was also the first operational aircraft to use the legendary Rolls Royce Merlin engine. Unfortunately, such was the pace of aircraft development during the late 1930s, that it was obsolete before it ever reached a squadron. Nonetheless, with war looming, the Air Ministry was intent on getting as many aircraft, regardless of capability, into service and full scale production was ordered.
At the outbreak of war ten RAF squadrons were sent to Northern France as part of the Advanced Air Striking Force. For the first 8 months engagements were limited, but the Battle did claim the RAF’s first victory of the war, when a rear gunner shot down a Messerschmitt Me 109. However when the Wehrmacht swept into France and the Low Countries on 10th May, 1940, the Battle’s flaws were horribly exposed. Its armament of two rifle calibre machine guns was hopeless against modern fighters, and its slow speed made it an easy target for AA gunners. 32 aircraft were sent on the opening day, of which 13 were lost, along with most of the 18 Belgium examples. The next day, 7 out of 8 were shot down, and on the 14th, 35 of 63 were lost in a desperate all out attack against German bridgeheads. In just a week, 99 aircraft were destroyed, taking with them large numbers of highly experienced aircrew, and failing to delay the German advance by a single hour.
This was, effectively, the end of the Battle’s front line career, and the survivors spent their days fairly peacefully as trainers or target tugs. Perhaps its most famous exploit was the 12th May attack by 5 Battles on the Albert Canal Bridge. Led by Flying Officer Donald Garland, the volunteer crews pressed home their unescorted daylight attack against terrifying odds. One span of the bridge was hit and briefly knocked out, but at the cost of all 5 aircraft. Both Garland and his navigator, Thomas Grey, received posthumous Victoria Crosses, the highest award for bravery a member of the British or Commonwealth armed forces can receive.

This list is in no particular order, however there is one aircraft that stands well above (or should that be below?) the rest. First flown in 1936, the sleek and elegant Lince (Lynx) scored a major propaganda victory for Mussolini’s regime when it set two speed over distance records. Its military potential was obvious, however the extra weight necessitated by the weapons, armor plating and equipment had a disastrous effect on its performance and handling.
First employed against French airfields in Corsica the type was found to be hopelessly underpowered and possessed terrible flight characteristics. Nonetheless, it was the only heavy fighter available to the Regia Aeronautica (Italian Air Force), and a number were sent to North Africa. The addition of sand filters robbed what little power the aircraft had, to a point where it became virtually useless. An attack on a British airfield in September 1940, had to be aborted when the fully laden aircraft failed to reach operational height or maintain formation. From being a record setter, the Lince could now only reach half its claimed speed. Some sources even state the aircraft had to take off in the direction it wanted to travel, as it lacked the power to make a banking turn.
As a final ignominy, the survivors were parked up and used as decoys for attacking Allied aircraft. Others were scrapped straight from the factory, thus completing the career of quite possibly the worst aircraft ever to see combat.

Initially conceived as a passenger aircraft, the astonishingly ugly Zubr (Bison) was converted to a bomber as a backup, in case the somewhat more advanced PZL.37 failed. Romania also expressed an interest in this new design – that is until the aircraft, carrying two high ranking officers, broke apart in midair.
With war fast approaching, the Department of Aeronautics ordered Bristol Pegasus engines 50% more powerful than the prototypes. Experts warned that the airframe wasn’t strong enough, but the powers that be decided it was an acceptable risk. Subsequent examples were crudely strengthened by gluing extra plywood onto the wing spars, but a number of serious defects remained. Chief among these was the undercarriage, whose locking mechanism was extremely weak and unreliable, resulting in most aircraft flying with it fixed down. This, and the extra reinforcing, did nothing for the already poor performance and further reduced its payload.
It was recognized that the Zubr was completely obsolete, and hence assigned to training units. At full weight it could only be operated from paved runways, and even then could only carry a tiny bomb load. Most were destroyed on the ground during the opening days of the war, with Germany operating the few captured survivors. Ironically, they had a longer and more useful life in the hands of the Luftwaffe

Before the outbreak of war, Luftwaffe doctrine put great faith in Zerstörer (destroyer) aircraft; twin engined, long range heavy fighters. The resultant aircraft, the Me 110, would indeed prove a very effective bomber killer, so long as there were no escorting fighters. Even before war had broken out, work had already begun on its successor, designated Me 210. The new design, which flew the day after the invasion of Poland, was 50mph (80kph) faster, had a longer range and heavier armament. One very advanced feature was the use of side rear firing 13 mm (0.51 in) MG 131 turret guns (barbettes), controlled remotely by the rear crew member. The testing process was however fraught with difficulty; the prototype was highly unstable, prone to stalling and, despite a total of 16 redesigns, the problems were never adequately solved. The chief test pilot commented that the Me 210 had “all the least desirable attributes an airplane could possess.”
Despite the glaring deficiencies full scale production was ordered. So unpopular was the aircraft that its service life lasted little more than a month, by which time only 90 had been delivered. It was decided that production should be halted, and the Me 110 program restarted. The debacle badly hurt the reputation of the Messerschmitt company, and forced the 110 to solider on well past its sell by date. Most of the flaws were rectified in later models, yet such was its reputation that they was re-designated the Me 410 Hornisse (Hornet). These improved models initially faired well as bomber destroyers, but were shot down in droves when faced with P-47 and P-51 escort fighters.
This wasn’t quite the end the 210’s story, as it was also built under license in Hungary, who were then part of the Axis Powers. 267 further aircraft were built and supplied to the Hungarian Air Force and Luftwaffe. By all accounts the Hungarian pilots thought highly of the aircraft and used it extensively in the close support and dive bombing roles.

Conceived as a three seat torpedo bomber/reconnaissance plane, the Botha first flew on 28th December, 1938. Despite being inferior to its competitor, the Bristol Beaufort, in every respect bar service ceiling, both aircraft were ordered for production. The Air Ministry then dictated a fourth crew member should be added, further reducing the Botha’s already inadequate performance.
In addition to its underpowered engines, the aircraft became involved in an alarming number of fatal crashes. Very quickly it developed a reputation as a death trap and, in one especially grim episode, was involved in a mid air collision with a Defiant fighter. The stricken aircraft fell into Blackpool Central Train station, killing all five aircrew and thirteen civilians on the ground. Although this cannot be blamed on the shortcomings of the aircraft, it did nothing for its terrible reputation. Testing had proven the airframe extremely unstable and inadequate for front line service. One test pilot noted “that thing is bloody lethal, but not to the Germans, I never want to see it again”. Another famous quote “access to this aircraft is difficult. It should be made impossible” is also frequently attributed
Only one squadron ever used the Botha in front line operations. Even then it never dropped a torpedo in anger, instead being used mainly for patrols carrying anti submarine bombs. The type was declared unsuitable a few months later and replaced by the older, but trustworthy, Avro Anson, and then withdrawn to training units. Of the 473 aircraft assigned to training, 169 were lost in crashes. In this respect, it proved far more useful to the German war effort

During the inter war period, the Air Ministry pinned high hopes on two rather unusual fighters. The Boulton Paul Defiant and Blackburn Roc were single engined monoplanes built for the Royal Air Force and Fleet Air Arm (the Royal Navy’s air force), respectively. Both aircraft concentrated their armament of 4×7.62mm (.303inch) machine guns in an electrically driven turret behind the pilot. The Roc was envisioned as a mobile observation post, engaging “fleet shadowing” aircraft that could report on ship movements whilst staying beyond the range of AA guns, or breaking up incoming torpedo and dive bomber attacks. It was also designed with a limited dive bombing capability of its own
In theory, the idea was sound. Two seater fighters such as the Bristol Scout had given excellent service in World War One, and had been a staple of the RAF in the inter war period. This arrangement would allow the pilot to concentrate on flying whilst his gunner could worry about firing, and also provide a defense against the classic diving attack. Once again, however, when faced with the harsh reality of modern war, it was exposed as a liability. The only way the gunner could get aim at an opposing fighter would be if the pilot flew straight and level, which in a dogfight is the very last thing you want to do. The aircraft lacked any forward firing guns, and the turret could not even fire head on. The Browning 7.62mm (.303 inch) was the standard RAF weapon for much of the war, but the rifle calibre bullets lacked stopping power against modern aircraft. It also proved almost impossible for the gunner to bail out of a stricken aircraft.
The Defiant saw far more combat and suffered very heavy losses once its Achilles Heel was discovered. However there is a reason the Roc is on the list and the Defiant isn’t. Despite the losses, the RAF’s version scored some early success and proved a reasonable night fighter during the early stages of the Blitz. The Roc on the other hand had a top speed of 160 kph (100mph) less, making it slower than most of the German bombers it was supposed to be shooting down. As a fighter it failed utterly, and in its career scored a grand total of one confirmed kill. The most useful task the Roc ever performed were the four examples parked up and used as permanent AA posts at Gosport airfield.

The world’s first and only operational rocket powered aircraft, the Komet was a point defence fighter whose performance was, quite literally, explosive. On paper it looked like a winner. It would streak into the sky to intercept American bomber formations and launch a diving attack at speeds well beyond any escorting fighters. Just a few rounds from its deadly twin 30mm cannons would be enough to destroy a four engined bomber, and plans were soon for hundreds of fighters to protect Germany’s industrial heartland. Testing proved encouraging with prototypes reaching speeds of 885kph (550mph)
In reality, the Komet was beset by problems. Although it was extremely fast, it only allowed the pilot a few seconds firing time, and the low rate of fire and muzzle velocity of the cannons made aiming extremely hard. Fuel was used up very quickly, after which the pilot had no option other than to glide back to base. The chief flaw, however, was the extremely volatile nature of the propellant. A hard jolt on takeoff or landing would cause the aircraft to explode, whereas if the fuel leaked it was quite capable of fusing flesh to steel. It didn’t even have a proper undercarriage, only a disposable wheeled dolly for take off and crude skid for landing. The Komet could also only take off in the direction the wind was blowing and the fuel lasted for 7 minutes 30 seconds at absolute maximum. One was sent to Japan but lost in transit, although the Japanese Army Air Force managed to built the Mitsubishi Ki-200 using only the instruction manual. It flew one test fight, crashed and the project was halted by the end of the war
Of all the Komets lost, 80% were in take off and landing accidents, 15% due to loss of control or fires, and the remaining 5% to Allied aircraft. Only one front line squadron was ever equipped with the Komet. They claimed 9 aircraft for the loss of 14.

As with the Fairey Battle earlier in the list, the Douglas Devastator represented a major advance on its predecessors. First flying in 1935, it was one of the first carrier based monoplanes, the first all metal naval plan and the first with a fully enclosed canopy. At this stage it was, arguably, the most advanced torpedo bomber in the world. By the time of Pearl Harbor it was, however, completely obsolete, yet with its replacement, the TBF Avenger, still in testing stages there was no alternative. With a top speed of 331kph (206mph) the plodding Devastator was gravely vulnerable to patrolling fighters. To make things even worse, the crude torpedoes it carried could not be released above 185kph (115mph) and often broke up or failed to explode. Testing had been carried out with dummy torpedoes with warheads filled with water, and little thought had been put in to how they would perform in combat.
In the initial stages of the Pacific War the Devastator performed fairly well, sinking 2 transports and a destroyer and contributing to the destruction of the carrier Shoho during the Battle of the Coral Sea. However, it was the decisive Battle of Midway where the aircraft would find infamy. Poor weather and a lack of co ordination meant the Devastator’s Wildcat fighter escort did not show up and its fate was sealed. VT-8 torpedo squadron pressed home their attack against the carrier Kaga, but having to fly straight and level with no escort, the result was a massacre. Patrolling Zeros quickly shot down all 15 aircraft with only a single airman later being plucked from the sea. Of the 41 Devastators deployed that day, only 4 would return and not a single torpedo hit its target. Their sacrifice wasn’t entirely fruitless, however; in drawing the defending fighters to low altitudes they allowed the Dauntless dive bombers a relatively clear run to sink 3 of the 4 Japanese carriers, and help turn the tide of the war. The few survivors were immediately withdrawn from service, and none survived beyond 1944.

Unlike its Western contemporaries the LaGG 3 fighter was designed to be built using “non strategic” materials. The structure was wooden covered with Bakelite lacquer, which meant it was not only cheaper than metal, but resistant to rot and fire. Originally designed with the new Ki-106 engine in mind, it had to switch to the lower powered Ki-105 when the new powerplant proved unreliable. As a result, it was simply too heavy for its own airframe. Nonetheless, it carried powerful armament and was certainly more advanced than any other fighter in the VVS (Soviet Air Force) inventory, and Stalin ordered mass production.
During the early stages of Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the USSR, the Luftwaffe simply ran riot over the poorly trained and equipped VVS. Stalin’s purges had left a crippled command structure unwilling or unable to react. German pilots began to rake up victories with such ease that they began to refer to it as infanticide. The LaGG was too slow and lacked a rate of climb necessary for an interceptor. Its handling was also taxing, and could enter a vicious spin if it turned too tightly. The wooden frame may have been strong but was too heavy and prone to shattering when hit by cannon fire. It became a deeply unpopular machine; the name was an abbreviation of the principal designers, but pilots grimly joked it stood for lakirovanny garantirovanny grob, or guaranteed varnished coffin.
6,258 versions had been built by the time production was halted. This was not, however, quite the end of the road for the LaGG family. Fitted a lightened airframe, cut down fuselage, and a more powerful radial engine it became the La-5, one of the best Soviet fighters of the war.

The final entry on our list, the MXY-7 Ohka (Cherry Blossom) wasn’t a plane as such, but a manned missile. By 1944, Japan was growing increasingly desperate to stem the Allied advance through the Pacific. The solution was a dedicated kamikaze craft, built out of non essential materials, and packing enough explosives to sink a heavily armoured warship. It was designed to be carried underneath the Mitsubishi G4M “Betty” bomber. Once near the target it would be released, using its three rocket motors in a 1000kph (620mph) dive at enemy shipping. It was incredibly basic, the cockpit having just four instruments, but since it would only ever be a one way trip this was considered unimportant. Grand plans were put forward for waves of suicide aircraft to be launched from planes, submarines and even caves.
The Ohka was first used operationally on 21st March 1945, when 16 were carried by “Bettys” to attack US Navy Task Force 58. Pounced by patrolling Hellcats, the bombers released their cargo 113km (70 miles) from the targets. Not a single Ohka reached its target, and all 16 bombers, along with 15 of the 30 escorting Zero fighters, were shot down. On 1st April, the USS West Virginia was hit, suffering minor damage, but again all the Bettys were lost. They were employed a further 8 times before the end of the war. During these operations they sunk one destroyer and badly damaged two more, but at the cost of 50 Ohka and the majority of mothership bombers. Although extremely fast, it was almost impossible to aim at a moving target, lacked the power to cripple larger ships and was fatally vulnerable until it was launched. To the Americans it was nicknamed the Baka (fool or idiot). In Today’s Japan the kamikaze ethos is seen as a tragic waste of life, and Ohka pilots are honored in several shrines throughout the country. Such suicide attacks (mini submarines, small boats and divers were also utilized) did nothing to stop the Allied advance and merely served to harden their resolve to defeat Japan by whatever means necessary. This was undoubtedly a factor in the decision to use the atomic bomb to end the war.
As an aside, a similar version was also built in Germany as the Fiesler Fi-103. The main difference was this allowed the pilot scope to bale out after aiming his aircraft, although quite how you would successfully climb out at near the speed of sound with a pulse jet by your head is somewhat debatable. The idea of suicide corps was mooted, but Hitler rejected the idea believing it “wasn’t in the German warrior spirit”




















Where are the days gone when we would wait for the good lists to come up. The quality of Listverse has seriously detoriated over time.
What’s your issue with this list?
I completely agree.
You can even see it in the number of comments….
Boring boring boring.
Write your own *****ing list then.
Someone is getting pi**ed
this is indeed a very very boring list.
As an American, I am offended that no American Aircraft is represented in your bottom ten list. What about the might Curtis Sea Mew whose performance was so bad that it was replaced with THE BI WING aircraft it was designed to replace!!! The Sea Mew was so bad the British scrapped it on British docks for engine supplies (spark Plugs, wires, oil, gas). What about the Connie (John Travolta’s aircraft) which was so horrid that the entire fleet was grounded in 1944 and only permitted limited CONUS flights. Your list should have included the Moraine-Saliner MS406 whose battle record 199kills, 400+ losses speaks volumes. I would also add the Heinkel He177 Grief ‘Flying Coffin’ four engined bomber. I agree that the people at Blackburn should have been shot; Goering should have given the Blackburn CEO a medal—he killed more British Pilots through crashes then the Germans shot down!!!!
#8 Douglas TBD Devastator
Cricket WC is over. Back to Listverse
This was a heavily informative list!
WE WON… WE WON… WE WON… WE WON… WE WON… WE WON… WE WON… WE WON… WE WON… WE WON… WE WON… WE WON… WE WON… WE WON… WE WON… WE WON… WE WON… WE WON… WE WON… WE WON… WE WON… WE WON…
P S. By the way, liked the list. Liked the bulky airplanes
Hahaha..Yeaaaaa that was precisely my reaction after the match! Wild celebrations ensued woo hoo!
To quote Grammy Award Winner Rebecca Black, ‘We-we-we so excited
We so excited’..
With that six by MS Dhoni, all of my friends jumped, went crazy and really partied on the roads… Slept in the morning after crazy celebrations. To quote Bon Jovi, It was ‘One Wild Night’… Am still excited. This one was for Sachin Tendulkar…
Honestly, i was betting on SL but congratulation anyway(words of a bitter South African
)
Hahahahahaha
cricket is boring
Twenty20 can be fun. A full ODI however can drag out a bit
ODI is cool,Test cricket is a drag, loved it during school holidays and the festive season when i had nothing to do and a whole day devoted to the TV.
ODI and T20 are OK, but nothing beats a test match. It’s the greatest sport on earth. Listverse should put up a list about cricket.
I don’t have neither the patience nor the cricket knowledge necessary to enjoy ODI or test matches XD
I much prefer a short 80 min rugby match XD
prefer the 750ml quart…..
@Lurker i agree, a cricket list would be awsum, anyway, I’ve noticed that most regulars know the sport
we totally won! They’re gonna call a National Holiday! Yaaaaaay!!
Lol they are not going to
Good grief.
Cricket?
Yes WE WON! ha ha ha …
Great list.
Even though the ‘planes were not fit for purpose, they all look better than todays jet engined aircraft.
i’m sorry Amrendra, i disagree.
I am an aviation enthusiast, and this list is a refreshing change from some others of late.
Well done, negativecreep07. A great list
Me too, really enjoyable list, the diversity of Listverse is its greatest strength stop complaining when a few lists aren’t for you, a section of readers WILL be really interested!
Hiiter’s UFO like disc planes prototype should have been the king of the skies if only the project finished on time..
good list , recognize some of these>
I actually really enjoyed this list, I know nothing much of aircraft, but it was a very informative and interesting read!
=]
Very nice list. Didn’t know anything about the crappy things falling down near my place. ( I’m belgian so … .) Especially those soviet coffins … sorry planes. Stalin really wasn’t much of a tactical or technical fella anyway but with said planes , he really takes the cake.
The brits blow chunks at creating airplanes
Oh yeah, the Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Hurricane, Avro Lancaster Bomber, Gloster Meteor and the De Havilland Mosquito were all superb WW11 aeroplanes!
What have the Canadians ever done? Your police still ride around on horseback!
Also the Vulcan, the Victor and the Valiant in the 50′s. Then the Lightning. Then Concorde, with France. Then the Harrier.
For quite a long time, Britain was making the best, most innovative aircraft in the world.
Great list, by the way. Nice to see Listverse back on form after the recent decline in quality!
You have to remember that the Brits, Germany and Europe were in the heat or a terrible and devastating conflict. They did not have the luxury of time and were subject to tremendous pressure when producing planes. In addition, producing effective fighter planes was a fledgling art so this is a bit of a bull***** comment. So of course they had a few duds. Despite the aforementioned obstacles they still produced the greatest ever – the Spitfire. And the Germans championed the first jet. So what the f*ck are you talking about?
Very interesting read despite the typos. Well done.
Definitively the most interesting list from the past week
I didn’t think I would like the list, but I rather enjoyed it. A good read. I didn’t know so many planes were not air-worthy.
Interesting list.
Good list, but some basic proofreading can make this much easier to read. I’m sure some of them were typos (entry 2 “little” is spelled l6ittle), but periods are always nice at the end of sentences. Also, in number 10, I’m pretty sure you mean “released” instead of “realized”. If you read it out loud to yourself, you’ll find plenty of other errors.
Great list, really nice but the typo’s and error’s did bug me quite a bit. This list would’ve been great if the editing had been more meticulous.
The komet has always made me laugh. Wasn’t their an American equivalent in the works?
Great list.
LaGG3 is so bad it couldn’t even be the worst!
Did you forget to run this by an editor Jamie?
This one was a little error heavy. I think it’s because of the longer entries.
A lot of people moan and groin about the errors and typos – but there are so many that submit lists that english is not even their first language – I salute these people that have the guts to submit a list to the best of their ability.
Well done nc07.
I agree completely. I have no real problem with mistakes, so long as I can read it, but it does make the list seem somewhat less professional. As long as errors never detract from a list, I have no problem. I was just offering an explanation.
Boring list. It made me want to get in a #10.
You like drum and bass?
check this out on youtube..
/watch?v=eYxFfAfZEmk&feature=feedlik
I like drum and bass.
I don’t like this.
NOW A TOP 10 LIST OF THE CURRENT BEST FIGHTER PLANES!
YES
That would be just too boring. You’d have numbers being thrown around, an an-a- lsys of spec sheets. You just cant compare.
You can definitely compare. If it’s all stats and numbers and not something subjective (like music) you can definitely compare. I don’t know if you would be able to deem any of them “better”, so it may have to be one of those “in no particular order lists”. I’d read the hell out of it. It’s cool if it’s not your thing, but I’d love to read that list if someone with some relevant knowledge wrote it.
Im just saying these planes had stories behind them, people that were connected to them. A list about the f22 or the sukhoi pak would just be too lifeless, atleast for me.
Plus i meant that you cant compare them cuz they were never in a serious situation (unless you believe that irak had some amazing planes and was a worthy foe). The typhoon, the rafale, saab gripen havent seen any action.
Then again if it were about some cold war classics, then yes id agree.
You could compare them in the way people compare new sports cars. It’s just speculative and fun. No, it wouldn’t be as meaningful as WW2 planes. That goes without saying, but I’d still enjoy reading it (so I think).
You can definitely compare. If it’s all stats and numbers and not something subjective…
Even stats and numbers are subjective though, in that some attributes can be deemed more important or “better” than others, based on one’s point of view, preference, or mission profile. They all have trades – you give up something to improve something else. Speed vs. maneuverability being the most obvious example. Throw range into the mix. Or decrease those performance attributes for the purpose of employing better (i.e. heavier) armor so as to be able to withstand more damage. Improved firepower adds weight as well. And on and on. Is there any one plane that tops all the others in every single performance category? Maybe there is, I dunno, I’m not knowledgeable enough off the top of my head to answer that. Some design might have dominated early, but then were later overcome by improved technology specifically designed to beat the previous best, so is it “fair” to now compare the two for ranking purposes, when the latter was a direct result of the former’s existence? It does make for fun discussion and lively debating though…but much like comparing best athletes, there would never likely be 100% consensus.
I don’t contest this. My only real point here is that I would read such a list. I was only saying that numbers in and of themselves are not subjective. Comparing two numbers is not subjective. Weighing different sets of numbers with different intrinsic values is subjective, but is it really as subjective as something that is purely taste and not really rooted in function/purpose? No. Yes, it would be subjective (like most every list), but not AS subjective if you take my meaning.
Comparing two numbers is not subjective.
Well, the criteria for comparing them is subjective though. Is the bigger number “better”, or the smaller number? Even for a simple performance attribute such as “speed”, faster is not always better (“slow and steady wins the race”?), unless of course the writer defined it as such in the preamble. Which then makes it a matter of the writer’s subjective taste. Not as much as comparing two songs for example though, I agree. Eh, I’m just playing devil’s advocate at this point, and don’t disagree with the gist of what you’re saying. I’d read such a list too, and likely interject my own 2 cents there as well.
Well asserted. I feel like we’ve reach some sort of middle ground of logic. Neato.
My middle ground is more middle than yours is. Unless that’s a bad thing. Then mine’s less middle.
Well, mine is less middle middle unless that’s a good thing. Then mine’s a good thing.
Create a middle ground between that. I dare you. Lol!
I dont know much about aircraft but yea this was an eye opener, I always enjoy a list that I am not familiar with.
Reminds me when I did my stint in the SADF and we had to fly approx 600 kilometers on a Dekota – smoke came out of the engines the vibration was unreal – but Im still here to tell the tail.
Apparently they were a bit rough around the edges but safe
Thanks nc07 enjoyed.
Good knowledge. Bit gray for me personally.
Have to agree, good style, or at least grammar, goes a long way.
(Nice1 India! Seems right.)
Okay, this has nothing to do with the list, but negativecreep07, does your name have anything at all to do with the Nirvana album Bleach? Just asking, cuz the song Negative Creep happens to be track 7 on it haha.
You got it in one! I don’t even think it’s on of their better songs, I just picked that name when I first started going online and it’s just stuck
Awesome
! I actually quite like that song, especially when angry… it is ridiculously fun and easy to play on the guitar
.
Also before I forget, I actually did enjoy this list… dunno why people are being so obnoxious about it, it is all very well-researched and must have taken a lot of time…
Thanks for putting it up!
Great premise, delving into some of aviation’s less successful WWII aircraft. As you said, practically anyone can rattle off the “best” WWII planes and then debate endlessly about the merits of the P-51 vs. the ME-109 vs. the Zero or Spitfire etc. etc. I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall just such a list here from the early days, but I can’t locate it in the archives (the archive area leaves a lot to be desired in the way of easily skimming thru lots of titles).
So anyway, way to think outside the box for this list! Good job for a first effort, save for the editing issues others have mentioned. I usually don’t bother nitpicking about those, but one line you wrote in the intro seemed odd: “The second (criteria) was one entry from each of the major participants, if only for variety’s sake.” Yet there are three GB entries, and two German ones. Perhaps that was an earlier draft artifact that you forgot to delete?
Might have read better as “at least one entry from each of the major participants”. It would be impossible to have 10 different countries as outside of the nations I’ve listed there were very few who fielded their own designs in the war. Although Australia, Romania and Czechoslovakia did use a few native aircrcraft, there weren’t very many so picking the worst would skewer the list
Might have read better as “at least one entry from each of the major participants”
Ahh, that makes total sense.
It would be impossible to have 10 different countries…
Agreed. That’s probably why the sentence the way I (mis)interpreted it stuck with me. My first thought was “well this ought to be interesting”, cuz I thought coming up with 10 planes all of different country origins would be pretty difficult. Not that the list is not interesting as-is…I dug it!
if you ask me, i would say that all the french aircraft should be on that list. the frog ‘aircraft’ were all *****ty, and they were french anyway, and according to D. Moyes’ Law Of Races, everything french is *****ty.
Great list. When I was a kid I had close to 100 plastic scale models of WWII aircraft (the Devastator was the only one from this list though) I’d heard of most of these but mostly in passing. It was a very interesting read. Thanks
First, the critical comment: You might want to have an editor or proofreader go over your list before you submit your next one. the typos and grammatical errors were a little distracting.
Having said that…. Outstanding list! And certainly an excellent entry for a first timer. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this and look forward to your future entries.
Very good list! A nice addition would be the Heinkel 177 Greif. It is a perfect case study, that demonstrates how conflicting (and ridiculous) requirements can destroy a project. Very useful for IT Project Managers…
Isn`t Devastator out of Transformers?
Good grief !! Airplane nerds talking about something that happened 70 years ago. Who cares. Besides, all modern jets are based on German technology, which the Allies boosted and then took credit for.
I don’t know about took credit for so much as reaped the profit thereof. A history major cares lots (me).
Carole, just because something happened 70 years ago it doesn’t mean we should forget about it. “Lest We Forget”.
The axial-flow jet engine was 1st patented in 1921 by a Frenchman then a further patent was made in 1930 by Sir Frank Whittle. The Bosche didn’t cotton on to jet engines until 1935.
Be more irrelevant.
Wow, really? I’m assuming that your knowledge and understanding of ancient history (i.e. anything that happened before last week) is a tad bit lacking. The design and construction of modern aircraft has about as much to do with WWII German designs as the design of the HK-416 has to do with a Brown Bess musket.
Some interesting comments and I’m glad the list has got a good reception. I am however kicking myself at some of those daft little mistakes. I remember that I completed and sent this list in rather late at night, whereas what I should have done was checked it once more in the morning.
I don’t often comment on the lists, but I always read them. I enjoyed this one quite a bit. Looking at some of the planes I could see their flaws without even having to read the text. I guess it helps that I enjoy all things WWII.
As an aside, my earliest memory of the Komet is from the mini series The Winds of War or War and Remembrance(might not be either, but I was a wee boy), and the test pilots blowing up prior to lift off, crashing into a mountain, or blowing up in mid-air. Anyone else remember this?
Ohka and Komet were a ***** even on Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons :facepalm:
I endorse this list
johnmollison (dot) com
Whoever posted this had the smarts to NOT include the Brewster Buffalo.
Actually, I wondered why the Buffalo wasn’t here. Not a bad list, though. But will Team Listverse please proofread their copy? And a spellcheck wouldn’t hurt, either–like “bail out” not “bale out.” C’mon–just some basics would improve Listverse into a professionally written website.
The Buffalo was not a “bad” aircraft. It was, however, outclassed. The Finns turned the Buffalo into one of (I think THE) most successful fighter plane of WW2 in terms of combat sortie/victory. Do your own research on how the Finnish Air Force used the Buffalo – it’ll impress.
The handful of pilots I’ve talked to that flew the Brewster said it was a fine enough airplane hampered by inexperienced pilots going against the IJA/N pilots who not only had superior aircraft but 3-4x the combat training.
But, all things said, the Buffalo had a rough start in 1941-42 when being flown by the British, Dutch and Americans.
Loved the list. I remember reading about how all the torpedo planes had been shot down at the battle of Midway when they attacked the Kaga. I always thought that had been because of heavy resistance so it’s great to know that it was just as much the airplane’s fault.
Thanks for the great list!
Komet look likes small aircraft. but it was very powerful and very famous on thats year.
Breda is quite uniq on the bottom plane. not really aerodynamic but its used for shot the machine-gun from the cockpit on wars.
toretsite.wordpress.com
There’s lots and lots of information about really bad planes here. What an amazing collection! How shall I thank you?
Great list despite what some the haters here have posted. No worries about the typographical errors, the content more than made up for it. A small criticism concerning one picture on the list: #9 , The Lagg-3, has a picture of an early version of the Yak-1 as an illustration.
The Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet was a prototype,without it we wouldn’t have modern jet planes!Do your Research!
How is a plane that reached operational service a prototype? Also how did a rocket powered plane allow to develop jet engines? I suggest you do your research
Great List Creep!
Good call on the Me-210 (no.4): however, the Me-410 ‘Hornisse’ was tainted by it’s predecessor’s failings and was, in itself a superb aircraft.
Mind you, you could’ve added a couple of dozen more to the list: and most surprisingly, 2 genuine contenders would have been either the Supermarine Spitfire or the Hawker Hurricane as NIGHT FIGHTERS – undoubtedly Top 5′s as daytime fighters they proved woefully inadequate for night fighting scoring virtually NO kills during the blitz – and any they did were flukes or accidents.
Other commenters: don’t believe me? Read “Duel in the Dark” by Squadron Leader Peter Townsend. a British Battle of Britain ace who scored the ONLY night victory for 85 Night Fighter Squadron in a Hurricane in the 12 months they had them! Night Fighters only became viable when the Beaufighters and Boulton Paul Defiants (a HORRIBLE daytime fighter-bomber) and the Douglas A-20 Havoc’s were fitted with AI radar! Followed later by the incredible De Havilland Mosquito.
Name
Just came across this: The first part is about the plane from Flight Of The Pheonix, but the second half shows some really amazing WWII plane landings and crashes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n82nN_lqn58
Good list
i enjoyed this list. nice maiden voyage.
Wow i found that list to be quite interesting … learn allot about how air battles were in ww2.. all you goofs crying the list was boring.. well i bet your boring in real life!
A future list might include the British Manchester bomber. My Dad was involved with those and he told me it was the worst excuse for a bomber immaginable. That the Lancaster evolved from it is something of a miracle.
A lot of British Planes but thats only a fraction of the types we produced and the Hurricane’s, Spitfires and lancasters more than make up for a few bad Planes seeing as in The Battle of britian are Hurricane’s and Spitfires were outnumbered 3-1 and we were still victorious
Great list except for the Me 163. Considering that it was nearly impossible for the Allies to bring the thing down once it was in the air and it was an acceptable weapon against bombers, especially un*****ed ones, means it doesn’t deserve to hang out with the rest of this garbage.
I figured most of these would be on here, though the Botha and the Bison cracked me up.
Wonderful goods from you, man. I have understand your stuff previous to and you’re just too wonderful. I really like what you have acquired here, certainly like what you are stating and the way in which you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still care for to keep it wise. I can not wait to read far more from you. This is actually a great web site.
this article sucks
the Douglas TBD Devastator come on, ok it wasnt a great plane but it wasnt the worst in america’s part like the b- 29 yes the b-29 did get a lot of kills and was a great bomber but got shot down in numbers and a TBD had only about 3 aviators when the b – 29 had 10!
i mean B- 17 my bad
Amazing things here. I am very happy to see your post. Thanks a lot and I am looking ahead to touch you. Will you kindly drop me a e-mail?
Great list, but should have included the Avro Manchester, a forerunner of the Lancaster, but hopelessly underpowered and unreliable.
“Worst of” lists are the most entertaining.
Great list, I would have included the fairey Baraccuda. Fug ugly and pig to fly apparently…