SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Top worst fighter aircraft

1205 views
8 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: State of Mississippi. State motto: Virtute et armis (By valor and arms)
Top worst fighter aircraft
Posted by mississippivol on Thursday, September 22, 2016 6:57 PM
GAF
  • Member since
    June 2012
  • From: Anniston, AL
Posted by GAF on Thursday, September 22, 2016 9:38 PM

Thought provoking, but rather limited.  His inclusion of the Century series is a bit opinionated.  Some were bad, most were adequate.  Interceptor versus fighter sort of thing.  Using an aircraft in a role it was not designed for does tend to do that.

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Orlando, Florida
Posted by ikar01 on Thursday, September 22, 2016 10:54 PM

The F-106 turned out to be a fairly good dog fighter.  Not bad for something that was supposd to take out formations with a nuke.

The 105 did well considering it was given a tactical role instead of a nuke strike bomber.

  • Member since
    September 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Thursday, September 22, 2016 11:40 PM

First of all, there's no use for an interceptor any more. Fire and forget, stealth. No more dog fights.

War also usually involves making due with what you have, not planning for and building for.

My own list would certainly include the Me-262, the F-89, and the Gloster Meteor. But like everything, they led to better designs.

 Modeling is an excuse to buy books.

 

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posted by ridleusmc on Thursday, September 22, 2016 11:58 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_A5M

I remember reading about this thing in a book about the American Volunteer Group in China.  The Flying Tiger P-40's had no trouble knocking these things down, but they were dated by 1942 standards.    

  • Member since
    March 2016
Posted by ardvark002 on Friday, September 23, 2016 10:50 AM

They were called " thuds" by their pilots.  F-106's

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Friday, September 23, 2016 2:19 PM

Yeah, lot's of subjective choices and opinions by the author.

The 105 gave as good as it got, in it's secondary role of tactical strike fighter. Thankfully it never performed its' primary role of nuclear strike fighter.

The 104 had a very good record with Spain and Italy. Now mind you, I'm sure the flying weather in those parts of the world, as well as their roles had something to do with the better results.

I'm completely suprised that the Bolton Paul Defiant was not listed, nor it's seagoing equivelants, the Blackburn Roc & Skua. All could shoot down bombers, but were the proverbial "meat on the table" for enemy fighters in air to air combat.

And who knows of the aerial dogfight is truly a thing of the past. That has been prophesized since the 1950s. Yet each war that has seen actual air to air combat since that time has shown the dogfight can still happen, stealth and BVR missiles notwithstanding.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    January 2012
  • From: Barrie, Ontario
Posted by Cdn Colin on Friday, September 23, 2016 2:40 PM

Any "Worst fighter list" without the Skua or at least Defiant can't be particularly well researched.

I build 1/48 scale WW2 fighters.

Have fun.

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • From: Michigan
Posted by Straycat1911 on Saturday, September 24, 2016 12:08 PM

ardvark002

They were called " thuds" by their pilots.  F-105's

 

Fixed it for ya! F-106's were generally called a......Six. :-)

My vote for worst fighter would be the Vought F-7U Cutlass (aka the Gutless). Underpowered, undergunned, weak landing gear, a total POJ. From what I've read, the navy HATED them. 

 

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.