Top worst fighter aircraft

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. 

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

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.

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

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.    

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.

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.

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.