The buccaneers were not used in front line service, that's why they didn't make the list

or the Brewster F2A Buffalo?

@@nursestoyland The Buffalo (SB2A-1/ Model 239) saw great success as a fighter with the Finnish Air Force against the Soviets. The Finns loved them! The SB2A-1 was not weighed down by extra armor, etc. This gave it better speed, climb and maneuverability.

The wartime tally for Finnish Buffaloes was 459 Soviet planes shot down with a loss of only 15 Brewsters in air to air combat.

They really managed to save an SB2A? Maybe to have it as a reminder of what not to do when designing an aircraft.

Mostly by the late war they had figured out how to take intially bad planes and hammer the problems out quickly to get them in service. The Corsair and Helldiver are examples of this.

It took another 2 versions to get it right, the Me-310 wasn't good either, and it was the Me-410 that finally delivered.

The Hungarian airforce used locally manufactured versions of the Me 210 and found that they fared well on the Eastern Front or employed as a night fighter. When they faced more advanced US escorts like the P38, however, they couldn't stand up.

Nice catch!

Well spotted !!!

Specifically, Draft Category 4F means exempt from military service due to physical or medical deficiency.

Blackburn got the Buccaneer right, but in terms of real success, that’s about it. I do like the Skua for being a good dive bomber in spite of itself. It was there, but it wasn’t great by any means.

Imagine if Blackburn and Brewster had merged just before WW2. Oh, the monstrosities they could have created!

@@darkdinochris6256 I think they did and they became McDonald Douglas

The Finns operated the Buffalo against the Russians with great success. Probably why it didn't make the list.

no it wasn't there where far worst aircraft .. The Finnish airforce loved it ... Doesn't matter which airforce a plane served in ..if it did well then it is a success .... ALSO .. It was put up against lighter , faster Japanese aircraft ... MANY decent allied planes had a tough job against these ...

The Buffalo was not a bad fighter for its time. It had its peculiarities but its main issue is simply that it was obsolete by the time it faced the 109 (in 1940) and the Zero (in 1942). In the Winter War it actually spanked the Russian Polyakovs, so it was the Polyakov that should be on this list.

Hm.. but not in Finland, there they were a succés ! (-often overlooked !)

Radar equipped Defiants did okay for themselves when the Battle of Britain became the London Blitz

@@moblinmajorgeneral And also later went on to become pioneers in the field of aeriel electronic warfare.

I would debate the Ohka due to it being a dedicated kamikaze alone. Its effectiveness depended more on what planes launched it and how good its pilot was (or bad the opposing defense was).

It was designed as a bomber destroyer and not a traditional fighter. The thinking was that the German bombers would not be escorted as no one expected the Netherlands to be invaded or for Belgium and France to fall do quickly. It ended up bring forced into combat environments they were not intended to be operated in.

was a hell of a night fighter thou

The Defiant is credited with 12 kills during the Battle of Britain.

@@richardvonpingel2379 just because it was fighting battles it wasn't designed for doesn't mean it can't achieve some success. Unfortunately the Germans soon learnt its weak spots.

@@thepolishnz well those bombers were flying unescorted and the Defiant was intended to be both a day and night hunter.

Wasn't the Fulmar supposed to replace the Swordfish, which out lasted the Fulmar?

@@tompiper9276 no that was the Albacore. Fulmar was a fighter

@@Losingsince Ah yes, many thanks.

The Fulmar was a decent performer, well armed, dependable and long-range.

@@jimdavis8391 Fulmar was outrun by Italian bombers quite often.....

The Finns made it work. It SERIOUSLY sucked less in the hands of the Finns.

@robertwilloughby8050 for the Americans it was trash in the pacific. . Yes I know the Finns made it work but against inferior soviet piolets. The Americans used it against the Japanese and it was trash

@robertwilloughby8050 there's a reason it was replaced by the f4f wildcat which was far superior and later the f4u corsair and f6f hellcat which were far superior

The Buffalo was less bad and more outdated. They could at least fly straight. Everything on this list either couldn't get off the ground or had a serious risk of killing their crew.

@@HistoryintheDark yikes.

The 321 was just as bad after they redesigned it with engines, as the 323, still incredibly vulnerable.

Hanna Reitsch was nearly killed in a Me 321, and said it was the WORST aircraft she was ever forced to fly.

Because of the high wing loading resulting and higher takeoff and landing speeds,, the B-26 Marauder had a very high rate of accidents. But the actual statistics from the European air combat theater was that the B-26 Marauder had one of the lowest loss rate from enemy action..

@@user-gq4vl9pm9n Created more widows on the other side, then.

It was a very hot aircraft when 1st introduced. 65' wingspan and 2 P&W R2800 engines. Rumor was Martin had a young female demo pilot they sent around showing men how to fly it. Later they extended the span to 70' and ended up with the lowest loss rate of any medium bomber in the ETO.

The Boomerang wasn't a terrible aircraft (I wonder how you came to that conclusion, that it deserved to be in the list of 'worst aircraft of WWII') it was designed and built to meet a dire need for modern fighter aircraft to protect Australia as nothing was available at the time. Rushed into production off the drawing board, once tested performance was found to be fairly good but at greater heights would drop off, not ideally suited for an interceptor. As modern aircraft arrived from the US to help defend the country the "Boomer" was now employed in those roles for which it excelled in. it would go on to serve with five RAAF Squadrons undertaking escort duties for shipping convoys and in operations against the Japanese. Its most famous role was with low-level army cooperation work over the New Guinea jungles, (for which Airfix produced a model kit in 1965 with box art of it attacking low level targets) tasks which included directing artillery fire, marking targets for P-40 Kittyhawk and Corsair aircraft and providing aerial protection for ground troops. So from one role it wasn't ideally suited, too another it excelled in. The actually aircraft shot down by the Wirraway was a Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa (“Peregrine Falcon”) which for many years was reported as a Zero. The mistake is understandable as back then everything was probably reported as a Zero!

The Boomerang was not designed to be effective against the Zero at all. Australia needed something to put up and it was ready. They had no air power going into the war.

@@garymiller5624 When it was built, they thought it would be a good peer equal fighter. They had NO idea that the Zero was as developed as it was, so they used it for other purposes for which it was better suited.

The Buccaneer only came good when H.S equipped it with Spey engines. The interesting attributes of the Buccanner were it's use of boundary layer control features, as it was designed for small carriers and its very strong airframe. That gave it a long service life and the ability to fly fast at low altitudes.

Brewster Buffalo as well. Both planes were removed from service after Midway.

The TBDs went into their attack run at Midway unescorted, which was known to be suicidal for *any* heavily laden attack aircraft when facing alerted enemy fighters. Regardless, they did attack and showed the IJN the “Samurai Spirit” of the USN. Yamamoto had warned them, but still the War Cabinet “Sowed the wind.” Midway was barely the start of the American “whirlwind” that eventually became a “Hyper-cane!”

I think its main problem was that it was up against the FW189 which did the same job very effectively.

recon aircraft arent meant to see combat

@@thepolishnz If you're in a reconnaissance aircraft and in combat, something has gone badly wrong!

The BV141 performed pretty well, it was a good aircraft, it just wasn't needed and the BMW engines were in short supply.

Some reports say the BV141 had a small test run of about a dozen. They were sent to Russia and vanished.

He'd likely restrict it to research and military planes since he still doesn't seem that interested talking about commercial planes. Looking at planes in service after the Cold War or were designed afterwards; we have the Mig-35, Mig-27M, X-50 Dragonfly, Chengdu J-20, Shenyang J-6, Nanchang Q-5, Shaanxi KJ-200, and Shenyang J-15.

@@tidepoolclipper8657 that what I meant. Worst modern military aircraft.

Manchester only failed because of the engines. Put 4 Merlins on it and you get the Lancaster, a truly excellent design

He mentioned the Buffalo in part 3 of the general worst planes ever. The last part he made for that mini-series so far is part 4; currently focusing on more specific lists instead. Though I could see him one day going back to the more general worsts planes list and creating a fifth part.

The B-25 was not bad.

The B-25 was a great plane! It had very good engines, had a decent bomb load, was very easy to fly, was very reliable, and it's crews loved it.@@PC-vq5ud

F7F Tigercat was very capable, but never got to do much. Also, the Vickers Wellington was an important bomber for the UK until the Halifax, Short Stirling, and Lancaster became active.

He feels that warplane is basically overlooked.

The Boomerang served well as a ground attack aircraft after it got outclassed as a fighter ..BTW .. MANY Allied aircraft of the period had a hard time against the Japanese aircraft ..

To be fair, it was innovative for its time and the Japanese found it useful enough for training. Also, that thing is an important ancestor to the decent P-43 Lancer and the great Thunderbolt 1.

Ok when it entered service .. but much like the P36 and Buffalo .. they couldn't keep up with the pace of development and found themselves a bit outdated .. with limited scope for upgrading

I think that too. Something pleasing about its outline... Luckily I was never forced into one.

The good the bad and the ugly. 😂

Same as the Defiant.

It had its best moment in Australian hands at the Battle of the Bismark Sea, where its heavy armament allowed it to destroy a Japanese troop convoy. Plus it developed into a very good (for its time) night fighter where its lack of manouverabilty did not matter so much. It was never built for dogfighting 109s at altitude.

Handley Page Hampden Yeah, the Hampden is an unusual aircraft. Armstrong Whitworth Whitley was the most conventional and Vickers Wellington was the most successful. At least Handley Page would go on to improve with the Halifax.

Yet the Finns used them very successfully aginst the Russians in 1940 - and continued using them until 1943. The Buffalo was by no means a bad airframe when first put into service - well armed and very rugged if a bit underpowered. Sure it was no match for the 109s in spring 1940 or the Zero in early 1942 but at that time no US fighter was.

@@kenoliver8913 I didn’t know about the Finns but the statement that it was all that was available is very true.

Voting for your own nonsense is just so NAFF !!!

Don't worry, planes don't have feelings, they don't mind if we talk shit.