Most Badass Plane of WW2

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The A-26 entered combat service Nov 1944 in Europe and Jan 1945 in the Pac. My uncle Ed's B-25 Sweet Adeline was replaced by the Invader in Italy.

If you want to compare the B-17 with Cyclone and R-2800, you could compare the DC4 and the DC-6.

North American had a plan to build a B-25 powered by R-2800, and were told there was not enough production. They jury-rigged one up anyway, and told the pilot not to exceed a certain amount of Gs because the R-2800s had more power and weight than the R-2600s and the wing wasn't strengthened. It was such fun to fly that it inspired excess. There's words for his tombstone.

The difference between the two cargo planes is insane. Almost 100 mph cruising speed and around 1/3 more max load.:eek:

The B-17 came anywhere close to that and you are looking at an aircraft as fast as the B-29 top end and enough extra lift to not only handle all the bits and pieces that made up the YB-40, but a usable 10,000 pound bomb load clear to Berlin and back.

Yikes!
 

marathag

Banned
Ah, the failed YB-40 escort gunship. It could keep up with the bomber stream as long as they were loaded, but after bomb release, the B-17s were faster than the gunship. The B-24 counterpart was the YB-41, which also had the same limitation.

But as a Patrol aircraft, worked very well in the Pacific. 6 turrets

1404USNAVYPB4Y2Privateer-vi.jpg
 
PB4Y-2s did pretty well as patrol bombers, as did the PB4Y-1 (B-24s fitted with the Erco nose turret and delivered to the Navy). Though the YB-41 didn't.

The story behind those is that the Navy and Boeing had a flying boat ready to go called the PBB-1 SeaRanger. Only problem was that the factory in Renton, WA was wanted by the AAF for B-29s (which had a higher priority than even the Manhattan Project). Hap Arnold and Ernie King worked out a deal where the Navy would get B-24s off the production lines as replacements for the SeaRanger, and the Renton factory would be used for B-29 production. It was the best flying boat the Navy never had, IMHO. But the turrets were used in the Privateer.
 
This is it hands down.
427762as.jpg
Disagree. Fragile, unreliable, with only 25 slow ROF rounds per gun and not significantly faster with high risk of flame out if in a turning fight with prop fighters. In a Tempest or late model Jug vs. Me-262, I'd put my money on one of the former.
 
Disagree. Fragile, unreliable, with only 25 slow ROF rounds per gun and not significantly faster with high risk of flame out if in a turning fight with prop fighters. In a Tempest or late model Jug vs. Me-262, I'd put my money on one of the former.

Indeed.

'Badass' is supposed to mean mean and effective. The 262 was a greater help to the Allies than to the Nazis. It was bad, and it was an ass, but not badass.
 
I also go with the Stuka. If nasty looks could kill the Ju87 would be tops. There isn't a more evil and predatory looking plane in Ww2. A true Nazi death machine.

In terms of badass as being really good as well as nasty looking. I vote Corsair.
 
Corsairs flew strikes from RN carriers against targets in Norway, and had a few run-ins with Me-109s, IIRC. One Corsair was forced to belly-land with battle damage, and was recovered by the Luftwaffe, and sent to Germany for repair. No word if they managed to get it flyable.
 
Corsairs flew strikes from RN carriers against targets in Norway, and had a few run-ins with Me-109s, IIRC. One Corsair was forced to belly-land with battle damage, and was recovered by the Luftwaffe, and sent to Germany for repair. No word if they managed to get it flyable.

My understanding was that no enemy aircraft were encountered, and the pilot of the Corsair refused to reveal how to fold the wings.
 
Top