Determining the "baddest" plane depends on the criteria used for evaluation. One interpretation focuses on the worst performing or most problematic aircraft. Another might emphasize the most formidable or dangerous. Given the limited reference data, we can analyze the "baddest" plane based on potential negative attributes, like poor performance or high accident rates.
Considering the provided aircraft and the number produced, a high production number combined with design flaws could indicate a problem-plagued aircraft. Let's consider the following:
- Royal B.E. 2 (3500): High production number, suggesting potential issues if it was a flawed design, although the reference doesn't explicitly state this.
- Brewster Buffalo (509): This plane is often cited as one of the worst fighters of WWII due to its poor performance in combat.
- Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov LaGG-3 (6528): With a large number produced, any inherent flaws would be widely experienced. The reference does not describe any flaws with the plane.
- Century Series (F-101 (807), F-102 (1000), F-104 (2578), F-105 (833)): These planes represent a variety of designs and roles, making it difficult to make generalizations. However, the F-104 had a reputation for a high accident rate in some air forces.
- Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 (5047): Again, a large number produced, and if poorly maintained or deployed ineffectively, it could be considered "bad" from a strategic standpoint for the operators.
Given the limited data, it's difficult to definitively name the "baddest" plane. However, the Brewster Buffalo is known to be a poor fighter, so it fits the description, at least regarding its combat effectiveness. The planes with a large production number, the Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov LaGG-3 and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23, could also be "bad," depending on specific performance or operational issues not detailed in the reference.
