The quest for the worst combat aircraft in history...

[TLAM Strike]

Ok guys, I'm tired of all the Obama and Islam threads and I know we got some smart people here. So I think its time we tracked down just what is the worst combat aircraft of all time.

Criteria...
It must be used by a military
It must suck...

DISCUSS!

I would nominate the F6U Pirate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F6U_Pirate

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/4604/voughtf6upirate.jpg

and the F7U Cutlass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F7U_Cutlass

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/1070/voughtf7ucutlass.jpg

Two aircraft that nearly ruined the name Vought. (although the F7U looks like something capable of battling the Cylons.)

[GoldenRivet]

You'd get laughed right off my airport if you landed in either one of those things.

[Raptor1]

Only aircraft that made it into operational service?

[TarJak]

I reckon the HE-177 must rank among the worst aircraft of all time. Anything that gets the nickname "Flaming Coffin" deserves a mention.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Heinkel_He177.jpg

[Takeda Shingen]

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/1070/voughtf7ucutlass.jpg

That is one ugly aircraft.

[JokerOfFate]

This maybe?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Art_Deco_wing.jpg

[Raptor1]

I reckon the HE-177 must rank among the worst aircraft of all time. Anything that gets the nickname "Flaming Coffin" deserves a mention.


IIRC they solved most of the problems with it in later variants, though.

I nominate the Avia S-199 as a pretty horrible aircraft. The Frankenstein Bf 109 chassis and Junkers Jumo 211 engine had horrible performance, was dangerous to fly and vastly unreliable.

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/s199/s199-5.jpg

[TLAM Strike]

That is one ugly aircraft.
Ugly aircraft but a handsome starfighter. :haha:

Only aircraft that made it into operational service?
I would say yes. Too many aircraft are scrapped in development because they are bad.

[Gerald]

http://imgur.com/dChd2.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Roc

[TarJak]

True the He177 got improved but the war was done by the time they did and it killed a lot more germans than it did any other nation.

In terms of the ugliest my vote goes to this monstrosity:

Breguet 270
http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/france/breguet-270.jpg

Its performance wasn't much chop either.

[JokerOfFate]

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4521/comet1.jpg

What about this?
The Comet heard it had some nasty crashes due to design flaws
(Is this only Military or are commercial planes allowed?)

[TLAM Strike]

I nominate the Avia S-199 as a pretty horrible aircraft. The Frankenstein Bf 109 chassis and Junkers Jumo 211 engine had horrible performance, was dangerous to fly and vastly unreliable.

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/s199/s199-5.jpg

Never heard of that one, sounds like a horrible idea.

Then again some wise guy stuck an British engine on an American fighter and achieved awesomeness. So I guess the designers of that one had good intentions.

http://imgur.com/dChd2.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Roc

Ah so combining the crappy Defiant with genneraly crappy British WWII carrier aircraft! :haha:

[TLAM Strike]

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4521/comet1.jpg

What about this?
The Comet heard it had some nasty crashes due to design flaws
(Is this only Military or are commercial planes allowed?)

Military only.

Although the Comet became the Nimrod so I guess it could count as military.

[TarJak]

Military only.

Although the Comet became the Nimrod so I guess it could count as military.
But the Nimrod was a sorted Comet and served well in it's Maritime partol and ASW role up until March 2010. Anything that serves nearly 40 years has got to be out of contention for worst aircraft.

[TLAM Strike]

But the Nimrod was a sorted Comet and served well in it's Maritime partol and ASW role up until March 2010. Anything that serves nearly 40 years has got to be out of contention for worst aircraft.

Yea, I was just thinking that.

Ok new criteria: the aircraft must suck so bad that no corrective measures can fix it. :up:

[Garion]

The design flaw in the comet was the Square windows that caused stress fractures at the corners. This was fixed in later models by replacing them with round windows...

All we need is an Arched window and we would have an episode of Playaway.

Sorry UK joke :D

Edit: wrong tv program... sigh Its old age
Cheers

Garion

[razark]

Antonov A-40?


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/AntonovA40.jpg
:D

[Raptor1]

Antonov A-40?


Never made it into operational service...

[Task Force]

Antonov A-40?


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/AntonovA40.jpg
:D

Those russians and their crazy ideas...:rotfl2:

[JokerOfFate]

F7U Cutlass maybe?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/F7UCutlass.jpg

Or even a TU-22
http://www.enemyforces.net/aircraft/tu22rd.jpg

[TLAM Strike]

F7U Cutlass maybe?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/F7UCutlass.jpg


Already mentioned that one..

I nomnate the LWS-6_Żubr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LWS-6_%C5%BBubr

If you raised the gear in flight they would collapse on landing so you had to fly with them extended at all times... and it carried a bomb load of a whopping 660 kgs... Polish aviation at its finest...

[razark]

Never made it into operational service...
Yeah. Missed that requirement when reading the thread.

Those russians and their crazy ideas...:rotfl2:
I'm convinced this could have been a major success. Just imagine a battalion of these flying tanks at the Eastern Front.

The Germans would have been too busy laughing to notice the Red Army rolling over them.

[frau kaleun]

Those russians and their crazy ideas...:rotfl2:

Okay admittedly I know next to nothing about military aircraft, in comparison with you guys... but that looks an awful lot like an airborne tank.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/10/2/128674870349832898.jpg

[TLAM Strike]

Okay admittedly I know next to nothing about military aircraft, in comparison with you guys... but that looks an awful lot like an airborne tank.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/10/2/128674870349832898.jpg

Did someone say Airborne Tank? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50cpPAVoxJQ&)

[Gerald]

http://imgur.com/xK5Ia.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XFY

[razark]

Okay admittedly I know next to nothing about military aircraft, in comparison with you guys... but that looks an awful lot like an airborne tank.
That's exactly what it is. It's a tank fitted with wings, to be used as a glider, towed aloft by another aircraft.

The idea was to get tanks to the battlefield to support airborne operations. Rather than load the tank into a glider, the tank IS the glider.

It didn't work as well as was hoped, and the idea was scrapped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_A-40

[frau kaleun]

http://idiotflashback.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/wkrp.jpg

"As God is my witness... I thought armor could fly."

[Task Force]

http://idiotflashback.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/wkrp.jpg

"As God is my witness... I thought armor could fly."
It appears the guys at Antonov did too.

Yaknow, I wounder what the first luftwaffe pilot to see one of those would have thought. "Holy ****, a flying tank!!!"

then he lands, and gots to explain that one.

Or the humble tank crew.
"Tank spotted, 11 oclock, high"
"Huh, Hans did you take your pillz today"
"No, really, a flying tank"
"looks like you wernt so crazy after all..."

[Task Force]

Maby not the worst plane in history. but I sure wouldnt fly it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachem_Ba_349

MXY 7 maby? IIRC they wernt too sucessful.

[TLAM Strike]

Maby not the worst plane in history. but I sure wouldnt fly it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachem_Ba_349

MXY 7 maby? IIRC they wernt too sucessful.

The Okha? They worked quite well actually.

They sank or destroyed beyond repair 2 Destroyers and hit 6 other ships incl 1 BB in the space of about 3 months. Not bad for something in service for only around 6 months.

[frau kaleun]

http://imgur.com/xK5Ia.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XFY

Hey, I had one of their blowdryers once. Looked a lot like that.

No wait mine was a Conair.

Is there a weird angle on this pic, or does that thing have one too many of... something?

[JokerOfFate]

http://imgur.com/xK5Ia.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XFY
This is what happens when the Air force and the Navy sit down together.

[Raptor1]

When it comes to experimental or otherwise prototype aircraft, not much can beat the Kalinin K-7...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Kalinin_K-7_01.jpg

...or the Tarrant Tabor...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/Tarrant_Tabor_1.jpg

[Schroeder]

Fokker Fodder
Nuff said!
http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben/54/1012554/6236343965356638.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_aircraft_factory_BE2c_at_the_Imperial_W ar_Museum.jpghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Aircraft_Factory_B.E.2

[Jimbuna]

Ok new criteria: the aircraft must suck so bad that no corrective measures can fix it. :up:

The Kamikaze :DL

[TLAM Strike]

The Kamikaze :DL What? The Kamikaze was one of the most successful weapons ever. On one day they hit seven carriers as well as 40 other ships (five sunk, 23 heavily damaged, and 12 moderately damaged (according to wikipedia). They sank around 40 ships total incl. three aircraft carriers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze#Effects)

This is what happens when the Air force and the Navy sit down together.
Yea its much better when the Navy just slaps the Air Force in the face and says: "This is what you are going to fly, now deal with it!" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F4_Phantom)

[NeonSamurai]

How bout this brilliant idea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FR_Fireball

[Jimbuna]

What? The Kamikaze was one of the most successful weapons ever. On one day they hit seven carriers as well as 40 other ships (five sunk, 23 heavily damaged, and 12 moderately damaged (according to wikipedia). They sank around 40 ships total incl. three aircraft carriers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze#Effects)



I meant in the context of you stating "so bad that no corrective measures can fix it".

I don't believe any were ever 'fixed' :DL

[TLAM Strike]

How bout this brilliant idea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FR_Fireball

There have been quite a few "composite" ( # Turning and # Burning) aircraft over the years. Like the AJ Savage, Avro Shackleton and B-36 Peacemaker. The Fireball wasn't necessarily a bad aircraft it was more a stopgap solution outpaced by by technology. Don't forget that when the Fireball was built it was assumed their would be a massive apocalyptic battle for Japan and any edge our pilots could have would save lives.

[TLAM Strike]

I meant in the context of you stating "so bad that no corrective measures can fix it".

I don't believe any were ever 'fixed' :DL

Well they did fix them... they welded cockpit shut some times. ;)

[tater]

Three jeep carriers.

For combat aircraft, I think I'd require that they actually saw combat, then look at effectiveness. The G4M was pretty ineffective, and virtually all of them were shot down :)

And they were pretty "fairly" attacked, unlike some of the planes slaughtered during the initial japanese expansion, or even the german invasion of the CCCP. In both cases the attacking AFs had such overwhelming numbers at the sharp end that aircraft quality is a non-starter, any planes would have been wiped out at the right odds.

[Oberon]

:hmmm: What can I nominate that hasn't already been said?

I always bring up the Flying Tent Peg, but it only really sucks if you treat it like a normal plane, and then you suck all the way down to the ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgkYDDkAz7A

You had to get up, whack something and then go down, if you got into a turning dogfight, well then you're going to struggle.

The Defiant sucked because it was a World War One fighter in World War Two, however it excelled at the night role, so it's not that much of a sucker really...although those who used it after the 109s had twigged on the difference between it and a Hurricane would probably differ in opinion.

[TLAM Strike]

:hmmm: What can I nominate that hasn't already been said?

I always bring up the Flying Tent Peg, but it only really sucks if you treat it like a normal plane, and then you suck all the way down to the ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgkYDDkAz7A

You had to get up, whack something and then go down, if you got into a turning dogfight, well then you're going to struggle.

Hardly! 2,575 built for 15 countries hardly seems like a failure.

I nominate the Convair R3Y Tradewind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_R3Y_Tradewind

http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/260/800pxr3ytradewind.jpg
Nice looking, but horribly unreliable.

[Gerald]

http://imgur.com/iP3Il.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_CR.42

[JSLTIGER]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned it thus far, so I will...I nominate the Brewster F2A Buffalo, another plane derided by its pilots as a flying coffin. The sad thing is that I grew up about a mile away from where they built these things back in WWII in Warminster, PA.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Brewster_F2A-3_g16055.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo

I'm sorry, but this one just has to take the cake...it's one fugly airplane.

[TLAM Strike]

http://imgur.com/iP3Il.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_CR.42

Just looking on that Wiki page the aircraft seems quite good. Nearly 2000 built and quite maneuverable if somewhat outdated.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned it thus far, so I will...I nominate the Brewster F2A Buffalo, another plane derided by its pilots as a flying coffin. The sad thing is that I grew up about a mile away from where they built these things back in WWII in Warminster, PA.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Brewster_F2A-3_g16055.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo

I'm sorry, but this one just has to take the cake...it's one fugly airplane.

The Buffalo was not so much a bad plane as a plane faced with a truly superior enemy- the Zero. The Fins did a lot of damaged with their Buffalos against the Soviets. The main reason the Zero was so much better was that it was not weighed down with extra gear (Armor, radios etc) like US fighters such as the Buffalo.

[Raptor1]

Just looking on that Wiki page the aircraft seems quite good. Nearly 2000 built and quite maneuverable if somewhat outdated.

Indeed, the CR.42 wasn't a bad aircraft when compared to planes like the Gladiator or the I-15/I-153.

[NeonSamurai]

There have been quite a few "composite" ( # Turning and # Burning) aircraft over the years. Like the AJ Savage, Avro Shackleton and B-36 Peacemaker. The Fireball wasn't necessarily a bad aircraft it was more a stopgap solution outpaced by by technology. Don't forget that when the Fireball was built it was assumed their would be a massive apocalyptic battle for Japan and any edge our pilots could have would save lives.

And I would disagree, 2 power plants in a fighter is nuts. All that extra weight, plus it may have needed to use 2 different kinds of fuel. Not to mention the drag the prop would have caused in flight. I am also doubtful it would have handled well given the inherent problems of designing an aircraft for 2 separate power plants.

All of that equals bad idea.

[Diopos]

And I would disagree, 2 power plants in a fighter is nuts. All that extra weight, plus it may have needed to use 2 different kinds of fuel. Not to mention the drag the prop would have caused in flight. I am also doubtful it would have handled well given the inherent problems of designing an aircraft for 2 separate power plants.

All of that equals bad idea.

Yeap. But you weren't the Admiral!

:D

.

[TLAM Strike]

And I would disagree, 2 power plants in a fighter is nuts. All that extra weight, plus it may have needed to use 2 different kinds of fuel. Not to mention the drag the prop would have caused in flight. I am also doubtful it would have handled well given the inherent problems of designing an aircraft for 2 separate power plants.

All of that equals bad idea.
You have it backwards I think. The jet on the Fireball was a booster, it couldn't fly with just the jet alone (not very well anyways). The prop created no (useless) drag it was essential to the aircraft's flight.

Also jets (in the US anyways) didn't have the thrust for carrier ops at the time meaning any jets (say the P-80) would need to be shore based and thus limited in operational range to the southern Japanese islands until airbases could be secured inland.

Yeap. But you weren't the Admiral!

:D

.

Admiral Strike reporting for booty... ;)

[Gerald]

http://imgur.com/mBFgs.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_ITP

[Sailor Steve]

I'm confused. The title is "The quest for the worst combat aircraft in history..." and several of the bad ideas posted here are of experimentals. By nature they are not 'combat' aircraft, and it must be expected that some will be failures.

Is there a weird angle on this pic, or does that thing have one too many of... something?
It was an attempt at vertical takeoff and landing.

Fokker Fodder
Nuff said!
Not really. The Fe-2 was developed before the Fokker, so its purpose was a valid one. It's like saying the Corsair was a bad idea because in Korea they were easy prey for MiGs.

I also agree with TLAM Strike: The CR.42 was not a bad aircraft when it came out. In the Med they did quite well against Gloster Gladiators.

My candidate:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/Bomber4.jpg
http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/lewis_barling.php

Note that this source lists the maximum speed as 89 mph. Other sources say 95 mph. I've seen one book which claims that despite the 61 mph listed for cruise speed, that was actually the minimum flying speed, which gives a very small margin between staying up and falling down! :dead:

[TLAM Strike]

http://imgur.com/mBFgs.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_ITP

Might have been good if they finished work on it earlier. :hmmm:

Note that this source lists the maximum speed as 89 mph. Other sources say 95 mph. I've seen one book which claims that despite the 61 mph listed for cruise speed, that was actually the minimum flying speed, which gives a very small margin between staying up and falling down! :dead: don't turn around and fart in it, or it might stall out. :haha:

[Diopos]

Yakovlev Yak-38
A take on vertical landing/take-off by the USSR Navy. Well it seems that it did that, but only that. :DL

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-38 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-38)

AND considered opereational, too ...


.

[TLAM Strike]

Yakovlev Yak-38
A take on vertical landing/take-off by the USSR Navy. Well it seems that it did that, but only that. :DL

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-38 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-38)

AND considered opereational, too ...


.

Yea I remember loosing entire groups of them them to sidewinder armed Nimrods in Harpoon 1. :haha:

A fighter that could be replaced by a decent long range SAM system. :nope:

[Gerald]

http://imgur.com/BqatU.jpg

http://www.aviastar.org/air/italy/breda-88.php

http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Breda%20Ba.88%20RC.40%20Lince.htm

[Happy Times]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned it thus far, so I will...I nominate the Brewster F2A Buffalo, another plane derided by its pilots as a flying coffin. The sad thing is that I grew up about a mile away from where they built these things back in WWII in Warminster, PA.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Brewster_F2A-3_g16055.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo

I'm sorry, but this one just has to take the cake...it's one fugly airplane.

Finns used the Brewster Model 239 during WW2.
The 44 Brewsters of FAF downed 479 enemy aircraft with the loss of 19 Brewsters, final kill ratio being 1/25.2.:salute:

[XabbaRus]

I thought the F-7 Cutlass apart from unreliable engines and hydraulics was actually quite good when it worked. I suppose that was the main problem.

Apart from that it looked cool.

That's the great thing about 1950s & 60s aviation there was so much experimentation as knowledge increased in leaps and bounds each month that within 6 months there would be a performance leap that made previous kit old. Led to some weird and wonderful shapes as I suppose the wind tunnels weren't so advanced so the only way to really check it out was to build a prototype.

Modern day planes are boring incomparison. They all are starting to look alike.

[Schroeder]

Not really. The Fe-2 was developed before the Fokker, so its purpose was a valid one. It's like saying the Corsair was a bad idea because in Korea they were easy prey for MiGs.

Er, it's a B.E.2, not a Fe-2 (or are they the same?). Please read the part: "Faults of the type" in the Wiki link. The gunner sat on the front seat which meant he couldn't shoot forward as there was the propeller, he couldn't shoot straight to the rear as there was the pilot, he couldn't shoot top or bottom left or right as there were the wings. Combine that with an underpowered engine, a small bombload and no manoeuvrability to speak of and you have a bad plane. .... I really wouldn't have wanted to fly one of those in WWI.

[TLAM Strike]

http://imgur.com/BqatU.jpg

http://www.aviastar.org/air/italy/breda-88.php

http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Breda%20Ba.88%20RC.40%20Lince.htm

Never heard of that one. Very interesting.

I thought the F-7 Cutlass apart from unreliable engines and hydraulics was actually quite good when it worked. I suppose that was the main problem.

Apart from that it looked cool. Agree! Fantastic looking jet.

That's the great thing about 1950s & 60s aviation there was so much experimentation as knowledge increased in leaps and bounds each month that within 6 months there would be a performance leap that made previous kit old. Led to some weird and wonderful shapes as I suppose the wind tunnels weren't so advanced so the only way to really check it out was to build a prototype.

Modern day planes are boring incomparison. They all are starting to look alike. 100% Agree. Every new aircraft was like an experiment in aerodynamics. Those decades really produces some strange looking birds the likes of which have not been seen since.

Er, it's a B.E.2, not a Fe-2 (or are they the same?). Please read the part: "Faults of the type" in the Wiki link. The gunner sat on the front seat which meant he couldn't shoot forward as there was the propeller, he couldn't shoot straight to the rear as there was the pilot, he couldn't shoot top or bottom left or right as there were the wings. Combine that with an underpowered engine, a small bombload and no manoeuvrability to speak of and you have a bad plane. .... I really wouldn't have wanted to fly one of those in WWI. Could the guy shoot himself? Dang forget WWI I wouldn't want to fly that thing in the Civil War! :haha:

[frau kaleun]

It was an attempt at vertical takeoff and landing.

Well given the picture, the takeoff obviously worked - at least once. But I'm wondering how the attempted landing turned out. :hmmm:

[TLAM Strike]

Well given the picture, the takeoff obviously worked - at least once. But I'm wondering how the attempted landing turned out. :hmmm:

See for your self... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh9dhBJY010)

[Oberon]

Hardly! 2,575 built for 15 countries hardly seems like a failure.

Well, no, but out of those 15 countries at least two of them lost pilots, the Luftwaffe crashed 292 and lost 110 pilots to it, Canada crashed 110 of them too, Belgium crashed forty one, Italy lost 137, Japan lost 36, and the US had 30.63 accidents for every 100,000 flight hours which was the highest of the 'century' series fighters. So at the very least (not including US losses) some 616 F-104s crashed in service. That's nearly 30% of all aircraft built (I don't know the precise number, too late to work it out).

Ok, the aircraft itself when used in the proper role was good, but it was used in the wrong role too often and in the wrong weather and then...splat, Tent peg time.

Plus, it severely burnt and took two finger tips from Chuck Yeager! I mean, the guy knows his aircraft but the F-104 chewed him up and spat him out.
Stopped his record attempts too.

Was a bit of an Icarus, reached for the sky but then burnt its wings off.

[TLAM Strike]

The P-59 Airacomet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-59_Airacomet

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/9441/p59airacomet.jpg

A jet inferior to the prop aircraft it was to replace. Only 1 squadron received them. :doh:

[TLAM Strike]

Was a bit of an Icarus, reached for the sky but then burnt its wings off.
What wings? :O:

Those stubs they put the fuel tanks and 'winders on? :haha:

Ok, the aircraft itself when used in the proper role was good, but it was used in the wrong role too often and in the wrong weather and then...splat, Tent peg time. That hardly makes an aircraft bad. I would ratchet that up to poor leadership at an strategic level.

EDIT: Don't forget the F-104 was the first jet with the M61 cannon. A 100% pure piece of whoopass.

[frau kaleun]

See for your self... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh9dhBJY010)

That went better than I expected. :D

On the other hand... the Pogo? :har:

[Sailor Steve]

Er, it's a B.E.2, not a Fe-2 (or are they the same?). Please read the part: "Faults of the type" in the Wiki link. The gunner sat on the front seat which meant he couldn't shoot forward as there was the propeller, he couldn't shoot straight to the rear as there was the pilot, he couldn't shoot top or bottom left or right as there were the wings. Combine that with an underpowered engine, a small bombload and no manoeuvrability to speak of and you have a bad plane. .... I really wouldn't have wanted to fly one of those in WWI.
You're right, it was the 'Bombing Experimental 2', not the 'Fighter Experimental 2'. And it was a bad plane after fighters came along, but that wasn't a concept when the plane was designed. The later development, the RE.8, was not really better, but they had to use what was available.

Here's one for you, the actual FE.2b.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Aircraft_Factory_F.E.2

The front gun was great for shooting at another two-seater, but notice the procedure for shooting at a fighter approaching from behind.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/Royal_Aircraft_Factory_FE2d_gunner.jpg

"No, Tim! Don't turn! DON'T TURN!"

[CaptainHaplo]

The FE2 and DH2 both were effective when going against the Eindeker. Thus they can't be considered flops.

If you want ugly, used in combat and totally ineffective, I nominate the Do 335 push/pull design. Fast, but thats about it. A bloody ugly bird to boot!

[TLAM Strike]

If you want ugly, used in combat and totally ineffective, I nominate the Do 335 push/pull design. Fast, but thats about it. A bloody ugly bird to boot!

Only 11 fighters were finished. It was also capable of outrunning just about anything the Allies had at the time (except maybe the Meteor). Not bad just unproven.

[Gerald]

http://imgur.com/Uz083.jpg

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=107

[bookworm_020]

They couldn't fix it, so they made it more ugly and gave it more problems!

Short Sturgeon

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6291/sturgeonsb3.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Sturgeon

Short's must have been on to something (or on something...)

Short SB.6 Seamew

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/3581/shortseamew.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Seamew

China's "improved" Mig-21 (only took them 20 to start production!)

Shenyang J-8 "Finback"

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/7651/jian8fighterchina.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-8

And to finish it off (sorry no photo), a steam powered plane!:o

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Tramp

[bookworm_020]

But the Nimrod was a sorted Comet and served well in it's Maritime partol and ASW role up until March 2010. Anything that serves nearly 40 years has got to be out of contention for worst aircraft.

But the AEW version didn't serve with distinction, and was ugly to boot!

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/7825/x0030270003.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEW_Nimrod#AEW3

[Gerald]

They couldn't fix it, so they made it more ugly and gave it more problems!

Short Sturgeon

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6291/sturgeonsb3.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Sturgeon

Short's must have been on to something (or on something...)

Short SB.6 Seamew

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/3581/shortseamew.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Seamew

China's "improved" Mig-21 (only took them 20 to start production!)

Shenyang J-8 "Finback"

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/7651/jian8fighterchina.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-8

And to finish it off (sorry no photo), a steam powered plane!:o

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Tramp

http://imgur.com/PHaLA.jpg

[krashkart]

I would almost nominate the A-5 Vigilante, but overall it probably wasn't a bad aircraft. It did have an unusual method for delivering payloads, which never really panned out as a reliable system. So instead, I nominate the "stores train" of said aircraft.

The single nuclear weapon, commonly the Mk 28 bomb, was attached to two disposable fuel tanks in the cylindrical bay in an assembly known as the "stores train". The idea was for the fuel tanks to be emptied during flight to the target and then jettisoned as part of the bomb by an explosive drogue gun. In practice the system was never reliable and no live weapons were ever carried in the linear bomb bay. In the RA-5C configuration, the bay was used solely for fuel. On three occasions the shock of the catapult launch caused the fuel cans to eject onto the deck resulting in one aircraft loss.

"Cleanup on aisle 2, please." :shifty:

[Gerald]

http://www.ejectionsite.com/vigilante.htm

[Bubblehead1980]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned it thus far, so I will...I nominate the Brewster F2A Buffalo, another plane derided by its pilots as a flying coffin. The sad thing is that I grew up about a mile away from where they built these things back in WWII in Warminster, PA.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Brewster_F2A-3_g16055.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo

I'm sorry, but this one just has to take the cake...it's one fugly airplane.

You beat me to it, was going to nominate it.I actually talked to an old WW II aviator who was giving tours at the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, FL(my hometown) during one of my visits there about five years ago.This gentleman(often wonder if he is still with us) said was rather frank about his dislike for the Buffalo.

[Bubblehead1980]

F-105 Thunderchief, the combat losses were well, outrageous.The Thud lacked the more advanced bomb sights and thus was forced to dive bomb, much like a WW II era dive bomber.The Thud, while very fast was large and not that agile, pilots had a difficult time evading SAMs and clouds of flak that other planes dealt with but did not suffer the loss rates.

Brave me they were, to go into battle in a plane like that...

[Jimbuna]

"No, Tim! Don't turn! DON'T TURN!"

LOL :DL


The Dornier DO-X only three were ever built.

http://varifrank.com/images/Dornier-Do-X_1.jpg

[Gerald]

A large German aircraft (DO-X), but hardly a military objects

[krashkart]

LOL :DL


The Dornier DO-X only three were ever built.

http://varifrank.com/images/Dornier-Do-X_1.jpg

A flying yacht. :DL

But certainly not a Raymond Luxury Yacht. :timeout:

[Oberon]

What wings? :O:

Those stubs they put the fuel tanks and 'winders on? :haha:

That hardly makes an aircraft bad. I would ratchet that up to poor leadership at an strategic level.

EDIT: Don't forget the F-104 was the first jet with the M61 cannon. A 100% pure piece of whoopass.

Yeah, but then again a lot of dud aircraft are a case of putting it in the wrong role or bad judgments in the design or deployment level, or quite simply being completely outclassed by the opposition. The Buffalo held its own in Finnish hands but fell apart when facing Zippos.

The M61 was originally a pure piece of FOD don't forget ;) The M61A1 was where things finally came along ;)

[Raptor1]

Not sure if it counts, but how about the S-class Zeppelins?

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/615197B0-2E25-4B94-A772-B084DE208830/NA015733.jpg

[Jimbuna]

A flying yacht. :DL

But certainly not a Raymond Luxury Yacht. :timeout:

As close as you'll get :DL

[Gerald]

Not sure if it counts, but how about the S-class Zeppelins?

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/615197B0-2E25-4B94-A772-B084DE208830/NA015733.jpg :hmmm:

[Raptor1]

Yes.

[XabbaRus]

F-105 Thunderchief, the combat losses were well, outrageous.The Thud lacked the more advanced bomb sights and thus was forced to dive bomb, much like a WW II era dive bomber.The Thud, while very fast was large and not that agile, pilots had a difficult time evading SAMs and clouds of flak that other planes dealt with but did not suffer the loss rates.

Brave me they were, to go into battle in a plane like that...

Disagree. It racked up high combat losses due to being at the forefront of the bombing campaign. The dive bombing issue was due to it being designed as a low level strike bomber and since production had stopped they weren't going to update it.

It was the perfect example of an aircraft being asked to do a job for which it hadn't been designed.

[JSLTIGER]

F-105 Thunderchief, the combat losses were well, outrageous.The Thud lacked the more advanced bomb sights and thus was forced to dive bomb, much like a WW II era dive bomber.The Thud, while very fast was large and not that agile, pilots had a difficult time evading SAMs and clouds of flak that other planes dealt with but did not suffer the loss rates.

Brave me they were, to go into battle in a plane like that...
Disagree. It racked up high combat losses due to being at the forefront of the bombing campaign. The dive bombing issue was due to it being designed as a low level strike bomber and since production had stopped they weren't going to update it.

It was the perfect example of an aircraft being asked to do a job for which it hadn't been designed.

Agree with this. My grandfather worked for Republic Aviation on the 105s (he also has talked to me about the never built XF-103...cool plane but ahead of its time). He complains bitterly that the 105 was being regularly asked to do things that it was never designed to do. It was never meant to be a conventional bomber, it was supposed to get in, drop a nuke (for which precision is kind of unimportant, hence the lack of sights) and get out.

[krashkart]

I've always kind of liked the Thud. Classy looking bird in some respects. :)


EDIT - Although, I wonder what my opinion of it would be had I ever flown one.

[JSLTIGER]

Not sure if it counts, but how about the S-class Zeppelins?

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/615197B0-2E25-4B94-A772-B084DE208830/NA015733.jpg

I'd say that's probably a fairly good nomination.

Combat aircraft? Yes.

Slow, low payload, expensive to operate, huge target, and oh yeah, basically a flying bomb itself (thank you hydrogen, which + tracers = boom).

[Jimbuna]

Yes.

LOL :DL

I'd say that's probably a fairly good nomination.

Combat aircraft? Yes.

Slow, low payload, expensive to operate, huge target, and oh yeah, basically a flying bomb itself (thank you hydrogen, which + tracers = boom).

I'd agree....I was thinking of the Zeppelin earlier on :yep:

[Raptor1]

I'd say that's probably a fairly good nomination.

Combat aircraft? Yes.

Slow, low payload, expensive to operate, huge target, and oh yeah, basically a flying bomb itself (thank you hydrogen, which + tracers = boom).

Those are Zeppelin problems in general, but the 'Height Climbers' had even worse problems on top of that. While they did achieve the primary design purpose of flying higher than British aircraft and air defences could reach, the men and equipment inside had no adequate protection against the cold and lack of oxygen at such high altitudes, making them rather dangerous to fly. The general navigation and accuracy problems that Zeppelins had were also made much worse thanks to the increased altitude. If that wasn't bad enough, the removed engine made them even slower than preceding classes and the lighter construction made them very fragile and vulnerable to the wind (Which was made even worse because of the altitude, of course).

[Bilge_Rat]

Well, no, but out of those 15 countries at least two of them lost pilots, the Luftwaffe crashed 292 and lost 110 pilots to it, Canada crashed 110 of them too, Belgium crashed forty one, Italy lost 137, Japan lost 36, and the US had 30.63 accidents for every 100,000 flight hours which was the highest of the 'century' series fighters. So at the very least (not including US losses) some 616 F-104s crashed in service. That's nearly 30% of all aircraft built (I don't know the precise number, too late to work it out).

Ok, the aircraft itself when used in the proper role was good, but it was used in the wrong role too often and in the wrong weather and then...splat, Tent peg time.

The problem with the Starfighter was that due to its small wings, it had to land at a fairly high speed. One mistake and you were toast. But then the FW-190 in WW2 had the same problem.

Plus, it severely burnt and took two finger tips from Chuck Yeager! I mean, the guy knows his aircraft but the F-104 chewed him up and spat him out.
Stopped his record attempts too.

Was a bit of an Icarus, reached for the sky but then burnt its wings off.

Yeager was not flying a regular F-104, but an NF-104 which had a rocket engine attached to reach record high altitudes. The rocket turned out to completely screw up the aerodynamics of the plane and Yeager got into a flat spin that he could not recover from (as I recall, the book "The Right Stuff" has a detalied description of the flight).

When he ejected, he wound up colliding with the retro rocket of his ejection seat, which started a fire inside his helmet and his glove.

[Bilge_Rat]

F-105 Thunderchief, the combat losses were well, outrageous.The Thud lacked the more advanced bomb sights and thus was forced to dive bomb, much like a WW II era dive bomber.The Thud, while very fast was large and not that agile, pilots had a difficult time evading SAMs and clouds of flak that other planes dealt with but did not suffer the loss rates.

Brave me they were, to go into battle in a plane like that...

I would agree with Xabbarus. The F-105 was designed to carry a single nuclear bomb against tactical targets, In Vietnam it was asked to carry out a job it was not designed to do.

It turned out to be able to carry a high bomb load and be a decent combat aircraft as well, shooting down many Mig-17s which were more agile , but slower. Its only real enemy was the MIG-21 which totally outclassed the Thud.

The high combat losses had more to do with the Air defences over North Vietnam than the plane's design. The Soviets used Vietnam to test and refine their air defence network. By 1968, Hanoi was the most heavily defended target in the world.

[Sailor Steve]

Yeager was not flying a regular F-104, but an NF-104 which had a rocket engine attached to reach record high altitudes. The rocket turned out to completely screw up the aerodynamics of the plane and Yeager got into a flat spin that he could not recover from (as I recall, the book "The Right Stuff" has a detalied description of the flight).

When he ejected, he wound up colliding with the retro rocket of his ejection seat, which started a fire inside his helmet and his glove.
:yep:

According to his own account the rocket engine failed while he was too low for the installed thrusters to function properly (the NF-104 was designed to give X-15 pilots practice with the thrusters used to control the plane when it was high enough for the standard controls to be useless), and too high for the jet engine to work, which meant the hydraulicly-powered standard controls wouldn't work either. The plane began to descend in a nose-up position, and with no controls at all he couldn't even re-start the jet engine.

Neither pilot nor plane was to blame for the failure of the rocket engine.

One of the early problems (later fixed) on the F-104 was a downward-firing ejection seat, used because the early seats didn't have enough power to clear the tail if fired at supersonic speeds.

[Schroeder]

Well, no, but out of those 15 countries at least two of them lost pilots, the Luftwaffe crashed 292 and lost 110 pilots to it, Canada crashed 110 of them too, Belgium crashed forty one, Italy lost 137, Japan lost 36, and the US had 30.63 accidents for every 100,000 flight hours which was the highest of the 'century' series fighters. So at the very least (not including US losses) some 616 F-104s crashed in service. That's nearly 30% of all aircraft built (I don't know the precise number, too late to work it out).

Don't forget the role it was pushed into in the Luftwaffe. Low flying fighter bombers always lose more planes and pilots to accidents as they are flying close to the ground which makes it difficult to correct mistakes. A 104 mechanic told me once that the loss rates with the Starfighter's predecessor, the F84 Thunderstrike, were even higher.
At the end of it's career the 104G had become a pretty reliable craft. They were withdrawn in 1986 and the last pilot was killed in 1981 (IIRC). That's five years of flying without a fatal incident.

[TLAM Strike]

http://imgur.com/Uz083.jpg

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=107

I new someone was going to post the Rocket Fighter. ;)

(he also has talked to me about the never built XF-103...cool plane but ahead of its time).
XF-103, just read up on it, sounds like an American MiG-25 Foxbat. Very neat.

Those are Zeppelin problems in general, but the 'Height Climbers' had even worse problems on top of that. While they did achieve the primary design purpose of flying higher than British aircraft and air defences could reach, the men and equipment inside had no adequate protection against the cold and lack of oxygen at such high altitudes, making them rather dangerous to fly. The general navigation and accuracy problems that Zeppelins had were also made much worse thanks to the increased altitude. If that wasn't bad enough, the removed engine made them even slower than preceding classes and the lighter construction made them very fragile and vulnerable to the wind (Which was made even worse because of the altitude, of course). Did they consider warm cloths and oxygen masks? I know very little about WWI aircraft but I know they used Nitrous Oxide as an inhaled sedative in the Civil War and making oxygen can be done by mixing chemicals (I did it in chemistry class). Coudln't they mix whatever they used to deliver inhaled sedatives but hook it to something that made oxygen? Or did they have compressed air back then?

...the F84 Thunderstrike...
*F84F Thunderstreak ;)

[Bilge_Rat]

my pick is still the Boulton Defiant...
http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/defiant-bpa3.jpg

a fighter with no forward firing guns...:ping:

[Diopos]

F-104s ...:hmmm:
Yeap that sure is a whole discussion on its own. Very controversial... When used in the Hellenic Airforce it claimed 16 pilots (?:hmmm:). I think everybody was pleased when the F-5s,-4s, Mirages and A-7 Corsairs started to come "into play" in the '70s.


.

[TLAM Strike]

...A-7 Corsairs started to come "into play" in the '70s.

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/9189/worshipsmiley.gif The Corsair II

The greatest strike aircraft of all time... :up:

[Raptor1]

my pick is still the Boulton Defiant...

a fighter with no forward firing guns...:ping:

Hardly, not only did it perform very well until the Luftwaffe started attacking it from outside its firing arc, but it also was a pretty good night fighter later on.


Did they consider warm cloths and oxygen masks? I know very little about WWI aircraft but I know they used Nitrous Oxide as an inhaled sedative in the Civil War and making oxygen can be done by mixing chemicals (I did it in chemistry class). Coudln't they mix whatever they used to deliver inhaled sedatives but hook it to something that made oxygen? Or did they have compressed air back then?


Well, presumably they did wear warm clothes, I don't know how much they helped at 6,000 meters. I also don't know what they did or could about the oxygen problem. I do know they had plenty of problems with the engines and equipment as well men because of these conditions, though.

Regardless, they had plenty of other problems. Many were literally blown off target (Or crashed) by the wind, others couldn't find their way to the target or back home (Or were shot down after descending in an attempt to discover their location). Overall, quite unsuccessful.

[Schroeder]

*F84F Thunderstreak ;)
:damn::damn::damn::damn:
:oops:

[Diopos]

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/9189/worshipsmiley.gif The Corsair II

The greatest strike aircraft of all time... :up:

Much respected here (Greece). :yep::yep::yep:


.

[Bubblehead1980]

I still maintain the F105.While what you guys who responded to my post is true.The F-105 was pretty awful in combat.Not taking away from the brave men who flew her and did their best with what they had.The Thud was awful in combat.

[XabbaRus]

Define awful?

[Tribesman]

Define awful?
How about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUn0n9Yu7Vw&feature=related

[JU_88]

Tarjak beat me to the punch, I was gonna go for the HE-177 also. :)
Though i think if there was ever on aircraft you wouldnt get me to fly on, it would be a De haviland Comet. (but its civil)

[tater]

The F2B did great for Finland. For kill to loss ratio arguably one of the best planes ever, actually.

F2Bs were not great, but they suffered from the primary problem of aircraft at the very start of the Pacific War. Lack of numbers. The Zero is too often credited with being grossly superior to what it fought. It was not. Often it was the better plane, but what drove the lopsided victories was simple NUMBERS. "Firstest with the mostest."

The IJNAF and IJAAF put many planes at the sharp end at once. In the NEI and Malaya, literally many dozens of japanese fighters with 2, 3, or 4 Brewsters to hold them off. It could have been 4 F6Fs, and they'd STILL have been slaughtered.

Quantity has a quality all its own.

[Bubblehead1980]

Define awful?


Hmm the losses are the main thing.Plenty of other planes built in same era such as F-100 Super Sabre dealt with same murderous AA fire and SAMs but did not suffer the same casualties as far as I can tell.17 were lost to North Vietnamnese fighters.

The Thunderchief was fast, very fast but it's high load wing, size and weight were hinderances in a dogfight, Thud was not exactly agile, just fast.

I get the argument that the Thud was not intended for the conventional mission but then again she was prob designed to fill that role because not every sortie would be a nuke strike.Also, say some Thuds would have been sent to drop nukes in Europe if the Cold War went "HOT" , how would they have held up with their lack of agility against enemy SAM's and fighters then?

Vietnam was a proving ground for cold war tech for both US and Soviets(since they supplied the North Vietnamnese) and the Thud was proven not to be the best plane for any mission really due to her over the top number of losses.

I like the plane myself and bet she was cool to strap into and "gun" the throttle but was prob best suited for other roles than any strike role.They did perform fairly well in the SEAD role, because they usually attacked the SAM radar's before they could fire, which would then exploit the Thud's lack of agility.

[Bubblehead1980]

The F2B did great for Finland. For kill to loss ratio arguably one of the best planes ever, actually.

F2Bs were not great, but they suffered from the primary problem of aircraft at the very start of the Pacific War. Lack of numbers. The Zero is too often credited with being grossly superior to what it fought. It was not. Often it was the better plane, but what drove the lopsided victories was simple NUMBERS. "Firstest with the mostest."

The IJNAF and IJAAF put many planes at the sharp end at once. In the NEI and Malaya, literally many dozens of japanese fighters with 2, 3, or 4 Brewsters to hold them off. It could have been 4 F6Fs, and they'd STILL have been slaughtered.

Quantity has a quality all its own.

Actually.....read about MOH Winner Cdr David McCampbell, the USN's leading ACE of WW II.McCampbell and his wingman, alone in two F6F Hellcats faced about 60(some say 90) Japanese planes in 1944, mostly fighters.McCampbell himself took out 9, his wingman downed several.

Quality of the plane in addition to pilot skill matters.

[TLAM Strike]

Actually.....read about MOH Winner Cdr David McCampbell, the USN's leading ACE of WW II.McCampbell and his wingman, alone in two F6F Hellcats faced about 60(some say 90) Japanese planes in 1944, mostly fighters.McCampbell himself took out 9, his wingman downed several.

Quality of the plane in addition to pilot skill matters.
Aircraft Quality and Pilot Skill matters a lot. :up:
Wasn't their a Saber driver who took on a dozen MiGs and downed them all? :hmmm:

[Diopos]

Actually a good criterion would be losses in non combat situations. I mean If a plane "kills" you in peacetime, imagine at war!!! Mmmm....:hmmm:


.

[Schroeder]

Hmm the losses are the main thing.Plenty of other planes built in same era such as F-100 Super Sabre dealt with same murderous AA fire and SAMs but did not suffer the same casualties as far as I can tell.17 were lost to North Vietnamnese fighters.

IIRC the F105 went DEEP into North Vietnam while the F100 was mainly used for close support. So that are two completely different environments. On your way through NV every SAM site in your way can fire at you, let alone the AAA and fighter threat. If you keep close to the front line for close support you will hardly if ever see a SAM or an enemy fighter. Another thing is that the Thud had to dive on often well defended targets because of the lack of proper bomb sights. That has to lead to high losses. But that isn't directly a design flaw as it was not meant to do that when it was designed.

The Thunderchief was fast, very fast but it's high load wing, size and weight were hinderances in a dogfight, Thud was not exactly agile, just fast.
And that's exactly what it was designed for. It was not really a fighter but a nuke delivery platform.


Also, say some Thuds would have been sent to drop nukes in Europe if the Cold War went "HOT" , how would they have held up with their lack of agility against enemy SAM's and fighters then?
If it delivered a nuke it only had to reach it's target once and go home. A hot nuclear war wouldn't have lasted long.


Vietnam was a proving ground for cold war tech for both US and Soviets(since they supplied the North Vietnamnese) and the Thud was proven not to be the best plane for any mission really due to her over the top number of losses. If you push a plane into missions it wasn't designed for, then it would be really surprising to see it being top notch.


I like the plane myself and bet she was cool to strap into and "gun" the throttle but was prob best suited for other roles than any strike role.They did perform fairly well in the SEAD role, because they usually attacked the SAM radar's before they could fire, which would then exploit the Thud's lack of agility.IIRC the first AGM 45 Shrikes had a shorter range than the SA2 Guideline SAMs. It wasn't until later in the war that the Shrike got greater range than the SAMs.

[bookworm_020]

Quality of the plane in addition to pilot skill matters.

Chuck Yeager Said that a good pilot in a bad plane can beat a bad pilot in a good plane.

I read the the combat history of the Japanese Ace Saburo Sakai, He fought 6 F6F's off Iwo, despite being outnumbered, flying an outdated Zero and blind in one eye, he damaged one and managed to return to base without a single bullet hole in his plane!

Remember early in the war Japan had a large force of combat experienced pilots, but by the end of the war, most of the pilots were lucky to have more than a dozen flight hours.

[FIREWALL]

UGLY MILITARY PLANES PEOPLE!!! :stare:

[Diopos]

UGLY MILITARY PLANES PEOPLE!!! :stare:

Nope, the theme is:

"The quest for the worst combat aircraft in history... "

.

[Oberon]

Aah, didn't know about the mod on Yeagers F-104, that explains that. Don't get me wrong, I have a respect for the Starfighter...but it's not a gentle plane, you make a mistake and it will bite your head off. Some aircraft let you get away with little errors...I doubt very much the F-104 is one of them. :hmmm:
I certainly wouldn't call it the worst combat aircraft in history...but it at least deserves to be on the list IMHO.

Oh, and the Lead Sled? Dunno what to make of it...but prefer the Sabre any day.

[HunterICX]

Convair B-58 Hustler

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/5548/767pxconvairxb58hustler.jpg

Even in its operational life, the Hustler maintained its reputation as a dangerous airplane to fly. Darrell Schmidt, a B-58 pilot from 1966 to 1970, says, “There were 116 aircraft built, 26 of which were destroyed in accidents, with 36 crew members killed. If that doesn’t fit the definition of ‘dangerous,’ I don’t know what would.”

HunterICX

[krashkart]

IIRC from what I read about the Hustler, it had a problem with fuel shifting around during maneuvers? :ping:

Cool plane to look at, though. :)

[HunterICX]

IIRC from what I read about the Hustler, it had a problem with fuel shifting around during maneuvers? :ping:

Cool plane to look at, though. :)

It had more problems as you can read here:
The B-58 accident rate in 1959 and 1960 had been alarmingly high, which led SAC to delay acceptance of executive responsibility for the aircraft. The first accident had taken place on Dec 16, 1958, near Cannon AFB, NM when 58-018 was lost. The accident was attributed to a loss of control during normal flight when auto-trim and ratio changer were rendered inoperative due to an electrical system failure. On May 14, 1959, 58-1012 was destroyed by fire during a refueling operation at Carswell AFB. 58-1017 was destroyed on September 16 of that year when a tire blew during takeoff from Carswell AFB. On October 27, 55-669 was destroyed near Hattiesburg, Mississippi when it lost control during normal flight. On November 7, 55-664 was destroyed during a high-speed test flight near Lawton, Oklahoma when it disintegrated in midair. Convair test pilot Raymond Fitzgerald and Convair flight engineer Donald A. Siedhof were both killed. The flight was attempting to collect vertical fin side loads data under the conditions of the loss of an engine at high speed. A friend of mine witnessed this accident from the ground. Although the cause of the accident was never adequately explained, it appears that a design flaw in the aircraft's flight control system and defects in the integrity of the vertical fin structure were to blame. There is also the possibility that when the number 4 engine was purposely shut down for the test, number 3 lost thrust as well. On April 22, 1960 a failure of the Mach/airspeed/air data system caused the loss of 58-1023 near Hill AFB, Utah. On June 4, 1960, 55-0667 was lost due to pilot error while flying at supersonic speed near Lubbock, Texas.

Also many where due carelessness in handling it as the aircraft was dificult to fly and as it was a leap forward in technology as the first operational supersonic jet bomber it had to work out a lot of mechanical and system problems that came with this jump forward.

but damn does it look like a mean machine.

HunterICX

[krashkart]

That definitely was a dangerous airplane alright. Thanks for the reading material. :up:


Sure wish I could think of a crappy combat aircraft to post here. :hmm2:

[Bilge_Rat]

Chuck Yeager Said that a good pilot in a bad plane can beat a bad pilot in a good plane.

I read the the combat history of the Japanese Ace Saburo Sakai, He fought 6 F6F's off Iwo, despite being outnumbered, flying an outdated Zero and blind in one eye, he damaged one and managed to return to base without a single bullet hole in his plane!

Remember early in the war Japan had a large force of combat experienced pilots, but by the end of the war, most of the pilots were lucky to have more than a dozen flight hours.


from what I recall from his memoirs, Sakai singlehandedly fought off 15 F6 in that battle off Iwo. He would wait until the fighter was in firing position on his tail and roll away before the pilot could react. When he got back to base, he said his whole body was mush from the stress and he had to be helped from the plane.

but the greatest performance was probably that of the japanese ace Muto over the japanese mainland in february 1945. He took on 12 corsairs (or hellcats, the accounts differ) in a Zero and shot down 4.

[Bilge_Rat]

Aah, didn't know about the mod on Yeagers F-104, that explains that. Don't get me wrong, I have a respect for the Starfighter...but it's not a gentle plane, you make a mistake and it will bite your head off. Some aircraft let you get away with little errors...I doubt very much the F-104 is one of them. :hmmm:
I certainly wouldn't call it the worst combat aircraft in history...but it at least deserves to be on the list IMHO.

Oh, and the Lead Sled? Dunno what to make of it...but prefer the Sabre any day.

A lot of the planes designed in the 50s were very dangerous. They were extremely powerful and were basically designed (and flown) by the seat of the pants, since the study of aerodynamics was rudimentary back then. They also lacked many of the standard safety features (like a g limiter) which are now standard.

Piloting any of them was a very dangerous job.

I recall reading the story of an accident which occurred in the mid 50s. The pilot of a jet fighter, I dont recall the model, flew into the air base at 600 knots at a right angle to the landing strip intending to do a sharp left turn at the very end to slow the plane down and land. In the middle of the turn, both wings tore off and the plane crashed. When they found the pilot, he was dead although he appeared unharmed. When they reconstructed the accident they calculated the sharp turn had subjected the plane and the pilot to a force of 180 gs! resulting in instant death.

I personally find the early jet fighters to be extremely fascinating.

[Admiral8Q]

http://imgur.com/xK5Ia.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XFY
I think this one has got to be one of the most innovative designs that actually worked! It seems like an early version to the modern Osprey!
http://doppelbock.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/v22_header.jpg
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/v22.jpg


As for worst combat aircraft so far, I'd have to give my vote for the LWS-6 Żubr! I mean who could ever love that fugly plane?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/PZL.30.jpeg

[Takeda Shingen]

As for worst combat aircraft so far, I'd have to give my vote for the LWS-6 Żubr! I mean who could ever love that fugly plane?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/PZL.30.jpeg

Why is it that early eastern European designs are so ugly?

EDIT: Agree about the history of VTOLs.

[TLAM Strike]

I think this one has got to be one of the most innovative designs that actually worked! It seems like an early version to the modern Osprey!
http://doppelbock.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/v22_header.jpg
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/v22.jpg

THIS is an early version of the Osprey... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-22)

[Admiral8Q]

Why is it that early eastern European designs are so ugly?

EDIT: Agree about the history of VTOLs.

Not all are ugly IMO. It's probably the 'snout' of this plane that makes it ugly. The fact that it's design was so flawed that says worst combat aircraft. I'm sure it was great as it's intended design (other then the landing gear problem) as a passenger plane. The big forward canopy would probably offer a panoramic view. I wouldn't want to take it into combat however.
http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/rys/rys158.jpg
http://awiacja.republika.pl/Foto/LWS-4.jpg
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bww2/pzl30/pzl30-1.jpg

THIS is an early version of the Osprey... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-22)
Yes that's interesting :)

I think it would be cool to take a 'Pogo' to commute!:rock:
Not only would you have to parallel park, but also that vertical parking would be tricky...
http://www.planeaday.com/images/2010/Jan/Convair_XFY-1_Pogo_3.jpg

[JSLTIGER]

THIS is an early version of the Osprey... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-22)

Actually the X-19 and X-22 would be better examples of early versions of the V-22 Osprey.

X-19:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Curtiss-Wright_X-19_1963.jpg

X-22:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/X-22a_onground_bw.jpg/300px-X-22a_onground_bw.jpg

[Legionary74]

Already found the worst combat plane:

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100928/capt.9b3bfc52bdd243899bd98674bca33346-9b3bfc52bdd243899bd98674bca33346-0.jpg?x=400&y=230&q=85&sig=_AHUVTQrFLGXgPVHCGczQg--

[Rockstar]

We had a development team come up with a proposal to the Pentagon for the manufacture a cheap fighter aircraft. Though we did sell them on the idea of arming the aircraft with lighter fluid and taping a strike anywhere match on the nose. After the contracts were signed and we were made rich. Several aborted strikes missions later we found a problem with the launch and propulsion systems. Seems they could never reach their intended target before crashing to the ground and burning up on impact.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2451274467_88f2eaf225.jpg

[gimpy117]

https://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Yokosuka-Ohka/IMAGES/Yokosuka-Ohka-I-18.jpg

[Oberon]

https://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Yokosuka-Ohka/IMAGES/Yokosuka-Ohka-I-18.jpg

Already nominated and discarded:

The Okha? They worked quite well actually.

They sank or destroyed beyond repair 2 Destroyers and hit 6 other ships incl 1 BB in the space of about 3 months. Not bad for something in service for only around 6 months.

[Sailor Steve]

THIS is an early version of the Osprey... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-22)
Neener neener, the Brits did it first!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Rotodyne

[Sailor Steve]

Already found the worst combat plane:

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100928/capt.9b3bfc52bdd243899bd98674bca33346-9b3bfc52bdd243899bd98674bca33346-0.jpg?x=400&y=230&q=85&sig=_AHUVTQrFLGXgPVHCGczQg--

At least those are cute. I'd love to try one.

[TLAM Strike]

At least those are cute. I'd love to try one. Better save your money:
http://seaeagleinternational.com/

Neener neener, the Brits did it first!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Rotodyne

Russians did it better... :O:

They set the payload and alt record with theirs.

[Sailor Steve]

Russians did it better... :O:

They set the payload and alt record with theirs.
So?

[Oberon]

Neener neener, the Brits did it first!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Rotodyne

:o:doh::dead:

Never seen that before, blimey, what a curious looking beastie. :hmmm:

[Dowly]

I think this one has got to be one of the most innovative designs that actually worked! It seems like an early version to the modern Osprey!

Rather canny resemblance to the Heinkel 'Wespe' and Heinkel 'Lerche". :yep:

[TLAM Strike]

:o:doh::dead:

Never seen that before, blimey, what a curious looking beastie. :hmmm:

The only normal looking airplane you people ever built was the Spitfire. :O:

[HunterICX]

The only normal looking airplane you people ever built was the Spitfire. :O:

Why youuuu..I http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/4595/shakingfistemoticon.gif

what about the Hawker Hurricane, Typhoon and Tempest! :stare:

HunterICX

[Dowly]

I've always thougth that the Typhoon looks like a Spitfire on steroids and Tempest like a Hurricane on steroids. :DL

[HunterICX]

I've always thougth that the Typhoon looks like a Spitfire on steroids and Tempest like a Hurricane on steroids. :DL

How do you compare that the Typhoon looks like a Spitfire on Steriods and the Tempest looks like a Hurricane on Steriods...when the Typhoon and Tempest look identical? :o

HunterICX

[Dowly]

Beats me, that's just the mental image I get whenever I see the name "Typhoon" or "Tempest". :03:

[TLAM Strike]

Why youuuu..I http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/4595/shakingfistemoticon.gif

what about the Hawker Hurricane, Typhoon and Tempest! :stare:

HunterICX

The Hurricane, Typhoon and Tempest are myths. They never existed. The only British fighter plane of WWII was the Spitfire.

I know it to be true! I've seen it in movies- those don't lie!

:O:

[TarJak]

The only normal looking airplane you people ever built was the Spitfire. :O::nope:
Bristol Scout, Sopwith Camel, deHavilland Mosquito, Hawker Hunter, Hawker Hawk; all of them, Fury, Gloster Javelin, etc. etc. etc.

This site (http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/index.html) might help...

Unless your definition of normal looking is something that looks like a Spitfire? :P

[bookworm_020]

The only normal looking airplane you people ever built was the Spitfire. :O:

Does the B-57 ring any bells?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-57_Canberra

Kind of strange that the US flew a British designed plane named after the Australian Capital city!

[Oberon]

The Hurricane, Typhoon and Tempest are myths. They never existed. The only British fighter plane of WWII was the Spitfire.

I know it to be true! I've seen it in movies- those don't lie!

:O:

Must be like those movies that has the entire USAF fighter division made up of P-51s... :hmmm: