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...

Yeah. Missed that requirement when reading the thread.

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.

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...0349832898.jpg

Convair XFY-1
 

http://imgur.com/xK5Ia.jpg

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

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

http://idiotflashback.files.wordpres...09/12/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..."

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.

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?

This is what happens when the Air force and the Navy sit down together.

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nin_K-7_01.jpg

...or the Tarrant Tabor...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nt_Tabor_1.jpg

Fokker Fodder
Nuff said!
http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/al...3965356638.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ro...War_Museum.jpghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_A..._Factory_B.E.2

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.

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!"

How bout this brilliant idea?

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

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

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.

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