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.

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...

LOL :DL


The Dornier DO-X only three were ever built.

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

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

A flying yacht. :DL

But certainly not a Raymond Luxury Yacht. :timeout:

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 ;)

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

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/6...0/NA015733.jpg

As close as you'll get :DL

Was it a military commitment,
 

:hmmm:

Yes.

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.

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.

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).

LOL :DL

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