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

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by 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://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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

LOL


The Dornier DO-X only three were ever built.

[Gerald]

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

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

LOL


The Dornier DO-X only three were ever built.

A flying yacht.

But certainly not a Raymond Luxury Yacht.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

What wings?

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

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?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by krashkart

A flying yacht.

But certainly not a Raymond Luxury Yacht.

As close as you'll get

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

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

[Raptor1]

Yes.

[XabbaRus]

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

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]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

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

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]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Yes.

LOL

Originally Posted by JSLTIGER

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