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

[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]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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.
Wasn't their a Saber driver who took on a dozen MiGs and downed them all?

[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....


.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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!!!

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

UGLY MILITARY PLANES PEOPLE!!!

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.
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

Originally Posted by Airspacemag.com

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?

Cool plane to look at, though.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by krashkart

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

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.


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