SUBSIM Radio Room Forums



SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > General > General Topics
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-25-10, 09:00 PM   #1
TLAM Strike
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Rochester, New York
Posts: 8,633
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 6


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TarJak View Post
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.
__________________


TLAM Strike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-10, 07:47 AM   #2
Jimbuna
Chief of the Boat
 
Jimbuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 250 metres below the surface
Posts: 190,770
Downloads: 63
Uploads: 13


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike View Post

Ok new criteria: the aircraft must suck so bad that no corrective measures can fix it.
The Kamikaze
__________________
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.
Oh my God, not again!!

Jimbuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-10, 05:43 PM   #3
JU_88
Silent Hunter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3,811
Downloads: 11
Uploads: 0
Default

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)
JU_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-10, 06:00 AM   #4
HunterICX
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Malaga, España
Posts: 10,750
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0


Default

Convair B-58 Hustler



Quote:
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
__________________
HunterICX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-10, 06:04 AM   #5
krashkart
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,292
Downloads: 100
Uploads: 0


Default

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

Cool plane to look at, though.
krashkart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-10, 06:18 AM   #6
HunterICX
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Malaga, España
Posts: 10,750
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krashkart View Post
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:
Quote:
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
__________________
HunterICX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-10, 06:35 AM   #7
krashkart
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,292
Downloads: 100
Uploads: 0


Default

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.
krashkart is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.