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

frau kaleun · 09-26-10, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendor

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

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?

Raptor1 · 09-26-10, 04:45 AM

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

...or the Tarrant Tabor...

Schroeder · 09-26-10, 05:23 AM

Fokker Fodder
Nuff said!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_A..._Factory_B.E.2

Sailor Steve · 09-26-10, 11:11 AM

I'm confused. The title is "The quest for the worst combat aircraft in history..." and several of the bad ideas posted here are of experimentals. By nature they are not 'combat' aircraft, and it must be expected that some will be failures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

Is there a weird angle on this pic, or does that thing have one too many of... something?

It was an attempt at vertical takeoff and landing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Fokker Fodder
Nuff said!

Not really. The Fe-2 was developed before the Fokker, so its purpose was a valid one. It's like saying the Corsair was a bad idea because in Korea they were easy prey for MiGs.

I also agree with TLAM Strike: The CR.42 was not a bad aircraft when it came out. In the Med they did quite well against Gloster Gladiators.

My candidate:

http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/lewis_barling.php

Note that this source lists the maximum speed as 89 mph. Other sources say 95 mph. I've seen one book which claims that despite the 61 mph listed for cruise speed, that was actually the minimum flying speed, which gives a very small margin between staying up and falling down!

Schroeder · 09-26-10, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Not really. The Fe-2 was developed before the Fokker, so its purpose was a valid one. It's like saying the Corsair was a bad idea because in Korea they were easy prey for MiGs.

Er, it's a B.E.2, not a Fe-2 (or are they the same?). Please read the part: "Faults of the type" in the Wiki link. The gunner sat on the front seat which meant he couldn't shoot forward as there was the propeller, he couldn't shoot straight to the rear as there was the pilot, he couldn't shoot top or bottom left or right as there were the wings. Combine that with an underpowered engine, a small bombload and no manoeuvrability to speak of and you have a bad plane. .... I really wouldn't have wanted to fly one of those in WWI.

TLAM Strike · 09-26-10, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendor

http://www.aviastar.org/air/italy/breda-88.php

http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_alb...40%20Lince.htm

Never heard of that one. Very interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

I thought the F-7 Cutlass apart from unreliable engines and hydraulics was actually quite good when it worked. I suppose that was the main problem.

Apart from that it looked cool.

Agree! Fantastic looking jet.

Quote:

That's the great thing about 1950s & 60s aviation there was so much experimentation as knowledge increased in leaps and bounds each month that within 6 months there would be a performance leap that made previous kit old. Led to some weird and wonderful shapes as I suppose the wind tunnels weren't so advanced so the only way to really check it out was to build a prototype.

Modern day planes are boring incomparison. They all are starting to look alike.

100% Agree. Every new aircraft was like an experiment in aerodynamics. Those decades really produces some strange looking birds the likes of which have not been seen since.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Er, it's a B.E.2, not a Fe-2 (or are they the same?). Please read the part: "Faults of the type" in the Wiki link. The gunner sat on the front seat which meant he couldn't shoot forward as there was the propeller, he couldn't shoot straight to the rear as there was the pilot, he couldn't shoot top or bottom left or right as there were the wings. Combine that with an underpowered engine, a small bombload and no manoeuvrability to speak of and you have a bad plane. .... I really wouldn't have wanted to fly one of those in WWI.

Could the guy shoot himself? Dang forget WWI I wouldn't want to fly that thing in the Civil War!

Sailor Steve · 09-26-10, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Er, it's a B.E.2, not a Fe-2 (or are they the same?). Please read the part: "Faults of the type" in the Wiki link. The gunner sat on the front seat which meant he couldn't shoot forward as there was the propeller, he couldn't shoot straight to the rear as there was the pilot, he couldn't shoot top or bottom left or right as there were the wings. Combine that with an underpowered engine, a small bombload and no manoeuvrability to speak of and you have a bad plane. .... I really wouldn't have wanted to fly one of those in WWI.

You're right, it was the 'Bombing Experimental 2', not the 'Fighter Experimental 2'. And it was a bad plane after fighters came along, but that wasn't a concept when the plane was designed. The later development, the RE.8, was not really better, but they had to use what was available.

Here's one for you, the actual FE.2b.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_A..._Factory_F.E.2

The front gun was great for shooting at another two-seater, but notice the procedure for shooting at a fighter approaching from behind.

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

CaptainHaplo · 09-26-10, 11:23 PM

The FE2 and DH2 both were effective when going against the Eindeker. Thus they can't be considered flops.

If you want ugly, used in combat and totally ineffective, I nominate the Do 335 push/pull design. Fast, but thats about it. A bloody ugly bird to boot!

TLAM Strike · 09-26-10, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

If you want ugly, used in combat and totally ineffective, I nominate the Do 335 push/pull design. Fast, but thats about it. A bloody ugly bird to boot!

Only 11 fighters were finished. It was also capable of outrunning just about anything the Allies had at the time (except maybe the Meteor). Not bad just unproven.

Gerald · 09-26-10, 11:52 PM

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircr...ircraft_id=107

Jimbuna · 09-27-10, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

LOL

The Dornier DO-X only three were ever built.

Gerald · 09-27-10, 06:20 AM

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

krashkart · 09-27-10, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

LOL

The Dornier DO-X only three were ever built.

A flying yacht.

But certainly not a Raymond Luxury Yacht.

Jimbuna · 09-27-10, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krashkart

A flying yacht.

But certainly not a Raymond Luxury Yacht.

As close as you'll get

frau kaleun · 09-26-10, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

It was an attempt at vertical takeoff and landing.

Well given the picture, the takeoff obviously worked - at least once. But I'm wondering how the attempted landing turned out.

09-26-10, 04:45 AM	#2
Raptor1 Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Stavka Posts: 8,211 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	When it comes to experimental or otherwise prototype aircraft, not much can beat the Kalinin K-7... ...or the Tarrant Tabor... __________________ Current Eastern Front status: Probable Victory

09-26-10, 05:23 AM	#3
Schroeder Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Banana Republic of Germany Posts: 6,170 Downloads: 62 Uploads: 0	Fokker Fodder Nuff said! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_A..._Factory_B.E.2 __________________ Putting Germ back into Germany.

09-26-10, 11:23 PM	#8
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	The FE2 and DH2 both were effective when going against the Eindeker. Thus they can't be considered flops. If you want ugly, used in combat and totally ineffective, I nominate the Do 335 push/pull design. Fast, but thats about it. A bloody ugly bird to boot! __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

09-26-10, 11:52 PM	#10
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	The Messerschmitt Me 163B-1 http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircr...ircraft_id=107 __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

09-27-10, 06:20 AM	#12
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	A large German aircraft (DO-X), but hardly a military objects __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie