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

[frau kaleun]

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.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

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

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Hardly! 2,575 built for 15 countries hardly seems like a failure.

Well, no, but out of those 15 countries at least two of them lost pilots, the Luftwaffe crashed 292 and lost 110 pilots to it, Canada crashed 110 of them too, Belgium crashed forty one, Italy lost 137, Japan lost 36, and the US had 30.63 accidents for every 100,000 flight hours which was the highest of the 'century' series fighters. So at the very least (not including US losses) some 616 F-104s crashed in service. That's nearly 30% of all aircraft built (I don't know the precise number, too late to work it out).

Ok, the aircraft itself when used in the proper role was good, but it was used in the wrong role too often and in the wrong weather and then...splat, Tent peg time.

Plus, it severely burnt and took two finger tips from Chuck Yeager! I mean, the guy knows his aircraft but the F-104 chewed him up and spat him out.
Stopped his record attempts too.

Was a bit of an Icarus, reached for the sky but then burnt its wings off.

[TLAM Strike]

The P-59 Airacomet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-59_Airacomet



A jet inferior to the prop aircraft it was to replace. Only 1 squadron received them.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Was a bit of an Icarus, reached for the sky but then burnt its wings off.

What wings?

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

Ok, the aircraft itself when used in the proper role was good, but it was used in the wrong role too often and in the wrong weather and then...splat, Tent peg time.

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.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

That went better than I expected.

On the other hand... the Pogo?

[Sailor Steve]

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]

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]

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]

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

[bookworm_020]

They couldn't fix it, so they made it more ugly and gave it more problems!

Short Sturgeon



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

Short's must have been on to something (or on something...)

Short SB.6 Seamew



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

China's "improved" Mig-21 (only took them 20 to start production!)

Shenyang J-8 "Finback"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-8

And to finish it off (sorry no photo), a steam powered plane!

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

[bookworm_020]

Originally Posted by TarJak

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.

But the AEW version didn't serve with distinction, and was ugly to boot!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEW_Nimrod#AEW3

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

They couldn't fix it, so they made it more ugly and gave it more problems!

Short Sturgeon



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

Short's must have been on to something (or on something...)

Short SB.6 Seamew



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

China's "improved" Mig-21 (only took them 20 to start production!)

Shenyang J-8 "Finback"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-8

And to finish it off (sorry no photo), a steam powered plane!

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

[krashkart]

I would almost nominate the A-5 Vigilante, but overall it probably wasn't a bad aircraft. It did have an unusual method for delivering payloads, which never really panned out as a reliable system. So instead, I nominate the "stores train" of said aircraft.

The single nuclear weapon, commonly the Mk 28 bomb, was attached to two disposable fuel tanks in the cylindrical bay in an assembly known as the "stores train". The idea was for the fuel tanks to be emptied during flight to the target and then jettisoned as part of the bomb by an explosive drogue gun. In practice the system was never reliable and no live weapons were ever carried in the linear bomb bay. In the RA-5C configuration, the bay was used solely for fuel. On three occasions the shock of the catapult launch caused the fuel cans to eject onto the deck resulting in one aircraft loss.

"Cleanup on aisle 2, please."

[Gerald]

http://www.ejectionsite.com/vigilante.htm