Ouroboros Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Slow day at work, My vote for The Christmas Bullet aka Cantilever Aero Bullet. More unusual was Christmas' insistence that the wings should be flexible and that the tail surfaces would use a "warping" system for control. Although the Chief Engineer at Continental, Vincent Burnelli, tried to institute changes, the "Christmas Bullet" was completed with the original design features intact. Construction materials were scrounged from available wood and steel stock and were not "aircraft grade" which was also a concern to Burnelli. No wonder both prototypes crashed during their first flights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catcow1234 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 My vote goes to the TU144 'Concordski'. In the heights of the cold war the USSR rushed to beat the west to supersonic passenger travel. The result was the TU144, a copy of the Concord, made for half the price and in a rush. No wonder it crashed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penfold Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 (edited) At least both the above only had one pair of wings...... Caproni Ca60 Noviplano Edited November 10, 2009 by penfold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thx6667 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 The Christmas Bullet... I remember that from a book on the "The Worlds Worst Aircraft", which also had a small section on the F-20 Tigershark saying it was one of the best aircraft ever but never got a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upnorth Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 The Goodyear inflatable planes were testament to poor thinking. Designed to be used by downed pilots or agents behind enemy lines but did not include the following: a way to inflate it A means to clear a take off strip for it ANY BALISTIC PROTECTION AT ALL FOR CREW OR PLANE!!! By everything I've ever heard or read about it, it was painfully slow and unresponsive in flight and the crew would have been safer staying on the ground and trying to hike their way back to friendly ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 My vote goes to the TU144 'Concordski'. ..... made for half the price and in a rush. No wonder it crashed. I thought that was due to a certain Mirage..... Keef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Wot....?? No MISTELS ?? Or even the Avia S-199 "Mule" ?? Or still even,the Fairey Battle ?? Cheers,Bazza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pielstick Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) This one got me thinking... Here's a few that spring to mind - some I know will be a bit controversial, and I know a lot of them were used with ineffective tactics and doctrines - I don't *dislike* any of these aeroplanes, and I'm well aware of their historical significance, I just think they didn't stack up so well against their contemporaries or their opposition: Fairey Battle - didn't stand a chance against any half decent fighter opposition. Bristol Blenheim - see above. Junkers 87 Stuka - see above. B-17 - a big plane with a large crew that required an equally large fighter escort to get a relatively small bomb load to the target. P-40 - outclassed by just about all the Axis fighters. F2A Buffalo - *hopelessly* outclassed by the Japanese aircraft it faced. MiG-3 - inadequately armed and protected, underperforming at low and medium altitudes compared to its main opposition. Hawker Hunter - compare it to its contemporaries and you'll see it was pretty inadequate. F-104 - only good for flying very fast in a straight line, very limited range, a real handful to fly and totallly unsuited for the roles it flew in Europe (just ask the Germans!). MiG-23 - gave the Soviets parity with the Phantom, ten years after the Phantom entered service, and when the Americans were already beginning development of the F-15. MiG-25 - a bit like the Starfighter, everything compromised just to get a high speed capability. MiG-29 (the early variants) - very good at low altitudes and low speeds, but naff in every other respect. Tornado ADV - let's not kid ourselves, if any contemporary fighter could get within visual range the Tornado ADV was in deep trouble. F-22 - amazing capabilities (if you believe the hype) but at a huge cost and apparently extremely maintenance intensive with appalling mission-readiness rates. Edited November 15, 2009 by Pielstick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Me 163 has to be a contender? Probably killed more pilots and ground crew on landing and refueling, than US airman it managed to shoot down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) OK you want controversy Lightning........... range or should I say lack of OK I'll pack my bags and leave Malcolm I quite like the Fairy Battle Edited November 15, 2009 by Mal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 The Finns may disagree about the Buffalo and Blenheim. MH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pielstick Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Then again the Commonwealth Buffalo pilots who flew the aircraft in Malaya and Burma might disagree with the Finns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehnz Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Must be time for my first post on this forum, Hi Guys. The wording of this thread is such that the prize probably goes to some esoteric bit of nonsense from the pioneering days which few have ever heard of . Pielstcks list would be more appropriate for a thread about possibly inadequate aircraft, some on it have quite good reputations in some areas, sorry Pielstick, just my opinion FWIW but there aren't a lot of what I would class as real dinkum 5 star shockers in it. One that hasn't showed up yet which proably should appear on such a list & meets my criteria is the Blackburn Botha, Its hard to find anyone to say anything positive about it. But worst in the world ?, nah, probably not. Cheers all, Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Young Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 How about the Flying Flea (Pou de Ciel)?. I think it may have been a ruse by M. Henri Mignet to help solve any fears of a population explosion!. Can you imagine everyone having one of these "aerial motorcycles" in the garage and filling the sky with maniacs flying about in craft made of old tea chests!!. Failing that, how about any of the light twins that struggle to maintain height on one engine, let alone are able to climb on one. Surprisingly, there's more that fall into this category than you'd think. Cheers, Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidelvy Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 The Blackburn Roc. A fighter plane that was incapable of catching many of the bombers ist was supposed to shoot down. It was was not even as good a fighter as its dive bomber cousin, the Skua. And IIRC it had a nasty habit of going into a flat spin and killing its crew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo hermansen Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 They might, but the result of the Finnish fighter pilots speak for themself, and hold in mind that the Finns used them for almost the whole war, even after they recived BF 109's whats the Kills ratio for the Bufallo in the fareast? The wildcat was inferior to the Zero on paper, but with the right tactics they where even B-17, what bomber from WW2 could fly into enemy fighter infected territory and stand a decent chance? Then again the Commonwealth Buffalo pilots who flew the aircraft in Malaya and Burma might disagree with the Finns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Roberts Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) Ok I'll go with the Flying Flea and the Roc. Many of the others fell victim to either a change in technology right as they came into service -the Blenheim - a fast bomber that maybe was a hair over 200 mph.... or fell victim to a better opponent and bad tactics - Buffalos in the Far East....Hurricanes didn't do much better, it fell to either better tactics - the Flying Tigers or superb training and tactics - the USN Wildcats to finally blunt the Japanese advantages of surpurb training and serious underestimating of capabilities. Some others were great aircraft just not what was needed when it came time to act - the Fairey Battle, if they were horrible aircraft they wouldn't have been used as trainers for much of the war. the Flying Fleas ability to be the Malthusian hand of god in controling the reproductive potential of pilots is unmatched....The Roc was just a supremely stupid concept...a fighter that may have been able to make 200 mph in a full power terminal velocity dive, is still amazing that it was ever built. Despite the attempt in recent magazine articles to show that it wasn't a complete and total disaster. Matt Edited November 15, 2009 by Matt Roberts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidelvy Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) B-17, what bomber from WW2 could fly into enemy fighter infected territory andstand a decent chance? The Mosquito. Same bombload. No guns. But that doesn't make the B17 a bad aircraft. The B17 was developed on the premise that bombers would have to fight their way to a target and saturate it. I would say it fulfilled that role well. Edited November 15, 2009 by davidelvy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehnz Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 They might, but the result of the Finnish fighter pilots speak for themself, and hold in mind thatthe Finns used them for almost the whole war, even after they recived BF 109's whats the Kills ratio for the Bufallo in the fareast? The wildcat was inferior to the Zero on paper, but with the right tactics they where even I've just finished reading "Buffalos Over Singapore" by Brian Cull & without wanting to start a new thread on the topic which it maybe deserves, some telling factors in this particular shambles were the skill of theJapanesepilots, the relative inexperience of the RAF (mainly Kiwi & Aussie) pilots, & the almost total lack of decent aerodromes, radar, spares etc provided by the RAF in this theatre. By the time pilots had got their tactics sorted & their experience up, their planes which had been average at best from the beginning with worn out engines & faulty armament, werr even more clapped out. I can't comment on what the circumstances in the Finnish conflict as I know very little of it, but I suspect they started with better trained pilots & more sorted planes against a less skilled oppostion flying less effective planes that the Japs had, so I'd still put the Buffalo in the average (severely average ?) list rather than worst in the world. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad 10 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 The Mosquito. Same bombload. No guns.But that doesn't make the B17 a bad aircraft. The B17 was developed on the premise that bombers would have to fight their way to a target and saturate it. I would say it fulfilled that role well. Most of the aircraft quoted (except perhaps the Flying Flea) fulfil the basic requirement of an aircraft in that they flew The worst aircraft has to be the Bloch MB 150, Its terrified test pilot gave up trying to make it fly on July 17th 1936, it was only after a major re-design that it left the ground at all. Richard McC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veltro Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) The Silvansky I-220, without a doubt. Somebody cocked up during the design process and didn't allow enough clearance for the propeller, the result being that the tips touched the ground during run ups. In an attempt to solve the problem, they merely trimmed 4" off each blade. Then found the prop didn't produce enough thrust so it barely got off the ground. Once it did get up, it was found impossible to fly. So bad, it was even worse than the Polish LWS Zubr bomber, and that thing was pretty awful itself.....one of the wings fell off one of the prototypes during a sales pitch to a Romanian delegation apparently! Edited November 16, 2009 by Veltro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pielstick Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 The wording of this thread is such that the prize probably goes to some esoteric bit of nonsense from the pioneering days which few have ever heard of . Pielstcks list would be more appropriate for a thread about possibly inadequate aircraft Thanks Steve. I tried to stick to well known aircraft that have seen extensive service. It makes for a more interesting discussion sorry Pielstick, just my opinion FWIW but there aren't a lot of what I would class as real dinkum 5 star shockers in it I agree completely, I think by definition if an aircraft has made it to series production and seen widespread service it can't be that bad, but I think the aircraft on my list all came up short when compared to their contemporaries or their opposition. None of them qualify for the "Worst Aircraft Ever!" reward, but perhaps represent aircraft that I wouldn't want to by flying in combat (with the exception of the F-22). B-17, what bomber from WW2 could fly into enemy fighter infected territory and stand a decent chance? I don't doubt it got the job done, but when you consider it had 4 engines, a large crew and needed a large fighter escort to get a relatively small bomb load to the target it doesn't seem very efficient, especially when compared to... The Mosquito. Same bombload. No guns. whats the Kills ratio for the Bufallo in the fareast? 170 Buffaloes delivered to the Commonwealth forces, I think something like 60 of those survived long enough to retreat to India, and the Buffalo pilots claimed 80 kills during that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 What about this thing? A product of an A-4 and an F-4 being mashed together in the dark wearing boxing gloves, it refused to fly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_XFV-12 WHIF or what? C'mon someone wants to build this......................... MH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehnz Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Most of the aircraft quoted (except perhaps the Flying Flea) fulfil the basic requirement of an aircraft in that they flewThe worst aircraft has to be the Bloch MB 150, Its terrified test pilot gave up trying to make it fly on July 17th 1936, it was only after a major re-design that it left the ground at all. Richard McC So, if it never flew, does that not disqualify it from being called an aeroplane. More like a strange looking car Sorry, Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 How about these? 1. Dassault Balzac (VTOL Mirage III). Killed 2 test pilots (One American), neve entered service and could never have been an effective weapon - except for the enemy; 2. Myasichev MY4A Bounder (pardon the spelling). Pure, unadulterated failure. I think old man Myasichev came close to being put up against a wall for this one; 3. Convair F-102 Delta Dagger. Degined to be in the Mach 1.5 class, may have gotten there if strapped to a Saturn V stack; 4. Hughes Spruce Goose. Worlds most expensive and noisy restaraunt. Disguised as a failed seaplane. Hell of a tax dodge; 5. Original design spec F104 - only because of it's DOWNWARDS firing ejection seat. Gave new meaning to 'zero-zero' ejection (altitude-chance of survival); 6. Baachem Natter. Hello, ever wanted to be a firework? Killed at least two test pilots, never saw action (which was just as well); 7. Evel Kenevels flying motorcycle for his ill fated Grand Canyon jump. Which idiot would make the parachute deployment handle something you had to pull backwards to operate? And put convenientlyas a hand rest? Never thought you'd jerk your hand BACKWARDs on takeoff? 8. The Barling Bomber. Nuff said. Ciao Mass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now