Worst aircraft ever?

[English Electric]

Blackburn Botha maybe? Apparently a nightmare to fly, and somewhat of a liability in Training Command. The name Blackburn does crop up quite a lot in these kind of surveys have you noticed?

Avro Tudor - quite appalling safety record and managed to kill off Roy Chadwick et al

DH108 - described by Eric Brown as 'a killer'...

C

Edited November 16, 2009 by English Electric

[12jaguar]

Botha and Lerwick for me

[Pielstick]

Baachem Natter. Hello, ever wanted to be a firework?

[Julien]

I can think of a few,

ME-163 tried to kill pilots in a number of ways!

Yak-38 not a great plane, and an automatic ejection system which sometimes ejected the pilot with no warning!

one of my favs Grummen XF10 Jaguar

So bad, one test pilot when asked about mads told them to rivit the cockpit closed! Only good thing was Grummen used this to develop the swing wing which went into the F-14

Oh and we have Nimrod AEW, cost a £1 Billion back when that was actually a lot of money!

Julien

[pigsty]

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!).

Not sure I'd agree with that. European nations bought the F-104 as a nuclear strike aircraft, not a fighter, and it was ideal: small wing for comfortable but fast low-level flight, enough range to get to the target, and an upgraded avionic set that matched the role. It was unreliable in their hands mainly because it was so much more complicated than its predecessors; once they'd all sorted that out, and got rid of the downward-firing seat, the loss rate fell back to roughly the average for fast combat jets.

Now, consider the average inter-war French bomber ... apparently designed by nailing planks to a barn and adding engines. My vote goes to almost the entire output of l'Atelier Farman.

[JosephLalor]

the Flying Fleas ability to be the Malthusian hand of god in controling the reproductive potential of pilots is unmatched....

I'll remember that for sure!

Joseph

[Matt Roberts]

The Barling Bomber here Stateside is unmatched. It was found to be unable to clear the Appalchians when they tried to fly it from Wright Field here in Ohio....The Appalachians are not the Himalayas.....it couldn't climb to 3000 feet more or less

Here is a bit stolen from wiki...

Operational history

Although capable of carrying a 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) bomb load, performance was disappointing. The overly complex structure of three wings and their accompanying struts and bracing wires created so much interference drag that the six engines could barely compensate. A fully-loaded XNBL-1 had a range of only about 170 miles (270 km) with a top speed of 96 mph (155 km/h). In contrast, the "short-range" Martin NBS-1 had a range of about 450 miles (725 km) and could carry a 2,000 lb (900 kg) at the same speed. On a flight from Dayton, Ohio to Washington, DC, the Barling Bomber failed to fly over the Appalachian Mountains and had to turn around.

Now in the stories I had heard it was on it's flight to Dayton that it didn't get across the Appalchians. It also is one of a few aitcraft that the hanger built to protect the ONE built cost more than the aircraft itself! Gaod a range of only 170 miles - you couldn't bomb Cincinnatti from Columbus with performance like that...you could today drive the distance faster!

And no the designers of the Barling did not go on to found Blackburn Aviation....

[Pielstick]

European nations bought the F-104 as a nuclear strike aircraft, not a fighter, and it was ideal

I'm not so sure - the F-104 was designed as a high performance interceptor, and the various European air arms that purchased it put it to service as a low level strike aircraft.

- High performance aircraft that demands a great deal of attention from the pilot.

- High pilot workload.

- High speeds.

- Low level.

- Often inclement northern European weather.

Not a good recipe.

If you look at the USAF - the main customer the Starfighter was intended for they appeared to be less than impressed with it, only getting 296 aircraft and it only spent seven years in service with USAF.

As a short range point defence interceptor the F-104 has a lot of merits. However, in the role of a low level fighter bomber which in which it spent much of its life in Europe I think it was a poor choice - a poor choice which becomes a little easier to understand when you consider the Lockheed bribery scandals that emerged many years later.

[avro683]

I'm not so sure - the F-104 was designed as a high performance interceptor, and the various European air arms that purchased it put it to service as a low level strike aircraft.

- High performance aircraft that demands a great deal of attention from the pilot.

- High pilot workload.

- High speeds.

- Low level.

- Often inclement northern European weather.

Not a good recipe.

If you look at the USAF - the main customer the Starfighter was intended for they appeared to be less than impressed with it, only getting 296 aircraft and it only spent seven years in service with USAF.

As a short range point defence interceptor the F-104 has a lot of merits. However, in the role of a low level fighter bomber which in which it spent much of its life in Europe I think it was a poor choice - a poor choice which becomes a little easier to understand when you consider the Lockheed bribery scandals that emerged many years later.

And it was known as the "Widowmaker " for very good reason.

Tony

[hatchet]

I'm not so sure - the F-104 was designed as a high performance interceptor, and the various European air arms that purchased it put it to service as a low level strike aircraft.

Danish Zippers were tasked with interception, the attack role was filled by the (not-so)Super Sabre and, later Draken.

[Julien]

One of the main reasons so many European nations got the F-104 was agressive selling by Lockheed, it is rumored very large backhander were involved but never proven.

Julien

[Pielstick]

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

West Germany, Holland and Japan - all with big question marks over their F-104 purchases.

[Tony Whittingham]

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.

Hunter???

[Christopher]

If we're talking Barling Bomber we do need to mention it's predecessor - The Tarrant Tabor. Designed by William Barling before he went to the US - this one crashed on it's first flight.

[Tripehound]

How about the Avro Manchester? Clearly nothing wrong with the basic design, as evinced by the Lancaster, but with the two Vultures it was a complete dog, apparently. The engines were unreliable, the aircraft was underpowered (single engine performance was marginal, to say the least) and to cap it all the exhausts belched bright flames during flight - hardly a desirable characteristic in a night bomber!

[Ouroboros]

Blackburn Botha

To quote Bill Gunston's "Back to the drawing board": "One must bear in mind that this company (Blackburn) tended to build aircraft to meet particularly difficult official requirements. Their management were often only too keenly aware of the deficiencies of their creations and powerless to rectify them. In the case of the B.26 Botha the underlying shortcoming was inadequate engine power, so that this aircraft accomplished very little except burn a lot of fuel and also, tragically, aircrew." Anyway I don't see it as the "worst ever".

Silvanskii IS

Is a very good candidate too, I don't know how A.V. Silvanskii was merely banned from aircraft designing, in Stalin's Soviet Union losts of folks were executed for much less. To quote Bill Gunston's "Back to the drawing board"once again: "on the first retraction test (...) the gears came up all right, but it was found that the legs were too long, so the wheels came up beyond their recesses in the wing roots. The legs were therefore shortened until they were the right length, but then it was found that the wheel bay were too shallow.... they put the propeller on its shaft and found that, partly because of the shortened legs, it fouled the ground as soon as the tail was raised into flying attitude. Not to worry silvanskii got a hacksaw, cut about 4 in off each blade and filed the sawed edges smooth again!"

LWS Zubr

Another good candidate, just about the only good thing you can say about WWII is that german invasion stopped further development of this monstruosity

Anyway my vote still goes to The Christmas Bullet

Edited November 17, 2009 by Ouroboros

[Veltro]

Blackburn Botha

To quote Bill Gunston's "Back to the drawing board": "One must bear in mind that this company (Blackburn) tended to build aircraft to meet particularly difficult official requirements. Their management were often only too keenly aware of the deficiencies of their creations and powerless to rectify them. In the case of the B.26 Botha the underlying shortcoming was inadequate engine problems, so that this aircraft accomplished very little except burn a lot of fuel and also, tragically, aircrew." Anyway I don't see it as the "worst ever".

Silvanskii IS

Is a very good candidate too, I don't know how A.V. Silvanskii was merely banned from aircraft designing, in Stalin's Soviet Union losts of folks were executed for much less. To quote Bill Gunston's "Back to the drawing board"once again: "on the first retraction test (...) the gears came up all right, but it was found that the legs were too long, so the wheels came up beyond their recesses in the wing roots. The legs were therefore shortened until they were the right length, but then it was found that the wheel bay were to swallow.... they put the propeller on its shaft and found that, partly because of the shortened legs, it fouled the ground as soon as the tail was raised into flying attitude. Not to worry silvanskii got a hacksaw, cut about 4 in off each blade and filed the sawed edges smooth again!"

LWS Zubr

Another good candidate, just about the only good thing you can say about WWII is that german invasion stopped further development of this monstruosity

Yep....that's the one

And the Silvanskii's even worse that I imagined!

[Pielstick]

Hunter??? weep.gif

Blasphemy I know, but...

As much as I love the lines of the Hunter, it's pedigree, and historical significance I can only come to the conclusion that it was inferior to many of its contemporaries.

What year did the Hunter enter service... 1956 I think? Look at the other aircraft that were entering service at that time... the Century Series were coming online, the MiG-19 and a little later the Mig-21. In 1958 the Phantom first flew and entered service in 1960. The RAF were poodling about in a subsonic cannon-armed fighter when the Yanks and Russkies were whizzing around in supersonic fighters, many of which were missile-armed.

I think the Hunter would only have been much use against older Soviet types like the MiG-15 and MiG-17. Against the 19 and 21 it would have been at a serious performance disadvantage.

[keefr22]

The RAF were poodling about in a subsonic cannon-armed fighter when the Yanks and Russkies were whizzing around in supersonic fighters, many of which were missile-armed.

Ummm, but what year did a certain noisy, shiny, twin engine, Mach 2 supersonic (albeit short legged!) interceptor enter squadron service with the RAF????

Keef

[John B (Sc)]

I believe the Botha was the aircraft about which the test pilot's report form ?Martlesham ? said

- rather like the Douglas pilot's comment about rivetting the canopy closed -

"Entry into this aircraft is difficult. It should be made impossible"

The Hunter. Very short ranged. But the higher speed of opposing aircraft is a red herring. As are (were) the missiles. Missiles in those days only worked against an unsuspecting prey who obligingly flew straight and level. And only when launched from behind. Even then the acquire and light up rate was fairly poor. The slightly later Firestreak on our Lightnings had a poor record even against Jindiviks.

Missiles of the Fifties were completely useless against anyone who saw and manoeuvred. So, the faster aircraft could carry out a slashing attack. Fine, but Russian aircraft had slow firing heavy cannon, so the fast pass run wasn't likely to work. A tail chase and turning contest was likely if you wanyted to achieve anything. The Hunter had fair manoeuvrability and one heck of a punch. 4 x 30 mm Adens would ruin anyone's day very quickly. Not such a bad machine at all, actually, once they put some tanks on it to give it a wee bit of endurance. Oh, and worked out how to keep the Avons going when they fired the guns ! Ruddy Rolls Royce - a much over-rated company, at times more interested in winning by politics and nasty business than by good engineering. The Sapphire was a much better engine in many ways.

And not everyone had a bad record with Starfighters. Some nations lost very few, and used them effectively within the constraints of the day. There were a lot of fairly hairy aeroplanes around then. High speed flight was new, dangerous and not well understood. Also we hadn't the blasted 'Elf n Safety loonies making everything impossible.

Incidentally the RAF loss rate on the Lightning was as bad as the Luftwaffe on the Starfigherre. It's just that the ejection seats worked better, we didn't asphyxiate pilots witn an oxygen system which had a fatal flaw and Lightnings didn't do so much low flying in grotty weather, being a ~pure fighter.

Edited November 17, 2009 by John B (Sc)

[AnonymousER99]

Well I have to toss the EE Lightning into the ring here. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the Lightning but it killed a lot of pilots (one two days ago sadly), it had virtually no range and as a pure inteceptor with a big airframe it was only able to carry two offensive air to air missiles! So it can get to you somewhat fast, after 2 air refuels in 350 miles and hope to heaven it isn't up against three enemy aircraft!

[keefr22]

...and hope to heaven it isn't up against three enemy aircraft!

That's why we always sent two....!!!

And talking of loss rates, I believe the Meteor had one of the worst ever....

Keef

[Pielstick]

Ummm, but what year did a certain noisy, shiny, twin engine, Mach 2 supersonic (albeit short legged!) interceptor enter squadron service with the RAF???? wink.gif

Probably a poor choice of words from me

The thing that really puts the Hunter into perspective for me is looking at it's contemporaries:

Hunter 1956

Lightning 1960

Phantom 1960

F-100 1954

F-102 1956

F-104 1958

F-106 1959

Mig-19 1955

Mig-21 1959

Su-9 1959

Mirage III 1961

But the higher speed of opposing aircraft is a red herring

I wouldn't agree the higher speed is a red herring. If that were the case then the world's air forces would still be flying around in biplanes with rotary engines. Just look at the list of aircraft above. All were supersonic and therefore faster than the Hunter. That means they could engage or disengage almost at will. The Hunter would not have been able to either escape from, or catch up with these aircraft. That alone is a huge disadvantage of the Hunter. History has shown time and again that any aircraft with a significant speed advantage over its adversary will often be able to dictate the terms of combat.

Missiles in those days only worked against an unsuspecting prey who obligingly flew straight and level.

I agree with you there. However, a missile armament, even the primitive and unreliable 1950's era missiled would be a big advantage when shooting down bombers.

The Hunter had fair manoeuvrability and one heck of a punch

I'll agree with you here too, against its contemporaries the Hunter was at its best in a close range turning fight, but even so all of the aircraft I've listed above would simply have to open the throttle and they'd outrun the Hunter.

Well I have to toss the EE Lightning into the ring here.

That's a fair criticism of the Lightning Mike, and I can't really disagree with anything you've said. However, the Lightning gave an astonishing level of performance along with pretty good agility. Yes it was hampered by short range, as well as a small radar that couldn't be easily upgraded. As the 60's gave way to the 70's and BVR weapons began to mature the Lighting was rapidly left behind. However, if the Lightning had gone up against the Soviets in the early 60's I think it would have acquitted itself very well.

[rkennerley]

a bit off topic but anyone know where i can get a flying flea i just got to build something mad like that

[keefr22]

I wouldn't agree the higher speed is a red herring. If that were the case then the world's air forces would still be flying around in biplanes with rotary engines. Just look at the list of aircraft above. All were supersonic and therefore faster than the Hunter. That means they could engage or disengage almost at will....

Not quite as simple as that though - don't forget how fuel inefficient the early afterburning engines were, especially so the Soviets (if what we read is correct!) - the pilot of the supersonic jet would have to be very careful in his fuel management & wouldn't be able to simply zap in & out of burner willy nilly. And the enemy aircraft would be at a greater distance from base than the Hunters so would need to be doubly careful over fuel usage. Also the burners on early engines often didn't ignite as quickly as modern engines, & that combined with the spool up time of early jets might give any good Hunter pilot the chance to get a gun kill!

The Hunter would not have been able to either escape from, or catch up with these aircraft. That alone is a huge disadvantage of the Hunter. History has shown time and again that any aircraft with a significant speed advantage over its adversary will often be able to dictate the terms of combat.

Again, not necessarily so - ask any Shar pilot who managed to lure an unsuspecting F-15 puke into a turning fight (& yes I know the Hunter didn't have the advantage of viffing!). In a knifefight manouverability and energy management can be key to winning.

I'll agree with you here too, against its contemporaries the Hunter was at its best in a close range turning fight, but even so all of the aircraft I've listed above would simply have to open the throttle and they'd outrun the Hunter.

And then fall out of the sky when they ran out of fuel!

Keef