Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation

The World's Worst Planes: Aircraft Designs That Failed 209

Posted by samzenpus
from the what-goes-up-must-come-down dept.
dryriver (1010635) writes in with an interesting look at some aircraft that should have stayed on the ground. "It's more than 110 years since mankind first took to the air in a powered aircraft. During that time, certain designs have become lauded for their far-sighted strengths – the Supermarine Spitfire; Douglas DC-3 Dakota; or the Anglo-French Concorde supersonic airliner, to name a few. But then there are planes like the Christmas Bullet. Designed by Dr William Whitney Christmas, who was described by one aviation historian as the 'greatest charlatan to ever see his name associated with an airplane', this 'revolutionary' prototype biplane fighter had no struts supporting the wings; instead, they were supposed to flap like a bird's. Both prototypes were destroyed during their first flights – basically, because Christmas's 'breakthrough' design was so incapable of flight that the wings would twist off the airframe at the first opportunity. Just as many of the world's most enduring designs share certain characteristics, the history of aviation is littered with disappointing designs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The World's Worst Planes: Aircraft Designs That Failed

Comments Filter:
  • Does not matter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sabri (584428) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @06:27PM (#47071157)
    Successful people are those who fail and don't give up. The same is true for aeronautical design. If you don't fail a couple of times, you won't win either.
    • Re:Does not matter (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @06:43PM (#47071229) Homepage Journal

      One of my FAVE failures:
      McDonnell XF-85 Goblin [wikipedia.org]

      What WERE they thinking?

      • Re:Does not matter (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Nidi62 (1525137) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @06:55PM (#47071291)

        One of my FAVE failures: McDonnell XF-85 Goblin [wikipedia.org]

        What WERE they thinking?

        Does the Antonov A-40 [wikipedia.org] count?

        • First attempt at building Blitzwing?

        • Re:Does not matter (Score:4, Interesting)

          by balaband (1286038) on Friday May 23, 2014 @03:31AM (#47072807)

          Already mentioned Komet [wikipedia.org] probably tops the list. Although revolutionary design, and only rocket-powered plane ever built it had some serious issues - both fuel and oxidizer where really toxic and highly flammable, so slightest problem with landing could be fatal (and when you look at the construction I can imagine it was anything but easy to land).

          Also, (these will be a definite karma burners) to two of the probably most beautiful airplanes that ever flew, but failed to show their promise:

          Valkyrie [wikipedia.org] , 6-engined supersonic bomber, 2 prototypes built (which remained most expensive prototypes to this day), run on special boron fuel, and although the icbm lobby had much in its project cancellation, it failed to convince its worth.

          Tomcat [wikipedia.org], plane favored in the Top Gun, was expensive both in building, maintenance and operations, and although it has some combat record, never really showed itself on the battlefield (also, it was rumored that variable-geometry wings, due to its construction, were never perfectly aligned which presented problem in-flight)

          Just remembered: how come nobody mentioned this one [wikipedia.org]?

        • by gatkinso (15975)

          I've always likes that one, along with the fighter that would land on its tail.

      • by lgw (121541)

        The concept actually makes sense, when you remember that the bombers for a time had a longer range than the fighters, and would have to fend for themselves over Germany with no fighter escort - so carrying the fighters inside the bombers, hey, it was worth a try.

        I think the idea made more sense when Zepplins were still being pondered by the military, but I'm not sure anyone ever had a good plan for actually recovering the fighters after launching them.

        • by chihowa (366380) *

          They were recovered via a trapeze system. It's mentioned on the wiki page [wikipedia.org], and in a little more depth here [airvectors.net]. Pretty interesting stuff.

        • by rossdee (243626)

          "the bombers for a time had a longer range than the fighters, and would have to fend for themselves over Germany with no fighter escor"

          While the carrier aircraft was designed for the 2nd world war, (but didn't go into service until after the war) the Goblin jet fighter was designed during the cold war.

          What really killed the idea was air-air refueling, it made the idea unecessary. ,"I think the idea made more sense when Zepplins were still being pondered by the military, but I'm not sure anyone ever had a go

      • Re:Does not matter (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Psychopath (18031) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @07:16PM (#47071409) Homepage

        One of my FAVE failures:
        McDonnell XF-85 Goblin [wikipedia.org]

        What WERE they thinking?

        They were thinking that many bombers were getting shot down after their shorter-range fighter escorts had to peel off and head home. It wasn't clear at the time that mid-air refueling could work.

      • Re:Does not matter (Score:5, Interesting)

        by arth1 (260657) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @07:16PM (#47071413) Homepage Journal

        I see your Goblin, and raise you a De Lackner HZ-1 Aerocycle [wikipedia.org].

        The operator is standing on an open hub platform on top of a helicopter rotor. What could possibly go wrong?

      • They were thinking of needing protection for the bombers. It was clever. Now, I suspect that we will be using drones soon to do the same thing.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by flyingsquid (813711)
      How in the hell can you write an article called "The World's Worst Planes" and not include the massively over-budget and behind-schedule F-35 Lightning II?
      • by Algae_94 (2017070)

        Because budget and schedule aren't really the be all and end all of planes. I don't see how you can put the F-35 Lightening II in the top 10 worst planes ever (Over 110 years of planes).

        • by jd2112 (1535857)

          Because budget and schedule aren't really the be all and end all of planes. I don't see how you can put the F-35 Lightening II in the top 10 worst planes ever (Over 110 years of planes).

          How about worst for the money? It could be the best plane ever made and still qualify.

          • by schnell (163007)

            How about worst for the money? It could be the best plane ever made and still qualify.

            At least it will eventually fly. All the "worst ever" list would consist of massively expensive R&D efforts that never produced a flying aircraft, like the XB-70 Valkyrie [wikipedia.org], the Boeing 2707 [wikipedia.org], or to a lesser extent ones that were cancelled but had some of their R&D incorporated into a different aircraft like the B-1A [wikipedia.org]. Aircraft that were expensive to develop and saw only a few flights would also top that list, like the Tupolev Tu-144 SST [wikipedia.org] or the Hughes "Spruce Goose" [wikipedia.org].

            The F35 has been a huge clusterf**k -

            • Considering that the 2707 (or SST) was based on the XB-70, which in fact, not only flew, but would have been manufactured except for the shooting down of gary powers, neither of these aircrafts would be on the worst.
        • Re:Does not matter (Score:4, Insightful)

          by TangoMargarine (1617195) on Friday May 23, 2014 @11:12AM (#47075007) Journal

          I didn't really see how they could put *half* the planes in that article under "worst ever."

          The Albacore was almost as good as its predecessor, implying that it was an entirely decent plane, just that the project itself not serving as a replacement was rather pointless.

          The He-162 had manufacturing defects and an insane pilot training program but would otherwise have been fine.

          They never even mentioned what was "wrong" with the Me-163. Granted, it was a crazy aircraft, but it more or less worked for the purposes they intended it for. It was vulnerable to "bouncing" on landing, but the same problem applied to the Me-262, which did quite well. Hell, the 163 was one of the *successful* insane plane ideas Germany had, and they had a LOT of them.

          According to Wikipedia, the Devastator, "ordered in 1934, it first flew in 1935 and entered service in 1937. At that point, it was the most advanced aircraft flying for the USN and possibly for any navy in the world. However, the fast pace of aircraft development quickly caught up with it, and by the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor the TBD was already outdated." So not a failure at all by design, or even its initial deployment, apparently.

          A lot of these fall under the "hindsight is 20-20" rule, too.

      • by gl4ss (559668)

        because it's supposed to be worst airplanes. lighting II isn't that bad as an airplane.

        however, the article is just skimmy. it's missing some pretty bad designs and including some that are still flown and used for military operations today.....

        notably missing, from the top of my head, goblin is missing, some worst nazi designs are missing, ww1 designs that were just deathtraps are missing, it even includes the comet which was in fact used in operations and did what it was designed to do...

        a very very light

    • Re:Does not matter (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Kittenman (971447) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @08:47PM (#47071709)

      Successful people are those who fail and don't give up.

      Nonsense. This sounds like one of those take-aways from a life coach seminar. Successful people are those with good ideas, don't give up, are lucky, are in the right place at the right time, and ... and... and... But the good idea thing is a starting requirement. A successful idea is rarely a bad one.

      Cue people responding with bad, successful ideas. (Seriously, I'm interested).

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Culture20 (968837)

        Cue people responding with bad, successful ideas. (Seriously, I'm interested).

        Corn Flakes. They were designed to induce chastity. Terrible implementation, but wildly successful product.

      • Circumcision.

      • by Alioth (221270)

        The Morris Marina. An epically terrible car that still sold in large numbers.

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        Cue people responding with bad, successful ideas. (Seriously, I'm interested).

        Define "bad", and also "successful". If you define "bad" as "selling people shit they don't need or indeed want which they will regret purchasing" and "successful" as "made someone money" then that's the majority of human activity today.

    • Successful people are those who fail and don't give up. The same is true for aeronautical design. If you don't fail a couple of times, you won't win either.

      Not when it comes to engineering. Failure is always an option. Some people are just terrible at it and should pursue other careers, preferably ones where people will not die when they make mistakes.

  • Stupid (Score:5, Informative)

    by c6gunner (950153) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @06:37PM (#47071197)

    They include the DeHaviland Comet - a fantastic aircraft which set the standard in the airliner industry for decades to come. It did suffer from a design flaw which caused several crashes, but those crashes helped us learn a lot more about metal fatigue and the structural integrity of aircraft, and lead directly to improved safety in later designs. It was also fixed as soon as it was identified. Suggesting that the Comet was one of "the worst planes" - or that it should have never have flown - is just plane ignorant.

    • Re:Stupid (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @06:55PM (#47071287) Homepage Journal

      DH Comet? It also had a real problem with birdstrike...

      Having the engines in-line with wing-plane was aerodynamic, but limited turbine diametre while increasing risk in event of failures.

      But agreed. Beautiful and elegant plane - far advanced over Yank planes from Lockheed and Boeing. The oval-window variant was especially so. I flew on BOAC Comet 4's as a child. They don't make 'em like this now...

      • Large engine diameters only became available two decades later (high-bypass engines like the RB.211). DH used what was available at the time.

    • Not to mention the fact that it is, to my way of thinking, stunningly gorgeous: http://www.oocities.org/capeca... [oocities.org] http://www.oocities.org/capeca... [oocities.org]

      Something about the way the jet intakes are integrated into the wing. Very pretty!
    • by GrahamCox (741991)
      I must say I totally agree with you - including the Comet in such a list is utterly stupid. Sure by modern standards you can easily look back and point out various issues with the plane's design, but at the time, none of that was known. Every advance in a field is going to look quaint once sufficient time has passed. And as for the comment that "people died!", well that's a shame, but people die all the time. People died in Spitfires and P51s too, in far greater numbers. Does the fact that these aircraft we
      • Except that Boeing, Convair, Douglas and Lockheed figured out how to put windows on pressurized airliners before the Comet flew.
        • by GrahamCox (741991)
          The real problem wasn't the shape of the windows (which were NOT rectangular, they had rounded corners), but the thinness of the skin combined with a stress point. The skin was thinner than typical because the jet engines of the day were not very powerful, so the weight had to be shaved down to the minimum that would work safely. Unfortunately they got that wrong. If it had been built with the same skin thickness as those pressurized Boeing/Convair/Douglas piston-engined aircraft, the windows would not have
          • by segedunum (883035)
            Skirting around the point. The effects of metal fatigue simply weren't known and fully understood until the Comet.
        • by segedunum (883035)
          No, they didn't. It was only with the advent of the Comet that anyone understood metal fatigue and the effect of shapes of things like windows on it.
    • by Assmasher (456699)

      Indeed.

      Unknown design flaws often helped identify new areas of concern, e.g. the compressibility issue with early P-38s.

    • by Algae_94 (2017070)

      They also had the DC-10 listed. A Plane that flew for 44 years and had it's last flight months ago.

      • They also had the DC-10 listed. A Plane that flew for 44 years and had it's last flight months ago.

        Actually, it's last passenger flight was a few months ago but it's still in use as a cargo hauler with FedEx.

      • Re:Stupid (Score:4, Funny)

        by LordLimecat (1103839) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @08:51PM (#47071719)

        Weren't DC-10s flying for many thousands of years longer than that? I feel like I've heard something about that.

      • by c6gunner (950153)

        They also had the DC-10 listed. A Plane that flew for 44 years and had it's last flight months ago.

        Yeah, I'm sure the list included several poor choices - the Comet was just the one that stuck out the most, for me. I know the DC-10 was successful and long-lived; I don't know much about it otherwise.

    • Re:Stupid (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Registered Coward v2 (447531) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @08:35PM (#47071663)

      They include the DeHaviland Comet - a fantastic aircraft which set the standard in the airliner industry for decades to come. It did suffer from a design flaw which caused several crashes, but those crashes helped us learn a lot more about metal fatigue and the structural integrity of aircraft, and lead directly to improved safety in later designs. It was also fixed as soon as it was identified. Suggesting that the Comet was one of "the worst planes" - or that it should have never have flown - is just plane ignorant.

      In addition, they left out the Lockheed L-188 Electra which also had a series of early crashes due to a design flaw called whirl mode flutter which resulted in the wings diverging from the fuselage's flight path. Nonetheless, it soldiered on and a variant still flies today as the P-3 Orion.

    • by gman003 (1693318)

      The Comet is the exact opposite of the kind of aircraft they were supposedly listing.

      It was incredibly advanced for the time. The one major flaw it had was unknown at the time - the best engineers in the field couldn't figure it out even when they recovered 90% of the airframe from a crash.

      In the various hearings, engineers from competing aircraft companies admitted that they wouldn't have found the flaw either, and the only reason it's Comets that flew with such a defect and not DC-8s or 707s is because th

      • To discover the metal fatigue issue, they had to submerge an entire Comet fuselage in a water tank, and then conduct several thousand pressurisation cycles to cause it to rupture - and then they had a perfect example to work from to resolve the issue.

  • Damn BBC (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kooky45 (785515) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @06:40PM (#47071209)
    Anyone like to repost the content for us poor UK residents who aren't allowed to see the BBC's own content!?
  • by the_humeister (922869) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @06:50PM (#47071253)

    So the MiG 23 wasn't as popular as the MiG 21. That doesn't really make it a failure. Their first two examples were definite failues ( Fairey Battle and Douglas TBD Devastator): easy to shoot down.

  • Where's the Goblin (Score:4, Informative)

    by Spy Handler (822350) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @06:52PM (#47071267) Homepage Journal

    I went through the slideshow but didn't see my favorite, the XF-85 Goblin parasite fighter. At the time, jet fighters had very limited range and in-flight refueling hadn't been developed yet, so there was a great concern about how to protect long-range bombers from enemy jets when your own jet fighters can't escort the bombers very far, and long-range piston engine fighters (i.e. the P-51) would be outclassed by enemy jet fighters.

    So they designed this tiny jet fighter to be carried under the B-36, and if you saw enemy jets approaching, release the Goblin which would fight off the enemy and then return to the B-36 and dock with it via a trapeze. Good idea in theory, but two things killed it off: 1) You needed superhuman piloting skills to successfully land on the mothership... maybe Chuck Yeager could do it but most pilots couldn't, and 2) in-flight refueling became possible.

    I always thought it was pretty cool though, like an aircraft carrier in the sky.

    • by crgrace (220738)

      Indiana Jones piloted a parasite fighter in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. I never knew those things were real!

      • Very real. The USS Macon and USS Acron [airships.net] were built as flying aircraft carriers, carrying 5 fighters. Not just carry them under the airship's belly, Last Crusade style, but inside the airship. Fascinating aircraft, something out of a steampunky SF story.
  • As long as we learn anything out of it, it was a success.

  • by awrc (12953) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @07:11PM (#47071381)

    At least most of these actually got off of the ground and some really don't belong in a list of bad aircraft - the example of the Comet has already been raised, the MiG-23 wasn't a bad plane by any means - unforgiving of inexperienced pilots, but so was the F-104 and *that* one gets included in a lot of "best planes ever" lists. Total production of the MiG-23 family is over 5,000 - bad planes don't get built in that sort of numbers.

    Throw in planes that were pretty adequate in their time but verging on obsolete when they had their 15 minutes (the Devastator), those that weren't actually bad but had the misfortune of being the successor to something so successful it wouldn't go away (the Albacore). It's difficult to call the Me 163 a bad plane - it was a desperate measure that made it very dangerous, but it's a very significant type. The He 162? Another desperation measure, but one of the more trusted opinions on the merits of aircraft (Eric "Winkle' Brown) found it a downright joy to fly, although again it was (again) unforgiving of inexperienced pilots, which perhaps wasn't the best quality for something intended to be flown by pilots with minimal training.

    Besides, there are so many things that can ruin otherwise good designs - how many 50s US jets are considered jokes because the DoD decided they were to be powered by the Westinghouse J-40? Not bad planes, but a bad engine. Some planes that escaped from the J-40 and had alternate power plants suggested (F4D, for example) ended up being considered classics.

    • by segedunum (883035)

      ...but so was the F-104 and *that* one gets included in a lot of "best planes ever" lists.

      Now that really is a joke. The F-104 was an absolute killer.

  • Gee Bee (Score:4, Informative)

    by godel_56 (1287256) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @07:17PM (#47071419)

    OK how about this one. From memory, it killed just about everyone who owned it.

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

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      As touchy as the Gee Bee is (and it's a motherfucker to fly, even as an RC model) it's relatively sane compared to the original Lockheed widowmaker [wikipedia.org]. Stubby little wings requiring fast touchdown velocity, plus a downward-firing ejection seat preconfigured to dig the pilot his own grave: the only surprise is that they didn't require a separate seat for the pilot's ballsack (which must have been enormous going by the odds of survival in these things)

      • by ah.clem (147626)

        There's a great MST3K ep riffing an Air force propaganda film called the "The Starfighters" featuring the F104s. Well worth the watch if only for the "refueling" riffs (and the "Tech Support" segments between the film).

  • The Spruce Goose (Score:5, Informative)

    by riverat1 (1048260) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @07:26PM (#47071449)

    I think Howard Hughes Spruce Goose could fit in this category. It only had one flight and never got out of ground effect.

    • Arguably Howard Hughes Spruce Goose was a fantastic success. But not from a aeronautical engineering point of view. In fact Howard Hughes did about zero to increase the field of aircraft design, nothing ever worked (at least in time to be useful) and none of his designs ever made it to production.
    • by mcmonkey (96054)

      What about the Spruce Moose?

      Huge oversight missing from the list.

  • book was out in 1990 (Score:4, Informative)

    by Mspangler (770054) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @08:12PM (#47071591)

    http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-W... [amazon.com]

    My favorite is the Blohm and Voss Bv-141. Symmetry is for weenies.

  • by NewtonsLaw (409638) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @08:20PM (#47071619)

    How dare they include the Me163 Komet in a list of "worst planes" -- it was a groundbreaking craft (in more ways than one -- get the pun?) which highlighted the innovation (and desperation) of the Germans near the end of WW2.

    Yes, the choice of fuel components made it horrendously dangerous and the limited flight-times did reduce its utility but it was undoubtedly *the* fasted aircraft of WW2.

  • by DaveAtFraud (460127) on Thursday May 22, 2014 @08:36PM (#47071669) Homepage Journal

    One of my favorite treeware magazines is Air & Space Magazine [airspacemag.com] published by the Smithsonian. They have a frequent series of articles on the theme, "Some ideas will never fly." Definitely a much more creative and well reasoned critique of a number of airplane ideas that, well, will never fly.

    Several of the planes singled out by the BBC article really weren't all that bad when they were initially in service (Brewster Buffalo, Douglas TBD Devestator, Fairey Battle). They were just kept in service long after they should have been retired and their pilots and crews paid the price. That's not a fault of the airplane; it's a fault of the politicians who decided to spend the money to modenize elsewhere.

    Cheers,
    Dave

    • by Arker (91948)
      The Buffalo in particular was not a bad plane. After the US decided it was unusable the stock was sold east and these planes actually served with the Finnish air force with distinction against the Russians through the end of the war.

      A few differences of course. The Russian airplanes were probably a notch below the Japanese at the beginning of the war, though by the end that was no longer true. But two changes the Finns made were crucial - modifications to the engine to improve reliability, and a very differ
  • Miyazaki's new movie about a Japanese airplane designer frequently features the fanciful designs of Caproni. While watching the movie I kept thinking how odd it was that they made a biopic about real people and had such unreal planes, but I was wrong every strange plane in the film was real.

    This one crashed on it first test flight.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

    Anyway it is a fantastic film. If you love aeronautical history it just cannot be missed.
  • by Tough Love (215404) on Friday May 23, 2014 @12:44AM (#47072419)

    The original fail

    • First heavier-than-air flight, first sustained man-powered flight, and pretty impressive flight capabilities given that the "aircraft" was built in captivity, using whatever lay to hand. Icarus failed for not heeding his dad's warning about exceeding the flight envelope, but the aircraft itself was pretty successful.
  • by bkmoore (1910118) on Friday May 23, 2014 @01:19AM (#47072497)

    The article calls a lot of sound aircraft designs failures because they were employed improperly (wrong tactics) or the weapons they were designed to carry weren't ready by the time the war started. An example, the TBD-1 losses at Midway were the result of attacking Japanese battle ships without fighter escorts and by the outdated torpedoes that couldn't be dropped at high speed without breaking up when hitting the water. The Grumman TBF-1 Avenger was "successful" because by the time it entered service, more modern torpedoes were available and military planners knew that torpedo bombers needed fighter escort.

    The parallel in Europe is in 1939, both the British and the Germans tried sending daylight bombers without fighter escort into battle. Every time, they suffered unacceptable losses. The point is in 1939 to 1940, aerial warfare was so new that most military planners did not know how to properly employ their air forces, or what the capabilities and limitations of their aircraft were. At the time, Bomber Generals saw fighter production as competition for resources, i.e. aircraft. The Bomber people at the time believed Stanley Baldwin's quote from 1932, "the bomber will always get through."

    • Stanley Baldwin was right when he said that. Then, engine technology improved and fighters went faster. It's like the Maginot Line, everyone likes to say the designer was an idiot because of 20/20 hindsight.
      • Correct. It was not only a question of fighter speed (though it was true that some bombers were faster than any fighter in service at that time). It took radio-vectored interceptors, preferably with intelligence from a radar station network, to stop bombers. None of that existed when Baldwin made that statement.

  • BBC Worldwide (International Site)

    We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at www.bbcworldwide.com.

  • by Solandri (704621) on Friday May 23, 2014 @02:42AM (#47072687)
    In the 1980s, Discover Magazine (I think it was) ran an article on genetic algorithms. One of the researchers they interviewed was using them to help come up with new plane designs. The researcher talked about how the algorithms were leading them in design directions they had never considered before. The article included some sample pictures of algorithm-developed plane designs, including one where the wings had winglets at the end, which then turned into a smaller wing above the main wing. The researcher seemed rather excited about that one, saying it could allow the construction of larger aircraft when maximum wingspan is limited by runway width or gate spacing.

    I did a facepalm, and shot off a letter to the editor. "What your algorithm has 'discovered' is the biplane."
  • "
    BBC Worldwide (International Site)

    We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at www.bbcworldwide.com."

    what the fuck????

You see but you do not observe. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes"

Working...