The World's Worst Planes: Aircraft Designs That Failed 209
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."
Does not matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does not matter (Score:5, Interesting)
One of my FAVE failures:
McDonnell XF-85 Goblin [wikipedia.org]
What WERE they thinking?
Re:Does not matter (Score:5, Interesting)
One of my FAVE failures: McDonnell XF-85 Goblin [wikipedia.org]
What WERE they thinking?
Does the Antonov A-40 [wikipedia.org] count?
Re: (Score:2)
First attempt at building Blitzwing?
Re:Does not matter (Score:4, Interesting)
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]?
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you meant this. [wikipedia.org] Remember, preview is your friend!
Re: (Score:2)
I've always likes that one, along with the fighter that would land on its tail.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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)
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: (Score:2)
Wait, they were not sure mid air refueling could work, but they thought they could dock a fighter to a bomber in mid air? What sense does that make?
Re:Does not matter (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does not matter (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
That's awesome. The pilot steers by shifting his body weight. It's like a prehistoric version of the segway scooter.
Re: (Score:3)
That's awesome. The pilot steers by shifting his body weight.
Yes, before he awesomely loose his bowels, and the platform becomes slippery.
And then the shit hits the fan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Does not matter (Score:5, Funny)
Intended to be operated by inexperienced pilots with a minimum of 20 minutes of instruction
Is that a typo? Is it supposed to say "life expectancy"?
Re: (Score:3)
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?
In the military we have a word for that kind of contraption. It's "Skeet".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 -
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Only because the cold war ended. Procurement costs were more like $1 billion. If they had purchased the original complement of over 100, I expect that would have gone down. Still very expensive, but remember that it would have required the Soviets to spend a fortune upgrading their air defense.
Re:Does not matter (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Circumcision.
Re: (Score:3)
The Morris Marina. An epically terrible car that still sold in large numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Does not matter (Score:5, Funny)
Well, tell that to Hitler!
Oh My Godwin!
Stupid (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
Large engine diameters only became available two decades later (high-bypass engines like the RB.211). DH used what was available at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Something about the way the jet intakes are integrated into the wing. Very pretty!
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty, yes. Safe, no. Placing the engines at some distance from the aircraft's main structure turns out to the a great safety feature in the event of an engine fire or explosion.
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Turns out that isn't as much of an issue as you think - the Comet airframe became the base airframe for the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft, which flew in regular service from the 1960s right up to 2011, without a single airframe loss due to engine placement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Unknown design flaws often helped identify new areas of concern, e.g. the compressibility issue with early P-38s.
Re: (Score:2)
They also had the DC-10 listed. A Plane that flew for 44 years and had it's last flight months ago.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Weren't DC-10s flying for many thousands of years longer than that? I feel like I've heard something about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Go home Xenu, you're drunk...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, my mistake. Its still quite a remarkable operational service record.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, wouldn't want to get
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Was it utterly impossible to learn this lesson without putting that flying time bomb in the air?
Well, no. There's another way: Start a war. Then your government gives you truckloads of money, and you can do all the testing you want with test pilots, and only a few people die.
Of course, huge numbers of people die from other causes, but aeronautical research doesn't get the blame.
In the history of the people who died to give you a way to get to Las Vegas that's so fast and safe you can afford to bitch about getting felt up by security droids, the Comet affair is scarcely a bump.
Re: (Score:3)
Damn BBC (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not so sure about some of these picks (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Indiana Jones piloted a parasite fighter in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. I never knew those things were real!
Re: (Score:3)
That was no failure (Score:2)
As long as we learn anything out of it, it was a success.
Pretty Lame Selection (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
...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)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
I think Howard Hughes Spruce Goose could fit in this category. It only had one flight and never got out of ground effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically the war ended before the plane was ready. If the war went into extra innings it might be different story.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the Spruce Moose?
Huge oversight missing from the list.
book was out in 1990 (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-W... [amazon.com]
My favorite is the Blohm and Voss Bv-141. Symmetry is for weenies.
Me163 Komet... what the? (Score:3)
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.
Shameless plug (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Gotta see The Wind Rises (Score:2)
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.
Icarus (Score:3)
The original fail
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong Tactics, Weapons (Score:4, Insightful)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
WTF BBC (Score:2)
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.
Reminds me (Score:3)
I did a facepalm, and shot off a letter to the editor. "What your algorithm has 'discovered' is the biplane."
what the fuck? (Score:2)
"
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????
Re: (Score:2)
And he's been pushing this silly concept since the 1970s at least.
Silly? That's four decades of very nice income for Mr. Moeller.The Skycar does precisely what it's designed to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Of the examples given, remaining Spitfires are historical pieces, but there are 70 year old Dakota's still flying and doing work every day. Now that is a mark of a successful plane.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no spitfires in that list, because the spitfire (and hurricane, and FW-190, Zero, etc) were all highly successful aircraft. However, they were not adaptable for general purpose aviation, hence they no longer fly outside of airshows/rich enthusiasts.
I just think it is a pity that eventually we may run out of merlins to power these things. I would love to see that restored mosquito fly. That was an amazing aircraft.
Re:The Concorde failed too (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention (Score:2)
Not to mention the unfounded and cruel rumours the Yanks spread about so-called 'sonic booms'.
Re: The Concorde failed too (Score:2)
There was the complication of the fuel tanks being vulnerable to puncture by debris on runway. Fire and all on takeoff.
Re: (Score:2)
Concorde was a commercial failure but it was an engineering triumph of epic proportions. The few that were built flew many years and many supersonic trips.
Re: (Score:2)
Concorde flew higher and faster [globalaircraft.org] than an F16, carrying 100 passengers in their normal clothes - no face mask or pressure suit. And they could drink champagne while looking out of their window into space.
By your measure the Apollo space program was a failure.
Re: (Score:2)
As the AC says, it was very advanced but killed by pressure from the Americans who didn't want a neighbouring country to have a better plane then they could make and also needed expertise to work with their Germans and build a space ship to go to the Moon.