Simviation Forum - Worst 5 aircraft ever built

Jul 12^th, 2008 at 6:31pm

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Just a bit of fun. This stems from a topic in the General forum.

List the 5 worst aircraft ever built (in your opinion) & give the reasons why.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Jul 12^th, 2008 at 8:20pm

AMDDDA Offline
Colonel

Posts: 1002

767 Tanker.

No one wants it, it's almost dead, it has only gone to nations that we were against in WW2.

Good enough?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Jul 12^th, 2008 at 8:39pm

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Mignet's Flying Flea - bit of a death trap really.

Fairey Albacore - so good that the aircraft it was to replace, the Swordfish, replaced it.

F-35 - we've proved for 45 years you only need one engine in a VTOL fighter - so it's got two, one of which spends 95% of the time as dead weight. Lightning II my bottom, I think "Dave" is better.

Tornado F3 - poor mans fighter as a 20 year stopgap for the ~~ECA~~, ~~EFA~~, ~~EF2000~~, sorry, Typhoon. Can't turn, can refuel at height either. Can go very very fast at low level though. Just where the Bears are coming from Russia... Tongue

C150/2 - God-awful soulless spam can built for people who are under 6ft and 10 stone! Taught gazillions to fly though, people just like me.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Jul 13^th, 2008 at 1:05am

BigTruck Offline
Global Moderator
Former Sergeant of Marines
Tuscaloosa, AL

Gender:
Posts: 7161

I tried, and thought, and stared, and thought, had a beer, and thought some more, and came up with the conclusion that either I just dont know enough about aircraft or I just love aircraft too much to list five I would consider "worst"

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Jul 13^th, 2008 at 4:08am

Vodka Burner Ex Member

Quote:

F-35 - we've proved for 45 years you only need one engine in a VTOL fighter - so it's got two, one of which spends 95% of the time as dead weight. Lightning II my bottom, I think "Dave" is better.

X-32 used one engine and was deemed INFERIOR to the X-35 approach.

The front 'engine' is a fan geared to the F-135 / 136 similar to a variable cycle jet engine ala GE-F-120 that was for all intents and purposes more powerful than the single cycle F-119.

Only a B model has the lift fan.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Jul 13^th, 2008 at 4:21am

Ivan Offline
Colonel
No, I'm NOT Russian, I
only like Russian aircraft
The netherlands

Gender:
Posts: 6058

Yak-141 and its clones (read F-35). Why even TRY to make a supersonic VTOL jet when you have full-lengh carriers that can take a full-size fighterjet (Mig-29K on the then Tblisi / Leonid Brezhnev).

Me-323: too large, too heavy, too slow

Russian planes: IL-76 (all standard length ones), Tu-154 and Il-62, Tu-134 and An-24RV&&&&AI flightplans and repaints can be found here

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Jul 13^th, 2008 at 4:52am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Ivan wrote on Jul 13^th, 2008 at 4:21am:

Me-323: too large, too heavy, too slow

Well, it was the only glider they've ever stuck 6 radials on! Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Jul 13^th, 2008 at 5:03am

Mictheslik Offline
Colonel
Me in G-LFSM :D
Bristol, England

Gender:
Posts: 6011

C wrote on Jul 12^th, 2008 at 8:39pm:

Mignet's Flying Flea - bit of a death trap really.

Fairey Albacore - so good that the aircraft it was to replace, the Swordfish, replaced it.

F-35 - we've proved for 45 years you only need one engine in a VTOL fighter - so it's got two, one of which spends 95% of the time as dead weight. Lightning II my bottom, I think "Dave" is better.

Tornado F3 - poor mans fighter as a 20 year stopgap for the ~~ECA~~, ~~EFA~~, ~~EF2000~~, sorry, Typhoon. Can't turn, can refuel at height either. Can go very very fast at low level though. Just where the Bears are coming from Russia... Tongue

C150/2 - God-awful soulless spam can built for people who are under 6ft and 10 stone! Taught gazillions to fly though, people just like me.

What....no Tristar? Grin

.mic

[center]

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Jul 13^th, 2008 at 5:15am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Mictheslik wrote on Jul 13^th, 2008 at 5:03am:

What....no Tristar? Grin

.mic

I was feeling sympathetic - and it's not that bad in the big scheme of things.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Jul 13^th, 2008 at 5:50am

Vodka Burner Ex Member

I don't really think there are any really bad aircraft, at least recently. Each one has a purpose and if it was so bad it would of been cancelled. However, aircraft that I DISLIKE are...:

Eurofighter Typhoon - Fantastic aircraft... but I really fustrates me when people think it's the best thing since sliced bread. Too date, it has no AESA, no TVC, and is not stealth, and is still damned expensive. Hurry up Block 3!!!

F-22 - Expensive / maintainence heavy.

Su-35 - Overhyped plane that many claim could take on the F-22... get real.

Su-27 - N001 was a joke and when people hype it up it's fustrating. Annoying when they call the Cope India exercise to show the superiority to the F-15.

Ivan wrote on Jul 13^th, 2008 at 4:21am:

Yak-141 and its clones (read F-35). Why even TRY to make a supersonic VTOL jet when you have full-lengh carriers that can take a full-size fighterjet (Mig-29K on the then Tblisi / Leonid Brezhnev).

Me-323: too large, too heavy, too slow

F-35B is the only STOVL version of the F-35. It's is intended to be used by Amphibious Assualt Ships and forward air bases ala USS WASP class ships / Marines. F-35C is the carrier variant and takes of NORMALLY and lands NORMALLY. Likewise, the A model is conventional takeoff / landing.

F-35 looks similar to the Yak but the method of VTOL is dissimlar.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Jul 13^th, 2008 at 2:04pm

machineman9 Offline
Colonel
Nantwich, England

Gender:
Posts: 5255

There is only one 'bad' aircraft in my opinion:

Boeing 747 LCF- DREAMLIFTER

Man that is ugly even if it can carry a lot Cry

It is the sort of flying machine I could see people feel embarrased about flying.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Jul 13^th, 2008 at 7:11pm

beaky Offline
Global Moderator
Uhhhh.... yup!
Newark, NJ USA

Gender:
Posts: 14187

Hmmm... there are more than 5, but in no particular order, here's five "good" ones:
1) Christmas Bullet (flexible wings with no actual warping system; inadequate rudder. The first time anyone tried to fly one, the wings came right off it)

2)Caproni Ca60 (Basically an enormous houseboat with some crazy, heavy wings stuck on it... crashed on its maiden flight after attaining 60 ft)

3) Any of Horatio Phillips' designs (just look at a photo of one-LOL)

4)Dornier Rs.1 (a flying boat with no "step" in the hull... d'oh. It could not take off from water)

5)Vought F7U Cutlass (very strong, sometimes fast and not bad-handling in general, but its hydraulics were too complicated, a suitable powerplant was never installed, and it was very naughty in slow-flight...1/4 of the pilots in the first squadron to fly them were killed flying them within a single year!)

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #12 - Jul 13^th, 2008 at 7:21pm

Dr.bob7 Offline
Colonel
Cessna 172SP a true aircraft
Castle Rock Colorado

Gender:
Posts: 1404

wow looked up the Ca60 on google....... i can see why it didnt work

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #13 - Jul 13^th, 2008 at 9:37pm

DaveSims Offline
Colonel
Clear Lake, Iowa

Gender:
Posts: 2453

Dr.bob7 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2008 at 7:21pm:

wow looked up the Ca60 on google....... i can see why it didnt work

Its amazing the contraptions they came up with back in the day.

So far this is what I've come up with, although I don't know if I'd classify them as the worst, but just simply bad.

1. Piper Tomahawk
A trainer aircraft with the potential to bite a student who doesn't eecute a stall properly.

2. Slingsby FireFly
The USAF Academy killed several cadets with these before pulling them from service.

Dave

www.flymcw.com

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #14 - Jul 14^th, 2008 at 7:00am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

DaveSims wrote on Jul 13^th, 2008 at 9:37pm:

2. Slingsby FireFly
The USAF Academy killed several cadets with these before pulling them from service.

Slingsby were very unfairly "scapegoated" by the USAF over those incidents - and it makes me deepely unhappy when I see so called "interlectual" US aviation magazines talk utter rubbish about the "deadly" Firelfly. Not to mention of course, the families were all steered by their leeching lawyers into sueing Slingsby.

Every other operator has had no major problems. The fact the USAF decided to operate them from an airfield at 6500ft AMSL, and the circumstances of on or two of the accidents has alway made me wonder if it was more the way they were operated - of the three fatal crashes, 2 were pilot error (relateting to poor spin recoveries I believe), and the third and unrecoverable stall (which, had it been carried out safely, should have been high enough to abandon the aircraft, otherwise would most likely have been poor aircraft handling). The engine failure issues could well be down to where the aircraft was operated from reading the issues involved.

Nothing wrong with the aeroplane at all.

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: