Simviation Forum - Worst 5 aircraft ever built

Reply #45 - Jul 28^th, 2008 at 1:48am

Vuikag Offline
Colonel
is it christmas yet?
Boonies ,Oregon

Gender:
Posts: 633

evanatorx wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 9:59pm:

This is easy.

The Wright Flyer is the worst aircraft of all time! Everything after that was just an improvement!

yeah it did have a pretty bad record. Roll Eyes

and again, just because the F-22 is very expensive doesn't mean it's the WORST aircraft ever made, or even in the top 5.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #46 - Jul 30^th, 2008 at 1:04am

evanatorx Offline
Colonel
Bunny!
Living in Beijing for summer!

Gender:
Posts: 511

Vuikag wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 1:48am:

evanatorx wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 9:59pm:

This is easy.

The Wright Flyer is the worst aircraft of all time! Everything after that was just an improvement!

yeah it did have a pretty bad record. Roll Eyes

and again, just because the F-22 is very expensive doesn't mean it's the WORST aircraft ever made, or even in the top 5.

I saw it at CIAS last year....pretty damn impressive if you ask me...

&&&&

www.ehdtstudios.com

&&&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #47 - Jul 31^st, 2008 at 1:05pm

Rich H Offline
Colonel
Sweden Jamboree 2011!
Solihull, U.K.

Gender:
Posts: 2082

Well,
Boeing 717, what's the point?
Lockheed Tristar, nothing compared to the DC-10
Tuploev TU-144, sales never exactly got anywhere
Lockheed C-130, not as powerful as the C-17 or Starlifter.

"Politics" is made up of two words, "Poli", which is Greek for "many", and "tics", which are blood sucking insects. - Gore Vidal

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #48 - Aug 1^st, 2008 at 9:05am

DaveSims Offline
Colonel
Clear Lake, Iowa

Gender:
Posts: 2453

Rich H wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 1:05pm:

Well,
Boeing 717, what's the point?
Lockheed Tristar, nothing compared to the DC-10
Tuploev TU-144, sales never exactly got anywhere
Lockheed C-130, not as powerful as the C-17 or Starlifter.

The 717 is nothing more than the next model of MD-80, since Boeing bought Douglas, they bought the aircraft too and renamed it.

Also, you do realize the C-130 came way before the C-17 and is still a premier military aircraft today. The Starlifter was not designed to do what the C-130 can do. A Starlifter is not known for its short field ability.

Dave

www.flymcw.com

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #49 - Aug 2^nd, 2008 at 1:02am

Vodka Burner Ex Member

717 was an upgraded DC-9, it was slightly longer than the DC-9-30, with the -34 wing, I beleive the -87 tail, new engines & other upgrades. It outsold the 737-600 & A318, was more fuel efficiant & reliable than both.

And the Tristar was, technologically, years ahead of the DC-10... only problem is it had one engine option and entered the market late.

C-130 was extremely successful & was never designed to compete with the Starlifter or C-17.

14 production Tu-144s were made, vs, 16 production Concordes...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #50 - Aug 2^nd, 2008 at 2:09am

Splinter562 Offline
Colonel
Tampa, FL

Gender:
Posts: 217

Rich H wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 1:05pm:

Well,
Boeing 717, what's the point?
Lockheed Tristar, nothing compared to the DC-10
Tuploev TU-144, sales never exactly got anywhere
Lockheed C-130, not as powerful as the C-17 or Starlifter.

As Vodka said, the Boeing 717 was a McDonnell Douglas plane built under the Boeing name after their buy-out. As far as design goes, it's not terrible. It's about the same speed as a MD-80, but both are slower than the 737. There has not been a hull-loss of a 717 either, though there aren't many flying. The only really bad thing about the aircraft was that it was not commercially successful. It's place in the market is easily served by larger regional jets or smaller 737s. It also doesn't "fit in" with the rest of the Boeing line as far as configuration and systems.

The C-130, C-17, C-5 (which fills the retired C-141 Starlifter's roll) have to entirely different missions, which they each excel at.

The C-130 is a pure-bread tactical airlifter, which means it's job is inter-theater transport. It's ability to fly low and slow and get into and out of tight spots make it one of the best tactical airlfters in the world.

The C-17 is a hybrid, capable of both tactical and strategic airlift. It has a much higher payload capacity and a much faster cruise speed, but sacrifices the low level and short/soft field capabilities of the C-130.

The C-5 is purely a strategic airlifter and is the aircraft of choice when you need to move a lot of equipment (or just very heavy equipment) into our out of theater. For that, it sacrifices any ability to do tactical airlift.

If I had to choose a worst of the 3, I'd have to say it is the C-5, because of its heavy maintenances requirements. Though you still can't knock it too much because the C-5 has the second highest payload capacity of any military transport ever produced. And there were only 2 An-225s ever made. By contrast, there were well over 100 C-5s built.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #51 - Aug 2^nd, 2008 at 3:59am

Splinter562 Offline
Colonel
Tampa, FL

Gender:
Posts: 217

Here is my worst 5 list (at least, worst 5 that I can remember right now). In no particular order:

For lack of understanding of basic aircraft structures combined with the narcissism to fail twice with the same design:
Christmas Bullet (mentioned previously) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Bullet

For the worst cold-war experimental aircraft method of operation, a tie between:
XF-85 Goblin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XF-85_Goblin
X-13 Vertijet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-13

For being more practical as a road-cone than an aircraft:
Rotary Rocket http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_Rocket

For critically underestimating the importance of minimizing the drag and weight parts of the four fundamental flying forces:
Horatio Phillips Flying Machines (also mentioned previously... Rotty got all the good ones) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Phillips

And a special award for proposed aircraft designs. For having a good understanding of rockets, but having a poor understanding of the drag penalties of big honkin' spheres in supersonic flight:
Armadillo Aerospace http://www.thespacereview.com/archive/1099a.jpg

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #52 - Aug 2^nd, 2008 at 2:42pm

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Quote:

And the Tristar was, technologically, years ahead of the DC-10... only problem is it had one engine option and entered the market late.

Which is in some ways quite perverse, as the RB211 has proven to be an excellent engine on the Tristar, 747 and 757 amongst others.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #53 - Aug 3^rd, 2008 at 5:10am

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

Gender:
Posts: 6058

C wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2008 at 2:42pm:

Quote:

And the Tristar was, technologically, years ahead of the DC-10... only problem is it had one engine option and entered the market late.

Which is in some ways quite perverse, as the RB211 has proven to be an excellent engine on the Tristar, 747 and 757 amongst others.

the P word... always the P word. Some countries / airlines refuse to buy any other engine than Pratts or GEs

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 #54 - Aug 4^th, 2008 at 11:06pm

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

Gender:
Posts: 1404

love the wikipedia page about the christmas bullet, "Dr." as it quotes, and ya think after the first one crashed from a wing failure youd put strutts on it

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #55 - Aug 8^th, 2008 at 2:11pm

Anxyous Offline
Colonel
I can has cheezburger?

Posts: 2670

The Christmas Bullet woulda made a fine plane! Funding was what went wrong Tongue

&&&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #56 - Aug 17^th, 2008 at 10:37pm

machineman9 Offline
Colonel
Nantwich, England

Gender:
Posts: 5255

SR-71... It leaks Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #57 - Aug 18^th, 2008 at 12:36am

Splinter562 Offline
Colonel
Tampa, FL

Gender:
Posts: 217

machineman9 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 10:37pm:

SR-71... It leaks Wink

The leak was intentional and actually a very smart design. It has to do with the thermal properties of metals and the aero heating experienced at the high speeds the aircraft operated at. The entire vehicle is a masterpiece of aerospace engineering.

It's costs and operational requirements (fuel, etc.) could be grounds for debate though.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #58 - Aug 20^th, 2008 at 2:18pm