Ten worst British Aircraft.

[sandozer]

Interesting list, Blackburn Roc my choice for first place.

The ten worst British military aircraft | Hush-Kit (http://hushkit.net/2016/03/02/the-ten-worst-british-military-aircraft/)

[Tourist]

Interesting list.

The mention of the Scimitar agrees with my dad.

He flew them plus Buccaneers and Hunters etc

"It was the most fun aircraft ever made. Guns, Rockets, Nuclear bombs, 6G till you ran out of fuel and all piloted by a lone Midshipman off an aircraft carrier. Utterly useless at all roles and brilliant."

.....and he crashed one which seems to agree with the writer too.

[Wensleydale]

The article does not even mention the Avro Manchester...or indeed the Fairey Fawn with its over-wing fuel tanks.

[izod tester]

The Fairey Battle. Built to Spec P27/32. A single engine light bomber with a crew of 3. It was under powered, slow and lacked defensive firepower. The then CAS, Sir Edward Ellington directed that no more Battles were to be ordered in December 1936 - before it entered squadron service.

137 Battles were lost in the early stages of WW2 in France from the 10 Battle squadrons deployed.

[a1bill]

I wanted to be first to say the F-35 :E



It's ok, I'll get my coat

[Wensleydale]

The Bristol Brigand anti-insurgency aircraft (and its communications variant, the Buckmaster).




http://www.8squadron.co.uk/history_images/brigand_prang_lg.jpg

[camelspyyder]

Nimrod 3...

Nimrod 4...

[Martin the Martian]

Wot no Defiant? The best 1918 fighter ever built?

Shurely shome mistake?

[NutLoose]

What, no Brabazon? Ahhh military.... you never said that :)

[treadigraph]

Wot no Defiant?


With you on that...

[XR219]

The Percival P.74 helicopter takes some beating - as described in Derek Wood's Project Cancelled, it didn't even succeed in leaving the ground!

[BEagle]

Not only did Percival's P.74 look like a pig, it comprehensively proved the old adage that 'Pigs can't fly'.... With everything set to maximum noise and up-ness, it just sat there shuddering and grunting, displaying no ambition to leave the ground.

Worst RAF aircraft I've flown? The loathsome Jetstream T Mk 1.

[VX275]

Surprised to see the Sea Vixen I that list. I used to work with an ex FAA observer who had nothing but praise for the Vixen and not a lot of praise for the Buccaneer S1. Mind you his opinions had a lot to do with the fact that he'd never had the need to eject from a Vixen but he had from the Bucc.

[27mm]

Tornado F2.

Radar (when it eventually arrived) best at picking up weather returns. Constant reheat and throt warnings from mechanical engine controls. TD box in the HUD that was smaller than the target!

[BEagle]

Then there was the Gloster Javelin. Engage reheat at altitude and it slowed down - it had the distinction of being the world's first all-weather non-aerobatic fighter....:rolleyes:

[LOMCEVAK]

BEagle,

So perhaps the Javelin should have been an IMC fighter rather than an all weather one! Interestingly, the F-101 also slowed down when you first engaged reheat (only flew against one, never in one).

27mm,

I am not disagreeing with you but with respect to the F2 and "Constant reheat and throt warnings from mechanical engine controls", the engines and MECUs were the same as on the GR1 and the same that the GR4 still has.

[treadigraph]

Percival P.74

Another British type I'd never heard of before - by the look of it, just as well. :yuk:

[MAINJAFAD]

Wot no Defiant? The best 1918 fighter ever built?

Even as a day interceptor, the Defiant's overall loss to kill ratio was actually in its favour, yes both 141 and 264 Sqn got hammered over the course of a few days, but so did quite a few Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons. The problem for the Defiant was a 1.1 to 1 kill/loss ratio was just not good enough. Had they been used to deal with the deeper penetration raids or up north as a pure bomber killer where there was no Me-109 threat they could have racked up some quite impressive scores.

[Herod]

Having just looked at it, the P74 must be well up on the list of the ugliest as well.

[Basil]

Whilst still in RAF training I had an indulgence flight to Malta and back seated in the tail boom of a Beverley. The experience confirmed my decision to avoid large piston-engined aircraft if at all possible.

[CoffmanStarter]

Listening to a few guys who had the misfortune to fly it ... that underpowered 'slab sided' monstrosity the Percival P.40 Prentice must surely be another contender.

[BEagle]

Lomcovák, I nearly managed a trip in a CF-101 at Chatham, but lost the toss to the Nav Plotter ('Animal'...). Just as well as I had a vile hangover.

The burners on the CF-101 lit with a heck of a bang, nothing like the gentle light up of the F-4. On Canadian winter runways, if the burners lit asymmetrically, a serious of interesting swings across the runway could result.

We did some 'fighter affil' with the CF-101 when flying in from Goose once; after they did their dashed ungentlemanly BVR simulated Genie launch (for younger readers, the Genie was an unguided air-to-air nuclear-tipped rocket with a 1.5 kiloton warhead... :eek: ), we merged for some playtime. One of the CF-101s was carrying a tape recorder - as they charged around at 550-ish KIAS in a huge turn avoiding pitch up, I pulled up, overbanked, spotted them and reversed to tuck in behind and above inside their turn, the conversation went something like:

Pilot "Dammit, lost tally!"
RIO "Where'd he go?"
Pilot "Who?"
RIO "The goddam Vulcan....sheehit, he's tracking us! How didya let something that big get behind us?"
Vulcan "Errm, Fox 2 chaps!"

If only we'd had an AIM-9 or two! So they bought the Moosehead and the evening went steadily downhill.

Anyway, back to the thread - I note from his excellent book A Passion For Flying that Tom Eeles has the same opinion of the Jetstream as I do!

[greywings]

This was a totally disgusting and unnecessary comment regarding the Scimitar:

"Prior to this, ensure one example crashes and kills its first Commanding Officer, infront of the press"

[Ewan Whosearmy]

This was a totally disgusting and unnecessary comment regarding the Scimitar:

"<snip>

And you've now ensured that it continues to invoke feelings of "disgust" by quoting it. Nice one.

[KiloB]

Perhaps contentious, but I expected to see the Meteor on the list. Designed with engines mounted further outboard than would seem to make sense (other than prop clearance norms) it caused more RAF casualties than the ME262 and ME110 put together. A good performer for its time, but at an unacceptable cost.
KB

[27mm]

Lomcevak,
You are right; my memory isn't what it used to be. We did get frequent reheat and throt warnings, but probably because we were slamming the throts during ACT; in other words, mishandling them in the mistaken belief that we were flying a fighter!

[Pontius Navigator]

Seems that Blackburn produced quite a few turkeys including the Buccanner. New engines and new bomb bay by Hawker Siddley improved it.

[Rosevidney1]

Come to think of it Blackburn was never one of the great manufacturers yet they managed somehow to stay in business for many years.

[Cornish Jack]

It would be nice to think that those decrying the Bev actually had some operating experience with it ... and the intended Mk2, with Tynes would have made the Fat Alberts look somewhat pedestrian.
Oddly missed two well qualified contenders - Miles Marathon and the, almost unbelievably bad, Attacker!!!:yuk:

[Planet Basher]

I cannot remember the aircraft type that either Alex Henshaw or Eric Brown said that the worst the had ever flown. All I do remember was that is was inflatable.

[MPN11]

I'm sorry to see the Javelin slated so hard. I know it had its faults, and many, many Marks to make it better, but ... Decent legs, great weapon load, ideal for policing the borders of the Empire.

@ BEagle ... similar tales after a 'no limits' ULL exercise in OZ involving Vulcans and 74's Lightning 6s [and other players]. ISTR that Vulcans saying "Dagga Dagga Dagga" featured in the RT exchanges ;)

[Tinribs]

A long time ago I used to share the odd beer with a retired RAF pilot in the Sun at Cottesmore. He said that early in the war he was engaged for some months in flying Blackburn Bothas direct from the factory to the scrapyard. It seems the cost of cancelling the contract made it cheaper to have the aircraft built
I managed to find him a copy of the pilots notes in the Farnborough archives, he was really amused.
He said even on minimum fuel the Botha could not maintain height on one engine and there was no rudder trim to balance an engine loss. Flight instruments required both generators to be operable and the landing lamps would not illuminate the ground even from taxi height
No a good buy

[papajuliet]

re the Botha.
Hugh Bergel, an ATA pilot, in his book "Fly and Deliver" says --- " On the way to his seat the pilot passed a board covered with taps and dials which controlled a peculiar fuel system. It was not difficult to set these taps so that all fuel tanks were turned OFF. Alas, this in no way stopped the pilot [ who was then out of reach and sight of this panel ] from starting, warming and running up the engines, taxiing out and taking off. But eleven minutes further on a little collector tank, which had no taps or gauge, and which fed both engines, would run dry and both engines stopped at once. Some pilots survived this."
It does make one wonder about the Blackburn designers and test pilots.

[Pontius Navigator]

The aircraft manufacturers also seemed to be head in clouds, or the Ministry of Supply.

Bristol Frightener to the Type 188 - logical
Saunders-Roe Princess to the SR53

At least Short were consistent, Sterling, Speed on, Belslow, Skyvan
and English Electric with Canberra, Lightning, TSR 2 didn't put a foot wrong

[Engines]

Pontius,

I'll have to gently speak up on behalf of Blackburns.

The Buccaneer was an amazing achievement in terms of aerodynamics, controls, structural design, and weapons bay design. For Blackburns to achieve what they did with little or no fast jet experience was, in my view (and that's all it is, of course) quite an exceptional feat.

Declaration here - I spent two happy years at Brough in the late 80s and got to know Roy Boot and others who were involved in the aircraft.

The S1 was crippled by the low power output of the Gyron Juniors, which were supplied by the Government. By the time they arrived they delivered around 55% of the promised thrust, and putting this engine into the aircraft, with its extra demands for BLC, was a recipe for trouble. And the S1 was big trouble.

However, it was Blackburns who took the initiative and started designing the S2 around the Spey before the S1 even flew. The design effort of the Buccaneer stayed at Brough after the merger into HS, and the S2 was an all Brough design.

The bomb bay fuel tank was another Brough design - it grew out of an earlier concept for carrying four more 1000 pounders on the outside of the bomb door, semi recessed into a large fairing that also contained fuel. The shape adopted for the S2B was essentially the same as that developed by Brough. Conformal weapons carriage in the mid 60s.

For my part, the list of the 'ten worst' should be driven by high cost to the taxpayer and getting into operational service in numbers while being wholly inadequate. On that basis, I propose the Blenheim. I also think that the Tornado F2 is a shoo-in for 'just about the worst ever'.

Best Regards as ever to those trying to do the right thing,

Engines

[Pontius Navigator]

Engines, only playing devils advocate. The mismatch between engines and airframe was often the fault of Ministry rather than manufacturer.

[Cazalet33]

Oh, how I wish that Eric Brown were here to tell us his list.

We'd all learn so much!

[sixfootfive]

It has to be said, and I've flown a few, BEagle is again correct. Jetstream TMk 1. Awful trainer, awful thing really.

[ExAscoteer]

Disagree entirely. The Jetstream T Mk 1 was a very, very good multi engine trainer platform, especially in view of its assymmetric handling qualities.

What was wrong was that the METS/MEXO/MER courses were skewed towards Truckie operations ather than being generic ME courses that would suit multiple end games.

[AtomKraft]

Re the Blackburn Botha.
This is the aircraft where a test pilot wrote:

'Entering the aircraft is difficult. It should be made impossible'.

[Gwyn_ap_Nudd]

Several Blackburn efforts but surprised that the Barracuda was omitted as by all accounts that was pretty awful - perhaps even worse than the Firebrand?

[Onceapilot]

Beagle. I believe the reheated Javelin actually suffered reduced reheat power at LOW altitude. From memory, it was because the early two-position (area) nozzle had to be optimized for a dry power setting at low altitude and, a reheat power setting at high altitude. Probably the best compromise but, reheat at low altitude cosequently gave such a mismatched nozzle area that overall thrust reduced. ;)

OAP

[ExAscoteer]

Surely the reheat problem with the Javelin was at LOW level where the HP pumps couldn't keep up with the fuel flow demands.

[BEagle]

ETPS reckoned that the C-130 would be a good lead-in trainer for the wretched Jetstream.... It was an UTTER piece of crap with dreadful control harmony - light and unresponsive in roll, heavy and sensitive in pitch. Abysmal, absurdly overcomplicated engine and propeller systems, a primitive autopilot which wasn't even integrated with the flight director, nosewheel steering which was almost impossibly stiff in cold weather, every method of generating electricity bar the Van de Graaf generator and Wimshurst machine and a very noisy flight deck! If you tried to land it in the approved manner, it would drop out of the sky when the 'power levers' were set to idle, due to the loss of lift over the part of the wing influenced by the large diameter propellers. Of course they wouldn't idle simultaneously, so the plummet to earth would be accompanied by an unpredictable wing drop. Top tip was to flare the wretched device with some power still applied and only to select idle once it was on the RW. The METS QFIs expected ridiculously long-winded crew briefs - one that I recall was "Co-pilot, you are to restrain the flight fine pitch mechanical lock lever!" Why? Lest it rise up and smite thee? 'Off / start / run' was too much for the RAF, the approved starting sequence was an exercise in futility with various coloured lights and indications accompanied by crew incantations and finger gestures as the infernal Asatzous slowly shook and shuddered their way up to ground idle. The heavy RAF radios also gave it an aft CG, which reduced the marginal pitch stability even further.... At least the RN's Heron Flight Jetstream T3s were fully sorted, with much better Garrett engines.

Engines, I think you were referring to the bomb door tank? There was an option to use both the BDT and a bomb bay tank for loooong range ferries, but the bomb bay tank wasn't often fitted, IIRC.

The Gyron Junior was a pretty dreadful engine. Bad enough in the Buccaneer S1, but even worse in the Bristol 188 as the engines were also fitted with reheat - giving a max endurance of around 25 minutes.

But the Buccaneer S2 and all sub variants was an excellent airframe indeed. A pig to fly below 300 KIAS, but utterly superb at 301+ KIAS. Had it been properly upgraded with Tornado-level avionics and a new cockpit, it would have been amazing.

Yes, sorry - my mistake concerning the Javelin. It was indeed at low level when use of reheat would cause the thing to decelerate due to inadequate fuel pump delivery pressure.

[Innominate]

"I cannot remember the aircraft type that either Alex Henshaw or Eric Brown said that the worst the had ever flown. All I do remember was that is was inflatable."

That's proably the M L Utility https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1957/1957%20-%200745.html aka "Dumbo the Durex Delta".

I doubt whether Alex Henshaw would have flown it; Winkle might have.

I rather like the quote attributed to a U S Navy pilot, to the effect of "Only the British could have put two Avons into [the Scimitar] and still not have managed Mach 1"

[smujsmith]

From personal experience ( ground crew only) I would nominate the Nimrod AEW Mk3, a project designed by committee, built by forced affiliation of manufacturers and a total flop by all accounts. It certainly ensured my tour at Waddington was a short one.

Smudge :ok:

[MAINJAFAD]

The aircraft manufacturers also seemed to be head in clouds, or the Ministry of Supply.

Bristol Frightener to the Type 188 - logical

Bristol had a lot of supersonic experience from Red Duster (Bloodhound) and had a supersonic wind tunnel from 1951-52 onwards. Their first supersonic airframe was the Ramjet powered JTV 1 in 1951 and they had full sized ramjet test airframes reaching Mach 2.4 the following year. Filton did know a little bit about building Supersonic airframes.

[Tankertrashnav]

The Beverley may have had all the aerodynamic qualities of a brick, but it did some sterling service in its time. They were very rugged and stood up well to operating out of dusty strips in up-country Aden, where I sometimes flew in them with 84 Sqn from Khormaksar. At Seletar I shared a room in the mess with a Beverley captain on 34 Sqn , and often went flying in in them, either on the jump seat in the very spacious flight deck, or down below watching army dispatchers pushing one-ton containers out of the back at low level. Never had the dubious "pleasure" of flying as pax in the boom, though!

[Tourist]

ETPS reckoned that the C-130 would be a good lead-in trainer for the wretched Jetstream.... It was an UTTER piece of crap with dreadful control harmony - light and unresponsive in roll, heavy and sensitive in pitch. Abysmal, absurdly overcomplicated engine and propeller systems, a primitive autopilot which wasn't even integrated with the flight director, nosewheel steering which was almost impossibly stiff in cold weather, every method of generating electricity bar the Van de Graaf generator and Wimshurst machine

You really don't like the Jetstream BEagle, but your memory is starting to fail you. The Harmony is wonderfully awful, but the other way round. Very heavy and physically tiring in roll, but sensitive in pitch.
The Heron ones had better autopilot and instruments, but I'd take the astazous any day despite the noise. Bulletproof, reliable stress free and with a decent flight idle stop that let you actually control the aircraft rather than being mollycoddled in the landing. The early jet streams also had a decent amount of flap.

[Pontius Navigator]

Main, I don't dispute that Bristol had the expertise just the move from the ridiculous to the sublime seemed the ambitions of many aircraft manufacturers. At least Shorts built solid aircraft from Sunderland onwards to the Skyvan, though even they got a bit of modern R&D with the SC1C. Then there was the HP 115.

The common thread appears to be the MoS farming out contracts even handset across industry which was possibly wasteful and led to BAC and HS and ultimately to BAE.

[BEagle]

Tourist, thanks for the correction. I only suffered 15 hours in the horrible thing some 33 years ago on a refresher course and was glad to see the back of it!

[gpugh]

father always said the Westland Wyvern, Skua and Scimitar were the ones he was glad to have avoided during his career , he also said the Sea Fury,because of it's unreliable engine, he loved the Sea Vixen, Hunter and later Meteors and his favorite piston fighter was the Corsair, more than a match for the Sea Fury he thought. It was the Barracuda not the Skua he was glad not to have flown.One that scared him was a Miles with a small jet mounted ontop which he flew several times.

[Tourist]

Tourist, thanks for the correction. I only suffered 15 hours in the horrible thing some 33 years ago on a refresher course and was glad to see the back of it!

Do you know, I bet that after a little while you would have come to love it like most of us did.
Bombproof, but uneconomical.

[DaveUnwin]

Fascinating thread. I flew the Percival Prentice once - shocking contraption, with no redeeming features! So why did it get built? Well, the story I was told was that there was a general election coming up, and the factory was in a marginal seat. It got the contract.

Eric told me that the worse thing he ever flew was the GAL/56.

[Davef68]

Tornado F2.

Radar (when it eventually arrived) best at picking up weather returns. Constant reheat and throt warnings from mechanical engine controls. TD box in the HUD that was smaller than the target!

I see it repeats the 'Blue Circle' concrete ballast story - IIRC the ballast was actually lead weights

[Davef68]

Even as a day interceptor, the Defiant's overall loss to kill ratio was actually in its favour, yes both 141 and 264 Sqn got hammered over the course of a few days, but so did quite a few Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons. The problem for the Defiant was a 1.1 to 1 kill/loss ratio was just not good enough. Had they been used to deal with the deeper penetration raids or up north as a pure bomber killer where there was no Me-109 threat they could have racked up some quite impressive scores.

IIRC one squadron used the book defensive tactics (Descending circle formation providing a 'ring of fire') and was pretty successful the other didn't and got mauled.

[MAINJAFAD]

Dave 264 took a shoeing on more than one occasion (Their second sortie over France saw them lose five out of six), they did however learn from that disaster and come up with a tactic which negated some of the aircraft's weakness against a superior single seat fighter. Off course 141 then totally ignored every bit of advice that the 264 boys gave them and paid the price.

[Heathrow Harry]

Dave 264 took a shoeing on more than one occasion (Their second sortie over France saw them lose five out of six), they did however learn from that disaster and come up with a tactic which negated some of the aircraft's weakness against a superior single seat fighter. Off course 141 then totally ignored every bit of advice that the 264 boys gave them and paid the price.


Years ago (?early 60's?) I remember a flight review of the Sopwith Camel - the test pilot said it was deadly dangerous - and the idea that people were flying them with 20 hrs experience made it a playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded revolver ..............

[Wander00]

Of which aircraft did a test pilot allegedly write "It is difficult to get into this aeroplane. It should be made impossible"

[BossEyed]

Blackburn Botha? That quote is supposed to be in one of the reports reprinted in "Boscombe Down: A Most Secret Place", but I've never found it!

Edit: Ah, AtomKraft said that on p2.

[CoffmanStarter]

Slight drift ...

BEagle, Tourist ...

Doesn't the Argentinian Pucara have the same Turbomeca Astazou as the Jetstream ? Anyone know if they experienced the same engine handling/management issues ?

Maybe our Member who got to evaluate the captured Pucara might offer a view ?

There have been some reports that the Argentinians plan to re-engine their Pucara's with the P&W PT6A-62 ... when they can afford it that is !

[melmothtw]

There have been some reports that the Argentinians plan to re-engine their Pucara's with the P&W PT6A-62 ... when they can afford it that is !

First flight of the re-engined Pucara actually took place a month or so ago, but reported only a couple of days ago that the project has now been cancelled. No official reason given, but rumour mill has it that the FAA wants Super Tucanos instead.

[Tourist]

Slight drift ...

BEagle, Tourist ...

Doesn't the Argentinian Pucara have the same Turbomeca Astazou as the Jetstream ? Anyone know if they experienced the same engine handling/management issues ?



I don't think the Astazou has any handling or management issues aside from the infernal noise!

I flew very happily next to it in the Jetstream and underneath it in the Gazelle. My only issue is the slight hearing loss, and that is returning over time....:bored:

Brilliant little simple engine. Better than the Garret at low level, though less good at altitude. Completely idiot proof handling. Slam the power levers around all day long, and a simple push forward for extra power for takeoff.

[CoffmanStarter]

Cheers Mel and Tourist :ok:

[partsvn]

Great thread with lots of interesting memories. 30's 10 million rivets flying in close formation took us from Bahrain to Sharjah many times for APC but the saddest thing is we made them all together with the best as well. Now ??


Check out "Farnborough the Golden Years 1949-1959". If that doesn't bring a tear or two nothing will. Spectators in jackets, ties and hats, test pilots in woolly pulls and cloth helmets.


MGTF, BSA Goldie, King and Barnes bitter I rest my case !!!! Thank goodness for Guinness.

[Basil]

I spent two happy years at Brough in the late 80s
I briefly flew Aztecs there in 1973 and was astonished that Buccs, esp the S1, could take off from that little runway. Wonder if the big chimney was there when they were being ferried out. Briefing to self in crappy wx was 'No matter what happens after take-off, don't forget to turn right!'

p.s. The T Mk1 Varsity had approximately the same Power/Weight ratio as the PA-23 Aztec.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Of which aircraft did a test pilot allegedly write "It is difficult to get into this aeroplane. It should be made impossible"

I first heard it in the context of the Belvedere - in practice I'm sure it never was said, because any proper Test Pilot would give detailed reasons and classify the deficiency.


I'm glad to say that the two worst British aircraft I've ever encountered were neither military, nor went into service for long.

The Shadow E series - an obscure end-of-range trainer that should never have happened. The only aircraft I've genuinely seen aileron reversal on - and you could most definitely see the wing distortion as it did it, and it wasn't pretty.

The Edgley Optica - with insufficient payload to fill all three seats at any sensible fuel load, nowhere to put mission comms kit, an asymmetric turning circle on the ground and a wingspan so large it stopped you using most GA airfields, a 240hp fuel injected Lycoming that gave 90kts in level flight, nowhere to store mission equipment, a need to move ballast to stay in CG limits if your observer got out, and day-VMC only: as clearly crimes never get committed at night or on cloudy days. I see that this month's Aerospace International is enthusing about its rebirth - I can only conclude that Martin Robinson has obviously never actually flown one.

G


(Son of a man who used to build Scimitars, but then got laid off when Supermarine / Vickers-Armstrong closed the drawing office. He never worked on an aircraft again - maybe just as well, but please don't tell him I said that!).

[Planet Basher]

Thank you Innominate, ML Utility it was.:ok:

[Herod]

I've just checked Winkle's book. No ML Utility in it. Looking at the picture of it, I should think he would have described it as hideous.

[Engines]

Basil,

I'm happy to be corrected, but I'm fairly sure that the Buccaneers always flew out of Holme on Spalding Moor (always referred to as 'HOSM' at Brough). They were taken there by road - I remember that the lamp posts on Skillings Lane, down which they had to travel, were fitted with hinges to pull them down out of the way each time an aircraft was taken through - a bit like Thunderbird 2 and its palm trees.

The big chimney was a Rio Tinto Zinc plant addition, and has since been removed.

Best regards as ever to those actually building the aircraft,

Engines

[FleurDeLys]

I wondered if someone would mention the Varsity. Cheers, Basil!

[Pontius Navigator]

Warning, severe thread drift, i liked the Varsity both as a nav trainer and a bomber. Went round the one at Newark, wonderful.

Visual level bombing beats lots, aerial darts from 4,000 feet. You see the bomb dropping vertically miles short of the target then lose sight of it. Suddenly you see it streaking horizontally in to the target landing mere feet away.

[Haraka]

Of which aircraft did a test pilot allegedly write "It is difficult to get into this aeroplane. It should be made impossible"

Apochryphal: but it goes back at least to the Blackburn Botha

[MPN11]

I was 'fortunate' to control Varities on my first tour at Strubby, and even had a couple of hours driving them when they needed a co-pilot for Air Tests and the like ... and all the proper co-pilots were busy flying with Students. Both I and my plt off mate in ATC even had our own flying kit on the sqn, and they would phone the Tower and ask if one of us was 'free to give them a hand'.

Happy days :)

[effortless]

Universally hated by a certain generation was surely the Martinet. Possibly for what it was used for of course.

[Innominate]

As we've got as far back as the Camel, what about the Tarrant Tabor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarrant_Tabor

It killed both pilots without leaving the ground!

[Basil]

but I'm fairly sure that the Buccaneers always flew out of Holme on Spalding Moor
Aha! Is that how they did it? Thanks for clearing up that misconception for me.

[AdLib]

Tornado F2

A slower Lightning, but without the radar.

[Halton Brat]

Wiggins Aerodyne (Naval derivative).

[Pontius Navigator]

AdLib, it had a few other advantages, like we . . .

Probably better to describe it as like a Phantom with less power, fewer missiles, but longer legs and a GUN.

[LOMCEVAK]

I find this thread fascinating in that on this list we are considering Marks of aircraft types that were, overall, successful and in many ways very good. The Buccaneer, overall, was a magnificent aircraft for its role in the S2 variants which comprised the majority of the production run (although it did have the some of the worst handling qualities in the landing pattern that I have ever experienced!). Similarly, the Tornado ADV in its main F3 variant and in its latter days in service was a good interceptor, and there are several threads on PPRuNe extolling its virtues, for example its low level speed high capabilities. Therefore, I think that only types for which EVERY Mark was bad really deserve to be on this list.

With the exception of the F2 I have not flown any of the types on the original list - with my inquisitive nature I cannot make up my mind whether this makes me fortunate or unfortunate!

[BEagle]

LOMCEVAK wrote:The Buccaneer, overall, was a magnificent aircraft for its role in the S2 variants which comprised the majority of the production run (although it did have the some of the worst handling qualities in the landing pattern that I have ever experienced!).

And yet there was no 2-sticker! A night formation VRIAB was probably one of the riskiest aspects I recall from my brief struggle at the OCU. Various checks to be completed as the thing decelerated, including swapping hands to pull up the aileron gear change and select the autostabs to low speed, peering around the cockpit for the various blow gauges and aileron/flap/tailplane indicators as you went from 0/0/0 to 15/10/10 ("Move together, stop together"...I can hear it now) to 30/20/20 to 45/25/25, not forgetting the undercarriage and correct airbrake angle....all whilst keeping a look out for the aircraft ahead...and an ear on the ADD audio...and looking for the RW.

But above 300KIAS, it was magnificent!

[LOMCEVAK]

As we are into Buccaneer thread creep ....

When I and, I assume, BEagle first flew the Buccaneer, the only sortie that you ever flew with a pilot in the rear cockpit was the first sortie, FAM 1. With respect to normal instructional techniques, the QFI had only two options in this case, shout or eject (and the latter was threatened on at least one occasion)! For these sorties, some QFIs insisted on being captain. However, when I converted someone to the Bucc at Boscombe I flatly refused to be captain! If I didn't have a stick or throttles there was no way that I was signing for the aircraft. It is interesting that the first sortie on which you flew simulated asymmetric approaches, FAM 3, was flown with a navigator in the back, although in later years I believe that these were flown with a pilot instructor.

In a period of 18 months in the late '70s there were two engine failures on FAM 1s. The first was at high speed so it was not a problem. The second was a first tourist pilot on my course who had the right engine fail during the finals turn of a right hand circuit when configured such that a single engine capability did not exist (45-25-25). There were no engine instruments in the rear cockpit but the front seat was offset slightly left and the rear seat slightly right such that the back-seater could see some of the right instrument panel and the right console. The instructor was the USAF exchange pilot who saw the right engine winding down and just instructed the pilot what to select up and when, which he did, and a successful recovery was flown; an excellent response by both. On my FAM 1 I had an intercom failure and a QFI with a loud enough voice to shout audibly "Land off the next circuit". Fantastic times!

There actually was one twin-stick Buccaneer. When XV344 was configured to be the 'Nightbird' research aircraft for RAE Farnborough a stick was fitted in the rear cockpit to allow some safety pilot intervention. However, by the time I started flying it the stick had been removed, and I believe that other than during initial trials post conversion it was never fitted because of poor mechanical characteristics.

[BEagle]

My FAM 1 was indeed the only Buccaneer trip flown with a QFI in the back...and I signed as Captain, understanding that fairly sage advice would follow from the rear seat!

Apart from having to call out the entire pre-flight check list, which took an absolute age, the rest of the trip went very well indeed. But when I got back from the mandatory GCA approach, there was a low sun shining down a damp runway in late October - so the first landing was more by luck than judgement. But the other 3 were fine.

During my brief time, the problem of an engine failure during a 45-25-25 final turn was considered. The decision was made to start the turn at On+20 rather than On+10, which increased the likelihood of recovering. As Bruce briefed us "Fullpowerairbrakeclosedgearup" first in one fell movement, then level wings, then see where it's going, then sort it out.

[Pontius Navigator]

Lomcevak there are plenty of non-pilot Captains and at least some AEOs even.

Regarding the Mk 1 Bucc and the F2, the point being that they both needed significant upgrades to make them what they were in the end.

Agree your point about 'all marks' to be considered on the list, the list seems to comprise poorly designed airframes that were not redeemable and possibly reasonable airframes with inadequate power plants. As I tentatively suggested, the dead hand of the MoS may well have been a significant contributor.

[thing]

It was an UTTER piece of crap with dreadful control harmony - light and unresponsive in roll, heavy and sensitive in pitch. Abysmal, absurdly overcomplicated engine and propeller systems, a primitive autopilot which wasn't even integrated with the flight director, nosewheel steering which was almost impossibly stiff in cold weather... it would drop out of the sky when the 'power levers' were set to idle,

Surely you are talking about the Arrow Mk1 with the Hershey bar wing ...'If you're a little high on the approach just throttle back to idle and be amazed at how you are suddenly very low on the approach, don't try and correct for this with back pressure as you just aren't strong enough. The autopilot will generate interesting attitudes. Do not use it in IMC unless you want to die' as my conversion instructor laconically said...

[A and C]

I think you are being a little cruel to the PA28-180R, it was undoubtedly under powered but its main fault was it did not take into account the average flying club members ability to read and understand the flight manual.

The aircraft was designed as touring aircraft and it was assumed that rear seat passengers would be carried along with baggage in compartment aft of the rear seats. Unfortunately the standard UK flying club check out is usually two guys in the front and lots of fuel, this results in the aircraft being loaded on if not beyond the FWD C of G limit ........... So no real surprise when the thing runs out of up elevator at low speed.

I once read an air test written by one of the self appointed lumanries of UK light avation saying that the PA34 exhibited the same poor qualities in pitch, as an aircraft with six seats it suffered from the FWD C of G problem to a greater degree than the PA28R, there is no doubt whatsoever that the PA34 was air tested loaded outside the aircraft C of G limits !

[BEagle]

Neither the PA28 nor PA34 are British aircraft.....

On the subject of the Arrow, if you want to witness a normally quiet, polite Canadian erupt with fury, just mention Diefenbaker and the CF-105 cancellation....

[Stitchbitch]

Bristol Brigand?

[thing]

I think you are being a little cruel to the PA28-180R

I was being a little tongue in cheek, the first time I flew one I'd only ever flown the tapered Warrior wing in the 28 family so the lurch earthwards comparatively speaking when you chop the power was very noticeable. The instructor quote was verbatim by the way, one of those that you don't forget!

Beagle: apologies for the thread drift.

[ImageGear]

During my conversion onto PA28-180R, a premature simulated EFTO by the CFI resulted in recovery requiring me to pass between a farm house and a barn below roof height. (My wife-to-be in the back seat asked later if we were supposed to be so low.)

Absolutely gutless and would sink like a stone in any unusual situation, I was very glad to move on to the Arrow 200.

Imagegear

[Tankertrashnav]

And yet there was no 2-sticker! A night formation VRIAB was probably one of the riskiest aspects I recall from my brief struggle at the OCU. Various checks to be completed as the thing decelerated, including swapping hands to pull up the aileron gear change and select the autostabs to low speed, peering around the cockpit for the various blow gauges and aileron/flap/tailplane indicators as you went from 0/0/0 to 15/10/10 ("Move together, stop together"...I can hear it now) to 30/20/20 to 45/25/25, not forgetting the undercarriage and correct airbrake angle....all whilst keeping a look out for the aircraft ahead...and an ear on the ADD audio...and looking for the RW.


I did once hear the Buccaneer cockpit described as an ergonomic slum. By your account it sounds like it was a fair description!

[Pontius Navigator]

TTN, the Vulcan was not much better, one co-pilot wrote a poem I think about some of the 28 different ways of ON/OFF switch from left, right, up, down, press, pull, twist, lift and up, lift and down and many others.

[5aday]

The Avroe Shackleton mk2 Phase 3 ( I can be definite as they were the only ones I flew as an AEOp in at R.A.F. Ballykelly). They frightened me ****less
and I decided there and then I had made a terrible mistake with my career.
I was really grateful to a Squadron Leader P Staff based in MOD who spent a long time at Headley Court as a patient ( as was I ) AND who managed to change my next posting (Nimrod MR1). This took countless lunchtimes during our early legs walking exercises in the Cock at Headly because he had me originally posted to Kinloss but he was a man of his word (P Staff seldon are)
and I found myself on the first Nimrod crew conversion for 203 sqn.
The Nimrod wasn't quite as frightening if you had a reasonably competent group of chaps (three of them) in the flight deck. If you din't have, then it could be just as frightening as the Shackleton except you got there quicker. Enough of the Nimrods in various forms went down and the end result was they were a sad result of their previous form with the few remaining ones at Kinloss dripping fuel everywhere and the stink inside was incredibly horrible. Sad really and although I was now just a mere reservist I thought why am I
continuing to do this ? I think it really was just for the company of the guys at Kinloss. My other real life, - the one that builds nice places and the attendant mortgages that goes with them - was so much better.
When the last Nimrod that went in because of **** practices on maintenance (120 sqn crew 3 ) I shed a tear. Because of those bad practises and crap design of the airborne refuelling system, the Nimrod became the worst aeroplane in my service career.

[Tinribs]

Not wishing to be unduly awkward but!
I think a 2 stick Buc was modded in the late 70's for some research work At RAE Bedford. We borrowed a normal Buc for some training and unfortunately THE CREW were obliged to jump because of a low tone downwind

[Sevarg]

What about the Valiant, the only aircraft with an engine life longer than the airframe. Good value?

[Pontius Navigator]

Sevarg, MoS supplied the metal iirc

[Pontius Navigator]

How about the Anson replacement, the Bassett, to ferry a V-bomber crew to a dispersal. Add a nav, a VIP toilet, and you finish up with an aircraft that dug its props in the taxiway and needed two aircraft to do the job.

[thing]

How about the Anson replacement, the Bassett, to ferry a V-bomber crew to a dispersal.

How did the V-bomber get to the dispersal? :confused:

[Shack37]

Originally posted by 5aday

When the last Nimrod that went in because of **** practices on maintenance (120 sqn crew 3 ) I shed a tear. Because of those bad practises and crap design of the airborne refuelling system, the Nimrod became the worst aeroplane in my service career.


5aday, I hope the above is not a dig at groundcrew, but if it is, please add some clarification.

[Tankertrashnav]

What about the Valiant, the only aircraft with an engine life longer than the airframe. Good value?

Valiant XD818 which is now at Cosford used to be on display outside at Ops at Marham. Sometime in the 70s they took her four Avons out of her and flogged them to the Swiss for their Hunters. So we got a bit of money back!

[Distant Voice]

When the last Nimrod that went in because of **** practices on maintenance (120 sqn crew 3 ) I shed a tear. Because of those bad practises and crap design of the airborne refuelling system, the Nimrod became the worst aeroplane in my service career.

I agree about the "crap design", but what were the "**** practices on maintenance"?

DV

[5aday]

Shack 37 - absolutely not. I think we had some of the best groundcrew ever and list many as life long friends. Sometimes I think they were given ridiculous
tasks to modify the aeroplanes often at a whim.

[Autobahnstormer]

Valiant XD818 which is now at Cosford used to be on display outside at Ops at Marham. Sometime in the 70s they took her four Avons out of her and flogged them to the Swiss for their Hunters. So we got a bit of money back!

I remember the gales of 1976/77 at Marham. The Valiant was so light it actually strained the chains holding it down, thankfully the tanks were still intact, they filled it with fuel to keep it on the ground. That same night a bomb-scare was caused by the tip-tank of a Canberra falling off and being blown into the main-road. Sorry about the thread creep, memories are flooding back.
ABS

[DaveUnwin]

Agreed. I flew Key Publishing's 206 several times, but in fairness never near MAUW. Good handling and great FoV - ergonomics poor though. I always remember how as the oil pressures came up post-start the oil pressure gauge needles swept out of sight.....

[chevvron]

How about the Anson replacement, the Bassett, to ferry a V-bomber crew to a dispersal. Add a nav, a VIP toilet, and you finish up with an aircraft that dug its props in the taxiway and needed two aircraft to do the job.
The Basset didn't need a heavy load to dig its props in; Bovingdon had an undulating main runway and they did it virtually from when the first one was delivered.
I was told by a guy who worked for Shorts (who had the contract for ground support) that they simply cut a piece off the prop blades as they were delivered but somehow I don't think that's true.
About my last 'encounter' with the type (a civilian 206) was Roly Beamont departing from Brooklands one day (back in '75) ; his first call to Farnborough was 'I'm going to have to land with you, one of my propellors has fallen off'!

[treadigraph]

Chevvron, wasn't it Brian Trubshaw who lost the 206 prop departing Brooklands?

[Pontius Navigator]

Chevron, it was certainly what was said at the time, no worries about balancing apparently.bY

[Shack37]

5aday :ok::ok:
Apologies for misunderstanding your post.

[LBP PC DC]

Since Blackburn seems to crop up quite a bit in this thread, how about these legendary products of that company?

The Blackburn Blackburn:

http://stringbagsandrattleboxes.devhub.com/img/upload/gjiu6tt.jpg

The Blackburn Overstrand:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/BP_Overstrand.jpg

The Blackburn Sidestrand:

http://www.aviationancestry.co.uk/Humm/Sites/Main/Views/Database/Images/Boulton%20Paul/Aircraft%20Manufacturers-Boulton%20Paul-1929-6967.jpg

DC

[Pontius Navigator]

LBP, Bolton-Paul surely?

[Chugalug2]

LBP, Bolton-Paul surely?

Agreed, PN. Apologies for thread drift but as the Sidestrand and Overstrand have been mentioned, they recall the BCH campaign to preserve RAF Bicester where both types equipped 101 Squadron. For their time they provided a stable bombing platform, with the latter sporting an enclosed turret. This is a page from "RAF Bicester 1917-1995" in which is described a rather inventive system for determining drop wind velocity, and hence the DS solution for practice bombing training on the airfield IP. I wonder if Messrs Tate and Lyle had any idea of the crucial part their tins played in our defence?

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x199/chugalug2/Bicester05_zpsmthdlu3g.png

Sorry, for those searching in vain for Syrup Tins, I had inadvertently posted the wrong page. The above is the right one (I hope!)

[LBP PC DC]

PN

You are of course absolutely correct. The embarassing part is that I actually searched for Boulton Paul Over/Sidestrand images and then got caught up with the whole Blackburn thing, one thing led to another and here we are :\

DC

[DC10RealMan]

During the Battle of France in 1940 a Fairey Battle pilot was asked about the qualities of his aircraft and replied "A lovely aeroplane to go to lunch in"

Nuff said!

[thing]

Not a bad flying a/c as such and I'm not one to dent icons but does anyone else find Tiger Moth seats the most uncomfortable in the world? Never flown anything where I've had to visit a chiropractor the next day, and I jest not. I was in agony when I climbed/fell out.

[ACW418]

I never had a problem in the Tiger (as far as I can remember) but the Cadet Mk3 Glider (Slingsby T31) rear seat could beat anything in terms of back pain.

ACW

[A and C]

I will second that............ A true pain in the but !

[Boslandew]

Now that just about every aircraft that has flown since the war has been nominated, how about aircraft that did see service and shouldn't have done. I nominate the Saunders Roe Skeeter.

[pr00ne]

Sepecat Jaguar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MPN11]

Now that just about every aircraft that has flown since the war has been nominated, how about aircraft that did see service and shouldn't have done. I nominate the Saunders Roe Skeeter.

I guess the Supermarine Swift might qualify. But they were early days post WW2...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Swift

[BEagle]

HP Marathon T MK 11 - if you don't know, then Google it!

Jetstream T Mk 1 - a thoroughly wretched piece of junk!

Pre-AHARS Hawk T Mk 1 - or rather its useless compass system and lack of offset TACAN.

[typerated]

Boulton Paull Defiant!
Fairey battle.


Closely followed by Tornado F3 :)

whoops I more mean F2 :)

[West Coast]

Jetstream T Mk 1 - a thoroughly wretched piece of junk!


A handful on one donk.

[Ascend Charlie]

The Botha, which the RAF decided was too dangerous to send to war, so it did things like training radio operators. My father was flying one when an engine failed, and it couldn't maintain height. Ditch in the Channel, 3 hrs in a dinghy, earn membership from the Goldfish Club.

[treadigraph]

Beagle Basset...

[BEagle]

There was also that utter abortion - the Saro Lerwick twin-engined flying boat. Known as the 'Sinking Pig', it both looked and flew like a pig. It was unstable and lacked adequate control authority - on one engine it could neither maintain height nor heading, but would descend in gradual circles until meeting the surface. It also had what was described as a vicious stall. Around 50% of the wretched things were lost in accidents...

[bspatz]

Is this thread turning into 'The worst machine the RAF ever had'?

[Boslandew]

What were the pros and cons of the Belvedere? I remember being told by a very senior Air Corps WO pilot that he had watched a Belvedere taxying into dispersal in Malaya and the entire nose section had fallen off. Althought the story may have grown in the telling.

[spitfirek5054]

Shorts Belfast,what are your views on this?

[Archimedes]

Shorts Belfast,what are your views on this?

RAF didn't want it, but got it to preserve jobs at Shorts. Thanks to those operating it, turned into a reasonable (with benefit of hindsight; those there at the time seem to have differing views), but rather slow aircraft, but always vulnerable to the next defence review. Done in by the Mason Review.

Original plan was for the RAF to retain the 'tactical' looking aircraft which supported the Army (thus Hercules, Belfast and possibly the Andovers used by 38 Group, but not Argosys, which were being retired anyway), while the aircraft which looked like airliners (VC10, Britannia, Comet) would be retired and replaced with chartered aircraft.

The draft statement on the Defence estimates said that all 10 would be retained, but someone - allegedly a minister - had asked 'what will we fly on, then?' and upon learning that the answer was 'British Airways, or Dan Air' the RAF was invited to consider retaining some of the VC10 fleet as well, with a figure of 7 being suggested.

The draft statement says:

"The number of VC10 and Hercules aircraft in operation will be reduced from 66 to 47; the Belfast Squadron of ten aircraft is not affected."​

After much crunching of numbers, it was concluded that it was better to retain all the VC10s and to retire the whole Belfast fleet instead, and then sell them to a company which would be chartered to provide them on an as required basis.

[charliegolf]

Is this thread turning into 'The worst machine the RAF ever had'?

See post 242!

CG

[bspatz]

From a movers point of view the Belfast was fantastic with an exceptionally strong floor which would take very heavy equipment it also allowed loading with forklifts inside the aircraft.The front freight door as well as the ramp made it easy to load particularly as the lighter freight, which generally needed to be up front, could be put straight in place rather than wheeled up the length of the aircraft. Trimming was easy as it was pretty much 50/50 and it was normal to bulk out before reaching max payload. At the time it was also one of the few transport aircraft around with an outsize freight bay which meant there were numerous loads, such as the Wessex, which were Belfast only. Unfortunately its aerodynamics let it down but if had been a swept wing jet as originally conceived it would have been a world beater.

[Herod]

Ref the Wessex in the Belslow. In 1970 we took ten Wessex out to Singapore as part of exercise "Bersatu Padu". It was possible to get two Wessex (Wessi?) in a Belslow, so five aircraft loads. IIRC, at one point we had two flying at Changi, two in a tech Belslow at Gan, two ditto at Masirah, two ditto at Akrotiri, and two (you guessed it) ditto at Brize. Admittedly, all eventually arrived. Great crew transporter though.

[typerated]

This might be near the top of most money spent and least capability delivered!

couple of our allies were quite happy with our buying the bits though.

https://flic.kr/p/25SU3vy

[The Oberon]

The Belfast was also handy during The South Atlantic unpleasantness. I remember one with starter problems being stuck on Ascension for a long time. I seem to remember that it was eventually started by putting a C-130 in front of it and, using the draught from a single Hercules engine, windmilling the Belfast prop until it started.

[Boslandew]

So, does anyone know anything about the Belvedere?

[Asturias56]

Overall I think you'd have to give the prize to the Battle - it flew well enough but the concept was fatally flawed, there was enough warning from Spain & Poland as to what happened to large slow ground attack aircraft and just because they'd built a lot there was no reason the abandon common sense and deploy them in the front line.

To persist after the first few days of the Battle of France was simple murder.

[Martin the Martian]

And some aircraft that become almost universally loved start off as white elephants. Take the Hunter F.1, for example: engine surge issues, particularly when firing the cannon, no airbrake, cannon shell casings damaging the fuselage, and the very poor range which led to the infamous incident of six aircraft lost on the same flight. Thankfully they persevered.

On the subject of the Defiant, 37 were shot down by the Luftwaffe in air combat, while it scored 152 kills in return. Time, maybe, for a reappraisal?

[Asturias56]

I think you'll find they are claims rather than confirmed kills - and a lot of those were on one day over Dunkirk.

"Although 264 Squadron claimed 48 kills in eight days over Dunkirk, the cost was high with 14 Defiants lost. Actual German losses were no more than 12–15 enemy aircraft; the turret's wide angle of fire meant that several Defiants could engage the same target at one time, leading to multiple claims."

[Cornish Jack]

Beagle - "HP Marathon T MK 11 - if you don't know, then Google it!
'Humbly Pudge' may well have laid claim to it in later years, but it was the product, originally, of Messrs Miles, hence the Marathon titling. You are correct though in its awfulness. I have two flights logged in the beast from Thorney - one with M Plt 'Horse' Adams, who convincingly demonstrated its inabilty to maintain height on three and its breathtaking (unwanted) rate of descent on two! It did, however, have a saving grace - the flap and gear levers were adjacent and easy to misidentify ... the numbers on inventory were thereby reduced fairly quickly!:D

[NutLoose]

Several Blackburn efforts but surprised that the Barracuda was omitted as by all accounts that was pretty awful - perhaps even worse than the Firebrand?

Brought out to replace the Swordfish and replaced in service by the erm Swordfish

[Asturias56]

Brought out to replace the Swordfish and replaced in service by the erm Swordfish


Nut - I think you're thinking of the Albacore - that was the one that was supposed to replace the Swordfish - the Barracuda replaced the Albacore in some roles and the Swordfish in others. I knew someone who flew both the Albacore and the Swordfish in action in the Med - he could see the advantage of a covered cockpit for the boys in the N Atlantic but said the 'Core was a bit of a dog, not as maneuverable and really no improvement over the Swordfish. They were also very suspicious of the powerplant.....

[Dan Winterland]

The worst thing I flew in the RAF was the Jetstream which has been mentioned many times. The engine was good, once you got it started. But only good for pilots - engineers hated it. It was the handling that was bad. As it had several handling features unique to the type, it was particularly unsuited as a training aircraft, unless you had adopted 'if you can fly this, you can fly anything" philosophy. The C130 was the major customer for the METS output (5 out of 8 on my course) and you could see the wisdom in using a fixed turbine, But the Aztazou? It was unique with it's blade angle reference outside the Beta range - and it's heritage as a helicopter engine quite apparent.

But the course was also poor, being heavily C130-centric and a lot of time was wasted pilots going onto other types. I went to the Victor and had to do a 15 hour refresher before the course re-learning how to fly with techniques never to be used again. The only thing that was similar was the shape of the control column, as both were designed by Handley Page!

[Boslandew]

Come on, someone must have flown the Belvedere?

[Fareastdriver]

The Belvedere was coming along well until the Royal Navy got their hands on it. It was they that insisted on a mantis like front undercarriage so as to fulfil a half mad requirement to carry a torpedo. Having totally fouled up the design they then cancelled it.

The RAF had to take it on with the funny undercarriage as opposed to the original level design which preceded the Chinook's. The original project had piston engines so converting to gas turbines with the inlets in the ideal vacuum cleaner position was not a good idea, but again it was supposed to operate off continually washed carrier decks.

Bristol already had the design ready for conversion with two gas turbines mounted aft at the base of the rear rotor mast much like the Chinook but Wastelands took over the design and production so the RAF was saddled with what was going.

It could fly on one engine but a unique advantage was that it would fly with the transfer shaft, (the shaft along the back that kept the rotors in sync and enabled one engine to drive both rotors), broken as the main rotor planes were far enough apart so that the blades did not collide in normal flight.

When it was working well it could lug most things that needed lugging about. When they finally wrapped up 66 Sqn in Singapore I am told that when they wheeled out the war reserve Belvedere from the Maintenance Unit in Seletar it was found to have the same serial number as one of the squadron's aircraft.

[BEagle]

See: https://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/383552-belvedere-hc1.html

My ULAS QFI talked about flying the thing - they'd named it 'Mixmaster bilong suicide'!

[Boslandew]

Many thanks for the info, FED and BEagle for the link, just the kind of stuff I was looking for. I flew the commercial Chinook for three years and it was an excellent aircraft in just about every area. The twin-rotor system had several advantages and Boeing had ironed out just about all the problems. Everything about it seems to have been thought through so much better than was the Belvedere. The Brits have built some turkeys in their time.

[charliegolf]

FED, is it true you used to start it up with legs over the side, just in case? (And PS, were you on 33 (and Belize) in the 80s?)

CG

[Fareastdriver]

The Belvedere was prone to, wait fir it, avpin fires. Why they dreamt up that system for starting a field helicopter I have no idea. When starting the front engine it was common for the RHS pilot, unable to flee into the cabin because of the LHS pilot, to sit unstrapped, with the door open and the steps in place in case of a quick exit.

(And PS, were you on 33 (and Belize) in the 80s?) Yes, yes and No.

[charliegolf]

The Belvedere was prone to, wait fir it, avpin fires. Why they dreamt up that system for starting a field helicopter I have no idea. When starting the front engine it was common for the RHS pilot, unable to flee into the cabin because of the LHS pilot, to sit unstrapped, with the door open and the steps in place in case of a quick exit.

Yes, yes and No.

Exactly as I heard it, cheers.

CG

[Lyneham Lad]

As a white-kneed new arrival on 390MU, Seletar I was detached (still in standard issue KD) to the 66 Sqn detachment at Kuching to carry out some Cat 2 Assist repairs and help them catch up on mod programmes. On being shown around a Belvedere, the cartridge starter assembly on the side of the Napier and its alignment with the fuselage-mounted Avpin tank was pointed out - and an (apocryphal?) story of the simultaneous firing all three cartridges that the blew the whole assembly off the engine and its subsequent direct hit on the tank. If true, no wonder pilots would ensure they had a handy means of hasty departure!

[sycamore]

To add to FED`s description,the powered controls were all in the front lower compartment ,and fed the rotors by a suitable system of pulleys and cables..this did lead to a fatal crash when the rear rotor cables jumped a pulley leading to loss of control. The aircraft had the fuel fillers up near the exhausts,so it could not do a hot refuel ,which made it difficult during a big troop-lift to start by carrying only about 6-7 troops,increasing the number as the fuel went down.,so it was usually employed lifting guns and ammo as u/slung loads.
I think the guys got around the cartridge problem by carrrying spares,and only one in the breech for start...

[57mm]

The Shorts Seamew earned this scathing comment from a TP: "Entry into the cockpit is difficult; it should be made impossible."

[megan]

My ULAS QFI talked about flying the thing - they'd named it 'Mixmaster bilong suicide'!The "Aeroplane", September 2018, ran an article on the Belvedere operations in Aden written by John Perrott. He relates that one pilot refused to fly the helo and was thus returned immediately to the UK as a psychiatric case. No first tour pilots were meant to go to Belvederes because of adverse effects to their morale and possible inability to cope with the aircraft. The author states he asked a fellow RAF pilot if he had ever flown in a Belvedere, the reply being, "Fly in it? Never! I wouldn't even walk underneath it".

[Fareastdriver]

No first tour pilots were meant to go to Belvederes because of adverse effects to their morale and possible inability to cope with the aircraft.

There was always two pilots in Belevederes. The captain flew the front rotor around and the co-pilot kept the rear rotor behind it.

[Caramba]

5aday (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/member.php?u=381604) , 6th Mar 2016 13:04
The Avroe Shackleton mk2 Phase 3 ( I can be definite as they were the only ones I flew as an AEOp in at R.A.F. Ballykelly).

I’m interested to know what was so appalling about the Mk2 phase 3? AUW too high? C of G too far back? Prop translation units?

idle curiosity on my part, but interested to know what my father had to cope with.
thanks

caramba

[oxenos]

I really cannot agree with 5aday.
The Shackleton Mk 2 Phase 3 was not quite the death trap he portrays. Of course there were losses, but operating a large aircraft at low level in all weathers was never going to be 100% safe.
If anything the Mk3 was more of a handful (I flew both). It was heavier, but with the same power until the Vipers were added.
As for the Nimrod, (which I also flew) there were 5 losses.
One was due to multiple birdstrikes, all but two of the crew survived
One was due to a flare igniting in the bomb bay. It was landed sucessfully with no casualties, but was a write off due to fire damage.
One was lost with a reduced crew due to pilot error.
One was ditched due to a fire, all crew survived.
One was lost with full crew due to a fuel fire.
So, five losses, of which only two could be attributed to the aircraft itself, and on three of them all or most of the crew survived..
This was in 40 years of service, with 400,000 hours flown, and, as with the Shackleton, in all weathers and much of it at low level.
Not a bad record.

[Caramba]

Thanks Oxenos. It had been my understanding that the Mk3 phase 3 was definitely more of a handful, largely because the C of G was a bit aft and also because of a propensity to accelerated stalls? I have memories of Dad, rather upset, saying that they had wanted the testing done but funding wasn’t available that would have been IIRC December 1967. Now I read about - for example - failure to replace scissor shackles in the Hawk mk1 and dodgy DECU connectors in the Chinook HC2. Which leads me to wonder if the latter has matured into a safe aircraft, and if not, perhaps it merited a place in the 10 worst aircraft.....

caramba

[Cornish Jack]

'Problem' aircraft and systems were very much dependent on MoD's (or A.M.'s) PE or equivalent. Two examples - the civilian Viking noted,and took remedial action for, wing spar cracks. The same problem, obviously, was occuring in the Valetta but no remedial action was taken until one of the 'Pigs' out of Aqaba folded its wing. All grounded and inspected - out of our 14 squadron aircraft 12 had cracked main spars and skin wrinkles.
On S&R Whirlwinds we used to have frequent 'birdcaging' on the winch cables because of poor cable 'lay'. At the 'Wastelands' meeting to discuss/remedy this, I mentioned, in passing, that we had occasional hyd motor 'pauses', easily solved by reselection but the focus immediately changed to the less important matter. We did, eventually get the Lebus drum but it could easily have been diverted.

[mike1964]

Surely most things by Blackburn: Skua, Roc, Botha, Firebrand... Leave alone their hopelessly inadequate inter-war aircraft. And passing not much judgment on the Beverley, which was another firm's design and entered service at about the same time as the C130... Although the Buccaneer with new engines was a good aeroplane by all accounts

[Cornish Jack]

On the basis that there is no such thing as the 'perfect' aircraft. the Bev gets an unfortunate (and disproportionate) share of criticism. It was designed for short and ultra short Forward Battle Area operation for combined freight and pax into unprepared strips. Used like that it was excellent and proved itself in service. However when it was MISused on medium to longhaul duties, the results were totally predictable. I suspect similar caveats would apply to Fat Alberts.

[Herod]

Ref Fat Albert, Cornish Jack, not quite. Agreed about the Bev, unfairly maligned. However, it used to be said about the C130 that the RAF bought a good tactical freighter and discovered that Lockheed had included, for free, a very good strategic one as well.

[Asturias56]

Ref Fat Albert, Cornish Jack, not quite. Agreed about the Bev, unfairly maligned. However, it used to be said about the C130 that the RAF bought a good tactical freighter and discovered that Lockheed had included, for free, a very good strategic one as well.


Possibly because the RAF, not having a decent large freighter , decided to produce the stretch that should have been done by the USAF years before????

[Fareastdriver]

Don't knock they old Beverley. They would resupply us twice a week in the middle of Sabah dodging clouds and hills with impossibly tight turns so that they would line up on the DZ.

[lsh]

IIRC one squadron used the book defensive tactics (Descending circle formation providing a 'ring of fire') and was pretty successful the other didn't and got mauled.

Many summers ago, I was painting my porch and had some interesting conversations with my neighbour.
I was telling him about "poor morale in the RAF".
He replied "you should try being on a Fairey Battle squadron in 1940"!
He was OC a UK based squadron while the squadrons in France were taking terrible losses.
So he got his flight commanders together to discuss tactics - the best they could come up with was to fly defensive circles if attacked by fighters.
Straight from the horses mouth!

lsh
:E

[Tashengurt]

Many summers ago, I was painting my porch and had some interesting conversations with my neighbour.
I was telling him about "poor morale in the RAF".
He replied "you should try being on a Fairey Battle squadron in 1940"!
He was OC a UK based squadron while the squadrons in France were taking terrible losses.
So he got his flight commanders together to discuss tactics - the best they could come up with was to fly defensive circles if attacked by fighters.
Straight from the horses mouth!

lsh
:E

With one .303 apiece? Incredible.

[Haraka]

"the best they could come up with was to fly defensive circles if attacked by fighters."
Witness the much vaunted Messerscmitt Bf 110 when encountering the RAF during the Battle of Britain........

[JENKINS]

Believe the defensive circle aircraft was the Defiant, knowledge passed on through line of wife's family.

[Asturias56]

I've seen it illustrated with pictures of the Bf110 before - in Britain's Wonderful Airforce (?1942?) for a start