BBC: The World's Worst Planes

[Ian Corrigible]

World's worst planes: The aircraft that failed (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140522-are-these-the-worlds-worst-plane)

So, the BBC's list is:


Fairey Battle
Douglas TBD Devastator
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23
Brewster F2A Buffalo
Fairey Albacore
De Havilland Comet
Heinkel He 162
McDonnell Douglas DC-10

Plus


Christmas Bullet
Blackburn B-25 Roc
Blackburn B.26 Botha
Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.9
Caproni Ca.60 Noviplano
Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet

This topic's been covered several times over the years (e.g. here (http://www.pprune.org/engineers-technicians/99301-worst-aircraft.html) and here (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/416529-bad-aircraft-flying-lemons.html)), but what was missing from the list (and what shouldn't have been included)? Some of the usual suspects absent from the Beeb's list include the Bolton-Paul Defiant, Bristol Brabazon, Heinkel He 177 Grief, Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov LaGG-3 and – arguably - Hughes Spruce Goose. Not to forget the Hunting Percival P.74 on the rotary-wing side.

I/C

[reynoldsno1]

What? No Rohrbach RO VIII?

[Chris Scott]

Unfortunately, that article is not available from the UK (outside Putney), being a World Service product not covered by our (evidently inadequate...) licence fee.

"The aircraft that failed." Failure, or disappointment? And on the basis of poor safety, or shortage of sales? How objective and comprehensive is this study?

Re post-war airliners, I would rate the Comet as very disappointing, the DC-10 less so. The Comet was a trailblazer that hit at least two unforeseen problems. Those remedied, its second, sound iteration only just beat the B707 into service, and lacked the latter's growth potential.

The DC10-30 was a fine long-hauler with a good safety record, and its payload-range was superior to the L-1011. It was beaten into service and commercially by the B747, although it had better freight capacity.

How does the writer assess the VC10 and Trident? And, for that matter: the Britannia, Electra and Vanguard; the B377, Hermes and Tudor; the Viking and C-46? What about all the Convair airliners, from CV-240 to CV-990? Did Concorde fail? One could go on and on...

[CoodaShooda]

Eric Brown rated the He162 as the best jet fighter of the era.

[glendalegoon]

So much wrong with this list.


But let's look at two of my favorites. The douglas devastator: maybe it wasn't a great plane. but, because of exactly the kind of plane it was, it turned the course of the war in the pacific (WW2).

While Torpedo Squadron 8 pressed home a hopeless attack against the IMPERIAL japanese fleet at Midway, the Combat air patrol of Zeros (as they might be known) came down to completely destroy the devastators. One man, Ensign Gay, survived to watch the battle while trying to stay afloat.

BUT because the CAP came down, the Douglas Dauntless dive bombers came in from on high and in minutes changed the course of the war. Unopposed by combat air patrol, they hit three carriers. They came back later and got the 4th carrier changing forever the pacific war.

The fortunes of war changed because an obsolete torpedo plane got there first. In this way it was a heroic plane.


AS to the DC10. It had some terrible crashes early on. But it is still in use today with the USAF as the KC10 extender Tanker plane and with some cargo outfits in slightly more advanced versions. Every pilot who flew it that I have talked with loved the way it handled.


Wonder why the BBC didn't point its finger at the BAE146 and the HP137 among others?

[crewmeal]

I'm surprised the Comet was mentioned. OK the Comet 1 series was a disaster but De Havilland learnt the lesson by building the 4 series which in all fairness proved quite successful.

If the Beeb revise their list in future, I wouldn't be surprised to see the 787 on it

[joy ride]

Typical to include "Comet" without specifying which model.

Few people know much about the Fairey Albacore except that it was ungainly, dated and not very good, but certainly not bad enough to be included in a list of just 14 "worst planes".

My Dad certainly enjoyed his time as Observer/Navigator trainee in the Albacore. Admittedly it was perhaps fortunate for him that the war ended while his squadron was in port waiting for their aircraft carrier to take them to the Pacific!

I presume the Tarrant Tabor did not make the list because it did not get into service, or even off the ground.

You can only judge a machine by the standards of its time, but I reckon the worst atrocity ever (admittedly not a plane) was the Piasecki Helistat. It would have been a ridiculous design by the standards of 50 years earlier!

[Allan Lupton]

Lists of the 10 best or 10 worst anything are a journalistic cop-out and as such are unprofessional, so have no place here.
At best the inclusion of anything is subjective for the compiler and since he/she/it rarely attempts to justify the decisions, debate is fruitless.
Please let's not give this the oxygen of publicity.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Concorde? Failed commercially, but was a brilliant technical success. No-one else managed to do it. Almost 3 decades of airline service, making Mach 2 shirt-sleeve luxury travel for up to 4.5 hours ho-hum (if Concorde flight could ever be called 'ho-hum'). Indeed I wonder if we could even do it today?

[dubbleyew eight]

according to ted talbot's book the B1 bomber couldn't hit the speeds that the concorde regularly cruised at.
much to the eternal frustration of the americans.

[sandiego89]

Yes, I disagree with quite a few on the BBC list, especially the DC-10 and the He-162. I also would not call the MiG-23 a "failure". Sure it was poor by western standards and had some nasty characteristics, especially in early versions, but had blinding speed and acceleration, and quite a few were produced and used by many countries. Hard to call that a failure. I'd rank it below average.

I would replace a few of these with tu-144 which barely entered service and the Yak-38 with a poor safety record and essentially meaninglesss usefull load, a total failure when compared to the western contemporary of the harrier. These are closer to failures.

[Phileas Fogg]

How the hell can the DC10 be considered a failure (a type that I completed 16 transatlantic crossings on) when a piece of cr@p such as the BAe ATP doesn't even appear on the list?

[Wander00]

Slightly strange list - but then it is the BBC. I would not include Comet, Komet or He162. It would not be hard to think of one or two that could have been added.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

according to ted talbot's book the B1 bomber couldn't hit the speeds that the concorde regularly cruised at. much to the eternal frustration of the americans.

Not only that, but when Talbot first saw it he said "how do you get that beyond M1.6?". "With difficulty", came the reply. "I'm not surprised" replied Ted. "Your boundary layer diverters are worse by far than the ones we started out with on Concorde, and they were bad! Also, with the intakes effectively on their sides your intake shocks will greatly deepen the boundary layer".

[con-pilot]

according to ted talbot's book the B1 bomber couldn't hit the speeds that the concorde regularly cruised at.
much to the eternal frustration of the americans.

Which is nonsense, as the Concorde was not designed to nor expected to survive in a combat environment, the B-1 was.

Apples and oranges comparison.

[old,not bold]

You guys are aiming too high. Has no-one remembered the Percival Prentice?

Surely a contender for the title?

[Rosevidney1]

The Boulton Paul Defiant should not be on the list. It was specified and ordered to combat German bombers which were unescorted by fighters. It would have been a perfectly valid machine IF the Germans hadn't overrun France and swiftly based their fighters there.. Planning for the future is always fraught with difficulties. Hard to see blame attached to anyone in this case.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Which is nonsense, as the Concorde was not designed to nor expected to survive in a combat environment, the B-1 was.

Apples and oranges comparison.

Sorry Con pilot. The intakes don't know whether they're on a combat aeroplane or an airliner. Either the aeroplane can make and maintain M2 or it can't. B1 intakes were not up to the job. Couldn't make M2, never mind maintain it, nor be be carefree in operation if an engine failed. Conc could and did and was!

[Krystal n chips]

The glaring omission from the list has to be a more contemporary type....

The A.T.P.

An accountants dream due to the fuel burn....however, accountants have no experience of maintenance or operations.

Each one lovingly hand crafted at Chadderton and Woodford in the vague hope the parts would fit all the aircraft built, reliability was never included in the design spec, let alone maintainability. The cabin door mechanism was a work of over complex art allied to the shoot bolts happily freezing after flight.

It was a truly inspirational idea to locate the airstairs external retraction button at the base of the fwd pax door and to have to subsequently have a mod.programe for access panels that should have been incorporated in the build.

Sitting at the back, watching the horizontal stab vibrate was always "interesting" as was watching your meal transit across the seat back table due to the aforementioned vibrations. A cheap and tacky interior only added to the pax experience.

There were several IFSD's in the initial phases including one for the Loganair delivery flight from Woodford to...MAN.

Such was it's success, Waste of Space were compelled to provide a "hearts and minds" campaign for the operators, free sandwiches etc and a look around Woodford with all the associated PR verbal garbage in attendance.

The only plus point is that the type can be used as a classical example for future design engineers as to "how not to do it... and how to make a complete and utter debacle as a result if you do ".

[simplex1]

Labeling some planes as "the worst planes" is quite subjective.

Based on the tests done by prof. Fred Culick and his team with a replica of the plane the Wright brothers allegedly flew on Dec. 17, 1903, see (A), and the best performance achieved by Dr. Kevin Kochersberger, using another replica, see (B), one can easily reach the conclusion that Capt. Tim Jorris, Major Mike Jansen or Kevin Kochersberger were the worst pilots ever or the teams that built the two replicas were composed of incompetents unable to copy an old airplane in a museum or simply that the two brothers did not fly 59 seconds, 852 feet in 1903 and just lied which would be the most plausible explanation!

A ) Piloting "Flyer I 1903" is "like balancing a yardstick on one finger, two at one time. If you lose it, it goes — quickly, said Fred Culick …"

(1)"EL SEGUNDO, Calif. (AP) — Aviation experts … have found the Wright stuff — in the hands of modern pilots … — is a little wrong."
(2)"I'd say it was almost a miracle they were able to fly it, said Jack Cherne"
(3)"Using that data, they created a computer flight simulator that shows the plane to be so unstable, it is nearly impossible to fly."
(4)"It's like balancing a yardstick on one finger, two at one time. If you lose it, it goes — quickly, said Fred Culick …"
(5)"Every pilot, his first try, crashed the simulator. It took less than a second, said Capt. Tim Jorris".
(6)"I thoroughly cannot imagine the Wright brothers, having very little experience in powered aircraft, getting this airborne and flying, said Major Mike Jansen. "My respect for what they did went up immediately the first time I took the controls.""
(7)"Modifications will include … . A computer feedback system will assist the pilot. We want the experience, but we don't want to kill ourselves, Cherne said."

see: USATODAY.com - Wright Flyer a handful for today's pilots (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/science/astro/2001-07-05-wright-flyer.htm)

B ) "December 3, 2003 test flight of the Wright Experience 1903 Wright Flyer Replica. Dr. Kevin Kochersberger was at the controls and piloted the Flyer for a distance of 115 feet. Engine power 18 - 20 HP. (The Wright brothers claimed their longest flight in Dec. 1903 had been 852 feet, 59 seconds, engine power 12 HP).
Wright Experience 1903 Replica Second Test Flight - YouTube

[GQ2]

Well, it's totally unfair to include the DH Comet. It was a groundbreaking and revolutionary a/c, years ahead of the rest of the world and went on to serve very reliably once the initial fault was found and lets not forget it also morphed into the Nimrod....

The Me163 Komet wasn't a failure at all. Nor was the He162. It was the lack or resources of fuel and pilots and the Luftwaffe's inability to get them into combat that was the chief issue.

The Tu144 was an utter pile of cr@p, so should certainly have been on the list.

The utterly wretched Prentice, as has been noted, should certainly have been on the list. The Prentice is an especially interesting story. The Ministry took the superb 1930's Vega Gull, and militarised it as the Proctor. They then, with the same engine, set about continually making it heavier and even bigger, until they had utterly ruined it's performance. Having learned nothing from this lamentable fiasco, they made it even bigger and heavier, with only another 50hp and made it in metal. If ever the old adage about if it looks right, it'll fly right was proven correct, the Prentice was a perfect example. It looked like a dog, and it was a dog. I think the RAF got rid of them as soon as it could, a matter of a couple of years as I recall.

[Phileas Fogg]

It would be like suggesting the McDonnell Douglas built Harrier was a failure due to a number of incidents when in fact the pilots hadn't been trained adequately to fly the thing.

[RatherBeFlying]

The Wrights began with gliders and learned to deal with their flight characteristics as they emerged.

By the time they got to powered aircraft, they were well used to the foibles of their designs.

Subsequently the US CAA-FAA spent the next century making aircraft easier to fly. Anybody who learned to fly in anything designed since the '30s will have the wrong reflexes trained in:O

[Stationair8]

What about the Piper Seneca 1?

[simplex1]

He 162 one of the worst planes?!

The difficulties experienced by the He 162 were caused mainly by its rush into production, not by any inherent design flaws.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162#cite_note-7) One experienced Luftwaffe pilot who flew it called it a "first-class combat aircraft." This opinion was mirrored by Eric "Winkle" Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_%22Winkle%22_Brown) of the Fleet Air Arm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_Air_Arm) (FAA), who flew it not only during post-war evaluations, but went on to fly it for fun after testing had completed. He considered it delightful to fly (Wikipedia)

He 162 was first tested in Dec 1944 and saw combat starting with April 1945 for about one month. This is an interval of time too short to draw conclusions about the capabilities of this plane.

[simplex1]

MiG-23 listed as the third worst plane?!

Number built - 5,047, the plane was sold at 1/2 or less the price of an F-16, only 3 MiG-23s confirmed lost in air to air combat. I do not understand why this plane was so bad.

"First flight - 10 June 1967
Introduction - 1970
Produced - 1967–1985
Number built - 5,047

Little pictorial evidence has been published confirming MiG-23 air to air losses and victories, with the exception of a SAAF Mirage F-1CZ damaged by a Cuban MiG-23ML and subsequently written-off in a rough landing, the Libyan MiG-23s shot down by U.S. Navy Grumman F-14 Tomcats in the Gulf of Sidra incident (1989), and two pictures of Syrian MiG-23s shot down in 1982 by Israeli forces.

The MiG-23 had the advantage of being quite cheap in the early 1980s. For example, the MiG-23MS was priced between US$3.6 million and US$6.6 million depending on the customer; on the other hand in 1980, the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon was priced at US$14 million" (Wikipedia)

[joy ride]

re Simplex's interesting post bout the replica Flyer:

Others before the Wrights are thought to have flown powered aircraft but with no 3 axis control. The Flyer achieved the distinction of being the first to be flown with 3 axis control, i.e. Powered Controlled Flight, but this does not mean it was very controllable, in fact it was known to be dangerously uncontrollable.

However, by the time the Wrights built it they had gained plenty of experience with their gliders, and the Flyer has a strong "family" resemblance. I reckon they would have had a good idea of how to fly it before they even started the motor.

I sometimes make mechanical games and by the time they are finished I am an expert, but many people who try the say they are impossible to complete.

[WH904]

I suppose the problem is that the Beeb have (as usual) been far too lazy. There's a big difference between describing an aircraft as a failure and then describing it as one of the world's worst. Some very good aircraft have been failures.

My vote for a truly awful aircraft must be the legendary Beardmore Inflexible. Classic nonsense!



Aeroplane Icons on Facebook and Twitter. Come and say hello!

[joy ride]

I agree about the Beardmore Inflexible, but it was not as disastrous as the Tarrant Tabor, and at least we have a fine souvenir of it in the Science Museum: a huge wheel and tyre, which amazed me as a child and is still a fine sight.

[simplex1]

Caproni Ca 60, an experimental plane with 100 seats that took off in 1921 (and crashed) but proved a huge plane could get airborne ( see: Caproni Ca.60 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.60) , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnGZBhrrlMk ) is compared to Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet. It appears Caproni Ca 60 was a bit better than Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet because the Italian passenger plane is one position above the rocket engine German plane. The list of the worst planes is a total nonsense.

[TCU]

Comet? Simply undone by being revolutionary.

Indeed it is a very particular trend of jet airliners that all the beauties were commercial failures....Comet 1, CV880, CV990, VC-10, L-1011 and Concorde.

Now the Baade 152 is the one that always makes me smile. Its fabulously ungainly design and brief battles with the forces of gravity, surely make it the true airliner candidate for the list

[Wander00]

Simplex 1 - CA 60 - The pilot escaped unscathed. Caproni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Caproni) had the wrecked airplane towed to shore, and announced that he would rebuild it, but that night it burned to ashes.

Probably torched by the pilot

[simplex1]

If the pilot really torched the plane he delayed the apparition of large passenger planes by 8 years, till Dornier Do X flew for the first time ( Dornier Do X - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_X) ).

[Noah Zark.]

How come the Rutland Reindeer isn't on the list?

[JonnyT1978]

Blackburn Firebrand - took several iterations to even get near service, by which time the RN wished they hadn't bothered.

Bristol Brigand - one of the few aircraft that could shoot itself down

Airspeed Cambridge - woefully underpowered and heavy for a training aircraft. Sadly the Oxford was excellent.

F-102 Delta Dagger - firmly subsonic despite fighter pretensions, saved by the 'area rule' to become the F-106 Delta Dart

Supermarine Swift - sorry to say this but showed Joe Smith's limitations as a designer in comparison to his mentor

[Evanelpus]

I would agree with including the ATP on the list. Also the BAe146, who in their right mind decided to put FOUR helicopter engines onto it.

I would like to add the VFW-614. can anyone tell me what the point of it was. Cimber must have received a brown envelope every day it was in service (two bags for every day it wasn't).