Widowmakers
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
Brian Abraham & barit1,
Thanks for the info on the C-87!
At the risk of firther thread drift, I believe that the B-52 BUFF has downward firing seats for the Nav and Rad-Nav officers.
Min. safe ejection height 700 feet.
SD
Thanks for the info on the C-87!
At the risk of firther thread drift, I believe that the B-52 BUFF has downward firing seats for the Nav and Rad-Nav officers.
Min. safe ejection height 700 feet.
SD
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: sussex
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It never went into large-scale production but the initial test-pilot's report on the Blackburn Botha went along the lines,
"Entry into the cockpit is extremely difficult. It ought to be made bloody IMPOSSIBLE !
"Entry into the cockpit is extremely difficult. It ought to be made bloody IMPOSSIBLE !
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: newark
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
widow makers
I don't think anybodys mentioned the Sopwith Camel yet.Apparently it had a,shall we say,interesting fuel mixture system which required much concentration from the pilot.Again,ok for the experienced but a b*****d for the novice.
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
PaperTiger,
Yes, agreed that they had a few, but mostly the other.
The Sopwith Camel also had vicious gyroscopic effects from its rotary engine that claimed a lot of pilot's lives, mainly in take-off and landing accidents. But on balance I believe that it accounted for far more of the enemy than its pilots.
SD
Yes, agreed that they had a few, but mostly the other.
The Sopwith Camel also had vicious gyroscopic effects from its rotary engine that claimed a lot of pilot's lives, mainly in take-off and landing accidents. But on balance I believe that it accounted for far more of the enemy than its pilots.
SD
I don't know how many widows the aircraft created, but The Royal Aircraft Factory BE.9 Pulpit fighter must have been a piece of work. It was a two place aircraft with a pilot and an observer/gunner. This unlucky individual sat in a pulpit ahead of the propeller and operated the forward firing machine gun. On landing, in the case of a nose-over the propeller would have sliced the poor man into little gunner/observer cutlets.
Not to be outdone, the French manufactured their own copy of this abortion, the Spad A2.
Not to be outdone, the French manufactured their own copy of this abortion, the Spad A2.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
If you want a Russian aircraft with a bad reputation, take the TU-22 Blinder. We used to respect/fear the Backfire and Blackjack, but not the Blinder. Supersonic dash, but such a fuel guzzler it had no range. Awful performance, and downward firing ejector seats for the 3 man crew. Minimum ejection altitude was 2000mtrs. 
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
Pigboat,
The description of the Spad A2 from your link has this wonderfully amusing ending:
What a delightfully French solution to the problem - give them to the Russians!
SD
The description of the Spad A2 from your link has this wonderfully amusing ending:
There were many problems with this design, ranging from lack of communication between crew members, to a safety issue for the observer. Many of these planes were exported to Russia
SD
If you want a Russian aircraft with a bad reputation, take the TU-22 Blinder. We used to respect/fear the Backfire and Blackjack, but not the Blinder. Supersonic dash, but such a fuel guzzler it had no range. Awful performance, and downward firing ejector seats for the 3 man crew. Minimum ejection altitude was 2000mtrs.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a modern aircraft, the Mitsubishi MU-2 rates right up near the top. Aviation lawyers love them. 755 built, of which 21% have crashed (more than 180 crashes) .. killing over 200 people. If that ain't a widowmaker, I don't know what is.
You'd expect military aircraft to have a high attrition rate, as they are flown to their limits, and often over .. but not a twin t/prop passenger plane.
An MU-2 fell out of the sky here, over the Goldfields of Western Australia, in 1988, and took 10 people with it (no survivors) - the third worst aviation disaster in the State ..
The FAA initiated a major safety inquiry into the MU-2 in Oct 2005, after 11 of them fell out of the sky in an 18 month period.
You'd expect military aircraft to have a high attrition rate, as they are flown to their limits, and often over .. but not a twin t/prop passenger plane.
An MU-2 fell out of the sky here, over the Goldfields of Western Australia, in 1988, and took 10 people with it (no survivors) - the third worst aviation disaster in the State ..
The FAA initiated a major safety inquiry into the MU-2 in Oct 2005, after 11 of them fell out of the sky in an 18 month period.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Didnt spot the ICAO aircraft designator was involved
Apologies to all
Last edited by OPSQUEEN; 16th Oct 2006 at 13:48. Reason: PS removed - sorry, touchy subject and had been a bad day
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
evanb - Sorry, I was led off-track by Capn Pit Bull suggesting civilian widowmakers, and clean forgot the preciseness of the original question.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't part of the WGAF F-104 problems that they turned a silk purse into a sow's ear by changing an aircraft designed as a high altitude interceptor into a low level ground attack machine?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Not really, as a result of a NATO competition for a new fighter-bomber the F-104 was developed into the F-104G which was the model bought by just about everybody who ended up operating the F-104.
To be frank, as an interceptor the F-104 was a complete and utter waste of space. No legs, appalling turn radius, lousy radar. Doing exercises and intercepts against them was easy, and in combat their only real tactic was a quick supersonic dash, blow through, and head straight for home claiming fuel priority. Even the F-104S wasn't up too much.
To be frank, as an interceptor the F-104 was a complete and utter waste of space. No legs, appalling turn radius, lousy radar. Doing exercises and intercepts against them was easy, and in combat their only real tactic was a quick supersonic dash, blow through, and head straight for home claiming fuel priority. Even the F-104S wasn't up too much.