BBC: The World's Worst Planes
Hmmm.....
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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] One experienced Luftwaffe pilot who flew it called it a "first-class combat aircraft." This opinion was mirrored by Eric "Winkle" Brown of the 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.
The difficulties experienced by the He 162 were caused mainly by its rush into production, not by any inherent design flaws.[7] One experienced Luftwaffe pilot who flew it called it a "first-class combat aircraft." This opinion was mirrored by Eric "Winkle" Brown of the 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.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 , 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.
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
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
Simplex 1 - CA 60 - The pilot escaped unscathed. 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
Probably torched by the pilot
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ).
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cambridge, UK
Age: 45
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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).
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).
