BBC: The World's Worst Planes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
BBC: The World's Worst Planes
World's worst planes: The aircraft that failed
So, the BBC's list is:
I/C
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
- Christmas Bullet
- Blackburn B-25 Roc
- Blackburn B.26 Botha
- Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.9
- Caproni Ca.60 Noviplano
- Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet
I/C
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...
"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...
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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
If the Beeb revise their list in future, I wouldn't be surprised to see the 787 on it
Last edited by crewmeal; 24th May 2014 at 05:52.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
much to the eternal frustration of the americans.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
much to the eternal frustration of the americans.
Apples and oranges comparison.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 84
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Apples and oranges comparison.
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 24th May 2014 at 09:08.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,378
Received 127 Likes
on
92 Posts
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 ".
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 ".
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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).
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
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).