Widow makers
 

Regarding the F104 Starfighter.Is it true that in an emergency the pilot ejected downwards instead of the usual way? If this is so then its "widow maker" tag is perhaps understandable.:confused:

Another USN Ensign Eliminator was the Chance Vought F7U Cutlass (Gutlass), although it seems to have had its good points.

What about Indian Mig 21s? Haven't they lost a few of these? Google says 150 in 10 years. That is quite a few though I believe that age and maintenance are an issue.

I think the Lockheed P-38 Lightning kind of fits into this category, I think it had flutter problems.

From Wiki
"A more serious problem was "compressibility stall," the tendency of the controls to simply lock up in a high-speed dive, leaving the pilot no option but to bail out. The tail structure also had a nasty tendency to fall apart under such circumstances, and in fact this problem killed a YP-38 test pilot, Ralph Virden, in November 1940."

I suggest you look at the Avro Manchester - a lot of losses due to engine fires and very little active service. Of course we all know what the 4-engined version became!

Another aircraft that started badly but ended up a goodun was the Hawker Typhoon - again, engine problems and an initial propensity to dispense with its tail assembly!

The Germans produced the Me210 which was a brute of a machine, although as relatively few were produced (around 100) it may not have had the opportunity to reap a grim harvest!

The Consolidated B24 Liberator was operated with some trepidation in icing conditions, as its Davis laminar wing lost lift dramatically - several aircraft were lost as a result.

Interestingly, the transport version of the Liberator (C-87 Express) was far more disliked than its bomber sibling - I'm not quite sure how or why it gained this dislike.

Also, any Japanese aircraft flying from 1944 onwards, irrespective of type! By that stage the vast majority of fighters and all bombers had become totally obsolete in comparison to the new US Navy fighters (Hellcat, Corsair) and were literally sitting ducks - viz "The Great Marianas Turkeyshoot".

SD

I have often meant to ask about the Mustang and high speed dives. The pater flew one once and he called them flying coffins saying that they would become uncontrollable at some speeds. He was not the most aproachable chap so I never really got to ask him. Does anyone have any knowledge.

P-51 suffered from compressibility in high speed dives, as did the other high performance fighters of the era.

Also, don't know what model you Dad flew, but the fuel tank located under/behind the pilot, added to increase range, seriously affected the center of gravity and could lead to serious controllability problems if not burned off.

All this is via books, I hope someone with hands-on time can illuminate?

He flew them late in the war as he was mostly on Hurrcanes, spit sixteens, and twenty ones. I guess he flew late marques. He died a while back so I can't ask him. I have some of his log books and I'll dig 'em out when I am home. He said that this problem wasn't found on the spit. His impression was of an aircraft that was designed for production rather than use if you understand. Nice piece of kit but flawed.

Just thought of another - the USMC AV-8 Harriers. They've lost a whole bunch of them in accidents. I think it has an accident rate 3 or 4 times greater than any other Navy aircraft.

SD

USMC did tend to push them a bit further so this may not be a Harrier problem so much. I remember a Marine pilot saying that he wondered what would happen if pushed the thrust direction forward when at full tilt. The spams weren't quite so funds restricted as us so they could afford to lose a couple mucking around.

The Slingsby T-3A Firefly. USAF scrapping entire fleet.

Beleive the German F-104G's were equipped with downward-firing seats. A Canadian DND (RCAF) engineer once told a meeting at Canadair (a major 104 manufacturer if not the largest numerically) about a Luftwaffe exchange pilot on his squadron who suffered an engine failure on takeoff with a 104. He followed SOPs for the 104G, rolled inverted & fired the seat - which promptly slammed him into the runway from the conventional Martin Baker version on the CF-104.

If you are looking at civil types as well, the Mitsubishi MU-2 has had a bad rep. Also maybe the Piper Malibu?

Again perhaps complexity versus pilot experience / training.

pb

evansb: The Slingsby T-3A Firefly is a fighter or bomber aircraft ? and how many widows did it make compared with say..... Cessna 150 or C180 ?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

F-104G ejector seat

http://www.ejectionsite.com/german/gq7a_ej.gif

See here for details of the history of the F-104 seats: Ejection Seats of the F-104

Well I thought that was rather interesting about the F104G seat.

Back to thread - how about the butterfly-tailed Bonanza - 'The Fork-Tailed Doctor-Killer'?

Totally, completely and utterly off thread

Keep it up ORAC. Some of us here appreciate your educative imput even if others dont.

henry - pedant answer - 3 crashes, 6 lives RIP, ? widows.

Gann flew the C-87 and writes of it in "Fate Is The Hunter". Whereas the B-24 had GE turbos boosting its R-1830's, the C-87 did not.

What was the first aircraft to be called "Widowmaker"? In the US I believe it was the Martin B-26 - also called "Flying Prostitute" because of its short wing ("no visible means of support").

Don't confuse the F4D with the later A4D (A-4) Skyhawk or "Scooter". The F4D was a tail-less (modified delta) design, and didn't last long in the USN. The A-4 is still in service.
I worked with a guy who flew the XF4D for systems development work. He confirmed its unstable nature - you didn't want to do anything in a hurry, and had to fly it 100% of the time. He later flew F-104's and found that ship very much to his liking - although it too demanded respect.
And - Before the F-104's downward ejection seat, the B-47 radar-bombardier-navigator seat in the nose was a downward design.

There were six different versions of the C-87 that were built which incorporated a number of specific changes. Some had turbos, some not, some had electric props and some had hydromatic.
The C-87 suffered from a poor reputation amongst its crews. Complaints centered around the clumsy flight control layout, frequent engine problems, and the numerous often-leaking fuel lines which crisscrossed the crew compartment, creating a fire hazard and frequently threatening to overcome the flight crews with noxious gasoline fumes. Several C-87's experienced fuel fires inside the crew area during flight. The craft also had dangerously tricky flight characteristics in the event of in-flight airframe icing.
The airplane could also be difficult to fly if its center of gravity was located in the wrong place due to improper cargo loading. This problem could be traced to the design's roots as a bomber. The bomb racks of the B-24 were located in a fixed position, making it almost impossible to load the craft incorrectly, so the airplane was not designed to be tolerant of improper loading. The B-24 could not take battle damage like the -17 and was not an aircraft to land gear up as she used to break her back with a not so good outcome for the crew.