Possibly.

A test pilot certainly said that about the Blackburn Firebrand>

Same company. Strange!

Heard the same story about the Westland Wyvern which was another hugely successful British design!

Trainee or inexperienced
 

Anyone who was a trainee (pilot etc.) & gained their wings, then went onto an active unit would know the difference.
Successful completion (getting your wings etc.) did'nt make you experienced. In fact upon arriving at any unit you would be classed as inexperienced (a novice) for many weeks, ---- experience would be gained over time, not taught ------during that period, many aircrew found this out to their cost.

If you want to include a current airliner, how about the TU154 - high wingloading, unstable, not always well maintained. Can make 100 widows in one go!

A contrarian view of the F-104 :ooh:

There was a time 1964-66 when the 727 was thought a widowmaker - getting on the backside of the power curve, with slow response of early JT8D's.

Widowmakers
 

Don't think its quite fair giving the battle this title it wasn't its fault it was kept in service too long?

"The Fairey Battle was one of the most promising aircraft chosen for the rapidly expanding RAF in the 1930s. When introduced into service in 1937 it could carry twice as many bombs over twice the distance as the Hawker Hart and Hind bombers it replaced.

By 1939 it was obsolescent but due to the lack of more modern types it remained in front line service."

Defiant
 

and I'll put in a word for the Defiant which was just a stupid idea. It might have worked has the bombers not been accompanied by fighter cover though its fire power of four .303s was too little...

It did find success in the winter of 1940-41 when its was the most successful British night fighter.

Heinkel 177 Greif a beautiful example of an aircraft incapable of it's mission. 4 engined bomber connected to a single prop on each side, so giving the appearance of being a twin. Would burst into flames at the drop of a hat as oil leaked onto the red hot exhaust manifolds.

It´s nickname was "Reichsfeuerzeug" or "Reichslighter".

As far as I have read, the Tu-154 has some "Killer features" by design:
The a/c was produced for export, so the soviet designer prepare the cockpit with some instruments in western style. For instance, with an artificial horizon, which displays the information in a "western" style ("inside out"), not in the normal "east block" artificial horizons ("outside in").
This led to several fatal accidents, when "undertrained" soviet crews in early ays of the tu-5 react to late or in the wrong way after banking the a/c over areas without optical references (for instance in darkness over unpopulated areas), bringing their aircraft into a grave yard spin.
Can´t mention one particular accident, but there were several fatal accidents in the 80´s, where Tu-5 fall from en route heights without technical reasons.
This problem was mentioned by the swiss authorities in the accident report of the Crossair Saab 340 near Zurich, where probably the "soviet" trained captain did exact this mistake in a stress situation and ran the a/c into ground on climb out.
So, the Tu-5 is not a "widow maker" by itself, but the insufficient training of the crews make it to one.
With regards,
Stubenfliege

Nick.

Out of sensitivity and tact, I would urge you not to include the Indian MiG-21. For one, the attrition has dipped hugely in the past two years, and two, the issue is bound to affect people whose lives have already gone through substantial grief and hurt. Unlike the other aircraft in your service, the MiG-21 is still the backbone of the IAF, and the wounds from the 21MF/F/M attrition are still raw. Furthermore, the Indian side cannot be frank with its story on account of international relations- eg it cannot hold MiGs feet to the fire since it has MiG-27s and 29s in service.

So do drop the 21 from the list. Perhaps a couple of decades from now, it will be history. But right now, it will just hurt people.

Hi ev'one, first post from a newbie (not allowed to lurk anymore...)

& haven't figured out how to quote the relevant post yet




re; post 30/31, usmc av8 losses.

If memory serves (!?!), also one of the reasons for high attrition, at least at first, was that the corps thoght that rotary pilots would make good vstol pilots, for (apparently) obvious reasons.

Eventually they found a lot of the converts drove the things into the deck, as they were not used to much higher forward speeds

Uncle worked at Lock Haven, he told me they gave the Twin Comanche the nickname widowmaker.

If one was to consider general aviation aircraft that have less than desirable handling qualities, one need look no further then the one I personally own, the Cessna 411.
It was the first of the cabin-class twin Cessna aircraft, and its rather small vertical stabilizer/rudder renders the aeroplane difficult to fly with one engine unserviceable.
Certainly not impossible, just difficult.
However, IF the aeroplane is flown properly, at the speeds recommended by the manufacturer, it flies very well indeed, and is certainly a fast cruiser that will haul eight folks in style.
As it was introduced in the mid-sixties, and was expensive to buy, it of course was purchased by rather a large number of inexperienced pilots (doctors, attornies etc) who, by their very nature, were not used to being told how to fly by the numbers, and it crashed with regularity.

The MU-2 can be added to the same category.
Inexpensive to purchase now, it is many times flown by pilots who just 'don't want to know', with the usual predictable results.
Combine a fast clean aeroplane with spoilers for lateral control (no ailerons), it flies fine, IF done by the numbers recommended.

And now finally, transport jets.
The early ones were sometimes problamatic, and in particular, the early models of the B707 fall into this category.
My first assignment in these airplanes was in command of one particular model, the B707-321 and -331.
More or less identical except for their air conditioning systems, they suffered from divergant dutch roll tendancies, which was not helped by the fact that the yaw damper absolutely had to be switched OFF for takeoff and landing, which is just where it was needed the most.
Flying an approach in gusty crosswind conditions was akin to being on a roller-coaster, that had jumped the tracks...a rockin' and a rollin' all the way down final.
Combine this with straight-pipe engines that seemed to take forever to spool up, and quite frankly, I'm surprised more didn't crash.

Oddly enough, the early B707's and the Cessna 411 are identical in one respect...with an engine out (outboard engine in the B707's case) just after takeoff, requires a 145 pound push on the rudder, just to keep it straight.
It ain't easy.:uhoh:

In WW1: The Nieuport V Strutters. Lower wing tended to twist about the single spar as the movement of C of P with airspeed and angle of attack not understood at the time. Ditto with the German Albatros D111, DV & DVa combined with aileron flutter as this phenomenon also not understood.
Sopwith Camel as mixture fine adjustment needed to be adjusted just after T/O or got rich cut. Steep right turns needed full LEFT rudder due to gyroscopic effects or resulted in spin.
de havilland DH2 due to engine pots flying off the Gnome rotary and breaking the tail booms: gyroscopic effects as above and ease of getting into spin at low speed as no wing washout so trying to lift downgoing wing with aileron caused tip stall and spin.It wasn't known as the "spinning incinerator" for nothing.
RE 8 also killed a lot of people as high drag at low speeds (ie in finals turn) lead to spins. Observers instructed not to stand up in this configuration as this increased the drag! In the subsequent crash, the engine got pushed back into the tank, leading to fire.
Between wars, the Gloster Grebe and Gamecock had an evil reputation for aileron flutter as top wing had large unsupported area outside the struts and mass balancing not considered. Also known to be difficult to get out of right hand spins due to short tail moment arm and rudder schielded.

For paper tiger............check the name of the plane on the cowling.

http://www.midwaysailor.com/midwayva...cbomb-001b.jpg

Hate to add this, but...
 

The early Spitfire and all Me-109s! Both planes had the same design defect that killed more planes-pilots than the enemy! Narrow track landing gear!

You are wrong about the Starfighter!
 

Starfighters had a safety record as good as or better than most other planes of that era! ( Except for the West Germans who had training issues!) They were used by Spain, Italy and several others WO such horrendous crash rates! Nothing wrong with the plane, but much wrong with the user!
My boss at Boeing was a Zipper pilot and he loved the thing! You would not believe the stories he told, but on Party nights in Adona, out side Incerlik AFB, he would show his 8 mm "home movies"! You will not believe what they showed! A truly great aircraft!

You are right, mate. Much of the '104's reputation has been built on newspaper sensationalism and political helmsmen. As 45-shooter says, while it was a machine that had its share of accidents, proportionally it had no more than many others. Take the Harrier, for example. Nobody would pick on that machine but it certainly wasn't he safest in the sky. The '104, like the Harrier, was a cutting edge machine and with that comes a learning process. The Germans spoilled it for themselves and it was their doctrine that fuelled so many problems.

The Starfighter is way up there as one of the greats and always will be!

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Boeing B-29, probably because the nonstop PR campaign in favor of the Superfort during WWII left lots of people thinking it was indeed super.

Read my cover story in Aviation History about a year ago and you'll learn that more B-29 pilots and crewmen were killed in accidents than were killed during combat. Mostly because of the PoS Wright engines.