Widowmakers
 

I am in the process of producing a documentary about a class of fighter or bomber aircraft often referred to as 'Widowmakers' for the reason that they kill more of their crew than the enemy. From the jet era, the Lockheed Starfighter might be counted in this category. From WWII, the Martin Marauder. From WWI - the BE2. And so on. I would welcome any suggestions as to other aircraft we should include - and why. Thanks.

Thanks to the many generous suggestions and comments received so far, I am keen to make direct contact with any aircrew or engineers who had experience of the following aircraft: Lockheed F104 Starfighter; De Havilland Sea Vixen; Boulton Paul Defiant; Mig 21 (esp. Indian Air Force); Chance Vought F7U Cutlass. Also need to source any archive footage of the above. My direct email is [email protected]

Widow makers
 

Good morning
are you going to draw a difference between aircraft that were just very dangerous to fly and people crashed and died in them and/or those which were useless at their military job and were shot down a lot?
F 104 = very dangerous, loads lost but none shot down
BP Defiant = Utterly useless and withdrawn from service due to battle losses
Nick

F4U Corsair...Also known as the "Ensign Eliminator"

[quote=A2QFI;2892070]Good morning
are you going to draw a difference between aircraft that were just very dangerous to fly and people crashed and died in them and/or those which were useless at their military job and were shot down a lot?
F 104 = very dangerous, loads lost but none shot down
BP Defiant = Utterly useless and withdrawn from service due to battle losses
Nick: thanks for this and for making the distinction. I think both categories are relevant, for the different reasons you mention. An aircraft that is either unstable or over-challenging (Starfighter?) will kill pilots in any circumstances. A 'safe' aircraft that is nevetheless unsuited for its combat purpose, is equally lethal.

WWII Fairey Battle, totally useless, underpowered, underarmed. Meets the criteria of your last sentence.

There was nothing wrong with the F-104. The GAF lost quite a few, in a short period, because they rushed a complex aircraft into service into an air force still reconstituting itself after being reborn. Losses were due to poor maintenance and errors.

Proportionally, the RAF lost a higher percentage of Lightnings in the same era, many due to rear-end engine fires due to a badly designed (braised) bend in a fuel pipe near the reheat section. In later years it had an excellent service record.

If you want bad design read up on the F4D Skyray. Large wing, small(ish) tail. Apparently flying a carrier circuit was like trying to balance a marble on a greased tray. A couple of pilots shut the throttles at high speed low level and the trim change wrinkled the wings and tore the engine from its mountings.

"On one test flight, deceleration caused the trim setting to become "super-effective, flipping the nose suddenly skyward." Not wearing his G-suit, Rahn blacked out. The plane was designed to withstand 7 Gs, and the sudden change registered much more, 9.1 Gs. When he regained his vision, Rahn was looking straight down at the Pacific Ocean, heading straight down from a partial loop. He recovered at 3,000 feet. Looking out at the wings, he said, "They were wrinkled from wing tip to wing tip, resembling dried prunes."... Back on the ground, the Skyray's skin was found to be permanently distorted,, the wings bent, and some of the vertical tail's members were sticking out like multiple fractures. The engine had also broken loose from its mount."

Nick.
You should have at least a glance at the Tarrant Tabor, designed by a building contractor in the latter stages of WW1 and intended as a six engined large triplane bomber with Berlin as its intended target. Owing to a severe c of g problem not noticed by the house builder, the aircraft nosed over on its first take off, unfortunately killing both pilots.

Regarding the Martin B-26, it acquired the 'widowmaker' reputation because it had a high wingloading (for its time) and was too much for green pilots during landing or single-engine work. In the hands of experienced pilots, it performed very well and had one of the lowest loss rates in the USAAF.

Adding wing area decreased the wing loading (thus negating the "Baltimore whore" moniker - short wings = no visible means of support) and it became a non-event as the war progressed.

Also consider the Avro Manchester - underpowered and with overworked engines tending to overheat and catch fire, it was developed into the outstanding Lancaster.

See also the Short Sterling - incredibly high loss rate due to the pre-war hangar door restriction on its wingspan. It flew lower than the Lancs and Halifaxes and subsequently was shot down at much higher rates. Eventually, it was withdrawn from bomber ops.

The outstanding North American F-86 Sabre was called the lieutenant killer in the early days of jets. Subsequently became one of the best first generation jet fighters of all time. I think you'll find rushed or poor training as the cause of most 'widowmaker' reputations vs design flaws.

Good luck in your production, just be accurate.

Early models of the Cessna 180 were sometimes called the widowmaker, because they were usually flown by very inexperienced pilots, 150 - 200 hours total time, who sometimes got themselves into situations over their heads. The early seaplane versions were equipped with the Edo 2600 floats instead of the later 2870's, thus the fact they were also underfloated may have contributed to the unfortunate moniker. Finally, before they figured out the seaplane version needed a windshield brace, it was not unknown for the windshield to pop out when alighting in rough water. :eek:

Nickdc,
As ORAC says, there was nothing wrong with the F104 Starfighter - the WGAF lost a lot in the early days due to inexperience...remember that the Germans were prohibited after WW2 from reconstituting the Luftwaffe until the mid-50's....but other air arms had no more attrition than would have been usual for the era.
Many colleagues of mine flew it in various NATO air forces; it was one of the best a/c for escaping the enemy, just get low down and open the taps. Nothing could catch it.

There is a third category which includes aircraft having a generally sound flight envelope but which have a specific design flaw. Examples are the Meteor dive and Barracuda loss of elevator control. Neither stopped the aircraft going into service and it was education that stopped attrition rather than elimination of the problem.

Most truly dangerous aircraft would have been whittled out of the system during testing. Brickhistory is right in that poor training (F104) or unsuitable use of the aircraft (BE2, Defiant) resulted in a reputation many aircraft did not deserve. If your story covers any aircraft in this category I hope you would show that most went on to have safer careers.

Brickhistory
Being a bit pedantic, I know, but it is the Short STIRLING and not the Short Sterling.

Nick, You might like to get a copy of a book called "Meteor Eject" by Nick Carter. In the 1950s the RAF was losing a Meteor practically every few days.
The Canberra's one-engine out characteristics also killed a fair few folk.

Sorry, you are correct! I guess sterling is that shiny, silvery metal stuff......

The (Martin) B-26 was still 'making widows' as late as 1995, when a restored example crashed during the CAF's annual show; prompting this article in the next newsletter.

Re. Shorts Stirling.
From Wiki:

The idea that the wingspan restriction was because of hangar door sizes appears to be incorrect.

F-104; The luftwaffe lost over a third of theirs with the loss of over 100 crew. I believe that this was a different bird from the US version. must have been interesting. I watched a few sorties in Germany and the landings made my eyes water. The best part of 180 knots I believe

The Beech 18, when operated in Canada's north, received the "widow maker" appellation, especially when operated on floats. The aircraft could be over-loaded easily, and could display wicked stall characteristics. Single engine performance was only acceptable when no load was carried. I am not aware of the military giving this aircraft a bad name, however.

As for the previously mentioned Fairey Battle, it should have been named the Fairey "one-sided Battle". Although they gave good service as a bombing and gunnery trainer, a veteran I knew said the glycol fumes he inhaled from the chronic radiator leaks could be nearly incapacitating.

The Me163 Komet wasn't to hot [sorry] in this respect :hmm:
T/o and cruise was OK but the landing [with any C/T Stoff] left in the fuel tanks......instant ValHalla. Oh and the "fuel" would seep through the clothes of both air and ground crew alike :ugh:
watp,iktch

Yeah, "on its back quicker than a $2 hooker" was the description. Still lose them occasionally.