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BP Defiant = Utterly useless and withdrawn from service due to battle losses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BP Defiant = Utterly useless and withdrawn from service due to battle losses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.

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.