Ten worst British Aircraft.
I find this thread fascinating in that on this list we are considering Marks of aircraft types that were, overall, successful and in many ways very good. The Buccaneer, overall, was a magnificent aircraft for its role in the S2 variants which comprised the majority of the production run (although it did have the some of the worst handling qualities in the landing pattern that I have ever experienced!). Similarly, the Tornado ADV in its main F3 variant and in its latter days in service was a good interceptor, and there are several threads on PPRuNe extolling its virtues, for example its low level speed high capabilities. Therefore, I think that only types for which EVERY Mark was bad really deserve to be on this list.
With the exception of the F2 I have not flown any of the types on the original list - with my inquisitive nature I cannot make up my mind whether this makes me fortunate or unfortunate!
With the exception of the F2 I have not flown any of the types on the original list - with my inquisitive nature I cannot make up my mind whether this makes me fortunate or unfortunate!
LOMCEVAK wrote:
And yet there was no 2-sticker! A night formation VRIAB was probably one of the riskiest aspects I recall from my brief struggle at the OCU. Various checks to be completed as the thing decelerated, including swapping hands to pull up the aileron gear change and select the autostabs to low speed, peering around the cockpit for the various blow gauges and aileron/flap/tailplane indicators as you went from 0/0/0 to 15/10/10 ("Move together, stop together"...I can hear it now) to 30/20/20 to 45/25/25, not forgetting the undercarriage and correct airbrake angle....all whilst keeping a look out for the aircraft ahead...and an ear on the ADD audio...and looking for the RW.
But above 300KIAS, it was magnificent!
The Buccaneer, overall, was a magnificent aircraft for its role in the S2 variants which comprised the majority of the production run (although it did have the some of the worst handling qualities in the landing pattern that I have ever experienced!).
But above 300KIAS, it was magnificent!
As we are into Buccaneer thread creep ....
When I and, I assume, BEagle first flew the Buccaneer, the only sortie that you ever flew with a pilot in the rear cockpit was the first sortie, FAM 1. With respect to normal instructional techniques, the QFI had only two options in this case, shout or eject (and the latter was threatened on at least one occasion)! For these sorties, some QFIs insisted on being captain. However, when I converted someone to the Bucc at Boscombe I flatly refused to be captain! If I didn't have a stick or throttles there was no way that I was signing for the aircraft. It is interesting that the first sortie on which you flew simulated asymmetric approaches, FAM 3, was flown with a navigator in the back, although in later years I believe that these were flown with a pilot instructor.
In a period of 18 months in the late '70s there were two engine failures on FAM 1s. The first was at high speed so it was not a problem. The second was a first tourist pilot on my course who had the right engine fail during the finals turn of a right hand circuit when configured such that a single engine capability did not exist (45-25-25). There were no engine instruments in the rear cockpit but the front seat was offset slightly left and the rear seat slightly right such that the back-seater could see some of the right instrument panel and the right console. The instructor was the USAF exchange pilot who saw the right engine winding down and just instructed the pilot what to select up and when, which he did, and a successful recovery was flown; an excellent response by both. On my FAM 1 I had an intercom failure and a QFI with a loud enough voice to shout audibly "Land off the next circuit". Fantastic times!
There actually was one twin-stick Buccaneer. When XV344 was configured to be the 'Nightbird' research aircraft for RAE Farnborough a stick was fitted in the rear cockpit to allow some safety pilot intervention. However, by the time I started flying it the stick had been removed, and I believe that other than during initial trials post conversion it was never fitted because of poor mechanical characteristics.
When I and, I assume, BEagle first flew the Buccaneer, the only sortie that you ever flew with a pilot in the rear cockpit was the first sortie, FAM 1. With respect to normal instructional techniques, the QFI had only two options in this case, shout or eject (and the latter was threatened on at least one occasion)! For these sorties, some QFIs insisted on being captain. However, when I converted someone to the Bucc at Boscombe I flatly refused to be captain! If I didn't have a stick or throttles there was no way that I was signing for the aircraft. It is interesting that the first sortie on which you flew simulated asymmetric approaches, FAM 3, was flown with a navigator in the back, although in later years I believe that these were flown with a pilot instructor.
In a period of 18 months in the late '70s there were two engine failures on FAM 1s. The first was at high speed so it was not a problem. The second was a first tourist pilot on my course who had the right engine fail during the finals turn of a right hand circuit when configured such that a single engine capability did not exist (45-25-25). There were no engine instruments in the rear cockpit but the front seat was offset slightly left and the rear seat slightly right such that the back-seater could see some of the right instrument panel and the right console. The instructor was the USAF exchange pilot who saw the right engine winding down and just instructed the pilot what to select up and when, which he did, and a successful recovery was flown; an excellent response by both. On my FAM 1 I had an intercom failure and a QFI with a loud enough voice to shout audibly "Land off the next circuit". Fantastic times!
There actually was one twin-stick Buccaneer. When XV344 was configured to be the 'Nightbird' research aircraft for RAE Farnborough a stick was fitted in the rear cockpit to allow some safety pilot intervention. However, by the time I started flying it the stick had been removed, and I believe that other than during initial trials post conversion it was never fitted because of poor mechanical characteristics.
My FAM 1 was indeed the only Buccaneer trip flown with a QFI in the back...and I signed as Captain, understanding that fairly sage advice would follow from the rear seat!
Apart from having to call out the entire pre-flight check list, which took an absolute age, the rest of the trip went very well indeed. But when I got back from the mandatory GCA approach, there was a low sun shining down a damp runway in late October - so the first landing was more by luck than judgement. But the other 3 were fine.
During my brief time, the problem of an engine failure during a 45-25-25 final turn was considered. The decision was made to start the turn at On+20 rather than On+10, which increased the likelihood of recovering. As Bruce briefed us "Fullpowerairbrakeclosedgearup" first in one fell movement, then level wings, then see where it's going, then sort it out.
Apart from having to call out the entire pre-flight check list, which took an absolute age, the rest of the trip went very well indeed. But when I got back from the mandatory GCA approach, there was a low sun shining down a damp runway in late October - so the first landing was more by luck than judgement. But the other 3 were fine.
During my brief time, the problem of an engine failure during a 45-25-25 final turn was considered. The decision was made to start the turn at On+20 rather than On+10, which increased the likelihood of recovering. As Bruce briefed us "Fullpowerairbrakeclosedgearup" first in one fell movement, then level wings, then see where it's going, then sort it out.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Lomcevak there are plenty of non-pilot Captains and at least some AEOs even.
Regarding the Mk 1 Bucc and the F2, the point being that they both needed significant upgrades to make them what they were in the end.
Agree your point about 'all marks' to be considered on the list, the list seems to comprise poorly designed airframes that were not redeemable and possibly reasonable airframes with inadequate power plants. As I tentatively suggested, the dead hand of the MoS may well have been a significant contributor.
Regarding the Mk 1 Bucc and the F2, the point being that they both needed significant upgrades to make them what they were in the end.
Agree your point about 'all marks' to be considered on the list, the list seems to comprise poorly designed airframes that were not redeemable and possibly reasonable airframes with inadequate power plants. As I tentatively suggested, the dead hand of the MoS may well have been a significant contributor.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was an UTTER piece of crap with dreadful control harmony - light and unresponsive in roll, heavy and sensitive in pitch. Abysmal, absurdly overcomplicated engine and propeller systems, a primitive autopilot which wasn't even integrated with the flight director, nosewheel steering which was almost impossibly stiff in cold weather... it would drop out of the sky when the 'power levers' were set to idle,
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing
I think you are being a little cruel to the PA28-180R, it was undoubtedly under powered but its main fault was it did not take into account the average flying club members ability to read and understand the flight manual.
The aircraft was designed as touring aircraft and it was assumed that rear seat passengers would be carried along with baggage in compartment aft of the rear seats. Unfortunately the standard UK flying club check out is usually two guys in the front and lots of fuel, this results in the aircraft being loaded on if not beyond the FWD C of G limit ........... So no real surprise when the thing runs out of up elevator at low speed.
I once read an air test written by one of the self appointed lumanries of UK light avation saying that the PA34 exhibited the same poor qualities in pitch, as an aircraft with six seats it suffered from the FWD C of G problem to a greater degree than the PA28R, there is no doubt whatsoever that the PA34 was air tested loaded outside the aircraft C of G limits !
The aircraft was designed as touring aircraft and it was assumed that rear seat passengers would be carried along with baggage in compartment aft of the rear seats. Unfortunately the standard UK flying club check out is usually two guys in the front and lots of fuel, this results in the aircraft being loaded on if not beyond the FWD C of G limit ........... So no real surprise when the thing runs out of up elevator at low speed.
I once read an air test written by one of the self appointed lumanries of UK light avation saying that the PA34 exhibited the same poor qualities in pitch, as an aircraft with six seats it suffered from the FWD C of G problem to a greater degree than the PA28R, there is no doubt whatsoever that the PA34 was air tested loaded outside the aircraft C of G limits !
Neither the PA28 nor PA34 are British aircraft.....
On the subject of the Arrow, if you want to witness a normally quiet, polite Canadian erupt with fury, just mention Diefenbaker and the CF-105 cancellation....
On the subject of the Arrow, if you want to witness a normally quiet, polite Canadian erupt with fury, just mention Diefenbaker and the CF-105 cancellation....
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are being a little cruel to the PA28-180R
Beagle: apologies for the thread drift.
Guest
Posts: n/a
During my conversion onto PA28-180R, a premature simulated EFTO by the CFI resulted in recovery requiring me to pass between a farm house and a barn below roof height. (My wife-to-be in the back seat asked later if we were supposed to be so low.)
Absolutely gutless and would sink like a stone in any unusual situation, I was very glad to move on to the Arrow 200.
Imagegear
Absolutely gutless and would sink like a stone in any unusual situation, I was very glad to move on to the Arrow 200.
Imagegear
And yet there was no 2-sticker! A night formation VRIAB was probably one of the riskiest aspects I recall from my brief struggle at the OCU. Various checks to be completed as the thing decelerated, including swapping hands to pull up the aileron gear change and select the autostabs to low speed, peering around the cockpit for the various blow gauges and aileron/flap/tailplane indicators as you went from 0/0/0 to 15/10/10 ("Move together, stop together"...I can hear it now) to 30/20/20 to 45/25/25, not forgetting the undercarriage and correct airbrake angle....all whilst keeping a look out for the aircraft ahead...and an ear on the ADD audio...and looking for the RW.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
TTN, the Vulcan was not much better, one co-pilot wrote a poem I think about some of the 28 different ways of ON/OFF switch from left, right, up, down, press, pull, twist, lift and up, lift and down and many others.
The Avroe Shackleton mk2 Phase 3 ( I can be definite as they were the only ones I flew as an AEOp in at R.A.F. Ballykelly). They frightened me ****less
and I decided there and then I had made a terrible mistake with my career.
I was really grateful to a Squadron Leader P Staff based in MOD who spent a long time at Headley Court as a patient ( as was I ) AND who managed to change my next posting (Nimrod MR1). This took countless lunchtimes during our early legs walking exercises in the Cock at Headly because he had me originally posted to Kinloss but he was a man of his word (P Staff seldon are)
and I found myself on the first Nimrod crew conversion for 203 sqn.
The Nimrod wasn't quite as frightening if you had a reasonably competent group of chaps (three of them) in the flight deck. If you din't have, then it could be just as frightening as the Shackleton except you got there quicker. Enough of the Nimrods in various forms went down and the end result was they were a sad result of their previous form with the few remaining ones at Kinloss dripping fuel everywhere and the stink inside was incredibly horrible. Sad really and although I was now just a mere reservist I thought why am I
continuing to do this ? I think it really was just for the company of the guys at Kinloss. My other real life, - the one that builds nice places and the attendant mortgages that goes with them - was so much better.
When the last Nimrod that went in because of **** practices on maintenance (120 sqn crew 3 ) I shed a tear. Because of those bad practises and crap design of the airborne refuelling system, the Nimrod became the worst aeroplane in my service career.
and I decided there and then I had made a terrible mistake with my career.
I was really grateful to a Squadron Leader P Staff based in MOD who spent a long time at Headley Court as a patient ( as was I ) AND who managed to change my next posting (Nimrod MR1). This took countless lunchtimes during our early legs walking exercises in the Cock at Headly because he had me originally posted to Kinloss but he was a man of his word (P Staff seldon are)
and I found myself on the first Nimrod crew conversion for 203 sqn.
The Nimrod wasn't quite as frightening if you had a reasonably competent group of chaps (three of them) in the flight deck. If you din't have, then it could be just as frightening as the Shackleton except you got there quicker. Enough of the Nimrods in various forms went down and the end result was they were a sad result of their previous form with the few remaining ones at Kinloss dripping fuel everywhere and the stink inside was incredibly horrible. Sad really and although I was now just a mere reservist I thought why am I
continuing to do this ? I think it really was just for the company of the guys at Kinloss. My other real life, - the one that builds nice places and the attendant mortgages that goes with them - was so much better.
When the last Nimrod that went in because of **** practices on maintenance (120 sqn crew 3 ) I shed a tear. Because of those bad practises and crap design of the airborne refuelling system, the Nimrod became the worst aeroplane in my service career.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buc 2 stick
Not wishing to be unduly awkward but!
I think a 2 stick Buc was modded in the late 70's for some research work At RAE Bedford. We borrowed a normal Buc for some training and unfortunately THE CREW were obliged to jump because of a low tone downwind
I think a 2 stick Buc was modded in the late 70's for some research work At RAE Bedford. We borrowed a normal Buc for some training and unfortunately THE CREW were obliged to jump because of a low tone downwind
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
How about the Anson replacement, the Bassett, to ferry a V-bomber crew to a dispersal. Add a nav, a VIP toilet, and you finish up with an aircraft that dug its props in the taxiway and needed two aircraft to do the job.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 5aday
5aday, I hope the above is not a dig at groundcrew, but if it is, please add some clarification.
When the last Nimrod that went in because of **** practices on maintenance (120 sqn crew 3 ) I shed a tear. Because of those bad practises and crap design of the airborne refuelling system, the Nimrod became the worst aeroplane in my service career.
5aday, I hope the above is not a dig at groundcrew, but if it is, please add some clarification.