Ten worst British Aircraft.
HP Marathon T MK 11 - if you don't know, then Google it!
Jetstream T Mk 1 - a thoroughly wretched piece of junk!
Pre-AHARS Hawk T Mk 1 - or rather its useless compass system and lack of offset TACAN.
Jetstream T Mk 1 - a thoroughly wretched piece of junk!
Pre-AHARS Hawk T Mk 1 - or rather its useless compass system and lack of offset TACAN.
The Botha, which the RAF decided was too dangerous to send to war, so it did things like training radio operators. My father was flying one when an engine failed, and it couldn't maintain height. Ditch in the Channel, 3 hrs in a dinghy, earn membership from the Goldfish Club.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,617
Received 291 Likes
on
159 Posts
Beagle Basset...
There was also that utter abortion - the Saro Lerwick twin-engined flying boat. Known as the 'Sinking Pig', it both looked and flew like a pig. It was unstable and lacked adequate control authority - on one engine it could neither maintain height nor heading, but would descend in gradual circles until meeting the surface. It also had what was described as a vicious stall. Around 50% of the wretched things were lost in accidents...
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Belvedere
What were the pros and cons of the Belvedere? I remember being told by a very senior Air Corps WO pilot that he had watched a Belvedere taxying into dispersal in Malaya and the entire nose section had fallen off. Althought the story may have grown in the telling.
RAF didn't want it, but got it to preserve jobs at Shorts. Thanks to those operating it, turned into a reasonable (with benefit of hindsight; those there at the time seem to have differing views), but rather slow aircraft, but always vulnerable to the next defence review. Done in by the Mason Review.
Original plan was for the RAF to retain the 'tactical' looking aircraft which supported the Army (thus Hercules, Belfast and possibly the Andovers used by 38 Group, but not Argosys, which were being retired anyway), while the aircraft which looked like airliners (VC10, Britannia, Comet) would be retired and replaced with chartered aircraft.
The draft statement on the Defence estimates said that all 10 would be retained, but someone - allegedly a minister - had asked 'what will we fly on, then?' and upon learning that the answer was 'British Airways, or Dan Air' the RAF was invited to consider retaining some of the VC10 fleet as well, with a figure of 7 being suggested.
The draft statement says:
"The number of VC10 and Hercules aircraft in operation will be reduced from 66 to 47; the Belfast Squadron of ten aircraft is not affected."
After much crunching of numbers, it was concluded that it was better to retain all the VC10s and to retire the whole Belfast fleet instead, and then sell them to a company which would be chartered to provide them on an as required basis.
Original plan was for the RAF to retain the 'tactical' looking aircraft which supported the Army (thus Hercules, Belfast and possibly the Andovers used by 38 Group, but not Argosys, which were being retired anyway), while the aircraft which looked like airliners (VC10, Britannia, Comet) would be retired and replaced with chartered aircraft.
The draft statement on the Defence estimates said that all 10 would be retained, but someone - allegedly a minister - had asked 'what will we fly on, then?' and upon learning that the answer was 'British Airways, or Dan Air' the RAF was invited to consider retaining some of the VC10 fleet as well, with a figure of 7 being suggested.
The draft statement says:
"The number of VC10 and Hercules aircraft in operation will be reduced from 66 to 47; the Belfast Squadron of ten aircraft is not affected."
After much crunching of numbers, it was concluded that it was better to retain all the VC10s and to retire the whole Belfast fleet instead, and then sell them to a company which would be chartered to provide them on an as required basis.
From a movers point of view the Belfast was fantastic with an exceptionally strong floor which would take very heavy equipment it also allowed loading with forklifts inside the aircraft.The front freight door as well as the ramp made it easy to load particularly as the lighter freight, which generally needed to be up front, could be put straight in place rather than wheeled up the length of the aircraft. Trimming was easy as it was pretty much 50/50 and it was normal to bulk out before reaching max payload. At the time it was also one of the few transport aircraft around with an outsize freight bay which meant there were numerous loads, such as the Wessex, which were Belfast only. Unfortunately its aerodynamics let it down but if had been a swept wing jet as originally conceived it would have been a world beater.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Ref the Wessex in the Belslow. In 1970 we took ten Wessex out to Singapore as part of exercise "Bersatu Padu". It was possible to get two Wessex (Wessi?) in a Belslow, so five aircraft loads. IIRC, at one point we had two flying at Changi, two in a tech Belslow at Gan, two ditto at Masirah, two ditto at Akrotiri, and two (you guessed it) ditto at Brize. Admittedly, all eventually arrived. Great crew transporter though.
The Belfast was also handy during The South Atlantic unpleasantness. I remember one with starter problems being stuck on Ascension for a long time. I seem to remember that it was eventually started by putting a C-130 in front of it and, using the draught from a single Hercules engine, windmilling the Belfast prop until it started.
Overall I think you'd have to give the prize to the Battle - it flew well enough but the concept was fatally flawed, there was enough warning from Spain & Poland as to what happened to large slow ground attack aircraft and just because they'd built a lot there was no reason the abandon common sense and deploy them in the front line.
To persist after the first few days of the Battle of France was simple murder.
To persist after the first few days of the Battle of France was simple murder.
And some aircraft that become almost universally loved start off as white elephants. Take the Hunter F.1, for example: engine surge issues, particularly when firing the cannon, no airbrake, cannon shell casings damaging the fuselage, and the very poor range which led to the infamous incident of six aircraft lost on the same flight. Thankfully they persevered.
On the subject of the Defiant, 37 were shot down by the Luftwaffe in air combat, while it scored 152 kills in return. Time, maybe, for a reappraisal?
On the subject of the Defiant, 37 were shot down by the Luftwaffe in air combat, while it scored 152 kills in return. Time, maybe, for a reappraisal?
I think you'll find they are claims rather than confirmed kills - and a lot of those were on one day over Dunkirk.
"Although 264 Squadron claimed 48 kills in eight days over Dunkirk, the cost was high with 14 Defiants lost. Actual German losses were no more than 12–15 enemy aircraft; the turret's wide angle of fire meant that several Defiants could engage the same target at one time, leading to multiple claims."
"Although 264 Squadron claimed 48 kills in eight days over Dunkirk, the cost was high with 14 Defiants lost. Actual German losses were no more than 12–15 enemy aircraft; the turret's wide angle of fire meant that several Defiants could engage the same target at one time, leading to multiple claims."
Beagle - "HP Marathon T MK 11 - if you don't know, then Google it!
'Humbly Pudge' may well have laid claim to it in later years, but it was the product, originally, of Messrs Miles, hence the Marathon titling. You are correct though in its awfulness. I have two flights logged in the beast from Thorney - one with M Plt 'Horse' Adams, who convincingly demonstrated its inabilty to maintain height on three and its breathtaking (unwanted) rate of descent on two! It did, however, have a saving grace - the flap and gear levers were adjacent and easy to misidentify ... the numbers on inventory were thereby reduced fairly quickly!
'Humbly Pudge' may well have laid claim to it in later years, but it was the product, originally, of Messrs Miles, hence the Marathon titling. You are correct though in its awfulness. I have two flights logged in the beast from Thorney - one with M Plt 'Horse' Adams, who convincingly demonstrated its inabilty to maintain height on three and its breathtaking (unwanted) rate of descent on two! It did, however, have a saving grace - the flap and gear levers were adjacent and easy to misidentify ... the numbers on inventory were thereby reduced fairly quickly!