Ten worst British Aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Outside in the cold distance
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several Blackburn efforts but surprised that the Barracuda was omitted as by all accounts that was pretty awful - perhaps even worse than the Firebrand?
Beagle. I believe the reheated Javelin actually suffered reduced reheat power at LOW altitude. From memory, it was because the early two-position (area) nozzle had to be optimized for a dry power setting at low altitude and, a reheat power setting at high altitude. Probably the best compromise but, reheat at low altitude cosequently gave such a mismatched nozzle area that overall thrust reduced. 
OAP
OAP
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sneaking up on the Runway and leaping out to grab it unawares
Age: 61
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the reheat problem with the Javelin was at LOW level where the HP pumps couldn't keep up with the fuel flow demands.
ETPS reckoned that the C-130 would be a good lead-in trainer for the wretched Jetstream.... 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, every method of generating electricity bar the Van de Graaf generator and Wimshurst machine and a very noisy flight deck! If you tried to land it in the approved manner, it would drop out of the sky when the 'power levers' were set to idle, due to the loss of lift over the part of the wing influenced by the large diameter propellers. Of course they wouldn't idle simultaneously, so the plummet to earth would be accompanied by an unpredictable wing drop. Top tip was to flare the wretched device with some power still applied and only to select idle once it was on the RW. The METS QFIs expected ridiculously long-winded crew briefs - one that I recall was "Co-pilot, you are to restrain the flight fine pitch mechanical lock lever!" Why? Lest it rise up and smite thee? 'Off / start / run' was too much for the RAF, the approved starting sequence was an exercise in futility with various coloured lights and indications accompanied by crew incantations and finger gestures as the infernal Asatzous slowly shook and shuddered their way up to ground idle. The heavy RAF radios also gave it an aft CG, which reduced the marginal pitch stability even further.... At least the RN's Heron Flight Jetstream T3s were fully sorted, with much better Garrett engines.
Engines, I think you were referring to the bomb door tank? There was an option to use both the BDT and a bomb bay tank for loooong range ferries, but the bomb bay tank wasn't often fitted, IIRC.
The Gyron Junior was a pretty dreadful engine. Bad enough in the Buccaneer S1, but even worse in the Bristol 188 as the engines were also fitted with reheat - giving a max endurance of around 25 minutes.
But the Buccaneer S2 and all sub variants was an excellent airframe indeed. A pig to fly below 300 KIAS, but utterly superb at 301+ KIAS. Had it been properly upgraded with Tornado-level avionics and a new cockpit, it would have been amazing.
Yes, sorry - my mistake concerning the Javelin. It was indeed at low level when use of reheat would cause the thing to decelerate due to inadequate fuel pump delivery pressure.
Engines, I think you were referring to the bomb door tank? There was an option to use both the BDT and a bomb bay tank for loooong range ferries, but the bomb bay tank wasn't often fitted, IIRC.
The Gyron Junior was a pretty dreadful engine. Bad enough in the Buccaneer S1, but even worse in the Bristol 188 as the engines were also fitted with reheat - giving a max endurance of around 25 minutes.
But the Buccaneer S2 and all sub variants was an excellent airframe indeed. A pig to fly below 300 KIAS, but utterly superb at 301+ KIAS. Had it been properly upgraded with Tornado-level avionics and a new cockpit, it would have been amazing.
Yes, sorry - my mistake concerning the Javelin. It was indeed at low level when use of reheat would cause the thing to decelerate due to inadequate fuel pump delivery pressure.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: North of Watford, South of Watford Gap
Age: 68
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
"I cannot remember the aircraft type that either Alex Henshaw or Eric Brown said that the worst the had ever flown. All I do remember was that is was inflatable."
That's proably the M L Utility https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarch...0-%200745.html aka "Dumbo the Durex Delta".
I doubt whether Alex Henshaw would have flown it; Winkle might have.
I rather like the quote attributed to a U S Navy pilot, to the effect of "Only the British could have put two Avons into [the Scimitar] and still not have managed Mach 1"
That's proably the M L Utility https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarch...0-%200745.html aka "Dumbo the Durex Delta".
I doubt whether Alex Henshaw would have flown it; Winkle might have.
I rather like the quote attributed to a U S Navy pilot, to the effect of "Only the British could have put two Avons into [the Scimitar] and still not have managed Mach 1"
From personal experience ( ground crew only) I would nominate the Nimrod AEW Mk3, a project designed by committee, built by forced affiliation of manufacturers and a total flop by all accounts. It certainly ensured my tour at Waddington was a short one.
Smudge
Smudge
Bristol had a lot of supersonic experience from Red Duster (Bloodhound) and had a supersonic wind tunnel from 1951-52 onwards. Their first supersonic airframe was the Ramjet powered JTV 1 in 1951 and they had full sized ramjet test airframes reaching Mach 2.4 the following year. Filton did know a little bit about building Supersonic airframes.
The Beverley may have had all the aerodynamic qualities of a brick, but it did some sterling service in its time. They were very rugged and stood up well to operating out of dusty strips in up-country Aden, where I sometimes flew in them with 84 Sqn from Khormaksar. At Seletar I shared a room in the mess with a Beverley captain on 34 Sqn , and often went flying in in them, either on the jump seat in the very spacious flight deck, or down below watching army dispatchers pushing one-ton containers out of the back at low level. Never had the dubious "pleasure" of flying as pax in the boom, though!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ETPS reckoned that the C-130 would be a good lead-in trainer for the wretched Jetstream.... 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, every method of generating electricity bar the Van de Graaf generator and Wimshurst machine
The Heron ones had better autopilot and instruments, but I'd take the astazous any day despite the noise. Bulletproof, reliable stress free and with a decent flight idle stop that let you actually control the aircraft rather than being mollycoddled in the landing. The early jet streams also had a decent amount of flap.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Main, I don't dispute that Bristol had the expertise just the move from the ridiculous to the sublime seemed the ambitions of many aircraft manufacturers. At least Shorts built solid aircraft from Sunderland onwards to the Skyvan, though even they got a bit of modern R&D with the SC1C. Then there was the HP 115.
The common thread appears to be the MoS farming out contracts even handset across industry which was possibly wasteful and led to BAC and HS and ultimately to BAE.
The common thread appears to be the MoS farming out contracts even handset across industry which was possibly wasteful and led to BAC and HS and ultimately to BAE.
Tourist, thanks for the correction. I only suffered 15 hours in the horrible thing some 33 years ago on a refresher course and was glad to see the back of it!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: truro
Age: 68
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
father always said the Westland Wyvern, Skua and Scimitar were the ones he was glad to have avoided during his career , he also said the Sea Fury,because of it's unreliable engine, he loved the Sea Vixen, Hunter and later Meteors and his favorite piston fighter was the Corsair, more than a match for the Sea Fury he thought. It was the Barracuda not the Skua he was glad not to have flown.One that scared him was a Miles with a small jet mounted ontop which he flew several times.
Last edited by gpugh; 4th Mar 2016 at 08:33.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bombproof, but uneconomical.
Fascinating thread. I flew the Percival Prentice once - shocking contraption, with no redeeming features! So why did it get built? Well, the story I was told was that there was a general election coming up, and the factory was in a marginal seat. It got the contract.
Eric told me that the worse thing he ever flew was the GAL/56.
Eric told me that the worse thing he ever flew was the GAL/56.
I see it repeats the 'Blue Circle' concrete ballast story - IIRC the ballast was actually lead weights
Even as a day interceptor, the Defiant's overall loss to kill ratio was actually in its favour, yes both 141 and 264 Sqn got hammered over the course of a few days, but so did quite a few Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons. The problem for the Defiant was a 1.1 to 1 kill/loss ratio was just not good enough. Had they been used to deal with the deeper penetration raids or up north as a pure bomber killer where there was no Me-109 threat they could have racked up some quite impressive scores.
Dave 264 took a shoeing on more than one occasion (Their second sortie over France saw them lose five out of six), they did however learn from that disaster and come up with a tactic which negated some of the aircraft's weakness against a superior single seat fighter. Off course 141 then totally ignored every bit of advice that the 264 boys gave them and paid the price.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave 264 took a shoeing on more than one occasion (Their second sortie over France saw them lose five out of six), they did however learn from that disaster and come up with a tactic which negated some of the aircraft's weakness against a superior single seat fighter. Off course 141 then totally ignored every bit of advice that the 264 boys gave them and paid the price.
Years ago (?early 60's?) I remember a flight review of the Sopwith Camel - the test pilot said it was deadly dangerous - and the idea that people were flying them with 20 hrs experience made it a playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded revolver ..............
Blackburn Botha? That quote is supposed to be in one of the reports reprinted in "Boscombe Down: A Most Secret Place", but I've never found it!
Edit: Ah, AtomKraft said that on p2.
Edit: Ah, AtomKraft said that on p2.
Last edited by BossEyed; 4th Mar 2016 at 10:57. Reason: Read the rest of the thread afterwards