Worst 5 aircraft ever built

[DaveSims]

2. Slingsby FireFly
The USAF Academy killed several cadets with these before pulling them from service.

Slingsby were very unfairly "scapegoated" by the USAF over those incidents - and it makes me deepely unhappy when I see so called "interlectual" US aviation magazines talk utter rubbish about the "deadly" Firelfly. Not to mention of course, the families were all steered by their leeching lawyers into sueing Slingsby.

Every other operator has had no major problems. The fact the USAF decided to operate them from an airfield at 6500ft AMSL, and the circumstances of on or two of the accidents has alway made me wonder if it was more the way they were operated - of the three fatal crashes, 2 were pilot error (relateting to poor spin recoveries I believe), and the third and unrecoverable stall (which, had it been carried out safely, should have been high enough to abandon the aircraft, otherwise would most likely have been poor aircraft handling). The engine failure issues could well be down to where the aircraft was operated from reading the issues involved.


Nothing wrong with the aeroplane at all.

I thought the Academy was using a special version of the Firefly, one with a bigger engine or something along those lines.  

[C]

2. Slingsby FireFly
The USAF Academy killed several cadets with these before pulling them from service.

Slingsby were very unfairly "scapegoated" by the USAF over those incidents - and it makes me deepely unhappy when I see so called "interlectual" US aviation magazines talk utter rubbish about the "deadly" Firelfly. Not to mention of course, the families were all steered by their leeching lawyers into sueing Slingsby.

Every other operator has had no major problems. The fact the USAF decided to operate them from an airfield at 6500ft AMSL, and the circumstances of on or two of the accidents has alway made me wonder if it was more the way they were operated - of the three fatal crashes, 2 were pilot error (relateting to poor spin recoveries I believe), and the third and unrecoverable stall (which, had it been carried out safely, should have been high enough to abandon the aircraft, otherwise would most likely have been poor aircraft handling). The engine failure issues could well be down to where the aircraft was operated from reading the issues involved.


Nothing wrong with the aeroplane at all.

I thought the Academy was using a special version of the Firefly, one with a bigger engine or something along those lines.

[Ivan]

OK gonna piss on some posts here... messing around with a huge load of quotes

F-22 - Expensive / maintainence heavy.

And not stealth either... those engines have the IR footprint of a campfire at -80C

Su-35 - Overhyped plane that many claim could take on the F-22... get real.

Su-35 is a stopgap generation between the Su-27 and Su-37.

Su-27 - N001 was a joke and when people hype it up it's fustrating. Annoying when they call the Cope India exercise to show the superiority to the F-15.

Cope India was a Su-30MKI non TVC... which does NOT have the N001 radar (as that one cant do ground targets)

F-35 looks similar to the Yak but the method of VTOL is dissimlar

Rear exhaust is a 100% copy, Only difference is that Lockheed doesnt put a square box over the joint. Some of the money the DOD pays for the project goes straight into the pockets of Yakovlev OKB, as the whole system is patented by them.

What....no Tristar?

Tristar was killed by Lockeeds reputation for using bribes to get people to buy their stuff, not because its a bad airplane. Structurally and technologically way ahead of the competition (DC-10)

[Mictheslik]

What....no Tristar?

Tristar was killed by Lockeeds reputation for using bribes to get people to buy their stuff, not because its a bad airplane. Structurally and technologically way ahead of the competition (DC-10)

I'm not suggesting it is a bad plane....just hinting at C's rivalry with the tristar refuellers

.mic

[Slotback]

Another plane I dislike was the Mirage III, Australia lost god knows how many due to engine failures.

[fighter25]

F-35 - we've proved for 45 years you only need one engine in a VTOL fighter - so it's got two, one of which spends 95% of the time as dead weight. Lightning II my bottom, I think "Dave" is better.

I kinda like "FRED" (Foolishly Rediculous Economic Disaster)  
I think that was one the C-5 Galaxy's nicknames, but it works for the F-35 too as well as the F-22  ::)

[pepper_airborne]

Atleast the SU-27/SU-35 looks sexy compared to american planes, those look just chuncky. Although the Mig-29 beats them all by far.

[Slotback]

F-35 - we've proved for 45 years you only need one engine in a VTOL fighter - so it's got two, one of which spends 95% of the time as dead weight. Lightning II my bottom, I think "Dave" is better.

I kinda like "FRED" (Foolishly Rediculous Economic Disaster)

[Ivan]

F-35 - we've proved for 45 years you only need one engine in a VTOL fighter - so it's got two, one of which spends 95% of the time as dead weight. Lightning II my bottom, I think "Dave" is better.

I kinda like "FRED" (Foolishly Rediculous Economic Disaster)

[CAFedm]

I don't think this would qualify as one of the five worst ever, but the F-104 had a particularly bad safety record, what other aircraft has a downward firing ejection seat? The alternative (being sliced to bits by the tail in an ejection) wouldn't have been any better had the seat been conventionally upward-firing. It also was not known for possessing a great capacity for weapon load. Last of all, with it's tiny wings it didn't live up to it's name of "Star" fighter too well, with regard to maneuverability. In spite of these comments I always liked the aircraft, it having been the first combat jet I saw flying by with burner engaged, and I did run a finger along the leading edge of the wing while visiting one at an aviation museum, drawing some blood in the process .

[Slotback]

Yes. I mentioned the F-22 because I've seen people on other forums think the F-35 is more expensive than the F-22.

I don't think this would qualify as one of the five worst ever, but the F-104 had a particularly bad safety record, what other aircraft has a downward firing ejection seat? The alternative (being sliced to bits by the tail in an ejection) wouldn't have been any better had the seat been conventionally upward-firing. It also was not known for possessing a great capacity for weapon load. Last of all, with it's tiny wings it didn't live up to it's name of "Star" fighter too well, with regard to maneuverability. In spite of these comments I always liked the aircraft, it having been the first combat jet I saw flying by with burner engaged, and I did run a finger along the leading edge of the wing while visiting one at an aviation museum, drawing some blood in the process .

I'm pretty sure later versions of the F-104 has normally firing Martin-Baker ejection seats!!!

[Ivan]

/cut

I don't think this would qualify as one of the five worst ever, but the F-104 had a particularly bad safety record, what other aircraft has a downward firing ejection seat? The alternative (being sliced to bits by the tail in an ejection) wouldn't have been any better had the seat been conventionally upward-firing. It also was not known for possessing a great capacity for weapon load. Last of all, with it's tiny wings it didn't live up to it's name of "Star" fighter too well, with regard to maneuverability. In spite of these comments I always liked the aircraft, it having been the first combat jet I saw flying by with burner engaged, and I did run a finger along the leading edge of the wing while visiting one at an aviation museum, drawing some blood in the process .

I'm pretty sure later versions of the F-104 has normally firing Martin-Baker ejection seats!!!

from the F-104C it has a normal seat. Martin Bakers were only fitted on some export versions or during later upgrades (Italian F-104S, Scandinavian, Greek and Spanish CF-104)

And while not being a bad aircraft, its intended mission was a 'throw away fighter' with just enough fuel to intercept Tu-95s over the atlantic before they got into their launch range. Pilots were picked up by US Navy ships after ejecting

[Anxyous]

I

F-22 - Expensive / maintainence heavy.

MAINENTANCE HEAVY!?!?!?!?

Never have I heard such an outrage. The Raptor features many revolutionary systems that make mainentance easier, not to mention it requires around 2 hours for every hour of flight. The old Eagles require around 10-11 hours for every hour of flight these days.

[Vuikag]

Why do people keep saying planes like the F-22 and F-35 are the worst aircraft ever built? which would you rather fly in, a F-104 or a RAF RE8?

[C]

Why do people keep saying planes like the F-22 and F-35 are the worst aircraft ever built? which would you rather fly in, a F-104 or a RAF RE8?

RE8