Worst 5 aircraft ever built

[expat]

Here is a topical answer, the worst aircraft of all time, the one that has crashed (for what ever reason ((just over 70 involving at least one death))) the most, currently running at about 180............the 737 :-?

Matt

I think the Lightning, Harrier and Meteor (plus the Starfighter) might top losses per number built!

True, but occupational hazard comes to mind, not something that average pax thinks of

Matt  

[Wing Nut]

My 4:

The GeeBee Z

All racers are death traps to start with, but this one more so than most.  It was almost totally uncontrollable in the air and suffered from wing flutter that took out both the plane and pilot.

F-105 Thunderchief

Great plane, if you can ignore it's nasty little habit of breaking in half during flight.

B-2 Stealth bomber

It has no mission, can't fly in the rain, isn't totally invisible to radar, and is probably the most useless plane ever built.

YB-49 Flying Wing

Cousin to the B-2, it would pitch up uncontrollably without warning

[Slotback]

It has no mission,

Yes it does.

can't fly in the rain,

Yes it can, it cannot be stored in damp environments IIRC (so it's not).

isn't totally invisible to radar,

Nothing is... however it's vastly more stealthy than the F-117 which practically dominated radars in service. The B-2 is far more resilient to low frequency radars due to shape, which proved to be the downfall of the F-117 in Allied Force.

and is probably the most useless plane ever built.

Main things absurd about the B-2 is its 20% Operational Rate (44 billion dollar programme cost for 4 aircraft operational at any time..), and billion dollar cost.

F-105 Thunderchief

Great plane, if you can ignore it's nasty little habit of breaking in half during flight.

How many times did that happen? I searched and it appeared to of only happened twice, both limited to the F-105B..

[FlyingPerson]

About what was said a few pages ago "Some airlines refuses to buy any engines except Pratt & Whitney engines or General Electric engines".

Now this is a stupid thing by the airlines. I've never flown on any aircraft powered by PW engines, but during the four flights of my life ( ) I have flown on two 737-300s, one A330, and one 737-800. That means i've flown on two aircraft that were powered by two GE CFM56-3s, one aircraft that was powered by two GE CFM56-7Bs and one aircraft that was powered by two Rolls Royce Trent 772B engines. The A330 trip was far more pleasant than any of my three 737 trips.

And I would far prefer a TriStar before a DC-10 - Actually, I don't know why as the DC-10 has grown to an extremely safe aircraft after all the troubleshooting that's been done with it - Probably because the TriStar got a waaaaaay better start to its life than the DC-10.

Okay, 5 worst in my opinion..

Airbus Beluga. Seriously Airbus, it looks ten times worse than the Dreamlifter. You can do better than this. The A300 actually was a good looking aircraft

Boeing Dreamlifter. A 747 looks weird enough already.

Antonov 225. 6 engines, a high-mounted wing and that fuselage? If it wasn't flying already, i'd call it a joke.

Hmmm.. now that the oversized cargo aircraft are out.. hmm..

The A318. The A319 is shortened enough already, and not many airlines have bought it. It's still a treat seeing Air France A318s coming into ENGM though

And last but not least, the MD-8x. Not McDonnell Douglas' fault, but I wish there was another engine choice for it than the PW JT8D. I have SAS MD-8xs flying over my house every day (Around 7,000-10,000 feet over the ground) and I can by far say they are the noisiest that flies over here. Not MD's fault, but I just wish they could use another engine type. The MD-8x is actually a beautifully designed aircraft.

[an-225]

Hey, in the Specific Aircraft Types board, there is a topic called "Ugliest Aircraft."

This is the "Worst 5 aircraft ever built" topic.

FlyingPerson, your logic astounds me.

Airbus Beluga - "it looks ten times worse than the Dreamlifter."

Want a tissue? It was designed for a specific job - to lift cargo, and it is bloody good at it.

An-225 - "six engines, a high-mounted wing and that fuselage? If it wasn't flying already, I'd call it a joke"

Yeah. That is only why its MTOW is 600 tons. Only thing here that is a joke is your logic.

A318 - "the A319 is shortened enough already"

And? Its designed to cater to airlines and routes that have no need for an A319.

The MD-8X, one of the regional workhorses of the '80s, a bad airplane? Granted, it is one of the ugliest planes I have seen. But its bad just because it uses noisy engines at a point in time when noise abatement was not a 'serious' issue?

The B-1B lancer is also a bad airplane, how loud those things are!

Lets keep the childish logic out of the aviation forum.


In my opinion, the worst airplane ever built is the F-35. It is extremely underpowered, and its maneuverability seems low in comparison to the F-15. Granted, it relies on stealth - but at least the F-15 had a backup for when BVR turned into WVR.

It isn't as compatible with the USAF arsenal as most other fighter jets either.

[Slotback]

In my opinion, the worst airplane ever built is the F-35. It is extremely underpowered, and its maneuverability seems low in comparison to the F-15. Granted, it relies on stealth - but at least the F-15 had a backup for when BVR turned into WVR.

My head hurts.

The F-35 has an engine that is about as powerful as both engines combined on the Eurofighter or Super Hornet. In terms of thrust to weight ratios it's about the same as the F-15 & F-16 with a wing loading similar to that of the F-16, F-18, F-14 & F-18E/F. However, let's not forget that it carries munitions internally, as well as 9 tons of fuel (as much as the Su-27 & F-14). T/W ratio is superior to all operating Flanker variants, and has the added advantage of DAS (with AIM-9X and HMD) when WVR. And the sensors, sensor integration, avionics are without a doubt the BEST of any fighter.

It goes with the U.S Arsenal just fine... it can carry anything. The main issue is a price that has increased dramatically, price uncertainty, design compromises from making VTOL / CV variants, no gun on VTOL / CV unless carried externally which although is in a stealthy pod still compromises stealth, and kinematics that are 'only' similar to the BLK 52 F-16.

[an-225]

I was wrong in my thoughts on the F-35's power. It now does seem to me, that it is surely adequately powered.

I do however feel that it is no more maneuverable than an F-16. I think that it is an overweight project, with or without VTOL, and the glide ratio would seem to be atrocious considering its overall design.

As much as I hate modern avionics, I won't try saying that N001 can compete with the Lightning's avionics.

But as you stated, much of the integration of current US arsenal comes on external hardpoints. This won't be good for the airplane when its low maneuverability comes into the factor, especially when you factor in Flanker's equipped with TVC...or just ordinary Flankers.

It has an advanced sensor package, and stealth. But overall, it is an overweight, sluggish airplane. Even with a good targeting system, in WVR, it will come down to the plane that can outmaneuver the other plane.

[ShaneG_old]

They should have some kind of sponsored competition, like the Olympics, where planes and other weaponry are pitted against one another to see who is the best.

I know we have war games and all, but something a little more designed to answer questions such as these would be awesome. Our best pilot in our best planes against yours.

[BrandonF]

[quote]There is only one 'bad' aircraft in my opinion:

Boeing 747 LCF- DREAMLIFTER

Man that is ugly even if it can carry a lot

[Slotback]

I do however feel that it is no more maneuverable than an F-16.

A clean block 52 F-16 with a centre tank can keep with a Raptor subsonic and transonic in acceleration. The late F-16 is no slouch.

F-35 has twice the AoA envolope of the F-16 though.

I think that it is an overweight project, with or without VTOL, and the glide ratio would seem to be atrocious considering its overall design.

It is overweight (30,000lb's, vs 24,000) in the same way the Raptor is overweight (43,000lb's vs 30,000's). The whole aircraft has grown with this and now is similar in wing loading and t/w ratio to most 4.5 generation aircraft. Why is glide ratio worse than any other fighter, like the Super Hornet, and F-16? Why don't we slap a radar and missiles on the U-2? Good glide ratio, right?

As much as I hate modern avionics, I won't try saying that N001 can compete with the Lightning's avionics.

I love modern avionics. The GAO compared the capability of various fighters versus a baseline JSF. AV-8B got 0.111, F-14D got 0.195, F-18C/D+ got 0.193, Super Hornet block 1 got 0.316, and you know what SUPER HORNET BLOCK 2 got? 0.65. Why? Modern avionics.

www.gao.gov/new.items/d04900.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkpFsXz ... annel_page

http://www.avtoday.com/av/categories/military/1145.html

http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2007/O ... 007-21.htm

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-9268.html

Modern avionics also means the Block 60 F-16 radar outranges the F-15C radar by over 300%. The F-35 has, AESA, DAS, EOTS, VLO, DIRCM, best CNI/IFF, best datalink, sensor fusion, and best HMD. It has been suggested that the radar on Wedgetail, if upgraded, could jam enemy datalinks, insert false targets into enemy datalinks, and hack enemy datalinks. On the early F-16, it took 8 seconds for the engine to spool up from idle to full afterburner, with newer avionics it takes less than 2 seconds...

But as you stated, much of the integration of current US arsenal comes on external hardpoints.

The F-35 can carry almost anything internally. Only things I can name which it cannot carry is current HARM (fine, use the one in development instead), mk-20, and Aim-9X (fine, wait for block II). Them, and JASSM which is not exactly required to be internally carried.

http://www.air-attack.com/MIL/jsf/f35we ... 090320.jpg

This won't be good for the airplane when its low maneuverability comes into the factor, especially when you factor in Flanker's equipped with TVC...or just ordinary Flankers.

You keep claiming the F-35 is not manoeuvrable, but it's not substantiated. F-35 far exceeds the ordinary Flankers t/w ratio, and is still better than the MKI's t/w ratio. TVC doesn't help a whole lot unless very slow. On top of that when WVR the F-35 still has DAS, & a far better HMD.

It has an advanced sensor package, and stealth. But overall, it is an overweight, sluggish airplane. Even with a good targeting system, in WVR, it will come down to the plane that can outmaneuver the other plane.

I think your idea of WVR is warped. WVR is when you can see them outside the window and does not necessarily refer to dogfights. If DAS picks up an enemy jet, then all the pilot has to do is look at it and fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiNMio9zN2Q

Even in a dogfight the F-35 will be at minimum, parity with newer Flankers...


If it were the worst aircraft ever built then I highly doubt 10+ nations would be going to buy it...

[skoker]

The Q400 is the worst safety wise.

we've had 2 accidents with it and the gear collapse all the time. :-/

[Sean_TK]

Jordan,

Yes, I've heard about numerous gear issues with the Q400 around the world. Certainly strange.  :-/

[Saddle Horse]

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.

I'm going to try not to get myself banned in retaliation...

[Saddle Horse]

Well,
Boeing 717, what's the point?
Lockheed Tristar, nothing compared to the DC-10
Tuploev TU-144, sales never exactly got anywhere
Lockheed C-130, not as powerful as the C-17 or Starlifter.

The 717 is nothing more than the next model of MD-80, since Boeing bought Douglas, they bought the aircraft too and renamed it.

Also, you do realize the C-130 came way before the C-17 and is still a premier military aircraft today.