Worst 5 aircraft ever built

[Dr.bob7]

we really need a defined characteristc.... like why is it worst besides the looks and cost

[Panzergranate]

What, ni mention of the Brewster Buffalo by anyone??

No WW2 pilot who ever flew one.... and survived, had anything nice to say about them.

The US Marine Corps originally nicknamed them "The Peanut Special", before WW2, afterwards they were re-nicknamed "The Flying Coffin".

Amongst British and Commenwealth pilots they were called "Flying Bricks", "Deathtraps", "The Flying Cigar Butt", "The Barrel", etc.

The Luftwaffe evaluated captured , and still crated up, Belgian Buffaloes, were horrified.... and sold them to the Finns.

In North Africa, during 1940, the RAF was desperate for a monoplane fighter to replace the obstelete Hawker Harts and Gloster Gladiator bi-planes that they were using agiant the Italian Airforce. They tried out a Buffalo, which, during a mock dogfight with a short nosed Blenhiem Bomber, not only saw the bomber out maneuver it, but end up on the Buffalo's tail, where it couldn't be lost except in a dive.

The Buffalo weighed nearly 2.5 times more than the Curtis P36, was underpowered, had a high roll to poor yaw and pitch rate.... and couldn't managed a sustained climb at more than 45 Degrees.

Basically, it was probally the worst handling fighter ever built.

So the allies decided to put them up against Zeroes.... with inevital results.

Allied pilots even flew with half ammunition loads to save weight.

However, in the hands of Finnish pilots, with serious modification, hold the all time kill to loss ratio for all aircraft.... 237 to 1.

The Spitfire and P51 only manage 15 to 1, so despite being the worst design fighter ever built, the Buffalo has the highest success rate.... baffling.

The Brewster Buffalo is simulated, for player use, in the X-Box 360 game "Battle Stations Midway".... where they are quite a challenge to fly in a simulated combat zone as even the Jap divebombers can out maneuver them.

[Steve M]

My mind wanders towards Howard Hughes Sprucegoose. Most expsensive in its era, unlikely from the planning to succeed, and is more a piece of military jewelry than most other planes.

http://www.sprucegoose.org/aircraft_art ... ibits.html

[beaky]

My mind wanders towards Howard Hughes Sprucegoose. Most expsensive in its era, unlikely from the planning to succeed, and is more a piece of military jewelry than most other planes.

http://www.sprucegoose.org/aircraft_art ... ibits.html

I'm inclined to disagree... the Hercules ("Spruce Goose" was a derisive monicker made up by the press; also it was made primarily of birch, not spruce) was expensive because it was a prototype of the largest aircraft ever built.  The best engines available; the best everything... and overseen by a very fussy guy (Hughes) who liked to micro-manage such projects. Every aircraft prototype costs more than the production models, and if it was a Hughes aircraft, it was going to be even more so.

It flew fine,at least in ground effect, even though it was legally not supposed to do so (Hughes only had permission for a taxi test). There were some minor vibration issues detected, but this is quite normal for testing of any new type.

Remember, its purpose was to haul huge payloads over oceans rapidly at low altitude, without using aluminum and other metals made scarce by the war. I believe it could have done so. It also would have presented a very minimal radar return given its size, although that was not the intention with the wood construction.

It also was completed after the war ended, and had no real peacetime role (flying boats were already becoming obsolete, since the war had brought rapid development of airports around the world, and fast, pressurized airliners had arrived); those are some reasons why Hughes basically abandoned the project (although he kept tinkering with it until 1952). I guess there was also not much future for large wooden aircraft, certainly not in the civilian market.

But it was kept ready to fly, as per his orders, until his death... many believe it could fly again, if the time and money were invested.

[Hagar]

Not sure I agree on the Brewster Buffalo. Apparently it was a delight to fly before all the extra equipment was added. Not the first promising design to be ruined by trying to meet unrealistic government specifications.

I'm inclined to disagree... the Hercules ("Spruce Goose" was a derisive monicker made up by the press; also it was made primarily of birch, not spruce) was expensive because it was a prototype of the largest aircraft ever built.  The best engines available; the best everything... and overseen by a very fussy guy (Hughes) who liked to micro-manage such projects. Every aircraft prototype costs more than the production models, and if it was a Hughes aircraft, it was going to be even more so.

We discussed this at length some time ago. Not sure I believe that it would have met the specifications with the best engines available at the time. It might have done so with more powerful engines if they had been produced in the future. This might have been one reason for keeping it in so-called airworthy condition for all those years. From reading several accounts of his life Howard Hughes was an odd character & not above fiddling anyone when it suited him, including the government. In fact I suspect he enjoyed it.

That first "flight" was enough to have the desired effect but it was a basic shell & far from finished. I'm not convinced the finished aircraft would have left the water with any sort of payload.

[Steve M]

[quote]Not sure I agree on the Brewster Buffalo. Apparently it was a delight to fly before all the extra equipment was added. Not the first promising design to be ruined by trying to meet unrealistic government specifications.

[quote]I'm inclined to disagree... the Hercules ("Spruce Goose" was a derisive monicker made up by the press; also it was made primarily of birch, not spruce) was expensive because it was a prototype of the largest aircraft ever built.

[FSXbluestars3]

i have to say the origonal de Havilland Comet. it failed because it had square windows resulting in explosive deconpression

[87HondaShadow]

Hmmm... there are more than 5, but in no particular order, here's five "good" ones:
1) Christmas Bullet (flexible wings with no actual warping system; inadequate rudder. The first time anyone tried to fly one, the wings came right off it)

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/usa/ch ... bullet.jpg

I can only imagine why...

[Slotback]

One of the most unusual aircraft ever to fly from Lakehurst was the Piasecki PA-97 Heli-stat.
The Heli-stat had been built under a 1980 U.S. Navy contract for the Forest Service to demonstrate economic & ecological potential of heavy vertical air lifters in harvesting timber & other natural resources in difficult-to-get-to terrain. The demonstration vehicle utilized a Navy ZPG-2W aerostat (with a 1-million cubic-foot envelope) and 4 surplus Sikorsky H-34J helicopters.
Inflating the aerostat envelope with helium to its length of 343 feet
made the Heli-Stat the largest aircraft in the world (longer than the span of the Hughes flying boat).
The first free hovering flight of the Piasecki PA-97 Heli-stat was made at Lakehurst on April 26, 1986.
On July 1, 1986 the Helistat had just completed a test flight successfully & landed at Lakehurst.
A power loss was noted on the #3 helicopter & the test was terminated & the mooring mast called for.
Prior to re-mooring a wind shift caused an uncommanded left turn which the pilot could not counteract with the flight controls.
With a tailwind, no wheel brakes or ground steering a takeoff was attempted.
The 4 main landing gear which had no shimmy dampers started to shimmy.
The 4 helicopters started to react to the shimmy with ground resonance.
As the Helistat finally lifted off, the 4 individual helicopters broke off & fell to the ground.
One pilot was killed, 3 received serious injuries, one received minor injuries. and the Helistat was destroyed.
The power loss on the #3 helicopter was traced to a missing throttle linkage correlation pin.

http://www.airfields-freeman.com/NJ/Airfields_NJ_E.htm

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.sw ... 9001888697

From another forum...
"And those guys call themselves ENGINEERS?"

[Hagar]

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.sw ... 9001888697

From another forum...
"And those guys call themselves ENGINEERS?"

That's an incredible piece of film. I think it confirms that airships will always be vulnerable near the ground however well they're designed.

These two were experimental types. The McDonnell Goblin was designed as a "Parasite Fighter" to be carried below a large bomber for defence against enemy fighters. The idea was never really practical.

The last one looks like a piloted version of the Fi 103 "Doodlebug" or V-1. This was built for testing purposes although a "suicide" version was suggested. (The Japanese "Oka" piloted bomb was based on it.) The unpiloted production V-1 was very successful & the world's first practical Cruise Missile.

[Slotback]

That's an incredible piece of film. I think it confirms that airships will always be vulnerable near the ground however well they're designed.

Yeah but the point is, it wasn't well designed.  ;D

[Hagar]

That's an incredible piece of film. I think it confirms that airships will always be vulnerable near the ground however well they're designed.

Yeah but the point is, it wasn't well designed.

[patchz]

Not going to take the time to read thru all to see if it's mentioned.
But, and I'm not sure it even qualifies as an aircraft, considering the limited flight, but Spruce Goose comes to mind.

[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

[C]

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!