10 worst aircraft ever built

[garryrussell]

The Comet was a manufacturing fault caused by the aircraft not being built as designed

The windows were supposed to be bonded but on the line that was difficult so they riveted them.

What is more is they punched the rivets trough, causing a flaw in every hole.


Had they built it as designed and tested, it probably would not have failed...not then anyhow.

[expat]

Wasnt the midair breakup from the TU-144 deu to a france mirage that was tailing it in the clouds and banged straight into it?

Dont know for sure, but that is what i remember seeing in a documentary about the plane.

There was a Mirage in the air at the same time, possibly trying to photograph the TU. The French still refuse to confirm or deny this. It it thought that the Mirage got to close in the clouds and the TU bunted and exceded it's negative G design loading.


Matt

[TacitBlue]

Why in the heck is Starship on that list? Of course I had nothing to do with the aircraft, but I'm almost offended. The site say's it was slow, which I have only heard the exact opposite*, it say's that it was difficult to fly, also the exact opposite, and it say's that it was "a bear" to maintain. It was EXPENSIVE to maintain, but no more difficult than any other composite airplane. Composites have come a long way since 1989, and if that airplane rolled out today it would be just as succesful as any other twin turbo.

*Just looked it up, top speed was 335 knots (385 Mph).

[C]

Why in the heck is Starship on that list? Of course I had nothing to do with the aircraft, but I'm almost offended. The site say's it was slow, which I have only heard the exact opposite*, it say's that it was difficult to fly, also the exact opposite, and it say's that it was "a bear" to maintain. It was EXPENSIVE to maintain, but no more difficult than any other composite airplane. Composites have come a long way since 1989, and if that airplane rolled out today it would be just as succesful as any other twin turbo.

*Just looked it up, top speed was 335 knots (385 Mph).

I think the Starship was summed up by Raytheon's wish to have none be preserved in museums, and havong all airframes returned to them for disposal.

[Sean_TK]

Sounds like your typical mass media article, desperately trying to trash some random aviation thing....
I would disagree with several of the choices, such as the Comet, Spruce Goose, the Tu-144, and the Starship.

I know in the Tupolev's case, cost was a major factor in its lack of extended development, but I don't know a lot about the plane besides that...
I also can't verify the Mach 2 stuff yet....but it seems likely in my opinion.

(Remember, almost every western media outlet just has to find a way to trash at least one Russian plane.... sarcasm)

[TacitBlue]

I think the Starship was summed up by Raytheon's wish to have none be preserved in museums, and havong all airframes returned to them for disposal.

Raytheon simpley didn't want to support it because of the cost. Also not all of them were disposed of- at least one is still flying, in fact I have touched it 8-).
...lol, not that that makes me cool or anything.

The guy that owns it just didn't want to give it back to them, so he bought it outright. He also bought another one while they were still available to use as spare parts.

[an-225]

Oh geez, lets not forget the A380, because few jetways can support it, and not every tarmac surface in the world is prepared to hold a plane that heavy.

I know at least one plane that should be on there...the Ta-154 Mosquito (glue).

Other wise, most airplanes I have seen have been "successful" even the ones that "failed" (XB-70) as they have all offered something innovative or revolutionary.

[Hagar]

I also can't verify the Mach 2 stuff yet....but it seems likely in my opinion.

Concorde was in scheduled service with Air France & British Airways for 27 years & regularly crossed the Atlantic at Mach 2. There was a machmeter fitted in the passenger cabin. http://www.ocean-waves.net/concorde.htm

[C]

Oh geez, lets not forget the A380, because few jetways can support it, and not every tarmac surface in the world is prepared to hold a plane that heavy.

I bet most airports needed modification for the 747 around 1970 too. It's called progress. If it wasn't we'd still be limited to flying piston engined biplanes of grass runways.

[H]

It seems we can't expect media accuracy, anyway. Last weekend I watched part of a documentary about WW2, particularly relative to Stalin's regime. The narrator stated that the P-39s were supplied by the United States but the aircraft being shown were certainly not P-39s; looked more like Sevinskys.

I bet most airports needed modification for the 747 around 1970 too. It's called progress. If it wasn't we'd still be limited to flying piston engined biplanes of grass runways.

Once the fuel source has fizzled, we may be back to the propeller-driven planes, howbeit, not with combustion engines.

8-)

[C]

I think the Starship was summed up by Raytheon's wish to have none be preserved in museums, and havong all airframes returned to them for disposal.

Raytheon simpley didn't want to support it because of the cost. Also not all of them were disposed of- at least one is still flying, in fact I have touched it 8-).
...lol, not that that makes me cool or anything.

The guy that owns it just didn't want to give it back to them, so he bought it outright. He also bought another one while they were still available to use as spare parts.

Appears you are correct. It seems they backed right down (owners weren't actually willing to give them/sell them back!) and eventually even let them into museums. Apparently two are still flying.

[Ivan]

One beech starship was the camera aircraft for the White Knight launch...  N514RS
I suspect this one is owned by Scaled Composites or a related company as it is marked as 'will never be scrapped' on this page

[TacitBlue]

Ah, I thought that Scaled also owned one, wasn't sure though. If anyone can keep that airplane flying forever, it will be Burt Rutan's company.

It's called progress. If it wasn't we'd still be limited to flying piston engined biplanes of grass runways.

And what's wrong with that!?

[Vuikag]

what a dummy face poopy man! That list was silly, and so was the guy who commented saying the Dauntless should be on that list. tsk tsk

[Saitek]

I'm not an expert on planes; far from it, but I find his reasoning for making these "worst 10 aircraft" stupid.

Take the Spruce Goose example. So he argues it could only fly 200mph, but hey it still worked and the only reason it didn't go faster, as he admits, is that the engines at the time couldn't take that size any faster. While that may not have been overly smart designing, it doesn't make it a bad aircraft at all. That isn't a fault, speed is preference and there are plenty of slow aircraft around anyway.