Top 10 Worst Aircraft Ever

[Pasi Jorgensen]

Orginal Artikkel

 

Tupolev TU- 144

 

The Concorde gets all the love, but Russia's Tupolev TU-144 was the first supersonic transport and the only commercial plane to exceed Mach 2. The "Concordski" was fast but plagued by bad luck. Three crashes -- including a dramatic mid-air breakup during the 1973 Paris Air Show -- relegated it largely to a lifetime delivering mail. It was mothballed in 1985 but briefly brought back a few years later as a research plane.

 

 

B.O.A.C. de Havilland Comet

 

The Comet was the premiere commercial jet airliner and a landmark in British aeronautics when it first flew in 1949. Today it's better known for its atrocious safety record. Of the 114 Comets built, 13 were involved in fatal accidents, most of them attributed to design flaws and metal fatigue.

 

 

Hughes H-4 Hercules

 

The “Spruce Goose” was either a brilliant aircraft years ahead of its time or the biggest government boondoggle ever. By far the largest aircraft ever conceived -- its wingspan was 319 feet -- the Spruce Goose was intended to be a military transport plane. But it wasn't finished until well after World War II ended, rendering it both obsolete and irrelevant. It only flew once.

 

 

LWS-4 Zubr

 

The Zubr was as useless as it was ugly. Not only was it incapable of flying with the landing gear retracted, the airframe was so highly stressed the plane could disintegrate without warning. If that wasn't enough, it couldn't take off with a payload much heavier than a few cartons of cigarettes. The Polish Air Force had a few in its fleet during World War II, but none of them saw combat.

 

 

Christmas Bullet

 

Cool name, lousy plane. Dr. William Christmas didn't know the first thing about planes when he designed one for the U.S. Army Signal Corps, and it showed. He didn't think the plane needed wing struts, so of course the wings fell off during the plane's maiden flight in 1918.

 

 

Beechcraft Starship

 

With its carbon-composite construction, unique design and rearward-facing turboprop engines, the Starship was a groundbreaking aircraft. But it was slow, difficult to fly and a bear to maintain. It took to the air in 1989, but Beechcraft only sold a few of the 53 it built.

 

 

Hiller VZ-1

 

The Hiller VZ-1 hovercraft must have looked good on paper, because it sure didn't look good in the air. The idea was simple -- a fan provides lift and the pilot steers by shifting his weight. The Defense Department loved it until it saw the Pawnee in flight. It was good for just 16 mph and it tended to be uncontrollable. The project was killed in the late 1950s.

 

 

A-12 Avenger II

 

Defense Department projects are famous for cost overruns, and General Dynamic’s flying wing bomber was a doozy. The Flying Dorito was the most troubled of the stealth aircraft projects the Pentagon embraced during the 1980s, experiencing problems with its radar systems and use of composite materials. When the projected cost of each plane ballooned to $165 million, a Secretary of Defense named Dick Cheney killed it in 1991.

 

 

Royal Aircraft B.E.2

 

With its anemic engine, poor maneuverability and gunner blocking the pilot's view, the British B.E. 2 was doomed from the start. German pilots had no problem shooting them down during the First World War, making it just about useless as a fighter. It had no problems against German Zeppelins, though, so the plane lived out its days attacking them instead.

 

 

Boeing XB 15

 

The XB 15 was the largest plane ever built in the United States until the Spruce Goose came along. The heavy bomber was so massive it had passageways in the wings and bunks for the crew. But big planes need big engines and no one made one big enough to give the XB any kind of speed for its maiden flight in 1937. The plane maxed out at 200 mph, and the U.S. Army Air Corps killed the project. The only XB ever built saw duty as a cargo plane in the Caribbean during World War II.

 

 

 

:grin:

[Gunnar Seljeseth]

... Russia's Tupolev TU-144 was the first supersonic transport and the only commercial plane to exceed Mach 2.

 

Hvor i all verden har han det fra? Cruise for Concorde var tross alt Mach 2.02...

[Rolf Arne Beck]

Jeg legger til Boeing sin kandidat til Joint Strike Fighter prosjektet :sick: :

 

 

 

[Pasi Jorgensen]

He he, vi vet jo det, men du får skyte artikkel forfatteren.

(vet jo at du ikke siktet på meg da)

 

Likte den her jeg "...He didn't think the plane needed wing struts, so of course the wings fell off during the plane's maiden flight..." og "The Zubr was as useless as it was ugly." lol

 

[Lars B. Frostad]

Interessant fremstilling dette her ja, med mye

nyttig info. Synd at TU-144 fikk den skjebnen

den fikk, synes den er et fascinerende fly.

[Tommy Bernes]

Glemte de Shorts 360 :grin:

 

Interessant artikkel dette her, var noen fly eg aldri har sett, imponerende at Zubr i det hele tatt kunne fly :grin:

[Jan Gulliksen]

Når det gjelder Comet'en, så flyr jo den fortsatt, under navnet Nimrod og med bare MAD-boomen bak som (stort sett) eneste synlige forskjell. Jeg tror ikke Nimroden har så stor ulykkesfrekvens - siden de har fortsatt å bruke den i så mange år.

 

 

[Christian Paulsen]

imponerende at Zubr i det hele tatt kunne fly :grin:

He he ja' date=' det der må vel være et glimrende eksempel på hva som kan skje dersom design-avdelingen får bestemme alt..?

Det var jo utvilsomt svært vakkert, og aerodynamikken er det tilsynelatende heller ikke noe å si på... :grin:

 

 

Lars B. Frostad

Synd at TU-144 fikk den skjebnen

den fikk, synes den er et fascinerende fly.

Absolutt et fascinerende fly ja!

Det ble, i alle fall i revidert utgave, også litt raskere enn Concorde. Var vel da kapabelt til cruise ved mach 2,15 mener jeg det var.

 

Men det som i mine øyne utgjorde den største forskjellen, og virkelig er imponerende med Concorde er at det kan fly mach 2 uten afterburner, det klarte ikke Concordski da den kom.

Bare dette ene punktet er jo nok til å redusere nytteverdien dramatisk. Vet ikke hvor sammenliknbart det er med virkeligheten, men når jeg flyr Concorde i FS har jeg en fuel-flow på rundt 5 tonn pr motor i timen. Med afterburner på, ligger det rundt 15 tonn pr motor i timen. Så dette kombinert med at det aldri har vært spesielt populært med sonic boom over land, la vel ikke akkurat til rette for at Concordski skulle bli lønnsom og velykket i Russland, vil jeg tro.

 

Uansett, en annen ting jeg tenker på når det gjelder denne listen med de 10 verste er vel at en del av disse flyene, til tross for sin skamfulle status, faktisk har banet betydelig vei for utviklingen?

 

For eksempel; Concorde hadde sikkert veldig godt av konkurransen fra Sovjet, og man hadde neppe investert så vanvittig mye i det prosjektet om det ikke også var en god porsjon politikk involvert. FADEC motorstyrings- teknologien man utviklet, har jo funnet veien videre til Airbus. Og Comet lærte vel flybransjen ett og annet om strukturell styrke, vindusstørrelse, osv, om jeg ikke tar helt feil.

 

Så uten de 10 verste, ville vi kanskje ikke hatt så gode fly som vi har i dag, så vi må minnes de gamle tabbene med respekt.