Top 10 Worst Aircraft Ever...

[Mumbles]

How about this steaming loaf...

 

[CWJones411]

2500 hundred Starfighters built that served with 15 countries for almost 50 years and it deserves to be in the top 10??? -1(j/k)

With a lot of crashes.

 

[Mumbles]

How about the B-36? The largest combat aircraft of all time, obsolete from the get-go, took 12 years to develop and was phased out two years after entering service, enormous cost overruns resulting in SecDef cancelling the contract on an aircraft carrier to fund it...

Oh, and it never flew a single combat mission.

Set the standard for incredibly expensive, theoretically awesome, but utterly useless planes from the XB-70 to the A-12 the the F(not A)-22.

The Aluminum Overcast was truly amazing to stand underneath.
BTW... I just watched Jimmy Stewart's Strategic Air Command this weekend....so despite the revolt of the Admirals, the B-36 kind of has a soft spot in my heart.

 

[AJB37]

But it doesn't achieve a mission that can't be achieved using a cheaper aircraft. It was way over budget. Anyways the Army needs to throw its money into infantry weapons not outrageously expensive aircraft. That's the job of the Air Force.

Those are valid points, however, I was looking at it more from a capabilities standpoint. The RAH-66 wasn't really developed specifically for the type of asymmetric warfare of the GWOT. It would be used against more conventional enemies with stronger air defenses where stealth characteristics would be a huge benefit to scout helicopters. But, I really don't know enough about the project, outside of what was taught in my warfare class, to defend it. I just think it is a really cool aircraft.

 

[A4sForever]

3 Torps??? THREE TORPEDOES !!??!! THREE ??!!??

Only a guy tryin' to get out of paying alimony (permanently) or an idiot would make 3 runs on a target ...

 

[Pugs]

If we just restricted ourselves to USN aircraft I'd have to go with

The Brewster Buffalo - Cutting edge of 1930 technology alas it got to the fleet in 1939. Have to give the Finns props for doing well with it though.

The North American AJ Savage - Two turning and two burning. Fast at altitude (400 knots) Underpowered and huge around the boat, it's sole reason for existence was to get Naval Air in the portable sun delivery business. Several times the prop engines ripped loose from the wing on a hard trap.

The aformentioned F7U Cutlass - Afterburner to stay on speed anyone?

The SB2C Helldiver - "The beast" Couldn't dive bomb clean due to structural weakness, underpowered around the boat electrical system prone to impromptu wiener roasts and shorter legs than the SBD it "replaced" . The Navy dumped them in 47.

There are others that never lived up their potential for the sunk development costs (think Vigi) or one's that had horrible safety records (Think SH-2) but they served well and don't deserve the worst label like the one's I listed.

 

[FLY_USMC]

Just because....even though it's not an aircraft.

 

[Old R.O.]

The Phantom's older brother, the F3H-1 and F3H-2 (F-3B) Demon.

The really early birds had the POS J40 engine, and most of them were sent to Memphis (Millington) to act as training aids.

Also, even though touted as an "all weather" fighter, it could not fly in "visible moisture" or it would flame out. It was around until 1964 and the folks who flew it were glad to get the F-4.

 

[VetteMuscle427]

Just because....even though it's not an aircraft.

Why?

 

[Herc_Dude]

How about the B-36? The largest combat aircraft of all time, obsolete from the get-go, took 12 years to develop and was phased out two years after entering service, enormous cost overruns resulting in SecDef cancelling the contract on an aircraft carrier to fund it...

Oh, and it never flew a single combat mission.

Set the standard for incredibly expensive, theoretically awesome, but utterly useless planes from the XB-70 to the A-12 the the F(not A)-22.

Well they put the the damn engines on backwards, what did they expect!?!?!

 

[Pugs]

Oh, and it never flew a single combat mission.

.

Given it's sole mission was to drop a bunch of portable suns on the godless commie bastards, shouldn't that be a good thing?

 

[TurnandBurn55]

Given it's sole mission was to drop a bunch of portable suns on the godless commie bastards, shouldn't that be a good thing?

Yes, that's correct. Then again... that was the stated mission of the B-52 when it was created also. The B-52 and the B-36 entered service at almost exactly the same time. The B-52 has been doing God's work for three generations, and will like continue to do it for years to come. The B-36 did exactly nothing. Ask yourself why?

Adaptability and flexibilty are good things, my friend.

 

[FLY_USMC]

Why?

1.) Service Record....on the red/white/blue side.
2.) Reliability...
3.) Doesn't say MARINES on the side...
4.) Everybody dogs on it so to make myself feel cool and to pretend to know a lot about it I threw it out there...

 

[HuggyU2]

F-104

Tell me you are joking.

 

[A4sForever]

How about the B-36? ....it never flew a single combat mission.....

Yeah but, yeah but, yeah but .... "combat" is not necessarily the litmus test for an aircraft, good, bad, or indifferent. Or for the people involved. Or for anything else, in reality, as you find yourself in "combat" when everything else fails ....

Combat is just "timing" ....

I.E., .... a GREAT airplane that never saw a day of planned "combat mission(s)" in the bomber variant that it was designed for -- and for the sake of this argument I am discounting the 3 RECCE birds that WERE shot down -- but they paved the way for other military aircraft and for most of our civilian airliners .... thank you Jesus.

I still vividly remember the virtual "forest" of tails @ Boeing Field in Seattle in the '50's -- VERY IMPRESSIVE .... B-47's and B-52's ... I wish I'd had a camera or presence of mind to snap some photos for posterity.

But then ... I'd never heard of Air Warriors back in those days ...