Top 10 Clunkers in Military Aviation History (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Yes,I think it was "fastmongrel" who nominated just about anything manufactured by Blackburn. The Botha would be right up there :)
Cheers
Steve
 
Wow, this could be a long list. Let's start with:

Me210
Fairey Albacore
Ba.88 - a perennial favourite in these lists and clearly the exception to the "if it looks right it flies right" rule
He188
Vultee P-66 - another great-looking aircraft which really lacked any oomph in the performance department
CW-21B - same-same as for P-66
Avro Manchester
AW Albermarle
Blackburn Botha

The Albacore was delayed due to engine production problems, but it then went on to do very good work as a strike aircraft, and unlike the other aircraft in your list, there was nothing inherently wrong with it's design.
 
The chief test pilot of the early Me210 said it had all of the most undesirable handling qualities.
The reputation of the aircraft was so damaged by those early models, that even when Messerschmitt corrected all the problems, and renamed it the Me410, few pilots trusted it.
 
Well, not quite. Research into the Komet's rocket motor formed the basis of Britain's post-war rocketry programme; HTP was the fuel of choice for a number of British rocket motors of differing applications. Helmuth Walther's rocket research yielded lots of useful material for the Allies post-war.

Really? What did the Brits produce with the HTP rocket technology? Obviously the V-2 had plenty of influence in later military and civilian use, but the 163?
 
Well, not quite. Research into the Komet's rocket motor formed the basis of Britain's post-war rocketry programme; HTP was the fuel of choice for a number of British rocket motors of differing applications. Helmuth Walther's rocket research yielded lots of useful material for the Allies post-war.

Really? What did the Brits produce with the HTP rocket technology? Obviously the V-2 had plenty of influence in later military and civilian use, but the 163?

The Me163 had TOO MUCH influence on the UK and possibly even the US development programs. In both countries the idea of tailless aircraft attracted a lot of effort and led to such disasters as the DH108 and Chance Vought Cutlass (this is quite apparent if you read some of Eric Brown's later books such as the "Wings of the Weird and Wonderful"). Curiously, the original ME163 is reported to have had good handling qualities, something these later types did not have.

The British did develop rocket engines for JATO and other applications that used HTP. There was also an experimental submarine that used it.
 
In alphabetical order :
Arsenal VB 10
Avia S-199
Ba 349
Blackburn(s!) B-24, B-25, B-26.
Breda Ba 88
Fairey Battle
LaGG3
Me 210
Strange how some are so beautifull...
 
The Me163 had TOO MUCH influence on the UK and possibly even the US development programs. In both countries the idea of tailless aircraft attracted a lot of effort and led to such disasters as the DH108 and Chance Vought Cutlass (this is quite apparent if you read some of Eric Brown's later books such as the "Wings of the Weird and Wonderful"). Curiously, the original ME163 is reported to have had good handling qualities, something these later types did not have.

The British did develop rocket engines for JATO and other applications that used HTP. There was also an experimental submarine that used it.

Maybe I should have specified that the 163 had little or no USEFUL influence. The Brit use of HTO JATO rockets is news to me, but I believe the great majority of JATO engines have been solid fuel, and as the output of jet engines has increased the use of JATO has become restricted to specific circumstances anyway, so I think it would be fair to say that the British use of HTO in this role was a footnote.
In terms of resources committed to a flawed concept, for little return in either combat or future applications, the 163 would have to be a strong contender for our clunker title, though I'm sure others out there could suggest alternatives that meet the same criteria.
 
The Albacore was delayed due to engine production problems, but it then went on to do very good work as a strike aircraft, and unlike the other aircraft in your list, there was nothing inherently wrong with it's design.

Maybe not but you have to admit that any aircraft that is replaced by the type it was supposed to replace is hardly up there with the stellar performers.
 
Could very well be. It obviously operated in a target rich environment compared to its allied counterparts like the Mosquito.

In any case,definitely not a clunker. It had its limitations,which were revealed in 1940, but then every design has limitations.

I'll nominate the Handley Page Hampden as a clunker. Any design which loses almost half its total production doing the very thing it was designed to do leaves a lot to be desired!

Cheers

Steve

I agree, the 110 was not a clunker. It had its limitations as a zestoerer, but served well in other roles. Definately not a clunker.
 
Maybe not but you have to admit that any aircraft that is replaced by the type it was supposed to replace is hardly up there with the stellar performers.

Precisely...kinda like the B-1 versus the B-52
 
Maybe not but you have to admit that any aircraft that is replaced by the type it was supposed to replace is hardly up there with the stellar performers.

The Albacore was not replaced by the Swordfish. It was replaced on the production line by the Barracuda. Swordfish continued to be produced at non-Fairey factories, for use on escort carriers, not as front-line carrier strike aircraft, in which role the Albacore did, in fact, replace the Swordfish. Doubtless the Swordfish was much cheaper to produce and that fact, plus the fact that the Swordfish was being built in non-Fairey plants (mainly Blackburn, IIRC), kept it in production but in almost every aspect of performance, including TO distance (critical on a CVE), the Albacore was superior to the Swordfish, and would have been better suited, even to CVE operations.
 
Clunkers of Note ... I'll nominate the following, in no particular order:

1. Aichi M6A1-K Nanzan: 2 built to train pilots to fly the M6A Seiran floatplane version … that was never deployed.

2. Airspeed AS39 Fleet Shadower: 1 built but although it could only go 126 mph, the performance was still too poor for shadowing the fleet since it was dangerous when it lost even ONE of its four engines!

3. Arsenal-Delanne 10 C2 tandem wing fighter. 1 built and was taken to Germany and never heard froma gain.

4. Aviotehase PN-3 fighter of 1939 from Estonia. 1 built and it was so obscure, you can't find much on it anywhere.

5. Bell FM-1 Airacuda. 13 built and all were a disappointment to everyone associated with them, even to the wives of the pilots.

6. Bristol Brigand: Never popular or reliable, it was Britain's last piston bomber, and a disappointment to all, expecially those who flwew her.

7. Capelis Safety Airplane Corporation XC-12: 1 built and was fastened together with P-K screws! These tended to vibrate loose and required tightening or replacement every few flights! Ended its days as a Hollywood prop in movies such as John Wayne in "Flying Tigers." A true clunker!

8. Caudron C-710 or C-714: Both completely useless.

9. Curtiss-Wright CW-21 Demon. 56 built but completely ineffective. Three improved CW-21B Demons were sent to the AVG in China but all 3 were lost when the entire group flew into a mountain in bad weather making the delivery flight a good case for the Darwin Awards for fighter aircraft. At least the gene pool wasn't further spoiled by their participation in combat.

10. Kalinin K-7. 1 built and it broke up in the air, killing all on board.

I COULD go on, but you DID say 10.

Probably the worst of all time was the Christmas Bullet, but only killed one pilot, and several others were similarly failures with a single casulaty ... but the Bullet shed its wings at an altitude of less the 25 feet on the first takeoff! Now THERE's a clunker, if ever there was one!
 
F-111B, The Navy version of the General Dynamics F-111A.

It resulted from an attempt by Sec of Defense Robert McNamara to reduce aircraft expenses by having both the Air Force and the Navy use the same type. Various sources I remember seeing list final parts commonality between the two version at less than 25%. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

During senate hearings, Admiral Thomas F. Connolly, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air Warfare, responded to a question from Sen. J. Stennis as to whether a more powerful engine would cure the aircraft's woes by saying "There isn't enough power in all Christendom to make that airplane what we want!"
 
The Silvanski IS, built by a new design team headed by man with family connections high in the USSR.
Late in the design effort it was discovered the landing gear was too long to retract into the wheelwells, so the landing gear legs were shortened.
Next problem, landing gear mods meant propeller was too large. So being short on time ( they're eager to get this baby airborne) they chop about 4 inches off each blade.
First flight test, extremely long ground run, reaches 1000 ft altitude, then lands. Test pilot says it's unflyable. No deeper discribtion of flight problems.
Prototype scrapped, design team dispersed.

I wonder where they were dispersed to ? This was 1938 Russia.
This doesn't sound believable, anyone know more about this effort.
 
the idea of the 110 surprised me. imo it was like the stuka it had great success early on....then success later in limited roles.....but as the war and technology progressed their role became even more limited to non-existent. the lagg3 was one of my contenders.

no gregp you can list all you want....thought your list was interesting.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back