Dumbest aircraft ideas to see service

How about the F82 "Twin Mustang"? Take two perfectly-serviceable P51 Airframes and cobble them together, creating a weird and not-entirely-brilliant twin engined heavy fighter.

I have to say the JSF.

"Hey, we've gone WAY overbudget on an ATF that is not half as great as it's supposed to be.... 'multirole' my foot.... now we're working on an interim bomber.... and we need a multi-role fighter even though we have just developed the F/A-18 E and F ...."

It's not a necessary aircraft. We just spent a bunch on the F/A-18 E and F models - which just eliminated any interceptor capability the U.S. Navy had (Hope to God China doesn't send hordes of fighters at our carriers - their Exocet missiles can be fired much farther away than our Aegis cruisers can fire at them).

I would say the F-22 in the same respects. It DOES fufil the contract specifications - but it wreaks of underachievement. 'Multi-role' is very limited. It's also a cliche aircraft. Nothing revolutionary about it. It's a repackaged F-15 with fly-by-wire, some composite structures, and a RAM coating. Big whoopie. It's RCS is very dodgy and doesn't lend itself to air-to-air engagements at all. The IR signature is pretty hefty, and it's design suffers impared maneuverability as speed increases - just like any other average aircraft.

Then let's let it run WAAAAAAY over budget and take over 14 years to develop and put into service. Especially when the competitor had their production model all lined up and ready to go - because they had no other fighter work - when Lockheed was swamped with other fighter work.

I'm pretty critical of projects that refuse to step outside of the tried-and-true method. The F-22 is a standard aircraft for an ATF role - and I find the publicity it gets absolutely sickening.

...but you can't "diss" the F22 - it's sacred!
What next? The SU-47? Have you no shame?

F-23 kills them all - hands down

The SU-47 is actually a rather unique aircraft. It's making use of forward swept wings - which are a definate maneuverability advantage......... I have yet to see any evidence of a reduced RCS - it may be 'reduced' but nowhere near 'low-observable' quality. If the design is carried through in the avionics and weapon systems - it could prove to be a rather formidable fighter.

However, the Soviets do tend to over-hype their aircraft. We hide ours - they boast theirs.... ironic....

Seriously - the F-22 sickens me not because of the plane - the plane is not to blame. It's the designers and the way they have flaunted it to be something it isn't. It's really a pretty looking plane from many different angles. It performs better than any currently serving aircraft, and is definately formidable if you don't beleive the lies that Lockheed states of its performance and know where the plane's limits are. It's a hit-and-run aircraft. If it lingers - it won't survive. If it hasn't evened the odds in the first 30-40 seconds of engagement, it will not survive a prolongued engagement.

Every aircraft has its limitations. By publicizing the F-22A in the way it has been, it misleads the pilots as to the true capabilities of their plane - and sticks in their heads standards that people will expect out of the plane. That is a very bad combination that will result in unnecessary danger to the air crews.

Just as the F-22's performance drops off at high speed, the F-23s drops off at lower speeds. Although, it is my very strong opinion that the YF-23 is superior to the refined F-22A. It incorporated many new technologies and used them to its full advantage to complete its roll. It's the most maneuverable aircraft in its class. Its supersonic handling ability is insane - the full potential could only be realized if the pilot could stay conscious.

But, you can't show that off at airshows, since things don't go zipping around at supersonic speeds anymore..... so, the low-speed contender gets the contract.

I know its been brought up already but I thought I would point out the similarities between an earlier posters idea of a dumb aircraft design to a flying prototype (the AD-1) and a Northrop concept (the Switchblade) which is slated to be flying before the end of the next decade.

Originally posted by planeman
The Defiant was the crowning glory of British aviation. If only Boulton Paul still made planes

Is this a modded F-3...??

The Silvansky IS. One of the worst of the worst. Feel free to look it up, but I'll give you a basic run down of what happened.
In 1938, A V Silvansky created an OKB to make a frontal fighter for the Soviet air force. Problems started when they tested the retraction of the landing gear and own to a 'miscalculation', the legs were too long and wouldn't fit in to the wheel wells. And since they retracted inward, they almost touched. So the legs were shortened to fit in the wells. More snags. The well were too shallow, so the gear stuck out in the slipstream. That got correct and they finally fit.
Problems solved? Nope.
Because of the shortened gear, the propeller would strike the ground when the pilot rotated the aircraft forward to lift the tail on take off.
No problem. Silvansky simply produces a hacksaw and cuts 4 inches off each blade.
Ready for flight. It's only flight. The pliot managed to get the aircraft airborne, but even with full power, it was close to stalling speed. By pure skill and luck the pilot landed without a scratch, and stated that the aircraft was useless.

And you know you're a bad designer when the goverment issues a decree stating that no one is allowed to let you design another aircraft ever again.
Kelly Johnson, Sir Sydney Camm and even Burt Rutan have had bad moments, but none could ever top Silvansky.

[edit on 1-7-2006 by TSR2005]

There is a plane of such incredible dumbness that, by common logic, it is unbelievable anyone would still want to to use it. I am talking of the U-2 spy/recon plane.

Lockheed went on to design a high-altitude aircraft. In that they succeeded. But how on earth could they have come through with a plane that...

1. Cant be flown, but rather has to be "convinced" to do anything else than flying straight (inherently unmaneuverable)
   
2. despite being a "glider", it will still crash more easily than the most hardcore jet designs
   
3. has a difference between minimum (stall) speed and maximum (engine failure) speed of less than 10 knots (it is known that flying the U-2 at height in essence was watching the speed gauge for 10 hours straight)
   
4. loses half its landing landing gear once it takes off
   
5. cant be "safely" landed without the help of a high-performance car on the runway? ..."HELLO Airman Joe Schmoe, we have a minor situation here... our ground crew Pontiac has run flat, and this gives YOU the great opportunity to serve your nation even more! You still have that nice limited edition souped up BMW, huh son? Don´t worry about the custom paintjob, we´ll take care..."
   
6. is so unforgiving to fly that it claimed the lives of some of the highest praised pilots the AiR Force ever had? They don´t call it the "Dragonlady" because of the looks, but for its "character"... fittingly the initial design was borrowed from the F-104 "Widow Maker"...
   
7. a plane whose, lastly, ONLY defense was its flying height - a decision that proved fateful once the soviets had developed the SA-2... in turn this single plane (or rather the idiotic decision to use it two weeks prior to the first peace-promising East-West summit in 1960) might have been responsible for extending the Cold War by 20 years...
   

Well, obviously the U-2 is one of the dumbest ideas to enter service. That it stayed in active duty for so long however proves that it has advantages that are simply unparalleled by other modern planes.

They used hydrogen

Originally posted by The Anti Chris

They used hydrogen

helium was only available in large quantites in the US at the time so they didn't have much of a choice

Sorry folks but I inadvertantly started a new thread when I meant to reply here. Oh well, let's see what happens.

Lifting body design has been the best aircraft since 1920. The entire industry has been a make work project demanding double resources. These inefficient designs from the aircraft cartel have marginalized relative safety, by comparison to say the Burnelli lifing body. Picture airplanes from the early days to today, yes lifting body design happens but mostly for military aircraft. It is a disastrous invitation to put engines next to fuel tanks, but that is what is happening. These inefficiencies should be clear as lifting body design has mostly been suppressed. Now why is that? Inefficiency means more fuel to get to a destination, and less freight carried per airplane. Inefficiency means less safety, but an "acceptable risk," for the tide of profiteers who produce twice as many units at half the cargo capacity and fuel considerations. This may be cynical, but too often what is said here is too typical for the larger business model governing how we live.

All tube-wing designs are "dumb," you figure it out. the Burnelli design only "looks dumb," but deeper analysis indicates a too long neglected principle. Charles De Gaul flew a Burnelli during WW II, but Roosevelt killed the Burnelli after a meeting at the White House. The story was about funding, which Burnelli proposed doing himself but with the help of a political opponent he cited unknowingly. That resulted in a bizarre order that totally blacklisted Burnelli designs in perpetuity from even being considered by the USG. They would steal the design for military purposes from time to time, but never for civilian usage. Take a good look at the F15 et al, and note the lifting body approach. It is surprising the Japanese or others did not take the right approach, but they too are bogged down with the intricacies of the aircraft cartel.

Our world is too often filled with dumb ideas, but the entire notion of competition with the better design has been quashed for the long term so far.

[edit on 2-7-2006 by SkipShipman]

Mod Edit: Merged Posts.



[edit on 2/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Sorry folks but I inadvertantly started a new thread when I meant to reply here. Oh well, let's see what happens.

Why not copy/paste the body of your post here and I'll close the new thread?

Originally posted by Snoogans
What next? The SU-47? Have you no shame?

I love the Su-47. It takes a concept that everyone's seen in Sci-Fi movies and Cartoons and things, and makes it real-real good. And (like most Russian aircraft) it's a damn sexy machine. If the US came over and took the guts out of the Berkut and replaced it with some of their ultra-tech Avionics/Weapons systems/Flight Computers I think this fighter could be a real badass in the skies.

Back to subject-worst figher ever? Mig 21-It's ugly.

I have no shame.

[edit on 7/2/2006 by Darkpr0]

Originally posted by gfad
I know its been brought up already but I thought I would point out the similarities between an earlier posters idea of a dumb aircraft design to a flying prototype (the AD-1) and a Northrop concept (the Switchblade) which is slated to be flying before the end of the next decade.

Yep germans really were ahead off their time...Looking at that switchblade.
But all these technical achievements off the germans in WWII were all discussed in other topics so I dont bother.....

Originally posted by Darkpr0

Back to subject-worst figher ever? Mig 21-It's ugly.

I have no shame.

[edit on 7/2/2006 by Darkpr0]

Man, I hope you were joking. Everyone has different taste but still... How can you call the 21 ugly, this thing is an icon, so simple, so clean, so focused, it's the pinacle of the very philosophy fighter planes represent, to me it's one of the most beautiful aircraft ever. None of the busy design of later fighters. There are very few fighters in history that have that kind of purposeful design, the Me-109 is one, ... and I really can't think of another that even comes close. The MiG 21 is like the Ferrari 250 GTO. Yes there are many modern cars that are faster and more capable than it, but none have the holiness of the GTO...

but you were joking...right?

Another one!
The Douglas X-3 Stiletto. Possibly the pointiest aircraft ever to fly- made an F-104 look decidedly blunt. It was built to "investigate the design features of an aircraft suitable for sustained supersonic speeds". Unfortunately the design brief did not include the fitting of an engine powerful enough to make Mach 1....

[edit on 6-7-2006 by Snoogans]

Originally posted by The Anti Chris

They used hydrogen

There is still a debate as to whether the fabric covering of the ship or the hydrogen used for buoyancy was the fuel for the fire.

Besides, most of the crew and passengers survived. Of 36 passengers and 61 crew, 13 passengers and 22 crew died. Also killed was one member of the ground crew, Navy Linesman Allen Hagaman. Most deaths did not arise from the fire but were suffered by those who leapt from the burning ship. (The lighter-than-air fire burned overhead.) Those passengers who rode the ship on its gentle descent to the ground escaped unharmed. What should also be noted is that almost double the number of casualties occurred when the helium filled USS Akron crashed.

en.wikipedia.org...

OK, I know it never made it into service (probably just as well), but I remember this little gem from my Boys Own annual of nineteen sixty something. A real live General Dynamics project at one stage I believe

You scanned that straight from the annual didn't you? Meaning you still have it! You're the same as me! Don't worry, help is available

Oh Waynos, I wish...

I stumbled on the picture recently on the net - but as you see, somebody certainly still has a copy and a scanner!