Great design blunders

I think the XB-70 is a stunning piece of design, I would class a design blunder as an aircraft that either failed completely or else had some other vicious vice, directly as a result of its design, rather than simply a cancellation vicitm, some of the best planes ever made were cancelled.

An example of this was the Percival P.74, a revolutionary new type of helicopter, it had only two faults (a) it was the noisiest machine ever created and (b) it was incapable of lifting itself off the ground. Ah well.

Waynos, About the Vought F-7 Cutlass, I meant out of tailess designs like the F-14 and F-15, The DeHavilland Vampire,Venom, and the Sea Vixen were twin Boomed Fighters, I still like the Cutlass even though it had many crashes landing on the deck, Would have been a classic if they sorted the nose leg out, Probably its only faliour.

Here's another Wierd chopper, The Cierva W.11 Skyhorse,

avia.russian.ee...

srbhca.com...

www.eichhorn.ws...

Other Wierd designs

www.geocities.com...

Like this one, shame it was not mass produced

pdennez.free.fr...



[edit on 29-12-2005 by Browno]

In explaining one cock up you made another, the F-14 and F-15 are most certainly NOT tailless! Don't worry, there's no need to try and explain further, I do get your drift. You meant twin tailed in the modern fashion.

You may know this already but I will show you anyway, the Cutlass' roots are in this Arado design from 1945;


external image



[edit on 29-12-2005 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
I think the XB-70 is a stunning piece of design,

I agree completely. Simply beautiful, just like the concorde. It wasn't the pilot's fault that Joe Kincheloe (is my memory correct?) flew a Starfighter into it on demonstration.

I would class a design blunder as an aircraft that either failed completely or else had some other vicious vice, directly as a result of its design,

Like the F100 Super Sabre, which had the only slightly alarming tendency to reverse its yaw and roll...

So did the Vought F-7 Cutlass temporarily serve in Vietnam? There is a print of one aboard the USS Coral Sea with 2 seats and lowered landing gear.

That XB-70 should have been accepted in service even though one crashed, Was it all to do with the F-104 Chase plane?



[edit on 29-12-2005 by Browno]

Originally posted by Browno
So did the Vought F-7 Cutlass temporarily serve in Vietnam? There is a print of one aboard the USS Coral Sea with 2 seats and lowered landing gear.

That XB-70 should have been accepted in service even though one crashed, Was it all to do with the F-104 Chase plane?



[edit on 29-12-2005 by Browno]

The problem is that while the XB-70 could travel at mach 3+, SAMs could still fly faster. It also looks to have a huge radar profile with all of those 90 degree bends. Any future high speed aircraft the US military uses will be stealthy much like the SR-71 but to a much lighter degree.

not forgetting its immense heat signature from all those engines in reheat at speed!

About the Cutlass, I don't know offhand but I thought it was long gone before Vietnam started. I can't see a dead fighter like the Cutlass being reinstated to service because it offered nothing different, the Skyraider was but it was a unique aeroplane and met a specific need.

Originally posted by waynos
not forgetting its immense heat signature from all those engines in reheat at speed!

- It's interesting to note that in 'XB70, the ride to Valhalla' the authors (Remak and Ventolo jr) mention investigation and efforts were made to reduce the XB70's radar signature!

One can only wonder if anyone ever thought to ask "why?" in view of the enormous heat output of her '6-pack' at mach 3 cruise.

It seems this is the root of and how come the Russians got into the idea of their missiles having a radar and IR guided version (as seen with the AA6 missiles the Mig 25 carried.......a plane and presumably 'weapons fit' which was designed specifically to counter the B70 originally).

Interesting plane, shame about the mission.

Anyhoo, happy new year to you and yours.

Other wierd Aircraft sites:

www.dreamsoft.com...

www.handleypage.com...

luft46.com...

I dont think the Cutlass did serve in Vietnam but if it did, It must have been capable of some stunt other aircraft cannot do.

Waynos, Its on the fiddlersgreen site below!

www.fiddlersgreen.net...

Other stuff:

www.cloud9photography.us...

members.aol.com...

www.bluejacket.com...

uscockpits.com...

uscockpits.com...

www.bluejacket.com...

The Douglas F-4 Skyray was also based on a German design too.



[edit on 30-12-2005 by Browno]

Originally posted by Browno
The Douglas F-4 Skyray was also based on a German design too.

- If I may be so bold.....you want to be really careful about being so 'free' with that term 'design' there Browno.

A sketch or vague outline barely begun to have been drawn out on paper is a world away from an actual 'design' that made it to the metal and a proper developmental program like the Skyray.

The Skyray had it's roots in Alexander Lippisch's ideas of that there can be no doubt but to say the whole plane was a 'german design' (especially a WW2 German design) is IMO stretching things way too far.

[edit on 30-12-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

about the 2 tailed thing. Wouldn't the wright flyer count too. It dows sorta have two tales It has 2 verticle stabalizers so I guess it could be counted.

Originally posted by TristanBW9456
about the 2 tailed thing. Wouldn't the wright flyer count too. It dows sorta have two tales It has 2 verticle stabalizers so I guess it could be counted.

More important than that, the Wright Flyer was a deliberately unstable canard too, Typhoon and Rafale? Pah!

WAYNOS! Found this board about a Vought F-7D Cutlass, I read it has been 'Pimped up' with F-4 Phantom engines, An A-6 Intruder front nose leg, Two seats and modified avionics.

Not sure if its real?

www.tgplanes.com...

If it is, It would have been a nice 'Bargain Tomcat' like that proposed F-4 Phantom with swingin-wings on the other thread.



[edit on 31-12-2005 by Browno]

its fake


the word `kit` alerts you to that.

Re: www.abovetopsecret.com... a posting by Planeman concerning the Bolton & Paul Defiant aircraft. The link 'external image' on this page to a photo is broken.
Here is an alternative link.
Page avions.legendaires.free.fr...

Hope this is helpful
regards
Rudi

'SHOCKED'

Not a single soul has mentioned the British Aerospace Nimrod AEW.3 !

or....

the General Dynamics F-111B !

And of course those reverse blunders (didn't but should have).... Avro Arrow and TSR.2 (although almost everything else about the TSR.2 program could be described as a blunder)

Shame on you all....

The Winged Wombat

I can at least mention one pretty big blunder that the Soviets made:

The TU-22.

Only when they made the TU-22M3 then they fixed all the faults that where in the design.

The C-5A. The wing design was so poor they had to be yanked from the line and new wings and boxs installed.

Not failures yet, but failures of design and production:

The inital A350. Cobbled together design, half assed measures and the the airlines went "nope" Forced Airbus back tot he table with a much better design.

The Boeing 787. Got the design right but Saw what had happened to Airbus on the A380 but failed to learn the lessons with an overly ambitious production schedule that has seen repeated delays



[edit on 11/25/08 by FredT]

reply to post by FredT


FredT,

In light of the 'fastener affair' you may have to change your comments regarding the 787 to 'got the design right but failed to tell the contractors!'

In fact that may turn out to be the ultimate design blunder!

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 25/11/08 by The Winged Wombat]