Recent Topics
2014 Mazda5 Valvoline Synpower 0W-20 7500 miles
by PWMDMD
06/22/18 10:54 PM
VOA Ravenol ECS 0W-20
by PWMDMD
06/22/18 10:47 PM
2020 mid-engine Corvette spy vid?!
by AZjeff
06/22/18 10:45 PM
'05 base impala. NO turn signals.FAST blinking.
by Lee4212
06/22/18 10:34 PM
Motul 15w-50, 5 Liter 4 Pack $19.42
by hatt
06/22/18 10:10 PM
High Lead Redline 5W40 thoughts? Ty
by Pajero
06/22/18 09:40 PM
Source of the Mighty Columbia River
by Snagglefoot
06/22/18 09:32 PM
Another thick/thin article to discuss
by JLTD
06/22/18 09:23 PM
Ethylene Glycol Long Life Coolant for KUBOTA
by pburchett
06/22/18 09:11 PM
Mobil 1 5W-30, 6,200 mi, 2017 2.3 EB Explorer
by Whimsey
06/22/18 08:48 PM
Chevron 10w-40, 97 Nissan Maxima, 3000 miles
by OilGeek91
06/22/18 08:36 PM
Old green antifreeze in garage storage is gelling
by JLawrence08648
06/22/18 08:32 PM
VWs at Pick n Pull
by Eric Smith
06/22/18 08:17 PM
Single Data Point: CK-4 destroys the flat tappet
by Gokhan
06/22/18 08:12 PM
Breaking in new short block
by Bub
06/22/18 07:00 PM
Should I buy a mill or a drill press?
by Vern_in_IL
06/22/18 06:32 PM
Weber Q300 Grill Parts Help
by gathermewool
06/22/18 05:24 PM
I Had To Tell Somebody- Banquet
by Zee09
06/22/18 05:13 PM
Xfinity mobile cell service
by jay929
06/22/18 04:37 PM
Fuse "failure"
by dlundblad
06/22/18 04:32 PM
Newest Members
azzid0906, OilGeek91, DRancher, Newuser, Varbill
65299 Registered Users
Who's Online
71 registered (4WD, aquariuscsm, 2015_PSD, ag_ghost, andyd, 92saturnsl2, 7 invisible), 1229 Guests and 36 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
65299 Members
67 Forums
285812 Topics
4769838 Posts

Max Online: 3590 @ 01/24/17 08:07 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#4668980 - 02/17/18 06:06 PM 10 worst British Military planes
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 39875
Loc: 'Stralia
Got a laugh from some of this...


Top
#4669027 - 02/17/18 07:11 PM Re: 10 worst British Military planes [Re: Shannow]
Ducked Offline


Registered: 10/25/12
Posts: 4369
Loc: Taiwan
Well, IF you believe in technical progress, that'd be the first 10

Which, for the RFC (some army and navy use before that), would be:-

Serial Code Type
201 A B.E.1
202 A Breguet L.2
203 A B.E.3
204 A B.E.4
205 A B.E.2
206 A B.E.2
207 A Maurice Farman S.7 Longhorn
208 A Henry Farman (2)
209 A Henry Farman (1)
210 A Brequet G.3

(Some duplicate types and French manufactured aircraft there, of course)

I suppose a disbelief in the inevitability of technical progress is rather the point, though.

Disappointed to learn of the Sea Vixen and Javelin's shortcomings. I operated die cast Dinky models of both types and can recall no serious issues in service, though the descent rate was quite high.

Probably all true, except he's a bit dismissive of the Blue Vixen radar in the Sea Harrier, which mostly gets a pretty good press.

Top
#4669050 - 02/17/18 07:44 PM Re: 10 worst British Military planes [Re: Shannow]
Linctex Offline


Registered: 12/31/16
Posts: 6148
Loc: Waco, TX
There have been some REAL lemons/bricks over the years - - from more countries than just Britain.

Lot of plane designs look good sitting on the ground.... but just don't perform.
_________________________
"The evidence demands a verdict".
(Re:VOA)"it's nearly impossible to actually know the particular additives that are in there at what concentrations."

Top
#4671488 - 02/20/18 12:06 AM Re: 10 worst British Military planes [Re: Shannow]
BusyLittleShop Offline


Registered: 12/09/11
Posts: 850
Loc: Ca USA
British have produced a number of flying eye sores... so ugly the pilot walks backwards to cockpit to spare the eyes...

Handleypage Heyford


Handleypage Hanno


Armstrong Whitworth Argosy


Armstrong Whitworth Whitley
_________________________
Larry L
Have a Wheelie NICE day
94 RC45 #2 58,000 on 30 weights Currently Mobil 1 5W30
2002 Camaro Mobil 1 0W30
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk




Top
#4671937 - 02/20/18 01:30 PM Re: 10 worst British Military planes [Re: Shannow]
dwendt44 Offline


Registered: 05/17/06
Posts: 3970
Loc: Central Wisconsin
I'm sure the U.S. had it's share of [censored] aircraft as well.
_________________________
There's no such thing as:
Too big of a battery,
Too large of a gas tank,
or too loud of a horn,
or too bright headlights.

Top
#4672319 - 02/20/18 06:50 PM Re: 10 worst British Military planes [Re: Shannow]
cjcride Offline


Registered: 11/06/09
Posts: 1815
Loc: Ontario Canada
The Handley Page HP24 (Hanno) was designed in 1928 and flew it's civilian career with no crashes. https://travelforaircraft.wordpress.com/...-history-write/

Top
#4672422 - 02/20/18 08:18 PM Re: 10 worst British Military planes [Re: Shannow]
urrlord Offline


Registered: 09/25/08
Posts: 661
Loc: central ga
The FAA produced a number of unrealistic/naive specifications over the years based on some dunderheaded thought processes.Ex: we don't think are fighters are going to face land based opposition so give us a slow fighter plane with endurance ,oh yeah put a turret on it.Also our pilots are too stupid to navigate so make our fighter aircraft a two seater so we can add a navigator and slow it down w/added weight.Hmmm remind me again why our carriers have armored decks since we really don't expect opposition while we are at sea?

Top
#4672633 - 02/21/18 01:01 AM Re: 10 worst British Military planes [Re: urrlord]
ArrestMeRedZ Offline


Registered: 11/11/08
Posts: 933
Loc: Las Vegas
Originally Posted By: urrlord
The FAA produced a number of unrealistic/naive specifications over the years based on some dunderheaded thought processes.Ex: we don't think are fighters are going to face land based opposition so give us a slow fighter plane with endurance ,oh yeah put a turret on it.Also our pilots are too stupid to navigate so make our fighter aircraft a two seater so we can add a navigator and slow it down w/added weight.Hmmm remind me again why our carriers have armored decks since we really don't expect opposition while we are at sea?


This is so wrong, I wouldn't know where to start. Maybe I do. First, the FAA has nothing to do with military aircraft requirements. Second, we've never had slow fighters with long endurance. Maybe you were thinking of fast fighters that couldn't turn well in the Air Force? Third, the Navy or Air Force didn't put navigators in fighters. Navy had Radar Intercept Officers, Air Force had Weapons System Officers and Electronic Warfare Officers. And it's not because the pilot is "stupid", it's because the number of systems is and was too many or too complex for one person.

Top
#4672725 - 02/21/18 06:55 AM Re: 10 worst British Military planes [Re: Shannow]
CincyDavid Offline


Registered: 03/03/16
Posts: 708
Loc: Cincinnati, OH USA
I think this video refers to the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm (FAA) not the US's FAA.
_________________________
06 Kia Sportage EX greenish gold(ugliest color ever)
14 Honda Accord LX metallic black
16 Honda CR-V EX silver
17 VW Jetta SE black

Top
#4672736 - 02/21/18 07:02 AM Re: 10 worst British Military planes [Re: Shannow]
CincyDavid Offline


Registered: 03/03/16
Posts: 708
Loc: Cincinnati, OH USA
I think this video refers to the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm (FAA) not the US's FAA.
_________________________
06 Kia Sportage EX greenish gold(ugliest color ever)
14 Honda Accord LX metallic black
16 Honda CR-V EX silver
17 VW Jetta SE black

Top
#4672924 - 02/21/18 09:43 AM Re: 10 worst British Military planes [Re: ArrestMeRedZ]
urrlord Offline


Registered: 09/25/08
Posts: 661
Loc: central ga
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
Originally Posted By: urrlord
The FAA produced a number of unrealistic/naive specifications over the years based on some dunderheaded thought processes.Ex: we don't think are fighters are going to face land based opposition so give us a slow fighter plane with endurance ,oh yeah put a turret on it.Also our pilots are too stupid to navigate so make our fighter aircraft a two seater so we can add a navigator and slow it down w/added weight.Hmmm remind me again why our carriers have armored decks since we really don't expect opposition while we are at sea?


This is so wrong, I wouldn't know where to start. Maybe I do. First, the FAA has nothing to do with military aircraft requirements. Second, we've never had slow fighters with long endurance. Maybe you were thinking of fast fighters that couldn't turn well in the Air Force? Third, the Navy or Air Force didn't put navigators in fighters. Navy had Radar Intercept Officers, Air Force had Weapons System Officers and Electronic Warfare Officers. And it's not because the pilot is "stupid", it's because the number of systems is and was too many or too complex for one person.


Since it was a video about British aircraft .I thought people would understand my comments.FAA-Fleet Air Arm.My comments on slow fighters and navigators were referring to to 1930's Royal navy doctrines and thought.I did not make that clear.Sorry for the confusion.The Royal Navy thoughts were what my comments on slow fighters and navigators were about.They figured the carrier needed long range planes(at that time to get range you sacrificed performance to get range) to range out from the carrier while at sea and the carrier would not be deployed near land and would not face higher performance land based aircraft.They also felt that pilots were too busy flying the plane to navigate and needed a navigator.U.S. and Japanese pilots managed to do it handily.Which is why the Brits bought Wildcats,Hellcats,Corsair fighters from the US,their early carrier borne fighters sucked.When they got around to modifying Spitfires and Hurricanes for carrier duty they suffered from short range and frame issues.They got a decent fighter in the Fairey Fulmar mid-war but it had a navigator whose added weight hampered performance.On some missions where they expected heavy dog fighting they left the navigator on the ship to aid performance.These were the factors I was referring to.Late war the brits produced some good naval aircraft that no longer followed their earlier doctrines.

I kind of wonder how Blackburn stayed in business ,seems like they produced half of the bad craft in the video.If you wonder about Brit carrier/naval aircraft doctrine check out the site Armoured Carriers,lots of good reading there.

Top
#4673050 - 02/21/18 10:44 AM Re: 10 worst British Military planes [Re: urrlord]
cjcride Offline


Registered: 11/06/09
Posts: 1815
Loc: Ontario Canada
Thanks for the post. That FAA reference threw me too.

Top
#4673054 - 02/21/18 10:46 AM Re: 10 worst British Military planes [Re: Shannow]
ArrestMeRedZ Offline


Registered: 11/11/08
Posts: 933
Loc: Las Vegas
Lol, that would be my duh

Top
#4674585 - 02/22/18 03:13 PM Re: 10 worst British Military planes [Re: dwendt44]
BusyLittleShop Offline


Registered: 12/09/11
Posts: 850
Loc: Ca USA
Originally Posted By: dwendt44
I'm sure the U.S. had it's share of [censored] aircraft as well.


True... FB111 Aardvark is a prime example... designed to replace the B52 (BUFF) but
the BUFF is still with us wheres the Aardvark ain't... BUFF =(Big Ugly Flying Fooker)

The US Department of defense headed by McNamara wanted an all purpose
fighter with a long production run to lower cost and decreed that this
new wonder plane should be a front line fighter for both the Navy and
the Air Force. The result four years and a half billion dollars later
was the General Dynamics F111 a 50 ton monster that was promptly
dubbed the Aardvark...

During the congressional hearings for the aircraft, Vice Admiral
Thomas F. Connolly, then Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air
Warfare, responded to a question from Senator John C. Stennis as to
whether a more powerful engine would cure the aircraft's woes, saying,
"There isn't enough power in all Christendom to make that airplane
what we want!"

Whoa, frank talk like that is a possible career killer!!!




Edited by BusyLittleShop (02/22/18 03:25 PM)
_________________________
Larry L
Have a Wheelie NICE day
94 RC45 #2 58,000 on 30 weights Currently Mobil 1 5W30
2002 Camaro Mobil 1 0W30
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk




Top
#4674643 - 02/22/18 04:41 PM Re: 10 worst British Military planes [Re: Shannow]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 39875
Loc: 'Stralia
The F111 did great service in Oz (a guy I went to school with was killed in one testing a new radar system).

Was replaced with the "superhornet" that can't get to/from our nearest high risk neighbour.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >