10 worst British Military planes

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Lol, that would be my
33.gif
 
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!!!

 
Last edited:
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.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
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.


True... The Australia Air Force dub the FB111 the "Pig" due to its long snout and terrain following ability and it flew like one...
 
Last edited:
To be fair, there are many extravagantly ugly and ineffective American, Italian, German, French and Soviet designs from the interwar period.
Are those big speed brakes mounted on the innermost interplane struts of the Heyford radiators?
Those sure look like liquid cooled engines given their tight cowlings.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27

Are those big speed brakes mounted on the innermost interplane struts of the Heyford radiators?


You don't need speed brakes on a design that never got up to speed in the first place...

6220101109_883b6de134.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top