Different kind of aircraft wank: Airplanes that should have not entered service

[Jukra]

Usually the planewanks are connected with planes that did not enter service at all or did not enter service in particular country. What about the other way?

Here's some candidates:

USN:

F-14: This ugly plane would be unnecessary if F-4 was modernized, fitted with better radar, lower fuel consumption engines and AIM-54. This kind of Super Phantom could have served USN magnificently and might have even gained a number of foreign sales.

Sweden:

Viggen: The improvement potential of Draken was not fully used.
Gripen: Fine plane, but way too costly even for a scenario in which Cold War was to continue. F-18 (as proposed OTL) would serve Flygvapnet just fine.

RAF:

Hawker Siddeley Nimrod: Excellent ASW aircraft, but as the numbers were low one is hard pressed to find just why not produce Canadair's CL-28 based on British airframe and already made instead? Other candidate might be P-3 on licence. About current MRA4 disaster one does not need to mention.

SEPECAT Jaquar: I've always wondered what was the business logic for this?

[The Dean]

The Panavia Tornado, second rate at everything it does.

Fairy Battle, a deathtrap for it's crews.

Boulton Paul Defiant, ditto.

Short Stirling, a compromise made to fit the existing hangers, screw the performance.

[Jukra]

The Panavia Tornado, second rate at everything it does.

But how to spend the pork instead? Tornado was started in 1968 and entered service in 1979. If European option is preferred, how about updated Mirage IV?

[Just Leo]

Blackburn Roc, Skua, Botha, Firebrand.

[Just Leo]

English Elecric Lightning. Built because it was lean pork.

[The Kiat]

Another candidate: the F-105. I think it had some problems at first, called the Thunder Thud.

Now the F-103 should have been.

[EAF602Whizz]

Every fighter Supermarine built after the Spitfire but especially the Attacker. What an embarrasment compared to the likes of the Grumman Panther.

Fairey Fulmar (a 2 seat, single engine fighter with no rear armament and no role for the 'observer').

Me163. Big waste of resources for little return. Would have made a useful x-plane in peacetime though.

Sukhoi SU7. Or as one Indian test pilot put it; 'why?'

Also I 2nd the Battle and the Stirling and the Blackburn products.

[Jukra]

Another candidate: the F-105. I think it had some problems at first, called the Thunder Thud.

But what plane instead of Thud? More F-104's? They would suit the nuclear strike role probably about as fine, but for conventional strike they would have less payload, range and durability. Of course they would be much cheaper too.

[Onkel Willie]

The Ju-87 Stuka. Sure, it performed well in the Spanish Civil War but was already outdated by 1940 as it was not manoeuvrable enough, didn't pack enough punch and was too lightly armed to fend off other planes. A much better candidate would have been the Henschel Hs 129 'panzerknacker'.

[Mr.Wigglemunch]

Bf 110, even though I think for some reason its a cute little thing and a mediocre night fighter its overall capabilities were a tad poor. The resources would of been better spent elsewhere.

[MacCaulay]

This is a really cool idea, Jukra.


F-14: This ugly plane would be unnecessary if F-4 was modernized, fitted with better radar, lower fuel consumption engines and AIM-54. This kind of Super Phantom could have served USN magnificently and might have even gained a number of foreign sales.

Gotta disagree, there. I dig the F-4 way more, but the F-14 just had more capabilities with the engines. Especially after they replaced them in the early '80s.




Gripen: Fine plane, but way too costly even for a scenario in which Cold War was to continue. F-18 (as proposed OTL) would serve Flygvapnet just fine.


I think the Swedes just wanted to keep an in country aerospace industry going. Once that leaves it doesn't come back.



As for mine...Just about everything Sukhoi made up until the Flanker series. Everytime they built something as a fighter, they'd put it up against MiG, it'd lose, and the Soviets would have them build it anyway as a ground attack plane. That's a really bad way to run a company. The only one that was built for that specifically was the Frogfoot.

[Kevin Renner]

The B-32 Dominator. after all it did enter service in small numbers

Curtis's SB2C Helldiver

Any naturally aspirated Allison engined fighter.

PBM Mariner. Far too many fuel system problems

The F-104s with the downward firing ejection seat duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Vought's Cutlass

[Chris Oakley]

The Tu-22 Blinder. Worst bomber of the jet age.

[Markus]

First I´m going to pre-empt CalBear and say: "Don´t build the F2A!" :p

Second, there was nothing wrong with the Ju-87 or the Battle. Any small, single engine bomber is toast without fighter cover, any.
The Me-110 did very well as a fighter-bomber and even better as a night fighter.
The SB2C was first delayed and than rushed into service but once they got the bugs out of it she was clearly superior to the SBD.
And last but not least without the P-40 and P-39 the USA would have had not one mass produced fighter on Dec 7th 1941. That would have sucked more than Brewster´s quality control.

[The Dean]

Second, there was nothing wrong with the Ju-87 or the Battle. Any small, single engine bomber is toast without fighter cover

Really? Ask any Typhoon or Thunderbolt pilot about that.

The Me-110 did very well as a fighter-bomber and even better as a night fighter.

Until it met a fighter. What sort of fighter needs fighter cover?

[Jukra]

First I´m going to pre-empt CalBear and say: "Don´t build the F2A!" :p

As a Finn, I must write that keep building F2A-1's, but dont't build F2A-2 or F2A-3 and have some mechanists who have imagination...:cool: F2A-1 (B-239) when used with modern fighter tactics and properly maintained was good enough fighter for either Eastern Front or for the Pacific circa 1941-1943.

[Markus]

Really? Ask any Typhoon or Thunderbolt pilot about that.

Those are fighters that carry bombs, not light bombers like the Avanger(got pwned at Midway). And they are one or two generations ahead of the above mentioned bombers.


Until it met a fighter. What sort of fighter needs fighter cover?Which were rare in enough places to make her efficient for some time even in daylight and all the time in the dark.


As a Finn, I must write that keep building F2A-1's, but dont't build F2A-2 or F2A-3 and have some mechanists who have imagination...:cool: F2A-1 (B-239) when used with modern fighter tactics and properly maintained was good enough fighter for either Eastern Front or for the Pacific circa 1941-1943.

Not so sure about the -2 and -3. Armour and protected fuel tanks are a must IMO. Unlike the Soviet pilots the Japanese could shoot straight. So let´s re-phrase that: "Don´t let Brewster build the Buffalo!"(or any other plane for that matter!) That way she will still be overweight but well made, delivered on time and in much larger numbers.

[Jukra]

Gotta disagree, there. I dig the F-4 way more, but the F-14 just had more capabilities with the engines. Especially after they replaced them in the early '80s.

Yes, but they had to produce a whole new airframe which had practically no export markets and was hideously expensive. Super Phantom would have been good enough fleet defense fighter and moreover, would have been multi-role capable from the outset.

I think the Swedes just wanted to keep an in country aerospace industry going. Once that leaves it doesn't come back.

Quite true, but when the maintenance of industry is preoccupation over equipping armed forces and using taxpayer money wisely it's a time for a judgement call. How about Canada's example? The Unmentionable was cancelled in 1959, no domestic combat aircraft project since then but Canadian aerospace industry is very strong, employing more than 83 000 people.

[The Dean]

Those are fighters that carry bombs, not light bombers like the Avanger(got pwned at Midway). And they are one or two generations ahead of the above mentioned bombers.

The Typhoon was specifically deployed as a bomber and could carry more ordinance than the light bombers, so could the Jug. OK same generation the Hurricane and P 40 could carry more bombs than a Battle or Stuka and then defend themselves.

Which were rare in enough places to make her efficient for some time even in daylight and all the time in the dark.

Not once it met contemporary fighters, it was OK in Poland but once it met the Western Allies it was screwed. At night the RAF deployed first Beaufighters then Mosquitoes and shot any German night fighters out of the sky.

[Markus]

At night the RAF deployed first Beaufighters then Mosquitoes and shot any German night fighters out of the sky.

That must have been after March of 1944 which gives the Me-110 almost five years of successful service.

[The Dean]

That must have been after March of 1944 which gives the Me-110 almost five years of successful service.

Where do you get that date from? The Beaufighter recorded it's first kill using radar in '40, the Mosquito took over in '42. By '43 the RAF's night fighter's role was exclusively in intercepting German night fighters in the RAF bomber stream because there was no serious night time threat on Britain by then.

[Markus]

Where do you get that date from? The Beaufighter recorded it's first kill using radar in '40, the Mosquito took over in '42. By '43 the RAF's night fighter's role was exclusively in intercepting German night fighters in the RAF bomber stream because there was no serious night time threat on Britain by then.

In late 43/ early 44 Harris tried to set Berlin on fire and according to wiki not only failed but also lost over 1,000 bombers in the process. Furthermore I remember a book called "Military errors of WW2" whose author claimed the German night fighter force was only destroyed after the pilots had to fly daylight missions(not in Me-110 of course). That leads to the conclusion that the RAF´s ability to "shot any German night fighters out of the sky" was not as good as advertised.

[The Dean]

In late 43/ early 44 Harris tried to set Berlin on fire and according to wiki not only failed but also lost over 1,000 bombers in the process. Furthermore I remember a book called "Military errors of WW2" whose author claimed the German night fighter force was only destroyed after the pilots had to fly daylight missions(not in Me-110 of course). That leads to the conclusion that the RAF´s ability to "shot any German night fighters out of the sky" was not as good as advertised.

In '43/4 the 8th air force were still suffering loses in daylight raids,the Mustangs did not gain air superiority instantly neither did the RAF and incidentally the USAAFs
Mosquitoes and Black Widows at night but win they did whatever you say and the 110 still sucked.

[Markus]

but win they did whatever you say and the 110 still sucked.

Fell free to dislike the Me 110 but that does not change the fact that she was a highly successful night fighter.

[Jason]

Well, I'd say just about anything the FAA was using in 1939 other than the Swordfish :)

[The Dean]

Fell free to dislike the Me 110 but that does not change the fact that she was a highly successful night fighter.

It had the lowest percentage of success of the all German night fighters, overall the Ju 88 was the most successful, the He 219 was the best the 110 was an also ran.:p

[Jason]

The Panavia Tornado, second rate at everything it does.

Fairy Battle, a deathtrap for it's crews.

Boulton Paul Defiant, ditto.

Short Stirling, a compromise made to fit the existing hangers, screw the performance.

I'm with you on the Battle but wasn't the Defiant a success at a night fighter?

How about the Manchester? It may have been modified and become the Lancaster but as itself it was a failure.

[Mr.Wigglemunch]

It had the lowest percentage of success of the all German night fighters, overall the Ju 88 was the most successful, the He 219 was the best the 110 was an also ran.:p


Now if all Bf 110 resources went into the production of Uhu's ( He 219 ) from 43' onwards Britains reign of terror at night might of been delt with quite abit more interestingly. Besides the Uhu is just sexy in comparison to the Bf 110's cuteness anyway :P

[Markus]

I'm with you on the Battle but wasn't the Defiant a success at a night fighter?


Yes, radar equipped Defiants were a success as night fighters.

[Jason]

Hence why the Lancaster took over, it resolved itself in its own evolution.

True but I wonder if we could have got to Lancaster without going via Manchester (which sounds a good lesson for life:))

[Mr.Wigglemunch]

True but I wonder if we could have got to Lancaster without going via Manchester (which sounds a good lesson for life:))


I find it pretty doubtful, but to be honest we'd still have the Halifax... which itself is a very sadly forgotton aircraft in the minds of most.

[The Dean]

I'm with you on the Battle but wasn't the Defiant a success at a night fighter?

How about the Manchester? It may have been modified and become the Lancaster but as itself it was a failure.

Hardly a success, it was a testbed for the radar which was promptly fitted into Beaufighters.

The Manchester was actually fine it was the Vulture engines that were a disaster and Roy Chadwick rapidly redesigned the aircraft for four Merlins.

[The Dean]

I find it pretty doubtful, but to be honest we'd still have the Halifax... which itself is a very sadly forgotton aircraft in the minds of most.

The Halifax was a great aircraft, my Dad flew them in '44/5, but it didn't have a through bomb bay 1/3 of it's payload was in the wing roots, so it couldn't carry large bombs like the blockbusters and tallboys.

[Jason]

Hardly a success, it was a testbed for the radar which was promptly fitted into Beaufighters.

The Manchester was actually fine it was the Vulture engines that were a disaster and Roy Chadwick rapidly redesigned the aircraft for four Merlins.

I happily stand corrected :)

[BlairWitch749]

the he-177 the thing was a death trap with the coupled engines layout

[Jason]

What about the Whirlwind and Comet? Neither were successes, would the British in WW2 have been better served if resources had been better spent on alternative designs? Same applies to post-war Civilian airlines, would it have been better to have spent more time designing a better civilian jet?

[danwild6]

F-14: This ugly plane would be unnecessary if F-4 was modernized, fitted with better radar, lower fuel consumption engines and AIM-54. This kind of Super Phantom could have served USN magnificently and might have even gained a number of foreign sales.

C'mon man if your going on looks then there was nothing ever as ugly as the Phantom. IMO the Tomcat is a beautiful warplane and a far superior interceptor compared to the Phantom.

[The Kiat]

But what plane instead of Thud? More F-104's? They would suit the nuclear strike role probably about as fine, but for conventional strike they would have less payload, range and durability. Of course they would be much cheaper too.


Fighters don't need to carry nukes. There were A-6s and A-7s, an even the old Sky Raiders, that were more than sufficient for CAS.

[Jukra]

Fighters don't need to carry nukes. There were A-6s and A-7s, an even the old Sky Raiders, that were more than sufficient for CAS.

Although F-105 had an F on front like F-111 and F-117 it was a bomber. I'm not sure if F-105 ever flew a close air support mission. Without F-105 the bomber role would have to be filled. A-6 might be also a candidate but entered service only five years later. If foreign candidates can be used, then Blackburn Buccaneer might also be very good candidate.

[Jukra]

C'mon man if your going on looks then there was nothing ever as ugly as the Phantom. IMO the Tomcat is a beautiful warplane and a far superior interceptor compared to the Phantom.

You should blame the Top Gun. After seeing that movie I could see no beauty in Tomcat, but F-5's sure were good looking... :) As an interceptor F-14 was superior to Phantom, but for air superiority duties F-14 wasn't that great until 1987 and it got multi-mission capability only in 1990's. I'm not at all sure if F-14 was worth the bang for buck. There were numerous proposals to update Phantom and I'm fairly sure that even with late 1960's technology a larger radar and larger fuel capability could have been fit in.

[G.Fieendish]

You should blame the Top Gun. After seeing that movie I could see no beauty in Tomcat, but F-5's sure were good looking... :) As an interceptor F-14 was superior to Phantom, but for air superiority duties F-14 wasn't that great until 1987 and it got multi-mission capability only in 1990's. I'm not at all sure if F-14 was worth the bang for buck. There were numerous proposals to update Phantom and I'm fairly sure that even with late 1960's technology a larger radar and larger fuel capability could have been fit in.
Unfortunately, McDonnell Douglas'es 2 proposals for a "Super Phantom", namely the F-4(FV)S, & their later submission for the F/X contract, the Model 225, involved Variable Geometry wings...
(The F-4 (FV)S design looked like a twin engined Mig-23 Flogger, due to it's high mounted "Swing wing", & lack of anhedral on its tailplanes, while the Model 225, failed to win the F/X contract...).
And while we are speaking of Phantoms, what did Rolls-Royce use to persuade the British Government to order Phantoms fitted with Spey's...?

[The Kiat]

The Tu-22 Blinder. Worst bomber of the jet age.


I thought that honor belonged to the Bison.

[Chris Oakley]

Bison was a close second.

[Mr.Wigglemunch]

The Halifax was a great aircraft, my Dad flew them in '44/5, but it didn't have a through bomb bay 1/3 of it's payload was in the wing roots, so it couldn't carry large bombs like the blockbusters and tallboys.


Thats awesome :D I love it, there arn't any flying anymore though I don't believe :( But if the Lancaster hadn't of been invented then im sure the job of delivering the blockbusters and tallboys would of fell to a heavily modified Short Stirling?

[simonbp]

And while we are speaking of Phantoms, what did Rolls-Royce use to persuade the British Government to order Phantoms fitted with Spey's...?

Usual methods (liquor and loose women).

My nomination would go to the F-101. Bad fighter, bad attack, marginal at reconn. Kill it and have the RCAF buy F-4s...

[Doraemon]

The Mersserchmitt Me 163 for me. First, it was too ambitious and simply not possible with the technology available at that time. Second, it has an abysmal record of over 500 built with only 16 confirmed kills:rolleyes:.

[Riain]

One of the later V bombers, I'm not sure which but one sucked resources away from the other.

[Derek Jackson]

In WW2 the Blenhiem and the Battle were pretty disasterous for their aircrews and dangerous misuse of resources for Britain

[Jukra]

Unfortunately, McDonnell Douglas'es 2 proposals for a "Super Phantom", namely the F-4(FV)S, & their later submission for the F/X contract, the Model 225, involved Variable Geometry wings...

Ah, the Swinging Sixties... Did not know that. What I was thinking was something along the lines of early 1980's Super Phantom proposal, or in other words a more modest upgrade. Of course a more modest, sensible upgrade would not enable enough pork to be spent.

[Jukra]

In WW2 the Blenhiem and the Battle were pretty disasterous for their aircrews and dangerous misuse of resources for Britain

In Second World War era aircraft I'm fairly careful giving judgements since aircraft progress was very fast, decisions needed to be made quickly, resources were scarce and usuallyt there was no option of foreign purchase.

Blenheim was introduced during this period of rapid progress. When it encountered modern interceptors (ie. Bf-109) it was toast but then again which bomber of the era wasn't? When escorted, it could serve even in 1944 quite efficiently. The follow-on development, Beaufort, wasn't that bad not to mention the Beaufighter. Whether or not Blenheim production could have been ended earlier etc. I don't know.

[Jukra]

One of the later V bombers, I'm not sure which but one sucked resources away from the other.

Yes, all of them looked very nice and I can see the point of ordering four prototypes but why on earth go on producing three of them while Valiant was clearly capable of fulfilling the bomber role until SRBM's (as was planned but SLBM's came) would come online? Is there any good book available on how the pork was spent with British aircraft industry between 1945-1957? Seems that the industry was destroyed by that...

[Markus]

Blenheim was introduced during this period of rapid progress. When it encountered modern interceptors (ie. Bf-109) it was toast but then again which bomber of the era wasn't? When escorted, it could serve even in 1944 quite efficiently.

I concur and ask what else could have been done with the knowledge, technology and funding of 1934/35? Even if one knows things like armour and self-sealing tanks will be needed, one still needs a much more powerful engine than the Mercury. The engines of the A-20 and Beaufighter were almost twice as powerful as the Blenheim´s.

The Pegasus is not powerful enough, the Hercules is but is not available until the end of 1939.

[The Dean]

Thats awesome :D I love it, there arn't any flying anymore though I don't believe :( But if the Lancaster hadn't of been invented then im sure the job of delivering the blockbusters and tallboys would of fell to a heavily modified Short Stirling?

The Stirling had the same short bomb bay as a Halifax both had their main wing spars pass through the fuselage restricting the space available for bombs. Then because it was a design compromise it had a similar payload but a service ceiling 10,000 feet lower. If either were to carry Tallboy it would have to be externally but the Stirling would not be able to get high enough for it to achieve the penetration it required.

Incidentally the Halifax was originally intended to be a twin engines machine using the Vulture engine but after seeing the problems Avro had with the Manchester they redesigned it with four Merlins before going into production. So the Stirling was the only "Heavy" that was intended to have four engines and that was done by removing the lower deck and boat hull from the Sunderland flying boat design unfortunately they chopped 12ft off the wingspan to get it into the hangers and completely emasculated it.

[AMF]

My short story 'A Failed Test' centers on a pilot who was very famous both in OTL and my alternate timeline, and who is a testpilot in the German Luftwaffe in the equivalent to World War II in my TL. He serves Germany and its dictator very loyally by speaking out clearly against fast, but impractical or dangerous machines like the Heinkel 100, the Messerschmitt 163 and the Gotha 223, to which his head of state has taken a liking. At the end of the story however, it turns out that not only the aeroplane he tests has, in a way, failed... .

[AMF]

I wonder why no one has mentioned the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter so far, at least not as a plane to be cancelled. Very bad safety record, lousy dogfighter, limited payload, big corruption scandals surrounding its introduction in several countries, played only a minor role in the US Air Force, although designed in the US.

[Mr.Wigglemunch]

The Stirling had the same short bomb bay as a Halifax both had their main wing spars pass through the fuselage restricting the space available for bombs. Then because it was a design compromise it had a similar payload but a service ceiling 10,000 feet lower. If either were to carry Tallboy it would have to be externally but the Stirling would not be able to get high enough for it to achieve the penetration it required.

Incidentally the Halifax was originally intended to be a twin engines machine using the Vulture engine but after seeing the problems Avro had with the Manchester they redesigned it with four Merlins before going into production. So the Stirling was the only "Heavy" that was intended to have four engines and that was done by removing the lower deck and boat hull from the Sunderland flying boat design unfortunately they chopped 12ft off the wingspan to get it into the hangers and completely emasculated it.


Thats why I said heavily modified... the Stirling was pretty bastardized in its design. But anyway you've made me understand the concept more in depth. However couldn't you in theory modify it pretty easily to carry the likes of a tallboy with more powerfull engines and a longer wingspan pluss other adjustments?

[The Dean]

Thats why I said heavily modified... the Stirling was pretty bastardized in its design. But anyway you've made me understand the concept more in depth. However couldn't you in theory modify it pretty easily to carry the likes of a tallboy with more powerfull engines and a longer wingspan pluss other adjustments?

Could be done but it would have been better to upgrade the Halifax it was a much more modern design, 1935 against 1939 and there were a lot of advances in those particular four years.

[Mr.Wigglemunch]

Could be done but it would have been better to upgrade the Halifax it was a much more modern design, 1935 against 1939 and there were a lot of advances in those particular four years.


Ahhh ok cool, I was thinking because the sheer size of the Stirling... didn't think the Halifax would be able to hack it, would be epic though.

[The Dean]

Ahhh ok cool, I was thinking because the sheer size of the Stirling... didn't think the Halifax would be able to hack it, would be epic though.

The Lancaster and Halifax were almost the same size give or take an inch or so, the Stirling's extra weight was if anything a handicap without more power. Given the wingspan it should have had and 2,000hp+ engines it could have been a B-29 analog.

[The Dean]

I wonder why no one has mentioned the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter so far, at least not as a plane to be cancelled. Very bad safety record, lousy dogfighter, limited payload, big corruption scandals surrounding its introduction in several countries, played only a minor role in the US Air Force, although designed in the US.

Yes you're quite right the Widowmaker should never have left the drawing-board!

[Markus]

I´m thinking the Fairey Battle deserves a nomination. She was designed a bit later than the Blenheim, had the same speed, similar bombload, same number of crewmen, a shorter range and might have been cheaper because she had just one engine.

Fairey should have made her a dive bomber or made Hurricanes.

[The Dean]

I´m thinking the Fairey Battle deserves a nomination.

I beg your pardon? (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=2735903&postcount=2)

[Markus]

I beg your pardon? (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=2735903&postcount=2)

She has been nominated several times (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=2739137&postcount=48) but I gave he the benefit of the doubt so far. The need for armour was seen late, the need for a fighter escort even later but the technical data were there right from the start. And these data indicate she was rather inferior to the Blenheim in many regards. Thus no hindsight would have been needed to decided against producing her.

[Jukra]

She has been nominated several times (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=2739137&postcount=48) but I gave he the benefit of the doubt so far. The need for armour was seen late, the need for a fighter escort even later but the technical data were there right from the start. And these data indicate she was rather inferior to the Blenheim in many regards. Thus no hindsight would have been needed to decided against producing her.

As Fairey Battle used Merlin I wonder if over 2000 additional Merlin's would have made a difference on other aircraft production. I also wonder if there's no Battle, will there be no Fulmar too, if the whole spec is cancelled? And if there's no Fulmar, maybe no Barracuda...

Also, if there's no Fulmar, how about earlier introduction of lend-lease planes onboard British carriers? Now, I know you don't like Brewster products but surely a B-239 / B-339 over Fulmar would constitute an improvement...

[jaybird]

I wonder why no one has mentioned the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter so far, at least not as a plane to be cancelled. Very bad safety record, lousy dogfighter, limited payload, big corruption scandals surrounding its introduction in several countries, played only a minor role in the US Air Force, although designed in the US.

That was actually the first plane I thought of when I saw this. Spiritual successor to the Me 163...great paper performance.

[Berra]

I think the Swedes just wanted to keep an in country aerospace industry going. Once that leaves it doesn't come back.

Sort of. Sweden needed new planes when rearming prior and during WWII but the only one willing to sell was Italy. Not wanting to get in the same kind of trouble again, it was decided to have a domestic defence industry.

[The Dean]

She has been nominated several times (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=2739137&postcount=48)

Yeah? But I woz first!

[rip89]

The Panavia Tornado, second rate at everything it does.

Fairy Battle, a deathtrap for it's crews.

Boulton Paul Defiant, ditto.

Short Stirling, a compromise made to fit the existing hangers, screw the performance.

Ok agree with you on the bottom three and for half of the Tornado family ie the F3 version but whats wrong with attack versions of the Tornado?

My nominations would include the Blackburn Roc a 1940 fighter with a top speed of 196mph? not to mention the whole turret fighter concept was flawed, and the Me210 a technical disaster.

[The Dean]

Ok agree with you on the bottom three and for half of the Tornado family ie the F3 version but whats wrong with attack versions of the Tornado?

My nominations would include the Blackburn Roc a 1940 fighter with a top speed of 196mph? not to mention the whole turret fighter concept was flawed, and the Me210 a technical disaster.

As I said, it was second rate at everything it was designed for, that look at it's losses in the Gulf war.

You're quite right, just about every UK design for the Fleet Air Arm between the Swordfish and the Sea Fury was a waste of time .

[rip89]

As I said, it was second rate at everything it was designed for, that look at it's losses in the Gulf war.

You're quite right, just about every UK design for the Fleet Air Arm between the Swordfish and the Sea Fury was a waste of time .

I thought that the losses were caused by tactics not aircraft design, how many Tornadoes have been lost due to enemy action since tactics were changed? Any aircraft that flys 100 feet above the ground is going to take losses from AAA and rifle bullets unless its heavily amoured like the A10. Looking at losses is not always a way to understand whether an aircraft is good at its job or not. To use an example The B17 suffered horrific loss rates until it recieved an escort, but is considerd to be a fine aircraft.

[Jason]

As Fairey Battle used Merlin I wonder if over 2000 additional Merlin's would have made a difference on other aircraft production. I also wonder if there's no Battle, will there be no Fulmar too, if the whole spec is cancelled? And if there's no Fulmar, maybe no Barracuda...

Also, if there's no Fulmar, how about earlier introduction of lend-lease planes onboard British carriers? Now, I know you don't like Brewster products but surely a B-239 / B-339 over Fulmar would constitute an improvement...

I have a memory of the idea that the FAA was offered an earlier Seafire than they got but went for the Fulmar instead. If no Fulmar they might go for the Seafire a bit earlier after all.

[Landshark]

Yes, all of them looked very nice and I can see the point of ordering four prototypes but why on earth go on producing three of them while Valiant was clearly capable of fulfilling the bomber role until SRBM's (as was planned but SLBM's came) would come online? Is there any good book available on how the pork was spent with British aircraft industry between 1945-1957? Seems that the industry was destroyed by that...

No, the British aviation industry was destroyed by politicians who didn't know what the fuck they were doing from one moment to the next, and while it may be patently obvious to you that SRBM's were going to be available and workable within the lifespan of the Valiant the people actually planning the defence of Britain in the 1950's didn't have access to your 20/20 hindsight.

[Landshark]

As I said, it was second rate at everything it was designed for, that look at it's losses in the Gulf war.

You're quite right, just about every UK design for the Fleet Air Arm between the Swordfish and the Sea Fury was a waste of time .

Fairey Firefly?

[CalBear]

Ah…

A fun thread.

France

M.S. 406: It’s undergunned, but at least it’s slow
.
Bloch MB 200: Undeniable proof that French engineers can create something that is both ugly and useless in one package.

Bloch MB 210: An “improved” 200. No wonder the Luftwaffe ruled the skies.

Italy

G.50: A contemporary of both the Bf-109D and the Spitfire. Yea, right.

Ba.88: Great aircraft until they added things like bombs, guns, and fuel. After that; not so wonderful.

SM.79: Great little plane in 1934. Unfortunately they were still building the thing in late 1942.

SM.82 Marsupiale: The Marsupial? Even the name is an epic fail.

Germany

Amerikabomber (Ju-390/Me-264/Ta-400): More a waste of resources than anything else. Designed to attack the U.S. mainland sometime in 1944, none of the aircraft could outperform the P-26 Peashooter. The Ju-390 was so bad that the Luftwaffe refused to use the two actually completed in a combat role.


Ju-87: The same country that produced the Fw-190 made this POS until 1943? Okay design in 1937, although dreadfully underpowered, utterly pointless after 1941. Another incredible waste of limited resources by the Reich. Happily the Germans made at least 3,000 of these after the BoB; imagine how much worse the Air War would have been if the Luftwaffe had 3,000 more Fw-190s.

Me-110: Not that they built it, everyone had a version of the “heavy fighter” in production or planned. That they KEPT building the things after the RAF demonstrated they were a REALLY BAD IDEA. Did get some life as a night fighter, but a huge waste of resources overall.

Me-210: Someone at Messerschmitt had heavy investments in Allied War Bonds. Only possible explanation.

Me-410: Not really a bad aircraft, just vastly inferior to the competing He-219. A LOT of Bomber Command crews survived the war because the Reich built 1,200 of these instead of the Heinkel

Great Britain

So many choices (with a lot of the really good ones already mentioned)…

Blackburn Roc: a 233 MPH fighter INTRODUCED in mid-1939? Yea, that’ll be a winner.

Fairey Albacore: An obsolete design meant to replace an obsolete design, that was out performed by the older aircraft. Better yet, they built 800 of them.

Fairey Firefly: Was the procurement head of the FAA always drunk?

Fairey Fulmar: Did Hitler have the Fairey CEO’s family hostage or something?

Gloster Gauntlet: 250 of them? You have GOT to be kidding.

Vickers Wellesley: Uh-huh.

Vickers Valiant: Let me be sure I understand this… The country has limited funds but it builds THREE DIFFERENT aircraft to perform the same exact mission? Okay.


Japan

An absolute embarrassment of riches to choose from:

D4Y: Actually a really nice design. Unfortunately it was supposed to be a carrier based dive bomber and the Japanese built over half of the 2,000+ constructed after they had no remaining carriers. Oops.

H6N: A flying boat that would catch fire if someone said the word out loud.

Ki-21: You have the G4M just sitting there and you build 2,000 inferior copies? Brilliant.

Ki-36: Two man open cockpit recon aircraft. The Japanese were losing the war and still wasted the materials and time to build almost 1,400 of these damned things.

Ki-46: Long range, high speed recon aircraft with less range than the G4M bomber and the Zero fighter. The JAAF tried to use some of the 1,700 built as night fighters against the B-29. Would have been a good idea except for the lousy rate of climb, lack of self sealing fuel tanks, and general lack of suitability to perform the role intended. Possibly the only fighter in the war that was in much greater danger from its prey than it presented to the enemy. Another aircraft the Japanese continued to build to the bitter end instead of the actually effective Ki-67.

Ki-43: a less well protected, lighter, more flammable contemporary of the A6M Zero. Overall, it was a less capable plane with half the range of the Mitsubishi aircraft. Luckily for the Japanese they only built ~6,000 of them.

Ki-44: So bad even Japanese Army pilots, who would stand still for just about anything, hated it.

Ki-45: Japan’s answer to the Me-110. Same design drawbacks as other heavy fighters with the considerable advantage of being flammable. Over 1,300 built.

Ki-48: Thank God the Japanese built 2,000 of these things instead of vastly superior Ki-67

Ki-49: Death on a soda cracker (for the crew). Not even a success as a kamakazi.

P1Y: Japan built a thousand of them. I have no idea why.

USA

Since the Buffalo has been slaughtered and cut into steaks already…:D

B-34/B-37/PV Ventura: Why?

B-35/B-49: Not enough that it was unstable and dangerous with piston engines. Had to convert it to a jet, apparently so it would make a bigger crater when it inevitably crashed). Criminal.

B-36: Great range, huge bomb load and terrific max altitude. Slow as hell, a maintenance nightmare, wings had unfortunate tendency to catch fire and fall off.

B-58: Fast as a thief. Lacked the range to get to any possible target at full speed. Overtaken by technology. Not as well thought out as one would hope.

P-39: High Altitude Bomber interceptor with a poor rate of climb and poor overall performance at altitude.

P-59: I know it was a first attempt. Still!

P-63: You put ear rings on a pig and you have a well dressed pig.

SB2C: Okay, a good idea in 1941. God alone knows why they were still building them in 1945.

SN2A: Only here so I can take a poke at Brewster Aeronautical Corp. Markedly inferior to the SBD already in service. 771 produced. Every one a waste of materials.

F-101: No bad, not good. Why did they make 807?


USSR

I-153: Another biplane contemporary of the Bf-109 and Spitfire. For reasons unknown the Soviets built well over 3,000 of them.

MiG-9: Well, it did lead to the MiG-15.

Pe-3: The Soviet Me-110. Another waste of resources.

Pe-8: Have to love a heavy bomber with diesel (yes, you read that right) engines. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

YaK-15: Well it was a jet fighter. One that was slower than many piston engined aircraft. But it was a jet!

YaK-25: Massively undergunned. Lousy maneuverability. Not great traits for a fighter.

YaK-27: Well, it was fast.

YaK-28: Not so much a bad aircraft as an unnecessary one. 1,100 built, none needed.

[Landshark]

Vickers Valiant: Let me be sure I understand this… The country has limited funds but it builds THREE DIFFERENT aircraft to perform the same exact mission? Okay.

I was under the impression that the Valiant was a failsafe design that could be built using available technology while the Vulcan and Victor both pushed the edge to the extent that either or both could have failed to work.

[Bill Cameron]

Fairey Albacore: An obsolete design meant to replace an obsolete design, that was out performed by the older aircraft.


CalBear,

Great list there.

I read one author "explaining" the plane above by pointing out it carried radar after 1943 and thus could be used for night attacks, but that's nothing more than an excuse. There were plenty of far better torpedo bombers in 1943 which could also carry radar.

The more I read about the interwar and wartime FAA, and by extension the RAF, the more suspicious I am that the Fifth Man was somehow involved in aircraft procurement.


Bill

[Matt Wiser]

I'll happily disagree with Jukra on the F-14, it was what the Navy wanted. A long-range fleet defender that could dogfight. Long range and those potent AIM-54 Phoenixes that could reach out and kill those Bears, Badgers, and Backfires before they could launch against the carrier. And just as capable in a dogfight, just ask the Libyans (1981 and 1989) and the Iraqis (Iran's use of the F-14 from 1980-88: see the Osprey book on Iran's F-14s). And in the '90s, precison strike as an intirim A-6 replacement, as well as carrying the TARPS pods for recon work. If you're wailing abou the engines, that's one more thing to lay at Les Aspin's feet. Before he was SECDEF for the Clintoon Administration, he was the chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and he blocked engine upgrades for the F-14 as early as 1977, much to the disgust of the Navy. About 40 F-14 aircrew died as a result of the problems with the TF-30 engine, so you can say those problems were inflicted by Congress, not the Navy. If the F-14D program had gone full steam, it would've been the best Cat of all, and still serving today. (Also, wanting to be an F-14 RIO when I was an undergrad has something to do with my affinity for the Tomcat...)

Now, for the list of those which shouldn't have been in service:

F7U Cutlass: The accident rate approaching the boat should've been enough to warrant cancellation. Not to mention being underpowered.

He-177: Two engines back-to-back on each wing? The Heinkel design team, if Goering had the guts, should've posed for a firing squad.

Defiant (Day versions) No forward-firing guns? What were the designers thinking? You're going to have bad guys in front of you, so you'd better be able to kill 'em.

Buffalo: To quote the USMC's after-action report re: VMF-221's slaughter at Midway: "Any commander who orders a pilot up in an F2A-3 should consider the pilot lost before he leaves the ground." 'Nuff said. Any fighter on either USN or RN carrier decks would've been an improvement over this piece of crap.

A note should be made on the Japanese: both the Japanese Navy and Army Air Arms were loath to use the other's aircraft. Each had different requirements, for one thing, and service politics played another. If you think the U.S's interservice rivalry gets bad, look at the IJN and IJA! It makes ours look like small potatoes. Up to and including outright assassination. A lot of that rivalry turned out to be a plus for the good guys, so be glad it was there.

[Jukra]

Sort of. Sweden needed new planes when rearming prior and during WWII but the only one willing to sell was Italy. Not wanting to get in the same kind of trouble again, it was decided to have a domestic defence industry.

Producing a 1980's fighter was different from producing a 1940's fighter. License production of F-18's would have given Swedish Air Force the same industrial security.

[Jukra]

I thought that the losses were caused by tactics not aircraft design, how many Tornadoes have been lost due to enemy action since tactics were changed? Any aircraft that flys 100 feet above the ground is going to take losses from AAA and rifle bullets unless its heavily amoured like the A10. Looking at losses is not always a way to understand whether an aircraft is good at its job or not. To use an example The B17 suffered horrific loss rates until it recieved an escort, but is considerd to be a fine aircraft.

Panavia Tornado was designed to be a two-seater strike fighter. Decision was made in 1970, in peacetime and in no crisis. The swing-wings were a 1960's disease, it might be hard to avoid them, but in retrospect there would have been plenty of options available for Tornado mission. Mirage IV, for example, was around the same size, trouble-free proven airframe design which could have been upgraded to have Tornado IDS's impressive avionics. Voila! The difference is, of course, that Mirage IV's performance was more impressive in many ways than that of Tornado. I don't believe I'm writing this, but even resurrecting TSR-2 would probably have been better option.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Bf 110, even though I think for some reason its a cute little thing and a mediocre night fighter its overall capabilities were a tad poor. The resources would of been better spent elsewhere.

It was developed in the mid-30s, and it served wit distinction throughout the war - I think the Germans got their money's worth out of it.

It was better than mediocre as a night fighter.

[Zyzzyva]

....2,000+ constructed...

...build 2,000...

...build almost 1,400...

...1,700 built...

...built ~6,000...

...1,300 built...

...built 2,000...

...built a thousand...

For the love of monkeys, Japan was under blockade and losing! What the hell was with their procurement division!? :eek:

[The Dean]

Fairey Firefly?

A single engine fighter with a two man crew?

That's a good way of getting two people killed instead of only one!

[Jukra]

No, the British aviation industry was destroyed by politicians who didn't know what the fuck they were doing from one moment to the next, and while it may be patently obvious to you that SRBM's were going to be available and workable within the lifespan of the Valiant the people actually planning the defence of Britain in the 1950's didn't have access to your 20/20 hindsight.

Ordering so many specifications that aircraft industry had no possibilities of fulfilling them, or having so many corporations that they could not be sustained was not a smart move and this was noted already during Korean War buildup, it's not hindsight. The problem is that decisions in Britain, like in many other countries, are not always made with logic which opens up to commoners...

As for V-line, there was four flying prototypes and three different planes produced. In comparison, the US was merrily concentrating on a single medium bomber at time (First B-47, then B-58). Getting a working nuclear bomber in the air was a national priority and even the four different prototypes commissioned can be fully justified I think. But why bother with Vulcan and Victor, providing only very marginal improvement in performance when Valiant was already flying and proving upgradeable? Pork for AVRO and Handley-Page. Britain was trying to support FOUR aviation firms making large planes with a result that not one survived.

As for MRBM's, (SRBM was a typo, mea culpa) no one did think that they would not enter service. Decision to develop Thor was made in 1954, Jupiter in 1955. Blue Streak development was started in 1954. There was no need of building either Victor or Vulcan. One wonders if Vulcan or Victor were cancelled the manpower and money could have been directed for Blue Streak, providing a British satellite launcher fairly early.

[Enemyace]

[QUOTE=Matt Wiser;

He-177: Two engines back-to-back on each wing? The Heinkel design team, if Goering had the guts, should've posed for a firing squad.

[/QUOTE]

"All bombers must dive". The Luftwaffe was stuck with that order. A bomber with a conventional 4 engine layout would obviously never have been able to perform that role as a divebomber, but 4 engines were a necessity for the long range capability.

[Jukra]

Buffalo: To quote the USMC's after-action report re: VMF-221's slaughter at Midway: "Any commander who orders a pilot up in an F2A-3 should consider the pilot lost before he leaves the ground." 'Nuff said. Any fighter on either USN or RN carrier decks would've been an improvement over this piece of crap.

Buffalo was a scapegoat for loysy tactics (both in fighter leading and actual combat), unrealistic training and poor maintenance procedures. If KNIL, RAF and USMC of time were given, say, Spitfire V's instead the results would have been the same. Or actually much worse as Buffalos endurance was very good and thus there was allowance for navigation problems. When given mechanics who could think the problems were non-existant. And Finnish B-239's achieved wonders even when fitted with armor and flying with 87 octane fuel.

There was nothing fundamentally problematic in the plane. Compared to what was available for carriers in 1939-1941 the plane was a very good carrier fighter indeed. Sea Hurricane (available in late 1941 only) was a toast against it, not to mention Sea Gladiator, Fairey Fulmar, Blackburn Roc and other British contraptions available at the time. And I'm fairly sure no USN pilot would have rather have had F3F or A5M. F4F-3 was better, but not that much better.

[Jukra]

A lot of good ones, but have to disagree with some...

M.S. 406: It’s undergunned, but at least it’s slow

Agreed, curiously the design itself could be updated to perfectly OK fighter as Finns did with Mörko-Morane. (Incidentally this was made too late since the Finnish aviation industry was led with same kind of skill as FAA procurement and British 1950's aviation industry).

Happily the Germans made at least 3,000 of these after the BoB; imagine how much worse the Air War would have been if the Luftwaffe had 3,000 more Fw-190s.

Or even if they used the Ju-87's fuel to train the pilots who were fighting with mostly OK aircraft...

B-36: Great range, huge bomb load and terrific max altitude. Slow as hell, a maintenance nightmare, wings had unfortunate tendency to catch fire and fall off.

But this was the bomber which made carriers obsolete...:D

B-36 looks impressive but one has to remember that terrific max altitude was only achieved by time when B-47 was entering service...

P-39: High Altitude Bomber interceptor with a poor rate of climb and poor overall performance at altitude.

Yes, but OK ground attack and low level fighter.

Pe-8: Have to love a heavy bomber with diesel (yes, you read that right) engines. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

Performance specs of Pe-8 are not that bad. Diesel fuel is less flammable and allows for longer endurance. And you have to compare it with other heavy bombers entering service in late 1930's. Wellesley? YB-17?

[Matt Wiser]

Sorry, but I beg to differ. I'll take a Wildcat, with good drivers and good tactics (i.e. Thach Weave) over that sorry piece of crap. I fully agree with that after-action report. The Buffalo ended its days as a fighter trainer-something it was more properly suited for. And I think the RAF and RAAF who flew those sorry Brewster products in Malaya and the NEI would probably agree after getting their asses shot off (those who survived, that is) by either Zeroes or Oscars.

Whoever said "all bombers must dive" in the Luftwaffe had to have been on some mind-altering pharmacuticals. If it was Goering.....

[Jukra]

Sorry, but I beg to differ. I'll take a Wildcat, with good drivers and good tactics (i.e. Thach Weave) over that sorry piece of crap. I fully agree with that after-action report. The Buffalo ended its days as a fighter trainer-something it was more properly suited for. And I think the RAF and RAAF who flew those sorry Brewster products in Malaya and the NEI would probably agree after getting their asses shot off (those who survived, that is) by either Zeroes or Oscars.

F4F-3 entered service in late 1940 and was in widespread service in 1941 but the initial diseases were cured out of it just in time for Pearl Harbor. Still, it had guns that didn't work all the time, for example. In comparison, F2A-1 entered Finnish service in March 1940 (after disassembly and shipping, undoubtely it could have entered US service earlier. In effect you're comparing a 1939 fighter to 1941 one.

As for Midway, I think you're somewhat more off. F4F-3 Wildcat gained better reputation as it was flown by USN pilots who had months of low-intensity combat to work out the tactics suitable for the time. And when Midway came the F4F-3 was replaced with F4F-4 which had the teething problems ironed out and pilots who had not been killed in their first days of combat.

Whoever said "all bombers must dive" in the Luftwaffe had to have been on some mind-altering pharmacuticals. If it was Goering.....

The Ol' Fat Bastard did use them, which explains a lot...

[Just Leo]

Way back before I needed reading glasses, I was anti-Buffalo. Geoffrey Fiskin and 3 others were aces in B-339 Buffaloes, probably having been accidentally fitted with the correct fuel pump etc. Finnish aces abound, in numbers almost equal to the number of B-239's in service. The B-339 supplied and tested in Britain significantly out-performed a Hurricane below 15,000 ft. Tactical doctrine, morale, training and maintenance played a major role in Finland's successes using admittedly inferior types listed on this site. The Russian who knew tactical doctrine was probably purged. Tactics can make bad aircraft better. British tactics were similar to Soviet tactics before Sailor Malan. British battlefield tactics were not even considered before the Western Desert campaigns. Fairey Battles were slaughtered because they attacked bridgeheads 3 days too late, allowing the Germans to concentrate AA. I don't know how to paragraph, but Sir Charles Portal knew that a long range fighter could never compete with a short range fighter, so of course, there could be no Mustang. The FAA knew that ship-borne aircraft could never successfully fight land-based fighters and they got the aircraft to prove it. The Luftwaffe and USAAF had doctrines forbidding external droppable fuel tanks, until they changed their minds and demanded immediate use. The Luftwaffe's timing, post Battle of Britain, was poor. My lack of paragraphing skills led me to shut up.

[Dan Reilly The Great]

B-1 a ridiculously over expensive (for its time) aircraft that went years and years past deadline whose purpose could be served by other aircraft and weapons.

Me 262: an expensive fighter that could not be produced in enough numbers to effect the outcome of the war, itstop speed is completely cancelled out by its short range, lower maneuverability, and requirement for extra long runways.

[Derek Jackson]

Oh and the Eurofighter was pretty damn silly. It was designed to fight the Mig 29. The West could have cheaply purchased a large proportion of those aircraft and have spent the money on dealing with real threats- eg global warming.

[Seraph]

B-36 didn't make carriers obsolete as the Korean War. In its defense, it did serve as the first and only nuclear intercontinental bomber until the B-52 came online.
As far as I'm aware of, the P-39 wasn't used as ground attack craft though a number of Russian Aces used them to great effect on the Eastern Front.

[Melvin Loh]

how bout the original F4 Phantom which was equipped ONLY with missiles & no cannon, due to the silly 'geniuses' who thought the days of dogfights by the 1960s were over ?

[TheMann]

F-14: This ugly plane would be unnecessary if F-4 was modernized, fitted with better radar, lower fuel consumption engines and AIM-54. This kind of Super Phantom could have served USN magnificently and might have even gained a number of foreign sales.

Disagree entirely, the only flaw with the F-14 is that it shoulda been a multirole fighter all along, not just a missile carrier. The F-4 was getting outclassed by the mid 1970s, and there was no way it could reasonably stay in service until the Hornet was able to replace it in the mid 1980s. It's a tad small for the Phoenix missile system, too. If they had made the F-14 able to carry bombs and air to surface and anti-radar missiles, it would have been a good fighter for both the Navy and the Marines (who were in on the project early on), and it would probably still be in service.

Gripen: Fine plane, but way too costly even for a scenario in which Cold War was to continue. F-18 (as proposed OTL) would serve Flygvapnet just fine.

I'm not too sure about this one, either. The Gripen's greatest strengths are durability and maneuverability, and it usually pays to have an aircraft designed for the environment you expect it to fight in. That's why the Thais and the South Africans bought it too, its light, tough and durable. The Hornet would work, but as the Canucks (and the Aussies, Finns, Malaysians, Spaniards and Swiss) know, its got short legs and IIRC only the Canucks and the Aussies bought the Navy-spec landing gear.

Hawker Siddeley Nimrod: Excellent ASW aircraft, but as the numbers were low one is hard pressed to find just why not produce Canadair's CL-28 based on British airframe and already made instead? Other candidate might be P-3 on licence. About current MRA4 disaster one does not need to mention.

Maritime patrol aircraft tend to only be built in small numbers, so the point of replacing the Nimrod with the Argus (CL-28's RCAF designation) would be what, exactly? You just have a different airframe. The Nimrod is actually a good idea on a couple fronts, namely it can get to its patrol area must faster than a P-3 or CL-28 could.

SEPECAT Jaquar: I've always wondered what was the business logic for this?

I think you might have me on this one. The Jaguar was designed as a fairly light ground-attack aircraft (think MiG-27/A-7/Mirage F1AZ), but it was rather a pointless piece if you ask me, as one oculd have easily used older fighters no longer able to fight first line planes instead.

[Fireaxe888]

Ah…

P-39: High Altitude Bomber interceptor with a poor rate of climb and poor overall performance at altitude.



The P-39 wass a massive success with the Soviet Air Force,scoring the most kills of any U.S. fighter EVER.

[TheMann]

As for V-line, there was four flying prototypes and three different planes produced. In comparison, the US was merrily concentrating on a single medium bomber at time (First B-47, then B-58). Getting a working nuclear bomber in the air was a national priority and even the four different prototypes commissioned can be fully justified I think. But why bother with Vulcan and Victor, providing only very marginal improvement in performance when Valiant was already flying and proving upgradeable? Pork for AVRO and Handley-Page. Britain was trying to support FOUR aviation firms making large planes with a result that not one survived.

Britain should be glad they made that effort, because once the Valiant had to be reassigned to low-level runs its total incompetence at it woulda been obvious very quickly. The Vulcan and the Victor were better airplanes, period.

[QUOTE=Jukra;2735894]As for MRBM's, (SRBM was a typo, mea culpa) no one did think that they would not enter service. Decision to develop Thor was made in 1954, Jupiter in 1955. Blue Streak development was started in 1954. There was no need of building either Victor or Vulcan. One wonders if Vulcan or Victor were cancelled the manpower and money could have been directed for Blue Streak, providing a British satellite launcher fairly early.

But as most would point out, the MRBMs of the time had crappy guidance (not much of an issue with nukes, of course) and had reliability issues.

If they had gone down your route, they would discover the problems with the Valiant in 1963 or so, leading to either a crash course to make a new bomber or a crash course to make a SSBN after the compromise over the Skybolt, because the RAF will not want to have no conventional capability at all.

[Kevin Renner]

The production versions of the P-39 suffered from the aniemic gear driven supercharged Allison or even worse the piti-full non-supercharged Allison as in the P-400. The deletion of the original turbo-supercharger emasculated the A/C

[CalBear]

For the love of monkeys, Japan was under blockade and losing! What the hell was with their procurement division!? :eek:


With their heads in the clouds (or a darker, less pleasant, location). A lot of very brave men went out in those clunkers, very few came back.

Being an American, I can only be happy about that. Being a human with a great respect for brave men, a tragedy nonetheless.

[CalBear]

The P-39 wass a massive success with the Soviet Air Force,scoring the most kills of any U.S. fighter EVER.

It was also a monumental failure in its intended role, a very difficult aircraft to escape from once the enemy had shot it to bits, and such a poor performer that it literally used to scramble from the bases near Munda and then run out to sea to avoid the Japanese fighters.

[Just Leo]

7 Soviet aces scored 50 or more kills with the P-39. P-39's and P-400's operated out of Guadalcanal as Cactus AF in ground attack and anti-ship. All P-39's and P-400's had integral supercharger. And the last Valiant built had a strengthened wing optimised for low level use. It was not developed because they had three bomber types already

[Markus]

And I think the RAF and RAAF who flew those sorry Brewster products in Malaya and the NEI would probably agree after getting their asses shot off (those who survived, that is) by either Zeroes or Oscars.

Those who served in Burma alongside the AVG actually prefered Buffalos over Hurricanes once the planes had been debugged.
And while its true that the F2A was the most overweight fighter in US service, the pilot´s skill has to be taken into consideration. The USN pilots were top of the line, most of them had years of experience flying from carriers, the USMC pilots were fresh from flight school and due to the accidental destruction of avgas storage tanks they could train very little on Midway before the battle began.



As Fairey Battle used Merlin I wonder if over 2000 additional Merlin's would have made a difference on other aircraft production. I also wonder if there's no Battle, will there be no Fulmar too, if the whole spec is cancelled? And if there's no Fulmar, maybe no Barracuda...


No Fulmar would be no loss and the Barracuda seems unrelated to the other to. The impact of the engines on Spit/Hurricane production needs to be looked into.




M.S. 406: It’s undergunned, but at least it’s slow


The Me-109 E-3 is not much faster(535 instead of 490 kph). Besides Werner Mölders himself warned not to underestimate Moranes.



It was also a monumental failure in its intended role, a very difficult aircraft to escape from once the enemy had shot it to bits, and such a poor performer that it literally used to scramble from the bases near Munda and then run out to sea to avoid the Japanese fighters.

I´m not disputing that the Aircobra utterly failed its intended mission(high altitude interceptor) but IIRC they "ran" because they could not reach intercept altitude. Below 12,000ft(later 16,000) the P-39 was a hot plane: fast, agile, quick climbing.



It was developed in the mid-30s, and it served wit distinction throughout the war - I think the Germans got their money's worth out of it.

It was better than mediocre as a night fighter.

The german wiki has info on how many of what version were build. 2,500 out of 5,500 were purpose build night fighters, allmost all were late production versions. Earlier figther-bomber versions were armed with two 20mm cannon and could carry 1,000 kilos of bombs. Reminds me of that plane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Beaufighter#Specifications_.28Beaufighter_ TF_X.29).

[Jukra]

Disagree entirely, the only flaw with the F-14 is that it shoulda been a multirole fighter all along, not just a missile carrier. The F-4 was getting outclassed by the mid 1970s, and there was no way it could reasonably stay in service until the Hornet was able to replace it in the mid 1980s. It's a tad small for the Phoenix missile system, too. If they had made the F-14 able to carry bombs and air to surface and anti-radar missiles, it would have been a good fighter for both the Navy and the Marines (who were in on the project early on), and it would probably still be in service.

F-14 was also hideously expensive, and until new engines a bad dogfighter. As for Phoenix, I'm fairly sure AN/AWG-9 is not too volume intensive for a F-4, provided the nose is redesigned. As for Phoenix missiles themselves, F-4 had the ability to carry a decent amount.

Actually if, and just if, this could be worked out then USN could have one combat plane type CAG's already during 1970's and could skip even F-18 generation.

I'm not too sure about this one, either. The Gripen's greatest strengths are durability and maneuverability, and it usually pays to have an aircraft designed for the environment you expect it to fight in. That's why the Thais and the South Africans bought it too, its light, tough and durable. The Hornet would work, but as the Canucks (and the Aussies, Finns, Malaysians, Spaniards and Swiss) know, its got short legs and IIRC only the Canucks and the Aussies bought the Navy-spec landing gear.

The problem is that designing and upgrading an aircraft had already proven to be hideously expensive, as displayed by Viggen. Gripen, as a plane, is by all accounts a very good fighter.

No matter how good planes they had, Swedish aircraft export prospects were very bad in Cold War era and this has not really changed in the past twenty years. I'm not sure about other countries, but at least FAF bought carrier-spec aircraft, mostly for the reason of not bothering to change a good plane which has to operate with (antiquated) Finnish doctrine from short highway landing strips.

Maritime patrol aircraft tend to only be built in small numbers, so the point of replacing the Nimrod with the Argus (CL-28's RCAF designation) would be what, exactly?

Smaller development, production and operating costs, perhaps even chance to sell the design for other countries.

[Melvin Loh]

7 Soviet aces scored 50 or more kills with the P-39. P-39's and P-400's operated out of Guadalcanal as Cactus AF in ground attack and anti-ship. All P-39's and P-400's had integral supercharger. And the last Valiant built had a strengthened wing optimised for low level use. It was not developed because they had three bomber types already

I liked that joke from the SWPA bout the P-400, that it was just a P-40 with a Zero on its tail :)

How bout, for other types which should never have entered service, the ME-323 GIGANT which was WAAAAY too big & unwieldy, a serious LUFTWAFFE white elephant ?

I'd also nominate the following:
Bristol Blenheim, since it was- despite being fast- too lightly-armed & without a sufficient bomb load
ME-110 ZERSTORER- 2-seat fighter was way too big & unmanouverable during the Battle of Britain
early versions of the F-111 & B-26 Marauder (the latter of which during WWII developed a reputation as a widow-maker over Tampa Bay)

[TheMann]

F-14 was also hideously expensive, and until new engines a bad dogfighter. As for Phoenix, I'm fairly sure AN/AWG-9 is not too volume intensive for a F-4, provided the nose is redesigned. As for Phoenix missiles themselves, F-4 had the ability to carry a decent amount.

Actually if, and just if, this could be worked out then USN could have one combat plane type CAG's already during 1970's and could skip even F-18 generation.

Like I said, the biggest loss from the Tomcat was that it took twenty years before it became a real multi-role aircraft which it shoulda been all along. As strictly a fleet interceptor, it was something of a white elephant, considering its cost and singular purpose - but it was justified by pointing out that the F-4 did not have the range of the F-14, the radar system (the AN/AWG-9 WAS too big to fit in the F-4 - it was tried) or the payload, not to mention the performance. The F-4 was a big, heavy, durable thing, but not a good dogfighter. And considering that the USN fully expecting to end up dogfighting Russian aircraft, a F-4 against a MiG-29 is a serious problem for the guys in the Phantom. The Tomcat, however, probably had already blown them up, and could dogfight them if needed.

The Tomcat's main loss was that lack of a multi-role capability, and the Navy's insistence on the A-12 stealth attack aircraft project, which got canned anyways. If the upgraded Tomcats had been built, the thing would still be in service. It's a long ways from something which shouldn't have been built.

The problem is that designing and upgrading an aircraft had already proven to be hideously expensive, as displayed by Viggen. Gripen, as a plane, is by all accounts a very good fighter.

No matter how good planes they had, Swedish aircraft export prospects were very bad in Cold War era and this has not really changed in the past twenty years. I'm not sure about other countries, but at least FAF bought carrier-spec aircraft, mostly for the reason of not bothering to change a good plane which has to operate with (antiquated) Finnish doctrine from short highway landing strips.

You're logic here has a major flaw, that being you are thinking exclusively with monetary logic. A Gripen could outdogfight just about anything this side of an F-22 and is very, very good at what it does. Yes, a F/A-18 could do 95% of what the Gripen can, but the Gripen is a swedish-built and designed airplane, whereas the F/A-18 is an American design and one that is nearly 20 years older at that.

Smaller development, production and operating costs, perhaps even chance to sell the design for other countries.

The UK isn't selling a Canadian design to other nations, no two ways about that one. The Nimrod's electronics were mostly used in the CL-28, too.

[Jukra]

The F-4 was a big, heavy, durable thing, but not a good dogfighter. And considering that the USN fully expecting to end up dogfighting Russian aircraft, a F-4 against a MiG-29 is a serious problem for the guys in the Phantom. The Tomcat, however, probably had already blown them up, and could dogfight them if needed.

I'm in much doubt if Phoenix can actually hit a fighter, at least any farther than a Sparrow, in which distances the Sparrow is better to use against a fighter target.

You're logic here has a major flaw, that being you are thinking exclusively with monetary logic. A Gripen could outdogfight just about anything this side of an F-22 and is very, very good at what it does. Yes, a F/A-18 could do 95% of what the Gripen can, but the Gripen is a swedish-built and designed airplane, whereas the F/A-18 is an American design and one that is nearly 20 years older at that.

The real question is that is a single Gripen better than, say, three Hornets?

Taking into account project cost the whole Gripen adventure has ended up producing aircraft which are three to four times more expensive than purchase of off-the-shelf F-18's would have been. Even more importantly, as the project had national importance the Swedish Air Force ended up having some 100 more of the planes it needed. Swedish Armed Forces have at many times complained that their acquisition policy has been more than once been directed by the need of getting reference deals for domestic products rather than careful analysis.

Without Gripen Sweden probably would have better air defense as the need to propagandize the national aircraft industry would be smaller and thus Bloodhound could be replaced by another long range SAM system and Hawk with another medium range system.

[superkuf]

Without Gripen Sweden probably would have better air defense as the need to propagandize the national aircraft industry would be smaller and thus Bloodhound could be replaced by another long range SAM system and Hawk with another medium range system.

If Sweden had brought F-16 or F-18 instead of developing Gripen we may even have money left to buy a larger number of AMRAAM than 100.

The sad fact is that today the aircraft in itself is the least important part - weapons, training and support structure (AWACS, air refueling etc) is far more important.

[Matt Wiser]

Check the Osprey book on the Iranian F-14s: they do have a kill list, and the weapon used. There's numerous AIM-54 kills of fighters listed, including MiG-25s. And several of these kills were observed by the USN during the tanker escort ops in 1987-88. It got so bad from the Iraqis' POV that their MiG drivers (Mirages were another story) were told to avoid F-14s at all costs.

The B-26 and F-111s did very well once they were debugged.

[AMF]

Heinkel He 162 Salamander, the so-called Volksjäger (people's fighter). Despite the higher number, this single engined jet was ordered much later than the twin engined Messerschmitt Me 262. Normally a new plane has to offer a substantial increase in performance over its predecessor to justify the expenses of tooling up the factories anew and of developing a new plane and 'ironing out the bugs'. In this case, however the newer plane was a step backward in almost every respect. Range, speed and armament (two 20mm cannon instead of four 30mm) were all substantially reduced, pilot visibility to the rear was (in contrast to the 262) non-existent and the flying qualities seemed to have been worse, too. The idea was, that being built largely of wood and with only one engine, it would have saved strategic materials, but considering its strongly reduced capabilities and the fact that it needed new investments in the factories to be built in the first place, it probably was not even worth what it consumed in materials.

[PMN1]

to have Tornado IDS's impressive avionics. Voila! I don't believe I'm writing this, but even resurrecting TSR-2 would probably have been better option.

The Buccaneer was the test bed for a lot of those avionics so.......the look on the RAF chiefs faces would have been a picture.

[PMN1]

No Fulmar would be no loss and the Barracuda seems unrelated to the other to. The impact of the engines on Spit/Hurricane production needs to be looked into.




A lot of Battles were used in the training programme so you would need to replace them with something.

[Astrodragon]

A lot of Battles were used in the training programme so you would need to replace them with something.

Buffaloes?? :D:p:D

[Markus]

A lot of Battles were used in the training programme so you would need to replace them with something.

More Miles Masters please!

By the way, am I geting old or has no one mentioned the Fiat CR.42 (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_CR.42) yet? It´s first flight was in May 1938, so the design work must have begun in 37, the same year RAF fighter squadron received their first Hurricanes.

[zoomar]

It's hard to top CalBear's list, so I won't try. One thing this thread shows is that an airplane doesn't not have to be bad to have been something which should nor have entered service - although it helps.

I would second the Me-262, He-162, and Me-163. The 262 was a fine airplane, but the entire German effort on jet and rocket-powered fighters was arguably a major waste of effort and money. in exchange for a couple hundred operational jet fighters (only a small portion of 262's actually made it into combat) the Luftwaffe might have been much better off building lots more Fw-190's and Bf-109's, and accelerating the introduction of Ta-152s.

Among certifiably unfortunate procurement decisions, I'd have to go with the following as my faves:

The Defiant - stupid idea
The Fairey Battle - bad useless bomber
just about any FAA fighter built in Britain - why on earth waste time on two seat single-engined fighters or modestly navalized fighters when you can buy Wildcats, Hellcats, and Corsairs?
The He177 - 'nough said
The Curtiss P-60 - amazing the effort the USAAF and Curtiss put into this attempt to create one last mediocre Curtiss fighter when the vasrtly superior P-47 and P-51 were already in production.
He111 - good plane in 1930's, but Do17-Do217 series had much more development potential. Should have been phased out by 1941
Ki-49
B-32

[Jukra]

The Buccaneer was the test bed for a lot of those avionics so.......the look on the RAF chiefs faces would have been a picture.

Sure! Although "Super Buccaneer" might not be bad idea at all I'd still rather put my money on "Super Mirage IV" since of the impressive supersonic performance. And although Buccaneer is a beauty, Mirage IV is even better... But yes, a somewhat updated Buccaneer would have been roughly as good as Tornado for most scenarios, although cheaper and with more range (partially thanks to internal weapons bay) and as for ADV role, it could not been converted for it so it's better case scenario for RAF.

[Just Leo]

I don't think any of the p-60 incarnations made it into service. Always a bridesmaid. Mirage IV was lovely but wasn't it a one-way nuclear bomber? I now nominate the Fairchild Packet. Nobody cares about bad transports. The Armstrong- Whitworth Albemarle, just what the Air Ministry wanted the Mossie to look like, and just in time to tow gliders.

[CanadianGoose]

Re: CalBear's list of inferior Soviet designs. Most of them were more or less testbeds, produced (as with Pe-3 and Pe-8) in very limited numbers, or transitional aircrafts. Plus I have following comments:
I-153. It was a stopgap measure (and pretty successful at it) to replace aging fighters (not aging designs, but airframes written off), using proven, if not cutting-edge technology, while new designs were being developed. Basically, they needed something to replace agign I-15 airframes, and factories could switch from I-15s to Seagulls overnight.
MIG-9 and Yak-15. Those were more or less test designs, produced when no major war was lg and intended to give Soviet pilots the taste of jet age. Besides, MIG-9 did lead to MIG-15, which was there on time for next show off (Korea).
Pe-3. It bred Pe-2 in a month's time or so, which purges all sins of the design. Amen.
Pe-8. Testbed. Diesel-engined version was only one of many tested, and majority of produced planes did use conventional gasoline powerplants. Besides, do you know that an effort to fit diesels on heavy bombers bred T-34's poweplant???

Tactical doctrine, morale, training and maintenance played a major role in Finland's successes using admittedly inferior types listed on this site. The Russian who knew tactical doctrine was probably purged.I would be extremely careful trusting any accounts of kills claimed against Soviet forces. Speaking about Winter War, "customary" Western estimate (based on Finnish claims) before Soviet archives became available were 300-400K dead. Krivosheev came up with 128K figure, which isn't really disputed by anyone as being too low (some Russian historians question Krivosheev's estimate as being overblown by 10-50%). Now, we only know that Finnish estimate was grossly overblown because somebody on Russian/Soviet side took care to compare Finnish claims to Soviet archives. To the best of my knowledge, that had never been done as far as Finnish air kill claims are concerned...

[Just Leo]

True, Ive always been denied access to Soviet archives and Harry & S.M.(Conroy at the moment) keep me from reading even the most popular and highly respected Russian historians. Victory claims have and will always be just that. Claims. I'm still wondering how many kills the Defiant got on that big day when they claimed 38. However, a large number of Finns survived battles and returned without ammunition. I believe they did OK.

[CalBear]

As I imagine was pretty clear, I had a lot of fun with that list. Nevertheless...

The I-153 would be understandable if the Soviets didn't make better than 3,000 (actually close to 3,500) of them STARTING in June of 1939. All of the following aircraft were in production at that time: P-35, P-36, P-39 (a plane that the Soviets adored), P-40, F2A (the oft dissed Buffalo that made many a Finnish pilot an ace killing I-153), Hawker Hurricane, Supermarine Spitfire, M.S. 406 (a plane I listed as a failure but would easily out distance the I-153 in combat). Even the Soviets had the LaGG-1 which was considered a failure, but would spit the I-153 out like pumpkin seeds. The U.S. would have sold all the USSR all the fighters it wanted, this was well before the U.S. build-up, but Ivan chose not.

The Kremlin CHOSE to send pilots out to get killed in inferior designs, over 3,000 of them for just this aircraft, rather than admit it needed to get something from the Capitalists.


Re: CalBear's list of inferior Soviet designs. Most of them were more or less testbeds, produced (as with Pe-3 and Pe-8) in very limited numbers, or transitional aircrafts. Plus I have following comments:
I-153. It was a stopgap measure (and pretty successful at it) to replace aging fighters (not aging designs, but airframes written off), using proven, if not cutting-edge technology, while new designs were being developed. Basically, they needed something to replace agign I-15 airframes, and factories could switch from I-15s to Seagulls overnight.
MIG-9 and Yak-15. Those were more or less test designs, produced when no major war was lg and intended to give Soviet pilots the taste of jet age. Besides, MIG-9 did lead to MIG-15, which was there on time for next show off (Korea).
Pe-3. It bred Pe-2 in a month's time or so, which purges all sins of the design. Amen.
Pe-8. Testbed. Diesel-engined version was only one of many tested, and majority of produced planes did use conventional gasoline powerplants. Besides, do you know that an effort to fit diesels on heavy bombers bred T-34's poweplant???

I would be extremely careful trusting any accounts of kills claimed against Soviet forces. Speaking about Winter War, "customary" Western estimate (based on Finnish claims) before Soviet archives became available were 300-400K dead. Krivosheev came up with 128K figure, which isn't really disputed by anyone as being too low (some Russian historians question Krivosheev's estimate as being overblown by 10-50%). Now, we only know that Finnish estimate was grossly overblown because somebody on Russian/Soviet side took care to compare Finnish claims to Soviet archives. To the best of my knowledge, that had never been done as far as Finnish air kill claims are concerned...

[Jukra]

To the best of my knowledge, that had never been done as far as Finnish air kill claims are concerned...

Actually there has been, and to cut the long story short the FAF underclaimed in 1939-1940 and 1941, was quite exact in 1942 and overclaimed in 1943-1944. All this put thing rather into balance. For example, during Winter War FAF and air defence artillery claimed 521 kills when Soviet losses due to enemy actions were 579. I'll put on a reference on latest cross-examination book (which I have not read yet) from 2006 later on.

EDIT:

Can't reach the said books until a week or so, but IIRC, the numbers were for 1941-1944 1807 claims by FAF and 1855 confirmed losses by VVS and Baltic Fleet Naval aviation against Finnish fighters.

[CanadianGoose]

The Kremlin CHOSE to send pilots out to get killed in inferior designs, over 3,000 of them for just this aircraft, rather than admit it needed to get something from the Capitalists.Couple of points here:
1. Seagulls (I-153 is one of very few Soviet planes which is almost never referred to by it's official numeric designation, it is always Seagull, just like Il-2 is always Shturmovik) had been built on factories which could switch from I-15 overnight. Typical learning curve for Soviet aircraft factories was anywhere from a year to two years, so switching from I-15 to anything else meant no replacement airframes for at least 12 months. Very attractive proposition at the moment, isn't it?
2. The whole story of fighter plane development gap in late 1930s had several reasons, Great Purge being one (but not sole ad may be not main) of it. In a nutshell, VVS over-relied on string of successfull Polikarpov designs, so it took just one major design glitch (I-18x saga) from that Design Bureau to leave VVS without cutting-edge designs. With batch of promising designs (MIG, Yak, LaGG/La) on drawing boards, decision to continue with proven plane doesn't look too senile, does it?
3. You included American planes in your list. I guess you've never heard of Moral Embargo. Soviets might be willing to buy (in fact, there was long and complicated "dance of mating porcupines" regarding American divebomber design, but USA refused to sell in the end), but would West sell?

[CalBear]

I don't want to hijack a really humorous thread too much farther, but...

We are talking about 1939. The USSR had two full years to get a monoplane into service. They had been shown in both Spain and over Finland that the biplane was for a bygone era.

The USSR never showed the least compunction about acquiring plans through "back channels". If they had actually wanted to, they could have purloined pretty much any blueprints the West had be they American British or French (especially British designs, given how deeply MI5 & MI6 had been penetrated).

It was convenient, and cheap, to keep the I-15 family going with the I-153. It just wasn't smart.

Couple of points here:
1. Seagulls (I-153 is one of very few Soviet planes which is almost never referred to by it's official numeric designation, it is always Seagull, just like Il-2 is always Shturmovik) had been built on factories which could switch from I-15 overnight. Typical learning curve for Soviet aircraft factories was anywhere from a year to two years, so switching from I-15 to anything else meant no replacement airframes for at least 12 months. Very attractive proposition at the moment, isn't it?
2. The whole story of fighter plane development gap in late 1930s had several reasons, Great Purge being one (but not sole ad may be not main) of it. In a nutshell, VVS over-relied on string of successfull Polikarpov designs, so it took just one major design glitch (I-18x saga) from that Design Bureau to leave VVS without cutting-edge designs. With batch of promising designs (MIG, Yak, LaGG/La) on drawing boards, decision to continue with proven plane doesn't look too senile, does it?
3. You included American planes in your list. I guess you've never heard of Moral Embargo. Soviets might be willing to buy (in fact, there was long and complicated "dance of mating porcupines" regarding American divebomber design, but USA refused to sell in the end), but would West sell?

[Jukra]

It was convenient, and cheap, to keep the I-15 family going with the I-153. It just wasn't smart.

Indeed. In field of aircrafts and ships there's really a point in which investing to an obsolescent weapon does not bring any benefits at all. Soviets would have been much better served by producing spare parts for I-16's and training their pilots better (even if the tactics were outdated, better pilot skill has an effect).

[simonbp]

Soviets would have been much better served by producing spare parts for I-16's and training their pilots better (even if the tactics were outdated, better pilot skill has an effect).

This is Stalinist Russia we're talking about here: Production is king, regardless of quality or utility...

[Just Leo]

In Stalinist Russia, failure to produce quality and utility got you a stay in "special designer's camp". Petlyakov designed the Pe-2 and watched it fly over from camp. The I-16 was the world's first "modern" fighter with cantelever monoplane wing, retractable gear and if they had perspex you could see through, probably enclosed canopy. Italian CR-32 and CR-42 biplanes were contemporaries. Britain operated Gloster Gauntlets and Gladiators, Hawker Fury, Hart, Audax, S African Hartbees, Vildebeasts, Stringbags and Albacores. American aircraft of early war service did nothing but encourage Japanese "victory disease". Good French aircraft might have been avalable in late 1942. The advantages of superior aircraft are obvious, but Spitfire V's continued in production far beyond obsolescence, Hurricanes and P-40's too. Hans Marseilles' best day was 15 P-40's, 2 Hurricanes and a Spit. I've always presumed the Luftwaffe didn't use older models because of the large number of 109's lost in training accidents. Anyway, obsolete weapons doesn't mean you don't fight. Look at me.

[CalBear]

All valid arguments. Stalin was a madman. His actions made the Soviet design bureaus do stupid things. It doesn't lessen"

1. The I-153 was at least a decade out of date

2. Sticking with the design until late 1941 was close to being an act of treason.

3. LOTS of good pilots died with no good reason because the I-153 was built instead of a modern design.In Stalinist Russia, failure to produce quality and utility got you a stay in "special designer's camp". Petlyakov designed the Pe-2 and watched it fly over from camp. The I-16 was the world's first "modern" fighter with cantelever monoplane wing, retractable gear and if they had perspex you could see through, probably enclosed canopy. Italian CR-32 and CR-42 biplanes were contemporaries. Britain operated Gloster Gauntlets and Gladiators, Hawker Fury, Hart, Audax, S African Hartbees, Vildebeasts, Stringbags and Albacores. American aircraft of early war service did nothing but encourage Japanese "victory disease". Good French aircraft might have been avalable in late 1942. The advantages of superior aircraft are obvious, but Spitfire V's continued in production far beyond obsolescence, Hurricanes and P-40's too. Hans Marseilles' best day was 15 P-40's, 2 Hurricanes and a Spit. I've always presumed the Luftwaffe didn't use older models because of the large number of 109's lost in training accidents. Anyway, obsolete weapons doesn't mean you don't fight. Look at me.

[Just Leo]

Lots of people died for no good reason. It's all relative. If the pilots refused, they would have been shot. As I recall, Stalin didn't need reasons.

[truth is life]

I'm going to have to disagree with the OP about the Tomcat. A solid plane, great payload, good radar and missiles. F-14D (or better, some Super Tomcat) would've been a very solid addition to the fleet in the 90s and beyond. If only they had avoided the TF-30...

[Matt Wiser]

Concur: The F-14 would've been a much better aircraft if it wasn't cursed with that TF-30 engine. The F110 (tested as early as 1976) would've been much, much better. But Les Aspin (because the TF-30 was built in his district) got any funding for alternative F-14 engines killed, is the one to blame, not the USN or Grummann. Why Slick Willie put him as SECDEF instead of someone like Sam Nunn is beyond me. At least Nunn would've listened to the generals re: force structure, A-6 v. Seawolf, Somalia, etc. Aspin was like MacNamara or Rumsfeld: "My way or the highway."

[truth is life]

Concur: The F-14 would've been a much better aircraft if it wasn't cursed with that TF-30 engine. The F110 (tested as early as 1976) would've been much, much better. But Les Aspin (because the TF-30 was built in his district) got any funding for alternative F-14 engines killed, is the one to blame, not the USN or Grummann. Why Slick Willie put him as SECDEF instead of someone like Sam Nunn is beyond me. At least Nunn would've listened to the generals re: force structure, A-6 v. Seawolf, Somalia, etc. Aspin was like MacNamara or Rumsfeld: "My way or the highway."

Yeah, it seems that all the best (or at least, not horrible) Secretaries of Defense pay attention to their generals and admirals. What a shocker :rolleyes: Too bad we haven't had more Presidents willing to put people who either know something about the military or are willing to listen to people who do in charge. Like, what if Powell and Rumsfeld had been swapped, Powell taking Defense, and Rumsfeld taking State.

[Matt Wiser]

We could have used some of that in '93 and in '03. Cheney, for all his faults as VP, was a good SECDEF: he listened to the Generals for Panama and DESERT SHIELD/STORM, and relayed their requests to the President. He basically told the generals "Whatever you need, you'll get." Now, if he hadn't cancelled the F-14D program (57 built or on order when he cancelled the D) and the A-6F....I wanted to be either an F-14 RIO or A-6 B/N when I was an undergrad, but then I found out I have some inner ear trouble...so no flying. :mad:

[Caesar Markus]

I think you might have me on this one. The Jaguar was designed as a fairly light ground-attack aircraft (think MiG-27/A-7/Mirage F1AZ), but it was rather a pointless piece if you ask me, as one oculd have easily used older fighters no longer able to fight first line planes instead.[/QUOTE]

What's wrong with the Jag ? It was a popular, sturdy, (relatively cheap) attack aircraft doing the things it was designed to. In the case of WW3 400 Jaguars stood ready to attack Russian troops, airfield, depots etc. 20+ years after its introduction it prooved its worth in the Gulf War and ex-Yugoslavia. Maybe it's only lack was sex appeal, but it had its charmes.

mark

[CalBear]

Lots of people died for no good reason. It's all relative. If the pilots refused, they would have been shot. As I recall, Stalin didn't need reasons.

The point is that the aircraft was needlessly antiquated and increased losses as a result.

That the Soviet system was FUBAR is established beyond all reasonable doubt.

As the thread title states the question is: Airplanes that should have not entered service?

One of the many answers is the I-153.

[daniel_g]

Big picture UK suggestion

Fleet Air Arm Scimitar, Phantom F-4K, Buccaneer and Sea Harrier - all roles could have been completed by Hawker P1132 (twin engined Harrier, in service ~1963) and Hawker P1154 (supersonic Harrier, in service ~1968)

RAF Air Defense - Tornado ADV (dog) and Phantom F-4M (foreign) - Fairey FD3 should have done the job until the Typhoon came into service

RAF Close Air Support/Tactical Bombing - Harrier, Swift, Hunter(!), Tornado IDS, Jaguar - putting heads together with the Navy - Hawker P1132/54s could have done the jobs

RAF Strategic Bombing - 3 V Bombers???? Whilst I'd always opt for the Vulcan, the Victor was the most capable of the 3 and if the RAF had not rejected mid altitude bombing in the mid 1960s, Victors and Canberras could have continued to the present day (as per B-52)


However, three factors that were paramount in the British Governments decision making processes (over and above the quality of the aircraft) were maintaining independent aerospace technology; keeping people in jobs to work on this technology; and making up for the lack of British capability in aircraft systems and weapons...

[Markus]

I re-read parts of Yefim Gordon´s "Soviet Airpower in WW2" to find out the reason why the I-153 was put into production. Apparently the designer convinced the powers-that-be the bi-plane still had potential.

No matter what one thinks of this statement there is no denying the dates. The I-153 entred production in 1939, the I-16 monoplane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_I-16)(from the very same designer) entered production in 1935, was perfected in 1937 and got another boost in 1939. That version was 30 to 40 mph faster than the I-153 at any altitude.

Bottom line: I can´t see a technical or production reason to stick with the I-15/153.

[Berra]

What about the Soviet helicopters, the Hind and Hip? Hind is a trade of helicopter that tries to trade of to many things at the same time. It has so much armour it have to gain lift from a pair of wings making it instabile at times and its roles as it's own escortor attack helicopter gives the pilot to much to do. And it doesn't even carry that many troops.

Wouldn't an attack/escort helicopter like Apache/Cobra operating with a squad carrier helicopter like Huey/Blackhawk make more sence? Especially if they could be built with a lot of parts in common.

And the Hip fill roughly the same slot as the Chinook, just with some problems. It has problems loading and off loading troops and equipment.

I also belive that the twin propeller configuaration is more fuel efficient and that the Chinook have better range.

[AMF]

This is a thread in a forum called simply enough 'Aviation Forum', the posters discuss very much the same question as we do in this thread and have found some more candidates for the 'should not have entered service' list.http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=84048

[truth is life]

What about the Soviet helicopters, the Hind and Hip? Hind is a trade of helicopter that tries to trade of to many things at the same time. It has so much armour it have to gain lift from a pair of wings making it instabile at times and its roles as it's own escortor attack helicopter gives the pilot to much to do. And it doesn't even carry that many troops.

Wouldn't an attack/escort helicopter like Apache/Cobra operating with a squad carrier helicopter like Huey/Blackhawk make more sence? Especially if they could be built with a lot of parts in common.

Well, I believe that the Russians figured that out and don't really use the Hind as a troop carrier anymore--just a heavy attack helicopter which can, in some conditions, carry troops (eg., as a medevac or special operations chopper). Still, they probably would have been better off deleting the troop-carrying requirement and simply using a different helo (or a variant of the Hind itself) as their transport.

[AMF]

One aircraft that has not been mentioned so far (I think) is the Seversky P-35. In one respect it was a step forward, the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seversky_P-35) calls it "the first single-seat fighter in U.S. Army Air Corps to feature all-metal construction, a retractable landing gear and an enclosed cockpit." I conjecture, however, that it was worse than the Brewster Buffalo. The British purchasing commission in the USA, which bought the Buffalo and P-38 Lightnings without the superchargers refused to buy this plane, although it was offered. While the Buffalo's armour is considered inadequate, this plane's is nonexistent, just as are self sealing fuel tanks. Numerous fuel leaks, considerably more expensive than the competing P-36 from Curtiss. If I remember correctly, even standard combat maneuvers had catastrophic consequences in the P-35's flying characteristics. All the same it was still in service with the US Army Air Force in the Philippines when the Japanese attacked. A death trap for its pilots.

[AMF]

Another view of the Seversky P-35A.

[AMF]

The Curtiss Wright CW-21 Demon. A quote from the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_CW-21):

The CW-21 was not commissioned by the U.S. military, though it was test flown at Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio. The Army Air Corps immediately rejected the aircraft, with one officer commenting that it took a genius to land it.

Nevertheless, some where sold to the Dutch air force in the East Indies, depicted here, and a small number was also license-built in China.

[AMF]

Another view of Dutch CW-21s

[Just Leo]

Three CW_21B's were on their way to the AVG to become flying Tigers but bad gas landed them in the Burma jungle. The Vultee P-66 vanguard, another trainer-based fighter ended up having their undercarriages broken off by Chinese pilots in India.

[AMF]

Thanks for mentioning the Vultee P-66 Vanguard

[AMF]

There is a German ironic proverb that says, freely translated: Why do it simply, when there is a complicated way to do it? I always suspected that the designer of the Bell YFM-1 Airacuda had made this his motto. Lesser men might simply put the cannon in the fuselage when they had to arm a twin-engined plane, but the Airacuda is designed as a twin-engined pusher with the engine nacelles enlarged in such a way that each of them can house a gunner.
A quote from the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Airacuda): The cannons had a tendency to fill the gun nacelles with smoke whenever fired and, additionally, fears persisted as to how the gunners would escape in an emergency, with the propellers directly behind them. An emergency bailout would have required both propellers to be feathered, though additional provision was made with the use of explosive bolts on the propellers to jettison them in the event of a bailout.

Of course this plane was unable to compete against single engined planes in a dogfight, but it was also too slow to intercept most contemporary bombers.

Another quote from the Wikipedia article:
The Allison V-1710-41 engines, though relatively trouble-free in other types, had no additional cooling systems. Like many pusher designs, they were prone to overheating. On the ground, the aircraft had to be towed to and from the runway and could only be started when the Airacuda was able to take off immediately. Even in the air it was not uncommon to experience overheating problems.

Still another quote:
The Airacuda was also saddled with a complex and temperamental electrical system and was the only aircraft ever built to rely on an independent auxiliary power unit (APU) to power both engine fuel pumps, as well as all aircraft electrical systems. Systems usually powered by an aircraft's engines were instead powered by the single generator. The generator, with its own supercharger, was located in the belly of the aircraft. In the event of a failure (and they occurred frequently), the crew was instructed to begin immediate emergency restart procedures as the aircraft basically shut down. When the APU failed, the pilot had "NO fuel pressure, NO vacuum, NO hydraulic pressure, NO gear, NO flaps and NO ENGINES"

One prototype and 12 production aircraft were built, and one operational squadron was formed, which mercifully stayed in the continental United States.

[AMF]

Another view of the Bell YFM-1 Airacuda

[AMF]

Still another view of the Airacuda

[FlyingDutchman]

What about the Soviet helicopters, the Hind and Hip? Hind is a trade of helicopter that tries to trade of to many things at the same time. It has so much armour it have to gain lift from a pair of wings making it instabile at times and its roles as it's own escortor attack helicopter gives the pilot to much to do. And it doesn't even carry that many troops.

Wouldn't an attack/escort helicopter like Apache/Cobra operating with a squad carrier helicopter like Huey/Blackhawk make more sence? Especially if they could be built with a lot of parts in common.


The old type Bell AH-1 Cobra and the UH-1 Iroquoi were related and shared engine, transmission, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AH-1_Cobra#Background

Well, I believe that the Russians figured that out and don't really use the Hind as a troop carrier anymore--just a heavy attack helicopter which can, in some conditions, carry troops (eg., as a medevac or special operations chopper). Still, they probably would have been better off deleting the troop-carrying requirement and simply using a different helo (or a variant of the Hind itself) as their transport.

Despite the advantages, it's seems obviously stupid to me to combine an attack-helo and a transport in one; the first needs to be as small as possible to be as small as a target as possible, the other needs to be as roomy as possible...

[Matt Wiser]

I agree with you on the P-35. It would've made a decent fighter trainer in CONUS, but as a front-line fighter in the Philippines? Forget it. The P-35s that were sent to the Philippines were originally sold to Sweden, but the planes were requesitioned before they were loaded aboard ship, and the birds wound up in the Philippines-in their Swedish markings, all the tech orders were in Swedish, instruments in metric, etc. It took the 17th Pursuit Squadron a while to figure out the plane, and when they got P-40Es, the newly arrived 34th (whose P-40s were still en route to the Philippines on 8 Dec 41 and never arrived) PS got the P-35s. There were 36 in the Islands on 8 Dec. Two made it thru the Bataan campaign to fly out the night before the surrender, one of them having two pilots riding in the baggage compartment, while the other had three pilots riding in that compartment. There were two on Mindanao also, but they were destroyed before the general surrender in the Philippines.

[Markus]

The Curtiss Wright CW-21 Demon. A quote from the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_CW-21):

The CW-21 was not commissioned by the U.S. military, though it was test flown at Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio. The Army Air Corps immediately rejected the aircraft, with one officer commenting that it took a genius to land it.

See P-40, B-26 and F4U. :(

[AMF]

Messerschmitt Me 321 Gigant assault glider. It was so big that at first there was no suitable tow aircraft. The Heinkel He 111Z Zwilling (Twin) was developed to remedy this shortcoming, but before it was developed, an arrangement was tested where three Messerschmitt 110 destroyers had to tow one Me 321. The following quote from this http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/Aircraft/Messerschmitt-Me321.html site offers some interesting details how that worked out in practice:

BIG Towing Problems:
A major problem was provided by the lack of a suitable tow plane. The Ju-90 possessed barely sufficient power to tow the glider off the ground with minimum ballast, and although work had commenced on the Heinkel-Zwilling intended specifically to act as an Me 321 tug, it was obvious that some considerable time must elapse before this unique aircraft could be made available to the Schleppstaffeln.

An interim solution was the so-called Troika-Schlepp or triple-tow arrangement of three Bf 110C fighters evolved after a great deal of experimentation. The Troika-Schlepp demanded a very high degree of proficiency, on the part of the tow plane pilots, and in theory the three Bf 110 fighters took off in close-vee formation towing the Gigant by means of 10-mm. steel cables, that of the lead aircraft being 328 ft. in length and those of the port and starboard aircraft being 262 ft. long.

Apart from the ever-present danger of collision during the take-off, the Troika-Schlepp method had the disadvantage of necessitating a concrete runway at least 3,950 ft. in length, and the preliminary preparations for take-off were so complicated that it was utterly impossible to send up several gliders simultaneously. The take-off sequence called for the Gigant to un stick first at around 55 m.p.h., followed by the outboard tow planes and finally the lead tow plane. After leaving the runway the Bf 110s virtually hung on their airscrew's, their pilots having to exercise a high degree of skill to maintain control, and during the climb-out at approximately 80 m.p.h. the strain on the steel cables increased and slackened in a series of violent jerks until the trio of tow planes and their charge leveled-off at operational altitude and speed, the latter being 120-130 m.p.h. In turbulent conditions the Troika-Schlepp was described by tow plane pilots as "hair-raising", and as was to be expected, the test and training programs were fraught with accidents.

Trials with the Troika-Schlepp had been initiated before the completion of the first Gigant, a JU 52/3m standing in for the glider. As a safety precaution the transport was usually towed off the ground with its outboard engines idling, and during one of the earliest tests the "train" had just left the ground when the left-hand Bf-110 tug suddenly broke violently to port. The pilot of the Ju 52/3m immediately pulled the cable-jettisoning lever and gave his idling engines full throttle, but the port cable failed to part company with the transport, and as the pilot of the Ju 52/3m struggled to gain altitude, the trailing cable cut a farm cart in two, demolished farm buildings, uprooted trees, and finally became entangled with a telegraph line. The aircraft was virtually jerked to a standstill in mid air, but the sturdy trimotor remained airborne complete with trailing cable to which was now attached a full-size telegraph pole! Despite this baggage the pilot succeeded in landing the aircraft at Merseburg.

Part of the training program for the Troika-Schlepp included formation take-offs by trios of Bf 110s trailing cables but without gliders in tow. One of the first of these formation takeoffs ended in disaster. At Merseburg when the starboard aircraft veered to port, became entangled with the cable trailed by the center aircraft, and both aircraft crashed. Shortly afterwards, during the first Troika-Schlepp trials in which a Gigant was actually used, the tow planes and their charge had just climbed out of the airfield at Obertraubling, near Regensburg, when the towline snapped. With remarkable presence of mind, the pilot of the Gigant, Alfred Röhm, ignited his unused take-off rockets, pulled the giant glider around in a steep turn, his port wingtip virtually brushing the ground, streamed his braking chute and effected a perfect landing.

On another occasion at Merseburg, the pilot of a Gigant pulled his cable-release at an altitude of 1,300 ft. and promptly banked to starboard to make his landing approach. Unfortunately for the port tow plane his cable had not disengaged, and the Bf 110 was wrenched violently sideways, its rear fuselage breaking off.

Despite the hazardous triple-tow methods necessitated by the lack of a sufficiently powerful tow plane, the test program of the Gigant itself progressed relatively smoothly, although on one occasion during operational trials with a Gigant carrying 120 troops, the take-off rockets under one wing failed to ignite, the glider veered to starboard, its three Bf 110 tow planes colliding, and the entire "train" crashing to its destruction in a forest near the airfield boundary, 129 lives being lost. Another casualty was Otto Bräutigam whose Gigant crashed when water ballast shifted during the first overload trials.

Even when the Heinkel He 111Z became available as a tow aircraft, the complicated procedures needed to put the Me 321 Gigant on its jettisonable trolley, the requirement for long runways and the danger of one of the RATO rockets failing to ignite rendered it almost useless.