Actually, neither the Spitfire nor the Messerschmidt should be mentioned in this thread, since they had their origins before the war and served to the end. Both aircraft were symbolic of their services. The two were linked because their strengths and weaknesses played off each other. Both had thin wings, the Spit had more chord and area and a better turn rate. The 109 rolled better. The Spit didn't roll at high speed. Incidentally, a Spit fitted with a DB engine outclimbed the 109. Both had short range. What you gain in the swings, you lose in the roundabout. Both were classics, but the 109 was half price. And Bubi Hartmann survived 15 crash landings. Talk about B-17 tough.
Aircraft that should never have seen service
- Thread starter Polish Eagle
- Start date
BlairWitch749
Banned
Range anybody? The early Spits carried 100 US gal. of gas internally, later ones 115, that´s five less than a P-39.
The spit was certainly a hell of an interceptor but the need for such a plane quickly diminished after the BoB.
About the 109. From what I´ve been reading the -F was the best of the bunch. I don´t know much about the -G but how much of her problems were due to the need to use low octane fuel as opposed to airframe related problems.
edit: @BlairWitch749 Not being world beaters either in terms of range, rate of fire and muzzle velocity isn´t the same as not working in the first place, isn´t it?
The F fixed the automatic slats that where known to fail, and also featured more rounded wings, however messerschmidt seemed to ignore the chronically high accident rate related to take off and landing from previous models, and did nothing to adjust the cockpit visability, or strengthen or widen the landing gear in any meaningful way
but yes you are right, i would definently take the german 20mm of the period which wasn't great vs the british one that didn't work
But that's...European!!!!
We'll stick with our clumsy, poorly-engineered American plane like we stick to our clumsy, poorly-engineered non-metric units of measure, thank you very much!!
More to the point, it's barely even started test flights. You know when the first Osprey flew? 1989. (And the experimental/prototype, the XV-15, first flew in 1977). So...yeah. And who even knows what payload capacity it'll have?
Two more: Dornier X and Petlyakov Pe-8. Aircraft are not well suited to megalomania.
The Spitfire Mk IIb's armament was unreliable because the cannons had to be laid on it's side because of the thin wing of the Spitfire.
You can't very well blame the gun for that, although the Hispano certainly was temperamental. AFAIK the gun's trouble with cold, the lack of explosive shells and the size of the magazine was all solvable.
If used upright as designed, it would have been much more reliable.
My source for that is McKinstry's 'Spitfire'.
The above quote is from page 207.
Weird you're using this as a reason why British 20mm cannons were unreliable as this particular case has nothing to do with the gun, but all with the plane.
Hmmm...nah. Looking at per-aircraft costs, they're only about a quarter of an SSBN. So not so bad, though certainly worth canceling once the Soviet Union no longer exists. It's not like SSBNs can do conventional strikes, either.
In general, most of the really terrible aircraft I can think of were canceled before they could fly. I suppose that says something about modern testing practices, at least...
No, it's not new, it's just a compound helicopter. They've been making (and failing to produce) them since the 1950's. And I'm 100% sure they called it the "X3" to make it sound better than the Sikorsky X2. Except the X2 has already been booked at 260 knots, while the X3 isn't design to exceed 220 knots. Eurocopter is desperately playing catch up, not the other way around...
Also, the V-22 can do 220 knots, but with a much larger range/cargo than any compound helicopter. The V-22 just has marginally more drag than a conventional aircraft its size, while compounds (like the X2 and X3) always have to deal with the parasite drag of the rotor. So, no, neither will X3 or any compound helicopter render V-22 superfluous...
AFAIK several SSBN's in the USN got modified to become long range strike and special operations submarines.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uss-georgia-ssbn-enters-conversion-to-ssgn-tactical-trident-specops-sub-01342/
Considering the modifications 'only' cost about 150+ mln USD, they can't have been big. So technically those are SSBN's used for conventional strikes.
The US also considered turning the Trident II into a conventional missile fired by the Ohio SSBN's. Something which the Chinese allegedly are doing now themselves with their ICBM's.
Here's an aircraft that should never have been in USN service: the F7U Cutlass, or "Gutless Cutlass." High landing speed approaching the boat, and an appallingly high accident rate. Whoever approved that aircraft for Fleet service should've been keelhauled.
US turkeys that shoild never have seen service
I nominate the B-58 Hustler, B-1 Lancer, and P-39 Aircobra in US Aircraft's Hall of Shame. Dishonorable mention: F-104 Starfighter. Any more turkeys needing a Proxmire Golden Turkey Award? The SBD Dauntless had its problems, but mostly to do with the POS torpedoes used by the USN 1941-43.
I nominate the B-58 Hustler, B-1 Lancer, and P-39 Aircobra in US Aircraft's Hall of Shame. Dishonorable mention: F-104 Starfighter. Any more turkeys needing a Proxmire Golden Turkey Award? The SBD Dauntless had its problems, but mostly to do with the POS torpedoes used by the USN 1941-43.
I'll disagree with the B-1 and P-39. Not so sure on the Hustler, but SAC only kept it around for ten years before retiring it due to the SA-2 and SA-5 threat. The TBD (not the SBD) was the torpedo plane that was obsolete in Dec 41 and saddled with wretched torpedoes. Only when the bugs were finally worked out of the Mark-13 torpedo did the TBF/M have good success as a torpedo plane. The B-1 has proven to be a very capable conventional bomber in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, while the P-39 was able to hold its own against Zeroes-as long as you kept the battle below 15,000 and did hit and run-there were several aces who got started in P-39s in New Guinea, and several others (Buzz Wagner and George Welch to name two) added to their scores while flying P-39s. The Russians, of course, loved it as both a fighter and as a ground-attack bird.
re Yak-38. True, it was a weak plane but then again it was first Soviet plane of such type so bound to suffer limitations due to limited experience. Gaining experience in operating S/VTOL planes must count for something. Had
been produced it would be seen as a stepping stone......
I'll nominate...... MiG-23. Why? Simple, the only users who didn't have them massacred were ones facing enemies with little to no air forces of their own. When they went up against serious opposition they seldom returned.
been produced it would be seen as a stepping stone......
I'll nominate...... MiG-23. Why? Simple, the only users who didn't have them massacred were ones facing enemies with little to no air forces of their own. When they went up against serious opposition they seldom returned.
I'm assuming you're talking about the Tomahawk boats? Their conventional attack capability costs $77 million per full strike (154 missiles @ ~$500,000 each), while the bomber costs a mere $4.8 million for 160 Mk-82 class guided bombs (assumed they cost the same on a per-bomb basis as the SDB), delivered in two passes.
Anyways, "technically" you are wrong, since the Ohio-class boats which were so modified would require modification in drydock to regain ballistic missile capability. They are SSGNs now
Except that, since everyone on the planet would interpret that as the US launching a nuclear strike, they obviously aren't, since it would risk a nuclear war on every use.
Which is true, but the B-52 could have performed those roles about as effectively (in terms of raw payload, exclusive of the B-1s external pylons) but for between a sixth and a third the cost of each airframe. Ultimately, both B-52 "successor" aircraft have been disappointments, costing too much for too little an increase in performance.
The B-1B's original mission was as a nuclear penetrator, leaving the B-52s for standoff with ALCMs. After START-I, the B-1s had to be reroled in the conventional strike mission, and the Bone has proven its worth. I'd rather take a more manuverable B-1B or a stealthy B-2 to someplace like downtown Teheran or Pyongyang instead of a B-52 to drop JDAM or JSOW if that ever becomes necessary. Besides, it's kinda hard to restart Buff production....
I was talking about the cost of the conversion.
Considering those cost were relatively low, the modifications to the boomers can't have large.
Agree to the large cost of Tomahawks, although those costs are irrelevant for the cost of the platform, which was what you were posting about and to which I was responding.
Anyways, "technically" you are wrong, since the Ohio-class boats which were so modified would require modification in drydock to regain ballistic missile capability. They are SSGNs now
True.
Former SSBN's, now SSGN being used in a conventional way.
Which is exactly the reason why it's unlikely that the Chinese plan to use ICBM's for conventional strike against carriers is meant serious.
Apologies to other posters for derailing this thread.
except for posts 35, 54 and 57, of courseSurprised no-ones mentioned the Spruce Goose yet....
WW2
- The Hadley Page Hampden (aka "The Flying Suitcase").
- The Bristol Blenheim and Buckingham.
- The AugustaWestland Lynx Wildcat - useless as a troop carrier or a gunship. Ask the people who fly it what they want and they say "Blackhawks" (bigger /and/ cheaper)
- The Eurofighter Typhoon.