One of the rare occasions where lining pretty much all of a companies leadership up against a wall would have been both a vast improvement to the human race and a massive boon to the US war effort.
Military Aircraft that should have never been built?
- Thread starter S. Marlowski
- Start date
One of the rare occasions where lining pretty much all of a companies leadership up against a wall would have been both a vast improvement to the human race and a massive boon to the US war effort.
The two post war British aircraft I would have strangled at birth were the Supermarine Scimitar and the Supermarine Swift. Each one had a extended and problematical development history, poor operational record and in the case of the Scimitar severe unreliability.
Project Silverplate.
Couple of books
Critical Assembly: A Technical History of Los Alamos During the Oppenheimer Years, 1943–1945
The Making of The Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes
Norman Ramsey (who later led the Los Alamos team at Tinian helping to load the bombs) wrote a memo that the dimensions of the bomb (which were at the time estimate) were such that only the Lancaster could carry in internally and that should be what the scientists should aim for.
Sigh this is one of the major perils of living in Democratic societies as related to defence procurement. Idiots deciding to cancel and replace programs seemingly on a whim resulting in vast expenditures of money for little to no result and they can usually do so with little to no consequences be they legal or politcal
I'd like to add a whole raft of German projects that took up huge amounts of resources and yielded virtually nothing useful.
Step forward Arado 240, Fw 191, Ju 288, Me 209, Me 309 and Ju 322.
Oh, and to prove I'm not just down on the Germans, the Blackburn Firebrand. An utter waste of time.
Step forward Arado 240, Fw 191, Ju 288, Me 209, Me 309 and Ju 322.
Oh, and to prove I'm not just down on the Germans, the Blackburn Firebrand. An utter waste of time.
Can anyone think of any possible justification for the pile of poo that was the Blackburn Roc? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Roc
This is frankly one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read. The "principal purpose" of F/A-18s was "to be 'inexpensive'"? What rot. No doubt keeping costs down was a project aim (as it should be in any such project), but delivering a cost-effective capability would be a more accurate way to put it. There is no way you can call the aircraft inexpensive. It's more expensive than the F-16 (not surprising given it has two engines). If that were the case they failed abysmally. And not a new aircraft? As has already been pointed out to you, the Super Hornet basically is a new aircraft. Honestly this criticism is just absurd when on any measure the Hornet and Super Hornet have been effective aircraft. I don't think "the Admiralty" tend to have much say in Congress either, by the way.
nbcman
Donor
Wasn't another major issue was that many of the initial production run of B-29s were sent to the harshest of conditions - China and Burma. The later models of B-29s were used to attack Japan. It is not surprising that even if the B-29s had the best of maintenance they would have had problems but putting them in China at marginally improved airfield with a tenuous supply line was a terrible mistake.
The biggest problem of the F-104G was that it was given to pilots with not enough jet experience and it was too much for them. Air Forces that had a solid base of jet capable pilots did not have much of a problem with it. The Germans tried a quick buildup after missing a generation of tactical aircraft. It also did the job of intermediate strike very well. It was fast and accurate against depots, airfields, and other infrastructure. Once the German pilots caught up to their allied pilots in experience the loss rate went down.
Problem was the Lancaster couldn't fly high enough to get away from the blast. I don't remember a mention of the Lancaster in Rhodes book but it has been a few years since I read it and I may have missed it
I'm not sure Firebrand and the mentioned German aircraft are in same league. Firebrand was produced in 220 copies, while German aircraft listed there are/were prototypes. Countries need to make prototypes, that tells them the design shop was right or wrong. Nobody needed the Firebrand past the 1st prototype.
Me 209 was probably a missed opportunity (solves the problem the Bf 109 had with ever more powerful engines and coupled with tricky U/C, plus space for cannons in the wings), while the early, small Ju 288 with BMW 801 or, even better, DB 603 engines woud've probably resulted in a very useful bomber.
The Kalinin K-7
It was so big and so slow that it would have been easily shot down.
It was so big and so slow that it would have been easily shot down.
Although the Bomber B project never got past the prototype stage, it still sucked up large quantities of resources and dislocated Luftwaffe planning at a crucial time in the war. The project dragged on through multiple (radically) different designs and never got near production. Had they known it would failed, they could have have made contingency plans aroundless sophisticated aircraft which would have provided more effective bombers during the crucial 1942-43 period.
I agree that the earlier Ju 288 A had potential, but there were several arguments against further development. Firstly, it's three man crew went against Luftwaffe doctrine that specified a four man crew for a heavy bomber. In addition, it was designed around the Jumo 222, which was intended to deliver 2000 hp from a dry weight of 1084 kg. The BMW 801 was slightly lighter but produced 300 hp less. They would have needed to significantly reduce weight in other areas to maintain anything like the design performance. This probably would have entailed ditching the complex system of remotely controlled defensive guns. Given their relative lack of reliability this may have been no bad thing.
Never heard of that Website.This goes into it pretty well.
Two companies which didn’t survive the peace
The massive American industrial effort during WWII allowed numerous companies, such as Boeing, Electric Boat, and General Motors to prosper when the war ended. Two companies which did not survive t…wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com
Thanks for the link
When I read your first reply I thought you might have confused it with Blue Rapier and Red Rapier.
However, fair enough,
We are 8 pages and 157 posts into the thread and the Supermarine Swift hasn't been mentioned.
You have guessed correctly and I did a wordsearch for Swift on all 8 pages.