In my opinion, the WORST aircraft has to have been tried in combat or at least service) and failed miserably. It’s not enough to have been bad on paper. Likewise, this is worst aircraft, not service record, so if someone was able to use it effectively, then I think it doesn’t make the list.

For that reason, such awful aircraft as the Brewster Buffalo and the Bell Airacobra don’t make the list as they were still capable in the right hands. The worst aircraft needs to have been a greater danger to its own pilots than anyone else, been bad from the get-go, and never proven useful in a flight role. If the aircraft stunk but was used well enough as a target tug (Fairey Battle, Boulton-Paul Defiant), then I wouldn’t count it. Likewise, if some variant of the aircraft proved itself to be not too terrible (like the McDonnell Demon), then you can’t just cherry pick one variant. I wouldn’t consider it if its failure was due to circumstances beyond its control. For example, an obsolete aircraft was used against the odds for a situation it was never designed for (like the P-26 in Philippine service).

My nominees would be:

Dewoitine D.510 – One of the first operational monoplanes in an age of biplanes, it was less maneuverable than all the biplanes out there and not much faster. It handled poorly and everyone that bought it didn’t buy many. Its pilots in China crashed it on takeoff on purpose, just to keep from having to fly it in combat against the Japanese.

Breda Ba.88 – Underpowered and too heavy to even get off the ground in some cases, it was eventually decided this was the best place for them. They ended their military careers about six months after the war started…as decoys at airfields. They were replaced by the aircraft they were meant to replace, the Breda Ba.65.

Curtiss-Wright CW-21 – A neat fighter, neat-looking, and very cool marketing. It was built by the founding fathers of aviation and in my hometown, no less. Still, it was not the way forward. Too light to even withstand combat with Japanese aircraft, it was not maneuverable enough to combat them and was a difficult plane to fly and land. When it wasn’t crashing on landing or in bad weather, it was being shot down. Thanks, but no thanks.

Lavochkin LaGG-1/3 – The -1 was awful, but the -3 was really not much better. Like many of the aircraft above, it might have been a good racer, but that’s about it. It had a good speed, but was really underpowered, had poor maneuverability, finnicky handling characteristics, and was just a bad choice for production. When the Japanese acquired one via a defector, they couldn’t believe that the same country that produced the I-15 and I-16 would produce such a brick of a plane.

Avro Manchester/Heinkel He-177 – Two engines with the power of four engines is a good idea, especially if you want a bomber with the power of a four-engined bomber with the drag of a twin-engined bomber. It’s simple, though. If the engine catches fire easily, don’t use use it on your airplane. We’ll see that lesson again later on. Bench tests and tests flights are meant for this sort of thing. Avro eventually caught on (Lancaster), while Heinkel understood the concept (He 274) but wasn’t able to execute it. Fire + engines = bad.

Messerschmitt Me 163 – Fire + engines = bad. It’s really quite simple. It doesn’t matter if it can theoretically fly this fast/far/high or carry this much. If the engines spontaneously explode/combust, it’s really not worth it. Bad idea. If it kills/nearly kills your best test pilots, maybe you shouldn’t strap 16-year-olds into the cockpit and send it into action.

Heinkel He 162 – See above, but replace portions about engines exploding with things about pieces falling off in midair.

Potez 75 – Outdated by the time WWII started, this open-cockpit, fixed landing gear ground attack aircra…wait. What? This was mid-50s aircraft? Are you joking? I wasn’t counting aircraft that didn’t see service, but someone was dumb enough to sign a contract for over 100 of these. I mean seriously. For a country that had the Skyraider in service… Seriously…

http://phlairline.com/ency_p/Potez_75.jpg

Logan Hartke

Yeah, I got the last two of those trawling the internet already. I’m looking for those schemes, but in a high enough resolution that one might be able to make out the markings.

The best of that sort I have is a higher res one from Wikipedia in that scheme, but after the aircraft was withdrawn from use. It’s that lovely shot with spray paint on it and a glorious lawn-mower in the background.

Logan Hartke

At least two people before you already have. If you’re not going to read posts, at least use Ctrl+F to check yourself before posting.

Logan Hartke

That may be a refection of you age. They’re so common anymore, I can see why you might feel that way.
But for those of us over a certain age…the F-16 looked absolutely futuristic* when we first saw it. I remember seeing drawings and mockups before it first flew. There hadn’t been a great looking fighter like that since the F-104.
Compared to contemporaries like the Phantom, Tornado, Mirage and even the fairly new at the time F-14s & 15s, the F-16 was a great looking plane.

(*I believe even the name “Viper ” reflects it.
The Name was applied to the F-16 after the space fighters flown in the TV series of the late 70s, the original “Battlestar Gallactica”.)

Funny, I’ve always thought the F-16 was boring COMPARED to the old guard. I look at the F-100, the F-101, the F-106, the F4D, the F8U, the F-4, the Lightning, the Buccaneer, and the MiG-21 and they all had their own unique style. I always thought the F-16 was plain by comparison. Even the other teen-series had more of their own flavor, to me-especially the legacy Hornet.

Logan Hartke

Give some to Israel and have them bomb Iran with it.

There’s a good deal of truth to this. The planes doing the best internationally are oftentimes the ones with the combat kills to back up their claims. The F-15, F-16, and Su-27 have all proven themselves in international, shooting war air-to-air combat.

I love the MiG-29. I think it’s beautiful, under-rated, under-appreciated, and very much a bargain on the international fighter market, but it is not helped one bit that its been on the losing end of numerous air-to-air engagements since 1991. It may have been up against insurmountable odds in most cases, but that doesn’t help a lot on the international arms market.

Combat stars can lead to dollar signs very quickly. I think there’s an element of that in the recent F-15 wins against the Eurocanards. The Eurocanards can say that they’re superior to Russian fighters, but the F-15 just has to point to a scoreboard.

It doesn’t hurt to be built in a country with some political influence on the international scene (say, the US vs Sweden).

Logan Hartke

the troops will suffer with delays and inferior aircraft

Debate over. I guess that settles it.

I don’t know if we can technically call comments worthless, but…

Logan Hartke

I could go on, but you consider these “Minutae” (actually, “minutiae”)? What would you consider a Major problem?

I’m sure a major problem for him constitutes Northrop Grumman losing the contract.

Logan Hartke

As if that wasn’t guaranteed to happen. I expect Boeing is pretty much guaranteed to win.

Well great, the USAF gets the aircraft it did not select, Boeing gets handed a monopoly, the entire project gets delayed, costs will increase and all because of some pathetic childish nationalistic BS from the undereducated. Ladies and Gentlemen the flaw in democracy.:rolleyes:

Dicks spoke yesterday morning with John Young, undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, and was told “that the criteria for the new tanker will favor a larger tanker from the outset, assigning additional credit to a bigger plane.”

Boeing Anxious About Terms of Tanker Rebid

Look, you guys are right again. Practically handing the contract to Boeing…

Once again, your crystal ball seems broken.

Logan Hartke