10 Worst Aircraft?
Wired on the Top 10 worst aircraft.
Comments:
- TU-144: yes there were crashes. There is also reason to suspect this was the result of deliberate sabotage. In any event, the TU-144 deserves credit for getting a lot of things right, including the forward aileron/winglet stabilizers - a fix the US discovered it needed on its B-1.
- BOAC Comet: again, it's a bit odd to single out the innovator which unfortunately discovered issues like metal fatigue from square windows the hard way: to the benefit of all passenger aircraft that followed. Also worth noting how fantastic it was for Britain to come up with the jet Comet when it did, when most of its large aircraft factories capacity were miniscule compared to America's after the war.
- Starship: actually, its failure, as Burt Rutan is quick to remind people, was the result of FAA foot-dragging. It retains an unparalleled fuel economy for an executive aircraft of its size, with a tiny noise envelope. Additionally, it was the first to use a 'glass cockpit' for executive aircraft (and possibly bigger passenger aircraft too) - an innovation that became industry standard in subsequent years.
I think Wired's criteria are warped. In my view, a "worst aircraft" is an aircraft whose flaws aren't from innovative leaps, but from designs during an era when the designer really should have known better. To that end, I nominate some of the following:
- V-22 Osprey: yes it has had crashes from pushing the design envelope, but it should be voted 'worst' because it ultimately fails to fulfill its core mission duties by having: increased critical mechanical exposure, large minimal armored fuel booms along the bottom, a limited field of fire out the rear door (which is the only egress point). It cannot load/unload troops and cargo with the speed and convenience of a helicopter. Oh, besides its critical lack of autorotation and odd physical effect where all power is lost during particular angled flight.
- C-141 Starlifter whose narrowness negated its possibility for armored cargo.
- C-5 Galaxy for wasting as much space as the entire cargo potential of a C-130.
- C-17 for its controversial landing gear, and limited world runway access in excess of the C-5.
- Space Shuttle: sorry to offend sacred cows, but beyond the NASA politics of shifting its mission away from planetary exploration, the Shuttle succeded in only one significant mission: ability to move large classified military satellites into orbit. The Shuttle is logistically intensive, uses a basic design that increases material fatigue and risk (funny for an intentional reusable platform), and requires such cautious hand-holding in its storm-prone Kennedy launch site that it never really fulfilled its "regular bus service" mission.
Interestingly: all 5 nominations I offer are often the result of conflicting mission priorities for the aircraft from government committees which tangle the engineering.
I was tempted to add the Harrier for its record of pilot lethality, but that isn't enough of a criteria considering it's an innovative platform that mostly fulfills its intended purpose as no other aircraft did before, and hasn't been effectively replaced either.
Comments:
- TU-144: yes there were crashes. There is also reason to suspect this was the result of deliberate sabotage. In any event, the TU-144 deserves credit for getting a lot of things right, including the forward aileron/winglet stabilizers - a fix the US discovered it needed on its B-1.
- BOAC Comet: again, it's a bit odd to single out the innovator which unfortunately discovered issues like metal fatigue from square windows the hard way: to the benefit of all passenger aircraft that followed. Also worth noting how fantastic it was for Britain to come up with the jet Comet when it did, when most of its large aircraft factories capacity were miniscule compared to America's after the war.
- Starship: actually, its failure, as Burt Rutan is quick to remind people, was the result of FAA foot-dragging. It retains an unparalleled fuel economy for an executive aircraft of its size, with a tiny noise envelope. Additionally, it was the first to use a 'glass cockpit' for executive aircraft (and possibly bigger passenger aircraft too) - an innovation that became industry standard in subsequent years.
I think Wired's criteria are warped. In my view, a "worst aircraft" is an aircraft whose flaws aren't from innovative leaps, but from designs during an era when the designer really should have known better. To that end, I nominate some of the following:
- V-22 Osprey: yes it has had crashes from pushing the design envelope, but it should be voted 'worst' because it ultimately fails to fulfill its core mission duties by having: increased critical mechanical exposure, large minimal armored fuel booms along the bottom, a limited field of fire out the rear door (which is the only egress point). It cannot load/unload troops and cargo with the speed and convenience of a helicopter. Oh, besides its critical lack of autorotation and odd physical effect where all power is lost during particular angled flight.
- C-141 Starlifter whose narrowness negated its possibility for armored cargo.
- C-5 Galaxy for wasting as much space as the entire cargo potential of a C-130.
- C-17 for its controversial landing gear, and limited world runway access in excess of the C-5.
- Space Shuttle: sorry to offend sacred cows, but beyond the NASA politics of shifting its mission away from planetary exploration, the Shuttle succeded in only one significant mission: ability to move large classified military satellites into orbit. The Shuttle is logistically intensive, uses a basic design that increases material fatigue and risk (funny for an intentional reusable platform), and requires such cautious hand-holding in its storm-prone Kennedy launch site that it never really fulfilled its "regular bus service" mission.
Interestingly: all 5 nominations I offer are often the result of conflicting mission priorities for the aircraft from government committees which tangle the engineering.
I was tempted to add the Harrier for its record of pilot lethality, but that isn't enough of a criteria considering it's an innovative platform that mostly fulfills its intended purpose as no other aircraft did before, and hasn't been effectively replaced either.