• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Top 10 Worst Aircraft Ever...

OUSOONER

O-4 Line of sight tasking is real...
pilot
#76
I didn't post the pics on here for fear of being banned permanently...but wasn't the F-4 Corsair at risk of being in this group initially?
 

sevenhelmet

Quit drinking the Kool-Aid!
pilot
#77
Still experimental, but I'm surprised nobody thought of this first:




FROM THE WEBSITE:
One of the most unusual aircraft ever to fly from Lakehurst was the Piasecki PA-97 Heli-stat.
The Heli-stat had been built under a 1980 U.S. Navy contract for the Forest Service to demonstrate economic & ecological potential of heavy vertical air lifters in harvesting timber & other natural resources in difficult-to-get-to terrain. The demonstration vehicle utilized a Navy ZPG-2W aerostat (with a 1-million cubic-foot envelope) and 4 surplus Sikorsky H-34J helicopters.
Inflating the aerostat envelope with helium to its length of 343 feet
made the Heli-Stat the largest aircraft in the world (longer than the span of the Hughes flying boat).
The first free hovering flight of the Piasecki PA-97 Heli-stat was made at Lakehurst on April 26, 1986.
On July 1, 1986 the Helistat had just completed a test flight successfully & landed at Lakehurst.
A power loss was noted on the #3 helicopter & the test was terminated & the mooring mast called for.
Prior to re-mooring a wind shift caused an uncommanded left turn which the pilot could not counteract with the flight controls.
With a tailwind, no wheel brakes or ground steering a takeoff was attempted.
The 4 main landing gear which had no shimmy dampers started to shimmy.
The 4 helicopters started to react to the shimmy with ground resonance.
As the Helistat finally lifted off, the 4 individual helicopters broke off & fell to the ground.
One pilot was killed, 3 received serious injuries, one received minor injuries. and the Helistat was destroyed.
The power loss on the #3 helicopter was traced to a missing throttle linkage correlation pin.
 

FLYTPAY

Pro-Rec Fighter Pilot
pilot
None
#80
The variable wing allows for an aircraft that can loiter for an extremely long period of time, and when it is time to commence an attack on a ground target, the wings go into retard mode, allowing for acceleration to an acceptable attack speed.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#81
I don't fly the devil's whirly bird, but I don't see your argument. It's already made a successful combat deployment, is in the middle of it's second, and is an amazingly capable aircraft. Stop buying into the negative hype.
I think the verdict is still out, having just been fielded after its lengthy gestation period, hype or not.
 

Pugs

Back from the range
None
#83
I think the verdict is still out, having just been fielded after its lengthy gestation period, hype or not.
It's lengthy gestation period was a direct result of Congressional buffoonery. Had they let NAVAIR run the program and funded it as requested it would have been out there on schedule.

I certainly do not consider it a failure but it's not a raging success yet. Time will tell.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#84
I think the argument goes something like this: the V-22 has been proven to be substantially less effective at cargo transport than the CH-53. It has a true flyaway cost somewhere around $120 million. It lacks the oxygen for passengers that would allow it to carry troops above 10000 ft where it could really make use of its speed advantage. It still doesnt have a forward firing weapon. And last I heard the V-22 program accounted for something like 70% of the marine corps acquistion budget. Im glad the V-22 is operating successfully in Iraq, but I dont see how that changes things. Couldnt the money be better spent?
Some of the things you pointed out are a bit disingenuous. The V-22 is not a CH-53 equivalent, missions are a bit different (assault transport vs heavy-lift). The O2 is not much of a factor, don't have it in helos either.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#86
It's lengthy gestation period was a direct result of Congressional buffoonery. Had they let NAVAIR run the program and funded it as requested it would have been out there on schedule.

I certainly do not consider it a failure but it's not a raging success yet. Time will tell.
Cheney's attempt to cancel it and the difficult testing period it had were very large factors. Congressional buffonery was just a part of it.

That is exactly what I was trying to say.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#89
Youre right, the problem is there really isnt a direct comparison given that its the first aircraft of its type. However, The fact that a new technology doesnt comapre favorably to a helicopter originally designed in the 1960's is, I think, cause for concern. At $120 million a pop it should be making the CH-53 obsolete.
You are taking into account the development costs for a radically new aircraft. I am not won over by it, yet, but you are stacking the deck against it.

And in comparison to the CH-53, it is a lot faster. One thing it has going for it.
 

nittany03

FUBIJAR
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#90
At $120 million a pop it should be making the CH-53 obsolete.
You're talking out of your ass. Quit while you're ahead. The Super Hornet isn't making the CH-53 obsolete either, because it was designed for a different mission, just like the Osprey.