A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Aircraft that never lived up to their promise



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 30th 03, 09:43 PM
ArtKramr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Aircraft that never lived up to their promise

I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?

Regards,

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

  #2  
Old November 30th 03, 09:59 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?

Regards,



Boulton Paul Defiant
Supermarine Swift
Avro Manchester (although the Lancaster did in spades)
Fairey Battle

Keith


  #3  
Old December 1st 03, 01:19 AM
George Z. Bush
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C-82
C-133

George Z.


Keith Willshaw wrote:
"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?

Regards,



Boulton Paul Defiant
Supermarine Swift
Avro Manchester (although the Lancaster did in spades)
Fairey Battle

Keith



  #4  
Old September 15th 05, 02:10 AM
firstfleet firstfleet is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: Sep 2005
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Z. Bush
C-82
C-133
As one who has spent the last five years researching the Douglas C-133 Cargomaster, and who flew 1,875 hours as a C-133 navigator, I'll state definitely that the C-133 more than lived up to its potential. Despite serious design issues due to a P&W T34 engine that never met specifications, the crewmembers of three squadrons flew the airplane all over the world, moving every conceivable type of very heavy or outsized cargo. The C-133 was the only airplane that could move such cargo until the C-5 came on line. NASA termed the C-133 "the first stage to space." The ICBM force would not have been emplaced as rapidly, economically or safely without the C-133, which transported several thousand Atlas, Titan and Minuteman missiles. It was the need for such a capability that led the AF to ask Douglas to remodel the aft cargo doors to make a bigger hole, resulting in the C-133B.

My book about the C-133 will be out in April 2006. It is entitled Remembering an Unsung Giant: The Douglas C-133 Cargomaster and Its People. For more info, check out my website, http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/c133bcargomaster/home.html.

Last edited by firstfleet : September 15th 05 at 02:11 AM. Reason: tyopo
  #5  
Old November 30th 03, 10:11 PM
user
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

F7-U Cutlass,,,over 160 delivered in the 50's,,,,WAY under
powered...weighed over 30,000 lbs and only had 4000 lbs thrust each
outta 2 J46's. and therefore WAY dangerous...Awesome one on display at
the Naval Aviaition Museum in P'cola.

On 30 Nov 2003 20:43:58 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?

Regards,

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

  #6  
Old November 30th 03, 10:37 PM
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
user wrote:

F7-U Cutlass,,,over 160 delivered in the 50's,,,,WAY under
powered...weighed over 30,000 lbs and only had 4000 lbs thrust each
outta 2 J46's. and therefore WAY dangerous...Awesome one on display at
the Naval Aviaition Museum in P'cola.

On 30 Nov 2003 20:43:58 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?

Regards,

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


The classic turkey: The Fisher XP-75 Eagle -- supposed to become an
escort fighter, built from parts of several production aircraft.

Mc Donnell F3H-1 Demon -- like the "gutless Cutlass," underpowered,
designed to be supersonic.

Martin P5M Seamaster ("Seamonster") jet Medium bomber seaplane.

Convair XFY-1 VTOL fighter, along with the Lockheed XFV-1 -- both
tailsitters. Pilots found the transition from flight to tail-first
vertical landing too hard to do.
  #7  
Old December 1st 03, 12:13 AM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article


The classic turkey: The Fisher XP-75 Eagle -- supposed to become an
escort fighter, built from parts of several production aircraft.


One of the first real proofs that you can make all sorts of things fly
with a big enough engine.

Mc Donnell F3H-1 Demon -- like the "gutless Cutlass," underpowered,
designed to be supersonic.


....and the corresponding "with a poor engine, any plane can be a piece
of crap."

Martin P5M Seamaster ("Seamonster") jet Medium bomber seaplane.


P6M. The P5M was the Marlin. (Although the P6M was based off of the
P5M). And let's not forget the corresponding fighter, the cool-looking
but problematic Sea Dart - I would have loved to see one of these in the
air.

Convair XFY-1 VTOL fighter, along with the Lockheed XFV-1 -- both
tailsitters. Pilots found the transition from flight to tail-first
vertical landing too hard to do.


Oddly enough, the tailsitter designs are coming back... without the
pilots. Some of the more promising UAVs look much like the pogo planes,
since the computers running them have much less trouble dealing with
that transition than people do.

For some reason, many pilots don't like trying to land an aircraft while
lying on their backs.


There are so many wonderful example of planes that sucked...

The XA2D Skyshark, which showed that early turboprops often weren't
ready for prime time, and reminded us that contrarotating props had
their own issues.

Then there's the slow but loud XF-84H, with a turboprop engine and a big
fat prop up front. Which shows that you can screw up anything if you
try hard enough.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #8  
Old December 1st 03, 09:11 AM
Nele_VII
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sukhoi's SU-2. However, its engine (actuallu, its derivatives) proved itself
when mached to LaGG-3 airframe, resultig in La-5/7/9

--

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
Chad Irby wrote in message ...
In article


The classic turkey: The Fisher XP-75 Eagle -- supposed to become an
escort fighter, built from parts of several production aircraft.


One of the first real proofs that you can make all sorts of things fly
with a big enough engine.

Mc Donnell F3H-1 Demon -- like the "gutless Cutlass," underpowered,
designed to be supersonic.


...and the corresponding "with a poor engine, any plane can be a piece
of crap."

Martin P5M Seamaster ("Seamonster") jet Medium bomber seaplane.


P6M. The P5M was the Marlin. (Although the P6M was based off of the
P5M). And let's not forget the corresponding fighter, the cool-looking
but problematic Sea Dart - I would have loved to see one of these in the
air.

Convair XFY-1 VTOL fighter, along with the Lockheed XFV-1 -- both
tailsitters. Pilots found the transition from flight to tail-first
vertical landing too hard to do.


Oddly enough, the tailsitter designs are coming back... without the
pilots. Some of the more promising UAVs look much like the pogo planes,
since the computers running them have much less trouble dealing with
that transition than people do.

For some reason, many pilots don't like trying to land an aircraft while
lying on their backs.


There are so many wonderful example of planes that sucked...

The XA2D Skyshark, which showed that early turboprops often weren't
ready for prime time, and reminded us that contrarotating props had
their own issues.

Then there's the slow but loud XF-84H, with a turboprop engine and a big
fat prop up front. Which shows that you can screw up anything if you
try hard enough.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 40 October 3rd 08 03:13 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 October 1st 04 02:31 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 September 2nd 04 05:15 AM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 April 5th 04 03:04 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 1 January 2nd 04 10:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.