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
  #11  
Old December 1st 03, 12:48 AM
JDupre5762
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Arthur Kramer


For WW2 era you can't ignore the Brewster F2A Buffalo which was a great
handling machine in its earliest versions but was too heavy and underpowered to
face the Japanese with any significant success. Though like the P-39 in the
USSR the Finnish Air Force did wonders with the Brewster when facing aircraft
that were contemporaries in design era.

also the Heinkel 177 Grief.

John Dupre'


  #12  
Old December 1st 03, 12:54 AM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scott Ferrin"

Unless that's how *you* define a loser.


Scott Ferrin a loser?

That has been an elephant in the room for some time now.


  #13  
Old December 1st 03, 01:16 AM
Ed Majden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Darrell A. Larose"
A.V. Roe Canada CF-105 Avro Arrow, a long range interceptor that only had
a 700 nm range. The is bearly enough to fly from CFB Cold Lake to
Whitehorse, Yukon. The concept as a interceptor that would meet a wave of
Soviet bombers over the high Arctic, but didn't have the legs to get

there!

The replacement was the IM99B Bomarc SAM complete with nuclear warhead.
Range of that was in the 200-400 miles bracket, a great place to have a
nuclear weapon go off and scatter radiation over Canadian cities and towns.
I guess the yanks didn't consider that when they gave them to us! Good
thing they were never used, eh! Only good thing about the Bomarc was to be
assigned to the debriefing, parking and turn around crews. ;-)


  #14  
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



  #15  
Old December 1st 03, 02:52 AM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"machf" wrote in message
...

Would the F-22 fit in this category, or is it too early to tell yet?


That is pretty much up to the galloping dominoes now.


Well, Tarver doesn't like the F-22, so it's got a decent chance of being
a contender for "best aircraft ever."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #16  
Old December 1st 03, 02:55 AM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article qLvyb.536636$9l5.371394@pd7tw2no,
"Ed Majden" wrote:

The replacement was the IM99B Bomarc SAM complete with nuclear warhead.
Range of that was in the 200-400 miles bracket, a great place to have a
nuclear weapon go off and scatter radiation over Canadian cities and towns.
I guess the yanks didn't consider that when they gave them to us! Good
thing they were never used, eh! Only good thing about the Bomarc was to be
assigned to the debriefing, parking and turn around crews. ;-)


You should remember that with small fission warheads at high altitudes,
there is very little fallout, and practically zero compared to even a
single megaton-level ground strike.

Not to mention that they planned on using the same size of warhead over
most of the continental US for air defense...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #17  
Old December 1st 03, 03:17 AM
Ed Majden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chad Irby" You should remember that with small fission warheads at high
altitudes,
there is very little fallout, and practically zero compared to even a
single megaton-level ground strike.


What makes you think that these would have been high level blasts???
Tactics with the B52 was a ground hugger to avoid SAMS and radar detection.
Incinerating a Bear full of nuclear warheads would have created a severe
nuclear fall out problem!

Not to mention that they planned on using the same size of warhead over
most of the continental US for air defense..


U.S. Bomarc sites were near the Canada/U.S. border and most intercepts
would have taken place over Canada.. Bomarc bases were hard sites. Fighter
aircraft like the CF-105 would have been dispersed all over the country to
forward bases in the event of an attack. They could also have been able to
be called back in case of an error. A Bomarc was a one way trip!





 




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 11:51 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.