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

"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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

(ArtKramr) wrote:

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

Regards,

Arthur Kramer

Obvious, the Martin Marauder (B-26), no load, no range, no speed, no
altitude.

Subject: Aircraft that never lived up to their promise
From: "Erik Pfeister"
Date: 11/30/03 6:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


(ArtKramr) wrote:

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

Regards,

Arthur Kramer

Obvious, the Martin Marauder (B-26), no load, no range, no speed, no
altitude.




No comment. (grin)


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