Aviation shite

[willswitchengage]

http://www.luft46.com/

 

This website is great for the weird and wonderful aircraft that were created on the Nazi Germany drawing board. Here are a couple of my favourites:

 

 

Arado AR E555 - designed to take a (probably nuclear) bomb to New York

 

 

Daimler-Benz project C - part plane, part combine harvester

 

Scarily though these weren't actually that far from production - a prototype Horton flying wing was captured by the Allies. Fortunately it never took off as they forgot to put the wings on. Schoolboy

 

 

Love early cold war planes too, B36 Peacemaker

 

 

B47 Stratofighter

 

[CreepingJesus]

The Tupolev TU-144 has got to be ultra shite. They didn't build it properly, or test it properly, then acted all surprised when they started failing very early on. It set the Russian aero industry back years, due to the phenomenal cost, and numbers of engineers and designers engaged in trying to make it work.

5000 hours testing (a fraction of Concorde's development test time), airframe broke up at 70% design stress in a static test (much like designing a 4 seat car, and finding in testing that a bag of crisps snaps the chassis), engines weren't powerful enough; when it did get into service it was notoriously uncomfortable and noisy in the cabin, fumes leaked in, air con often failed, and once they couldn't turn the fire alarm off all the way thro' its' regular hour-and-a-quarter flight. It was an absolute lemon, and only lasted 'til 1978 in passenger use. Aeroflot couldn't wait to get shot of them.

Its' safety record is dreadful, the two headline crashes are only the tip of the iceberg. Mind you, it had a swansong in the early 90's doing supersonic research for NASA. And apparently there's a few still sitting at Tupolev's factory, incomplete. So, with enough money and a word in the right place, you could have a shiny new supersonic airliner all of your own. Normal wooden coffins aren't as fast, but they're a hell of a sight cheaper...

[RedSparrow]

This is a MiG 21 (as far as I remember) at a model aeroplane club near Teplice, CZ.

 

 

 

 

I remember being struck by how small and flimsy looking it was. Must have been absolutely terrifying to fly the bloody thing.

[Jack_Harpers_Teeth]

My nomination for flying shite is the TU144 aka Concordski......Don't know too much about it other than it crashing.

 

The Tupolev TU-144 has got to be ultra shite. They didn't build it properly, or test it properly, then acted all surprised when they started failing very early on. It set the Russian aero industry back years, due to the phenomenal cost, and numbers of engineers and designers engaged in trying to make it work.

5000 hours testing (a fraction of Concorde's development test time), airframe broke up at 70% design stress in a static test (much like designing a 4 seat car, and finding in testing that a bag of crisps snaps the chassis), engines weren't powerful enough; when it did get into service it was notoriously uncomfortable and noisy in the cabin, fumes leaked in, air con often failed, and once they couldn't turn the fire alarm off all the way thro' its' regular hour-and-a-quarter flight. It was an absolute lemon, and only lasted 'til 1978 in passenger use. Aeroflot couldn't wait to get shot of them.

Its' safety record is dreadful, the two headline crashes are only the tip of the iceberg. Mind you, it had a swansong in the early 90's doing supersonic research for NASA. And apparently there's a few still sitting at Tupolev's factory, incomplete. So, with enough money and a word in the right place, you could have a shiny new supersonic airliner all of your own. Normal wooden coffins aren't as fast, but they're a hell of a sight cheaper...

 

Thanks for that great bit of info in a nutshell.

[CreepingJesus]

^No probs. There's lots of info/opinion about the bloody thing out there, before you even get into the whole Paris Air Show crash issue. In fact, the more you find out about its' fail-tastic life, the more you'll think there just isn't enough facepalm in the world.

[Ross_K]

Love early cold war planes too, B36 Peacemaker

 

 

Six turning, four burning. They were the airplane mechanic's worst nightmare. Servicing the piston engines involved changing 336 sparkplugs...

 

The other notable thing about the B-36 was that it was the testbed for an aircraft-based nuclear reactor.

[Betaphile]

The Tupolev TU-144 has got to be ultra shite. They didn't build it properly, or test it properly, then acted all surprised when they started failing very early on. It set the Russian aero industry back years, due to the phenomenal cost, and numbers of engineers and designers engaged in trying to make it work.

5000 hours testing (a fraction of Concorde's development test time), airframe broke up at 70% design stress in a static test (much like designing a 4 seat car, and finding in testing that a bag of crisps snaps the chassis), engines weren't powerful enough; when it did get into service it was notoriously uncomfortable and noisy in the cabin, fumes leaked in, air con often failed, and once they couldn't turn the fire alarm off all the way thro' its' regular hour-and-a-quarter flight. It was an absolute lemon, and only lasted 'til 1978 in passenger use. Aeroflot couldn't wait to get shot of them.

Its' safety record is dreadful, the two headline crashes are only the tip of the iceberg. Mind you, it had a swansong in the early 90's doing supersonic research for NASA. And apparently there's a few still sitting at Tupolev's factory, incomplete. So, with enough money and a word in the right place, you could have a shiny new supersonic airliner all of your own. Normal wooden coffins aren't as fast, but they're a hell of a sight cheaper...

Good call, this is the first thing that comes to mind for me too. There's actually quite a good wiki profile on it for anyone interested in a few more of the details:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144

 

Of course, on the subject of lemons, the West has no shortage either. Coming forward a few decades, the West's great new (white) hope for the defence of the realm etc:

 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... e_pentagon

 

I'll prepare a longer post on this subject when I have time...

[willswitchengage]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/26/the_jet_that_ate_the_pentagon

 

I'll prepare a longer post on this subject when I have time...

 

Nice, I was reading about that earlier too. Nearly as much of a waste of money as the Eurofighter.

[HillmanImp]

I know everyone loves them but have you seen the amount of crashes the Vulcan had?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan#Accidents_and_incidents

 

They were proper shite. For only 136 being built there were not many left in service when they were withdrawn in 1984.

[RedSparrow]

I always found it funny how people laugh at the Soviet Union's failed projects and forget about the west's own fuck-ups. The Vulcan is a prime example.

As is the fact that the only rockets going to the international space staion now are ex-Soviet examples that were mothballed for 21 years.

[Ross_K]

I love Cold War Soviet machinery - it's a lot more interesting than they were coming up with on "our" side of the world at the time.

 

Admittedly the Soviets didn't have anything to match the U2 or SR-71, but they definitely thought outside the box. Or spied their way out of the box...

[gricer]

The Soviet spying machine managed to steal most of the information neeed to build a Concorde - except one detail.

 

The engine intakes on Concorde allow it to "supercruise" - once it's travelling at Mach 2, they regulate the airflow through the engines so it can continue at Mach 2 without needing to use the afterburners. Afterburners use loads of fuel, but Concorde only needed to use them for take-off, so it could carry enough fuel to cross the Atlantic.

 

The poor Tu-144 couldn't surpercruise, so had to keep using the burners to maintain speed. This meant it had sod all range - no chance of transatlantic. So they ended up only ever being used on services to Tashkent and Almaty.

 

My favourite Russian airliner is the Tu-114 - fastest turborprop airliner ever built...

 

[RedSparrow]

^ I'm sure I went on one of those or something very similar on a Finnish domestic flight last October. The text on features and fittings was Russian and it had the double propellors.

 

Incidentally, have you lot seen the Soviet jet train thing? They basically bolted a couple of MiG engines to the roof of a locomotive...

[CreepingJesus]

I always found it funny how people laugh at the Soviet Union's failed projects and forget about the west's own fuck-ups. The Vulcan is a prime example.

As is the fact that the only rockets going to the international space staion now are ex-Soviet examples that were mothballed for 21 years.

 

I'm with Ross on this: much of the Communist era Russian kit is fascinating, for the ingenious ways they identified needs, created and implemented solutions. Not always successfully, it must be said, but then the other big players at the time were no different.

The TU-144 has fascinated me since a young age, when I read about it in old copies of the RAF News. It's enigmatic, because it depends on how you frame it, as to whether it was a failure or not. In achieving all the 'firsts', it was a roaring success, and Concorde never did match its' top speed. In the wider view however, its' only success was carrying 40 extra passengers; otherwise it was quantifiably a failure.

It's an interesting case study in how mistakes made early on and left unrectified, can doom a project. It's interesting how the Kremlin's dogmatic pursuit of glory ruined any chance the team had to make it work. I'm certainly not laughing at it, or any other ill thought of Soviet planes (like TC's MiG21, which was more of a combat success than the Americans would like to admit), because as we know, history is written by the winners. The Russian websites dedicated to it certainly don't admit defeat, which goes to show that the 'win' in this case is very subjective.

Not that Concorde was really a success either: it suffered many of the same problems as the Charger. Frames constantly cracked, the cabin wasn't what it could've been either, and the running costs were astronomical while profitability was poor.

More than this, neither plane was ever really 'in production' 'cos the overseas orders never materialised. (As an aside, the Chinese were interested in buying Concordes. If they'd bought them, and the Charger had been usable, there could've been a situation where the rivals would be head-to-head in one fleet. Interesting...) Even the Americans had the good sense to abandon their contenders for the fight. Funnily enough, the American proposals were bigger, faster and longer of range than Concorde or Charger! Talk about patriotic dogma?

 

The Vulcan's an interesting one too; like the SST's (and the HP Victor) it was a bit of a step into the unknown. Shame it was the electrics and engines that let it down, 'cos they should've been the reliable bits. My mum tells a good story about a Vulcan coming into Kinloss on fire (from a North Sea patrol group), and ruining her washing. The crew got it down safely (just), and all was well; but I do remember dad finishing off the story by adding some choice comments from their CO, about how Vulcans were a liability and he'd rather have his Shacks back in their hanger, please.

 

As for Russian space flight, it's perhaps unintentionally fortunate that the programme was effectively mothballed for 20 years. While the Americans have had their day with the Shuttle, and the various other efforts (Europe, China etc.,) are enjoying varying levels of success; there's hangars full of perfectly good, if slightly archaic, kit ready to go. With experienced ground and flight crews, and places to launch them from, a cash-hungry Russian aero industry was hardly going to say no, was it? Maybe they've lucked into pole position?

[RoadworkUK]

What he said. Every single word.

 

I have much admiration for a lot of the old Ruskie stuff; the componentry in some of their avionics gear would make Johnny Fly-boy in his Eurofighter do a little wee in merriment. But it's highly unlikely that European stuff could survive for long without constant maintenance, whereas Halfords could probably make a decent fist of looking after an SU-24...

[HillmanImp]

define 'fuck ups' with the Vulcan then ?

 

Er, we already have hence his post.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan#Accidents_and_incidents

[SambaS]

Here is an aviation OH SHITE:

 

Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit Crash

 

[Pete-M]

My next door neighbour used to fly Vulcans. I never realised he was insane.

[cms206]

Aviation shite... I used to be a load controller at Glasgow and was often handed the odd stuff as most people were happier doing 733s, 738s and A320s.

 

My personal favourites were these...

 

LZ-HMW_MH_190206 by hoppieno3, on Flickr

 

... a trio of Soloviev turbofans doing their best to damage ears. Mine are fucking ruined because of them it has to be said. 3-man flight deck, six cabin crew, massively over-engineered and they burned more than double the amount of fuel an Airbus A320 would use between Glasgow and Bourgas and Varna. The cleaners wouldn't hoover them as the sockets used to electrocute them and/or fry the hoovers, passengers used to come off bruised as the overhead lockers tended to open on landing and we couldn't put jetbridges on them because the auto-levellers couldn't keep up, so we had to generally adjust a set of stairs twice during boarding and deboarding so that we didn't rip the door off.

 

Dispatched all manner of shite in the six years I was there, couple of RAF Tristars, Monarch A300s, a couple of 747 Classics, ATRs, a pair of Beech 1900s (one for passengers, one for bags, same flight number), a Yak-40, a 727, BA's last Avro 146-RJ100, a couple of Budgies, a KC-135 and I was present (but didn't dispatch) this...

 

Basking in the sun by cms206, on Flickr

 

... on it's farewell tour.

 

 

In the end up I got bagged, but I went out in style - the last aircraft I handled was this...

 

RAF Vickers VC-10 XV107 by cms206, on Flickr

 

I do kinda miss it but I don't know if I could go back to it now.

[Lankytim]

Failure or not, the Vulcan was a fantastic aircraft- an aero pervs wet dream!

[Vin]

I don't know where it rates as aviation shite but there is a Blackburn Beverley at Fort Paull over near Hull. It used to live at Beverley transport museum when it existed (it closed a fair few years ago). I remember when I used to go to the museum as a kid I wondered how something shaped like that managed to fly...

 

[gricer]

Not that Concorde was really a success either: it suffered many of the same problems as the Charger. Frames constantly cracked, the cabin wasn't what it could've been either, and the running costs were astronomical while profitability was poor.

More than this, neither plane was ever really 'in production' 'cos the overseas orders never materialised.

 

Don't agree. Concorde was pretty successful for a first-gen SST. Profitability was good when it was run properly (by BA under King/Marshall as an "airline within an airline") and safety was excellent. Shoddy Air France maintenance and aircrew error caused the Gonesse crash. Tu-144 losses are not confirmed, but at least four are believed to have been lost.

 

The only reason overseas Concorde orders never materialised was American politics, as the US had screwed up on its own SST programme, so resorted to protectionism, as it usually does. Most major carriers had ordered Concordes, but it looked likely that the aircraft would not be allowed to land in the US. The 70s oil crisis gave them an excuse to cancel.

 

 

(As an aside, the Chinese were interested in buying Concordes. If they'd bought them, and the Charger had been usable, there could've been a situation where the rivals would be head-to-head in one fleet. Interesting...)

 

Unlikely the Chinese would have bought Tu-144. Concorde was definitely on order - China was a good customer of the UK, having bought Viscounts and Tridents.

 

 

Even the Americans had the good sense to abandon their contenders for the fight. Funnily enough, the American proposals were bigger, faster and longer of range than Concorde or Charger! Talk about patriotic dogma?

 

 

And utter shite! The Boeing 2707 would simply have been too heavy - it was made of Titanium, and the original version had swing-wings.

Rather than pursuing the "bigger Concorde" 220-seat Lockheed L2000 proposal, America had to have a bigger, faster plane and chose the Boeing 2707 with its 270 seats and Mach 3 capability, which was not achievable with an aluminium structure. Hence Titanium, which could handle the heat but was way too heavy. Boeing had to redesign the 2707 to fixed wing, by which tme the project was running late and the US government withdrew funding. Hence Plan B - block Concorde.

 

If they'd gone with Lockheed, they'd probably have beaten Concorde into service...

 

The SST story is one of the most shameful in the history of human technological development. We have actually taken a stepp backwards, rather than developing second and third-gen SSTs that would have brought supersonic transport within the reach of all travellers, while matching the environmental performance of today's slow widebodies. The technology is there to do it, but idiocy prevails.

[Wilko220]

Very interesting to read about the Vulcan.

 

Some more up-to-date aero-shite, from across the pond. I've seen these in action close up and it's an incredible sight (and sound)...

 

 

However, they've not been without their development problems...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_ ... -22_Osprey

[TagoraGL]

Where is this Gannet?

 

[simmo]

[Ross_K]

And utter shite! The Boeing 2707 would simply have been too heavy - it was made of Titanium, and the original version had swing-wings.

Rather than pursuing the "bigger Concorde" 220-seat Lockheed L2000 proposal, America had to have a bigger, faster plane and chose the Boeing 2707 with its 270 seats and Mach 3 capability, which was not achievable with an aluminium structure. Hence Titanium, which could handle the heat but was way too heavy.

 

Not to mention titanium was mega-expensive.

 

The world's largest titanium producer is (and was) Russia. When the yanks were building the SR-71 the titanium ironically came from there.

[John F]

Bah, these jets and STOL things are all a bit new for my taste

 

This piece of aviation Scheiße was the fastest piston-engined aircraft of WWII - the Dornier Do-335 "Pfeil".

 

 

Probably due to its large cruciform tail and rear engine, it was one of the first production aircraft to be fitted with a rudimentary ejector seat. There's a persistent rumour that a number of early development models were found crashed with the pilot, minus his arms, still on board due to a two-stage ejection process causing the pilot's arms to be ripped out of their sockets when the canopy was jettisoned

[fiatdaft]

Moar

 

 

 

[TagoraGL]

This is a wonderful film. It's half an hour long but I've watched it about four times already.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moBd9-srBsA

 

It's a 1960 Royal Navy training film that explains how aircraft are launched and recovered at sea. Mostly Scimitars, Sea Vixens and a few Gannets. I love it because what these guys are doing is so cool and cleaver yet mind-bogglingly dangerous. Brilliant!

[Negative Creep]

Bah, these jets and STOL things are all a bit new for my taste

 

This piece of aviation Scheiße was the fastest piston-engined aircraft of WWII - the Dornier Do-335 "Pfeil".

 

 

Probably due to its large cruciform tail and rear engine, it was one of the first production aircraft to be fitted with a rudimentary ejector seat. There's a persistent rumour that a number of early development models were found crashed with the pilot, minus his arms, still on board due to a two-stage ejection process causing the pilot's arms to be ripped out of their sockets when the canopy was jettisoned

 

Again, I wouldn't class that as shite. In fact, i think we can be thankful they arrived too late to see combat