|
I think you might need to limit it to production only because there were about ten million terrible prototype planes (see: nuclear powered bombers, Thunderscreech, etc) the Thunderstreak was pretty terrible too, wasn't it? Like it started getting phased out basically the day after it went into active service? That's kind of boring though, it's nowhere near as spectacularly bad as some. Psion fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Nov 10, 2013 |
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:48 |
|
|
The Su-25TM and Mig-27. They put the GSh-6-30 (a 6 barreled 30mm cannon) on them to fulfill a similar role as the more powerful 30mm cannon on the A-10. The pilots hated that it shook the aircraft violently when fired and was painfully loud in the cockpit but the best part is that when fired in either aircraft the following list of things could/would happen: 1) Destroying the landing lights pretty much always. The runways they used had to be well lit for any night flights. 2) Cracking the gun sight. 3) Cracking and shaking apart the fuel tanks, radio, and avionics (causing them to fail). 4) Shooting down or severely damaging the aircraft firing it via fragmentation if fired while under 200m. 5) Warping the fuselage and forward landing gear doors, preventing them from opening. 6) Violently shaking the canopy, causing it to fly off during flight. Yep. 7) Causing the entire instrument panel to shake loose and fall off. Yeeeep. The Su-25's were basically immediately refitted with the Gsh-2-30 because gently caress that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
Yeah production I think. Planes that were in active service and pilots dreaded being assigned to. /\/\ were the mig 23s alright but the 27s bad?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
priznat posted:Yeah production I think. Planes that were in active service and pilots dreaded being assigned to. The MiG-23 had a GSh-23 so it probably wouldn't shoot itself down. Which is just 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
priznat posted:Starfighters had terrible loss rates but a lot of that was using them improperly. They're pretty cool looking. Is that the one pilots and crews nicknamed "Lawn Dart?" If it is that's something I'd sooner not fly, personally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
Fearless posted:Is that the one pilots and crews nicknamed "Lawn Dart?" The AMI had a very low accident rate compared to the Germans, which might reflect badly on the Italians since they probably weren't as 'hard chargin'. Of course the Luftwaffe got a high speed interceptor doing low-level fighter bombing in a very young and inexperienced force through massive graft so gently caress that. priznat posted:I'd like to see a list of the worst Cold War planes, both com bloc and western. Some less successful designs that got into series production: Myasishchev M-4 Vickers Valiant F-102 Tu-22
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
Forger's already been posted, that would be my go-to. In the tropics it could sometimes only take off with minimal fuel and no weapons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
If transports count, the Antonov An-10 sounds like it was a bit of a dog. More of an airliner than a Cold War plane, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
Fearless posted:Is that the one pilots and crews nicknamed "Lawn Dart?" The F-16 is the "lawn dart," the F-104 was the even-more-appealing "flying coffin."
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Me and Rossmum have talked about this before. With WoR it just kinda goes "We have this weapon, it was good but it had problem X, in year A, problem was resolved and combat properties were improved. It served long and faithfully for 4 decades." Yeah. I enjoy WoR. It reminds me of the old Discovery/History Channel military shows which were presented in a kind of dry, but interesting way. The narrators were chill, the shows had actual footage and content, etc. It wasn't the most factually accurate stuff ever, but it was interesting and you could maybe learn some stuff. Some of the interviews they did with old vets were seriously  Now just about every show is the most intolerable poo poo ever. The narrators sound like coked up frat boys, there are dumb CG cinematics for every loving thing, and it's always the dumbest overly dramatic bullshit and nationalistic dick waving over everything. It's a half-step away from Michael Bay's Military History. I miss tolerable military TV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
I miss when Discovery and History channel aired actual documentaries. Nowadays it's just "After the End", Pawn Stars knock off #46, Mythbuster Knock Off #192 and Canada's Worst Driver... Ok, Canada's Worst Driver is redeemable on account of being funny as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:I miss when Discovery and History channel aired actual documentaries. Nowadays it's just "After the End", Pawn Stars knock off #46, Mythbuster Knock Off #192 and Canada's Worst Driver... Ok, Canada's Worst Driver is redeemable on account of being funny as poo poo. Don't forget "Ancient Aliens" and other similar bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
priznat posted:Yeah production I think. Planes that were in active service and pilots dreaded being assigned to. The Mig-23 was fine. Hell, the MiG-27 was fine until the gun was fired!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
I wonder if a Northrop Scorpion belongs on the list. Goddamn enormous nuclear-and-conventional rocket armed interceptor. Primarily famous for launching the Genie nuclear air-to-air rocket for the Plumbbob John test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VZ7FQHTaR4 But it also participated without distinction in the Battle of Palmdale. In 1956, an F6F-5K Hellcat target drone stopped responding to commands, so concerned that the drone might fly over populated areas and crash, they scrambled two F-89 Scorpion interceptors to shoot it down. The F-89 had two pods of folding fin air to air rockets and no guns. They pair of interceptors expended 200 rockets against a WWII era non-manuvering prop airplane without doing it noticable damage. They did, however do a fair amount of damage to property and start a number of fires in Northern LA county. Eventually the Hellcat ran out of fuel and crashed in the Mojave. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/sep/11/local/me-then11 So, it had a miserable combat record, but they didn't crash that many trying to fly them...so undecided. Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Nov 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:The Mig-23 was fine. Hell, the MiG-27 was fine until the gun was fired! Ahhh yes.. I thought it might have something to do with that big funky stabilizer under the tail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:I miss when Discovery and History channel aired actual documentaries. Nowadays it's just "After the End", Pawn Stars knock off #46, Mythbuster Knock Off #192 and Canada's Worst Driver... Ok, Canada's Worst Driver is redeemable on account of being funny as poo poo. These days they've just shuffled those off to their side channels that few people really care about (or have I guess). Which is a bit of a shame.  (Also finding older Discovery documentaries are an utter loving pain occasionally.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 12:59
|
|
|
I thought about mentioning the Scorpion but it's more a victim of a really silly Air Force weapon spec request than being a bad airframe per se. Practically everything that jumped off a carrier between the F4U / AD generation and the F8U/A4 was pretty much crap, including the various bombers, support planes etc. They were almost all lousy in whatever their intended roles were, with the real distinguishers being which airframes were more likely to kill you on takeoff / landing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 13:49
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:I thought about mentioning the Scorpion but it's more a victim of a really silly Air Force weapon spec request than being a bad airframe per se. You take that back right godamned now:  Ed Heinemann won the Collier Trophy for the Skyray. Interceptors and Gun-armed fighters for LIFE. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 13:58
|
|
|
The A-1 begs to differ. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 14:18
|
|
|
The AD is the A-1.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
Anyone else see a toilet on a pylon on that Skyraider's wing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 14:34
|
|
|
Fearless posted:Anyone else see a toilet on a pylon on that Skyraider's wing?  I really hope the whole crew involved took dumps in that before strapping it on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The AD is the A-1.  Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
grover posted:
According to one of my uncles (who was an RCN/RCAF pilot aeons ago) Canadian Sea King crews used to... uh... "refill" boxed lunches with their own additions and then drop them out of the sonar buoy chute while flying over the Soviet SIGINT trawlers usually loitering around Halifax. At least, I hope they were Soviet SIGINT trawlers. Fearless fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Nov 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
What is happening in this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y7cf-Q9nI8&t=48m45s
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
Fearless posted:According to one of my uncles (who was an RCN/RCAF pilot aeons ago) Canadian Sea King crews used to... uh... "refill" boxed lunches with their own additions and then drop them out of the sonar buoy chute while flying over the Soviet SIGINT trawlers usually loitering around Halifax.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
grover posted:Way to just spoonfeed enemy spies critical intelligence on fleet nutritional readiness Having eaten a CF issued boxed lunch on many occasions, I can tell you that one filled with excrement is a marked improvement over what they initially contain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
nuuuuuukes iiiinnnn ssspppppaaaaaaaccceeee https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OS8kNn_2Ro Interesting 52-minute video about US's high-altitude nuclear test program.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
priznat posted:Starfighters had terrible loss rates but a lot of that was using them improperly. They're pretty cool looking. Anyone using that thing as an attack aircraft is just baffling. It is like buying a Lamborghini and then using it to haul gravel and then wondering why the suspension is shot and there are scratches all over it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Anyone using that thing as an attack aircraft is just baffling. It is like buying a Lamborghini and then using it to haul gravel and then wondering why the suspension is shot and there are scratches all over it. "I've decided that the Lockheed F-104 is the best aircraft for every possible role in our nation's Air Force, from interceptor to strategic transport, and I'm confident in our pilots' ability to make it work. Now, does anyone know where I can deposit $1.1 million in cash?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
Wasn't there something about tiny thin wings with high wing loading being superior for low altitude transsonic strike? Not safer, mind, but knocked around less and higher speed or something. It seems like another 'more of a dumb mission from the start than a bad plane' scenario.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Wasn't there something about tiny thin wings with high wing loading being superior for low altitude transsonic strike? Not safer, mind, but knocked around less and higher speed or something. Yeah, the F-104 has very high wing loading, which makes it more stable in sudden down or updrafts. It's not clear that using a different aircraft for the same missions would have been any better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
What made the Starfighter's ground-attack mission different? Was it doing supersonic low level bombing as opposed to subsonic?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Wasn't it something like supersonic low-level nuclear tactical bombing? So you know, something so utterly insane it shouldn't ever have been done outside of video games ever?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
The Doolittle raiders cracked the cognac today. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/final-toast-wwii-doolittle-raiders-peace 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
grover posted:nuuuuuukes iiiinnnn ssspppppaaaaaaaccceeee Love this. I had a DVD 3-pack years ago that had Nukes in Space, Trinity and Beyond and one more documentary that I can't remember but it was the most boring of the three. It even came with 3D glasses so you could watch a nuke go off in 3D 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Wasn't it something like supersonic low-level nuclear tactical bombing? I'm sure 'all-weather' was thrown in there, too. Super-low-level flight is hard as hell in the best of conditions, when the B-52 was switched from high- to low- altitude strike profiles they had a bunch flat out break apart from the stresses before they figured out what needed changing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
When did everything go back to all high altitude strikes? It seems like the low-altitude bombing thing isn't very much in vogue anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:When did everything go back to all high altitude strikes? It seems like the low-altitude bombing thing isn't very much in vogue anymore. MANPADS got a heck of a whole lot better, and the people getting bombed these days don't have much by way of an integrated air defense network. Also, stealth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:48 |
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:I'm sure 'all-weather' was thrown in there, too. One of the British V bombers, the Valiant, developed serious stress fractures from it being forced into the low-level strike missions that the RAF had it flying. It was taken off of nuclear missions as a result about 10 years after being introduced.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 02:21
|
|