The DC-10 also caused that Concorde disaster in 2000. It was due to a piece of metal falling off it, onto the runway, and then the Concorde going over it.
@@danielf1506 yes I know. Also if the pilot crashed on purpose to give away secrets of the aircraft to a enemy nation it would be considered treason under US code title 18 chapter 115 § 2381, Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. Since the pilot would've been probably US Air force it falls under that punishment.
Hahahahaha! When I was in the US Army in the 1980s we used to claim to be on “Starfighter Watch” (kind of like barracks fire watch), when we saw them flying overhead.
The F-104 Starfighter had one role: Intercept high flying Russian bombers. It's build for that. It can do that. Using it as a multirole aircraft or even ground attack aircraft was the fail.
@@R.Lennartz I’d say being optimized for high-speed flight in straight lines meant its low-speed performance wouldn’t be very good. Cold, wet air (like in Germany) provides more lift than Arizona’s hot, dry air.
@@R.Lennartz if people crash ferraris do you blame the car? it has one purpose... it suits that purpose very very well. most all crashes were pilot error cause of its glide aspect.. aka it landed very very fast.
A design feature it shared with the B-47. The B-47 pilot and copilot sat under a fighter-style canopy, but the navigator/bombardier sat deep inside the nose. The 1940s - 1950s weren't just a time of amazing progress in aviation, they were also a time of weeding out bad ideas. Frequently the hard way.
I remember reading Mercury astronaut Deke Slayton’s book where he briefly spoke about test flying F-104s in the 50s and he said that if you wanted to eject you usually had to flip the aircraft over before firing your seat so you weren’t just rocketed into the ground at Mach 3.
The Blackburn Roc was based on a flawed concept, and was out of frontline service from June 1940. From then on the remaining aircraft served for air-sea rescue and target towing. Given that the Me262 did not enter service until April 1944, it's a bit fatuous to compare the 2 aircraft. Just consider what the USAAF considered its front-line fighters in June 1940. The US Navy did not retire the Grumman F3F bi-plane fighter from frontline service until the end of 1941 to be replaced by the Brewster Buffalo! Like the Roc, the F3F served on into 1943 in back-up roles. I doubt either would have fared well against a Mitsubishi A6M.
gunmnky I disagree. The Buffalo was a frontline fighter for the Finland. Nearly 50 of them were delivered and there are claims that they downed nearly 1,000 Soviet aircraft. They also fought against the Germans when the Fins turned on the Nazis. They were finally retired in 1948. So the Buffalo was definitely still in service when the first jet fighters took to the skies, but they never fought against each other.
@@1992AC There are 10 M3 Stuarts in service in Paraguay as late as 2014. By your logic, this means they were designed to fight Abrams and T90 tanks. America replaced the Buffalo as quickly as it could. That other countries continued to use them out of desperation does not mean it was intended to be a post 1941 front line fighter.
Like others have said, the problem with the F-104 Starfighter isn't with plane itself, but what operators of it tried to shoe horn it into doing. It was originally designed as a missile equiped high speed high altitude interceptor, and the German Airforce tried to make it an all weather multirole aircraft flying nape of the earth. By doing that they made it a death trap. The doctrine failed the aircraft, not the aircraft failing the doctrine.
But it's still not only the germans to blaim. The aircraft was sold as it could fullfill these roles. And Lockheed was later known for bribery to various countries. There is evidence they payed about 1.1Mio DM speed money to german officials.
Well, the Starfighter was a troublesome plane even when used in its intended role. It was so hyper-specialized for high-altitude, high-speed performance that its flight characteristics on takeoff and landing were _abysmal_ and most of the losses were over or near airfields. Handling amazingly well at altitude doesn't help much when trying to _get_ to that altitude in the first place is a game of russian roulette :P.
@@DrKlausTrophobie I tend to agree with you on that as well as most of Dave McGs. comment. Kelly Johnson was no mug at designing aircraft. *BUT* his designs pushed the performance envelopes and as such needed to be used as they were intended. The F104s basic task was to get up as high possible as fast as possible and deliver bomber smashing missiles against the potential fleet of Russian bombers. It was first and foremost an interceptor not a dog fighter, BUT THEN many other planes of that era were also of that mindset. Don't forget many fighters of that era ONLY had missiles and they were designed to go fast, line up, fire a missile and GET TF OUT as fast as possible. Go look at the rocket fighter videos the British were proposing at the time or the Canadian Avro Arrow which was a far more rounded aircraft. Simon did a video on the Arrow and if you look through the comments on it or any of the Arrow videos the Canadians are still sore about how Lockheed out muscled (& bribed) them with the business BS that ended up with a set of Laws called the "Lockheed Laws" to this day.
@@GaldirEonai I would just like to say that anyone looking at the very short(21+ft tip to tip)span and T-tail would already know it would not be exactly docile at low speeds. It was designed for berry good pilots. As I recall initially the P-51 was difficult to land (laminar flow airfoil stall characteristics) due to stall at low speed and B-26 Marauder due to the initial short span wings stall at low speed. Combat acct aren't supposed to be docile at low speeds or any speed for that matter.
The statement "changing to doors that open outward instead of inward" Implies that all doors on the DC-10 started off designed to open inward but were changed to open outward. On the DC-10, the passenger door opens INWARD (standard for jet airliners), and the cargo door opens OUTWARD (common). ACTUAL CAUSE OF ACCIDENTS - The DC-10's "door related" indents were a result of a design defect with its cargo door's latching mechanism. The handle on the cargo door could be forced closed WITHOUT the locking pins inside actually engaging to secure the door from opening during flight. To the ground crew who closed the cargo door, the door would appear secured, AND also indicated as such in the cockpit. Two incidents resulted from this design defect with the cargo door... The first occurred during American Airline's Flight 96 in 1972, when, in the plane's takeoff climb, at approximately 11,000 feet the cargo door ripped off. This resulted in a cabin decompression that caused the cabin floor to collapse. The floor caused damage to flight control cables routed below the floor, though In this case the pilots managed to safely land the plane. Two year later, however, when the cargo door ripped off during Turkish Airlines Flight 981, all 346 people on board were killed. Despite having a notoriously bad record over its first few years, after the cargo door's design defect was corrected and other improvements were made, statistics show that the DC-10 went on to be one of the safer jet airliners to fly on throughout the rest of its career. (Note: I believe that the writing for Simon's videos are normally accurate and excellent, and that this case is simply an exception. )
There was also the door that blew off the protoype on the ground on its first(?) pressurisation test. McDonnell Douglas were more interested in denying there was a problem, persuading the FAA that no Airworthiness Directives were necessary (sound familiar?) and bickering with their subcontractor Convair over who should pay for a redesign, than fixing the danger.
Good comment and I agree across the board. My understanding was the doors were designed that way FROM THE START to allow for more cargo including cargo pallets. One of the Aircraft Investigations does a really good job (including a 3d CAD model) of why the lock mechanism could fail. The worst part of the original mechanism was that the mechanical indicator that indicated it was locked for ground crew to know it was locked could give false positives. I'm an engineer and its one of those mechanisms that ALL engineering students need to study and understand.
Wonder why the muppet attacked the DC10 and not the 737 Max - the DC10 was grounded for only 37 days while the 737 Max was grounded for nearly two years !
After the cargo door was fixed the remaining accidents involved airline maintanence cutting corners mainly by trying to remove the wing engines and pylons as a single unit.
@@Gundam944 Define "real". 17 planes were made, 7 of them were pre-series experimental airframes. Amongst 10 "serial" aircraft, three were used as testbeds for the Tu-144D modification, and only 5 actually were used for their initial intended purpose. Is it "real production" if there are more pre-series/experimental/flying lab units than ones used as intended? Wouldn't call it a "dreadful aircraft with a miserable record", though. Unless you count the financial records, heh.
@@Gundam944 Both. It seems it was pushed into production and (limited) operational service for political reasons before it's (many) problems had been fixed. So basically the production aircraft were still experimental and it's passengers were guinea pigs.
@@ThePower1037 This video was very poorly researched, I'm disappointed with Simon and crew on this one. F-104 was designed as a dedicated interceptor, NOT a fighter bomber. Air Force is always trying to use every airplane in multiple roles whether or not it's suitable. DC-10's initially poor safety record has continuously improved as design flaws were rectified and fleet hours increased. At least these two were successful aircraft, NOT among the worst four ever. Which makes his other two choices suspect as well. There are dozens and dozens so bad they never made it to production.
Well, I NEVER EVER knew a pilot who actually had the opportunity to fly the Starfighter say that the plane was BAD: they tell it was challanging to fly but extremely rewarding.
@@Leptospirosi i was pretty shocked, because the Starfighter was the backbone of Operation Rolling Thunder before the F-4 Phantom took to the skies, meaning that it had a good reputation edit: i forgot it was the F-105, not the F-104
I remember a military instructor (Bundeswehr) describing the F 104 like this: An engine with wings powerful enough to lift an fully loaded bus, but if the engine fails it has the aerodynamic shape of an anvil.
Nope the F-104 was originally designed purely as a high speed missile armed interceptor. All the other duties were added on later grossly increasing weight which is what Kelly Johnson was trying to design out in the F104. IE He designed it to be as light as possible then some muppet adds near 1500kg of dry weight and wonders why it did not fly so well any more. That does not sound like much but it pushed the dry weight up from 4800kg to 6300kg.
Correct. And it was also pretty reliable, if you knew how to fly and maintain it. Which the Germans didn't, thinking "it's another jet, just like the F-84" so they didn't consider training for the pilots and maintenance crews a high priority when they transitioned to the new aircraft. Compare that to the Dutch air force, who did give transition training, and there were next to no losses.
Yes, and it took to the air in 1954, not in the early -60s, as the muppet told. The Bachem Natter would have fitted perfectly here, or the Valkyrie, or the Thunderschreech
I tend to agree with you on that as well as most of Dave McGs and others (above on the list). Kelly Johnson was no mug at designing aircraft. BUT his designs pushed the performance envelopes and as such needed to be used as they were intended. The F104s basic task was to get up as high possible as fast as possible and deliver bomber smashing missiles against the potential fleet of Russian bombers. It was first and foremost an interceptor not a dog fighter, BUT THEN many other planes of that era were also of that mindset. Don't forget many fighters of that era ONLY had missiles and they were designed to go fast, line up, fire a missile and GET TF OUT as fast as possible. Go look at the rocket fighter videos the British were proposing at the time or the Canadian Avro Arrow which was a far more rounded aircraft. Simon did a video on the Arrow and if you look through the comments on it or any of the Arrow videos the Canadians are still sore about how Lockheed out muscled (& bribed) them with the business BS that ended up with a set of Laws called the "Lockheed Laws" to this day.
The middle two feel less like failures of the aircraft, and more a failure of how they were used/marketed. Planes optimized for high-altitude, high speed interception of nuclear bombers over or near your home territory. And instead being used as multirole aircraft. Seems like an easy recipe for failure.
and the germans who had most of the accident since 1962 to 169 but not after that, were keeping those high tech planes parked on the side of the runways instead of storing them inside proper shelters: what could have gone wrong?!?
Due to corruption from Lockheed with the German government they bought the totally unsuited F 104 instead of the superb British Buccaneer. Cost a lot of pilots their lives and Hartman Germany’s and the Worlds greatest ace his career when he told his seniors the truth.
It was a developed into an multi-role aircraft thus it should have been able to perform multiple roles safely, if it couldn't the NATO member shouldn't have allowed it use as such and Lockhead should not have sold it as such, also the F104 had a poor safety record long before it was developed into an multi-role aircraft it was grounded by USAF three months into service following a series of accidents.
The main issue with the starfighter was not mentioned. During maneuvers the electrical and electronic cables would rub against the inside of the aircraft, gradually rubbing off the insulation, leading to sudden massive failures of the electronics required to control the aircraft. That caused all the crashes.
You must have mixed something up: the rubbing cables were an issue with the early F-16's. The F-104 had many issues (crapy ejection seats, malfunctioning boundary layer control system, flaps that tended to extend asymetrically - with an instant flip over close to the ground, and so on), but rubbing cables weren't among them.
Two other planes I think you could add to the list are the F7U Cutlass and it's successor the F3H Demon. The "Gutless Cutlass" was a radical delta winged carrier based jet fighter that first flew in 1946 and entered service in the early 50s. It's engines were severly underpowered for it's size and prone to stalling at low altitude which is bad for carrier landings. It nose landing gear was also fragile to the point it would regularly collapse on landing driving up through the cockpit and killing the pilot. After just five years of service over a third of the airframes built had been lost to accidents and the type was refused from carrier use as well as being rejected by the Blue Angels demostration team. It's follow up the F3H Demon also suffered from an underpowered engine but was heavier, less manuverable, and prone to crashing on catapult launch if the throttle wasn't firewalled. It was also known as the "Lead Sled". By the way it also had a faulty ejection seat.
The Cutlass yes, although the last version of it finally rectified a lot of the problems, mainly the shitty engine. The F3H I am not too sure about, it wasnt anything special but I wouldnt say its bad
The problem with the F3H Demon is it's initial J40 engine. When the plane entered service the engine didn't provide the required thrust needed to get in the air. After six of the initial twenty five crashed within a few days of being operational the entire line was grounded and could only be used for mechanic and ground crew training. Also because of the design only engines of a certain size could fit in the airframe leaving the underpowered J71 as a replacement. The only other plane to use them was the B-66 Destroyer and it required two of them to get it's loaded 50,000lbs airframe into the air. Meanwhile the F3H weighed over half that at 34,000lbs. That means that even if it could now get in the air with the J71 it's performance was now sluggish, it's speed slow, and couldn't carry a full weapons compliment. Not a good combination for something that was theoretically facing Mig-19's and Mig-21's. Thankfully it was withdrawn from service right before the Vietnam War and was only in use for seven years.
And the Mig 23 That was flown in the Soviet Union was actually a good aircraft. It had a completely different engine as well as different avionics. The countries that bought the May 23 from the Soviet Union were actually super pissed because they were shown the original Soviet aircraft and it was alluded to that that's what they would be buying and then upon delivery it was discovered that they had different engines that required lots of maintenance and needed to be replaced frequently which was great for the Soviets cuz then they had to buy more engines. But again, the MiG-23 that was flown by the Soviet Union was actually a decent aircraft with completely different avionics and power plant
This was standard Soviet practice for all its military exports (perhaps excepting Warsaw Pact nations). They called the export versions the "monkey model." It wasn't just about cutting costs. They also (hopefully) provided misleading information to Western intelligence services if, for example, they captured a Syrian fighter plane. And prevented their most secret stuff from falling into enemy hands.
Ehhhhhhhh.... I usually like your videos, guys, but this one was mostly off the mark. Roc, yes. Bad. The rest... um... there are *far* more deserving aircraft out there. You've even done videos on some of them (Concordski, comrade?)
I would even say the Roc was that bad in the grand scheme of things. A failure and useless fighter yes but at least only about 100 were made and they didn't have a high non combat loss rate. Look at the Fairey. Thousands made heavily leeching on Merlin engine and aircraft production. A totally excessive crew of three. A very poor light bomber which was too slow, had too little bomb capacity and had a meagre defensive armament. The result was a common loss rate of over 50% in combat sorties and hundreds of aircrew lost to the enemy.
The Turret fighter concept produced two main planes / the BP Defiant and the Blackburn Roc. Roc were adapted from the Skua which wasn’t nearly as awful as a dive bomber and fighter. The Defiant was actually a good plane but a terrible concept. The Roc was a bad plane and a bad concept. However, comparing with a 262 is silly thing. Like comparing a musket to an assault rifle.
Yup. The 262 hadn’t even been invented yet. And, frankly anything pre-war would’ve been laughable comparatively (just talking top trumps not actual capability). Didn’t the Defiant turn out to be adecent night fighter mid war? I know it got replaced but I seem to remember it being liked at the time
My Great Uncle flew the Defiant on Army cooperation excercises and pulling drogues for AA. He said it was from the old RFC chaps fixated on the successful Bristol fighters. And he often retorted that his squadron were jolly glad they didn't have to fly em in combat. The Fairy Battle, now that really was a dud.
@@duggiebader1798 I think it was just nuts that they still thought the Bristols success would be replicated twenty years and much technical improvements later. The Bristol rear gunner was able to engage an attacking plane with a least if not more firepower than the attacker (x2 Lewis guns) plus he could aim independently rather than having to line up the whole kite. This was probably true of the turreted fighter up to the mid 30’s but after that it was obviously rapidly falling behind attacking firepower. Plus faster fighters required quicker cooperation between pilot and gunner to the degree of needing telepathy to work effectively. What baffles me is how was this not identified before the war? Did they not run mock dog fights? Did hurricane pilots not tell them they were dog meat up there? Was there no such thing as ‘aggressor squadrons’? In wonderful hind site they should have scrapped the Fairy Battle completely and taken the turret off the Defiant and shoved a couple of bombs on the wing and a Vickers K or GO on the back. As for the the Roc - just convert them all to Skuas as a stop gap. The worlds greatest plane ever - the Fairey Fulmar - was in its way so no panic needed. …… What? That’s one of my good ideas. My mad idea is this - in the Far East the best planes on the inventory at the time of hostilities commencing with the Japanese - with exception of the Spit - were the Defiant and the Gladiator. No, don’t be rude, let me explain first! You’re fighting A6Ms. Very manoeuvrable etc. Defiant doesn’t even try to dog fight it. Just turns in a circle and shoots back against notoriously vulnerable Zeros. The Gladiator idea came from a friends great uncle who was in the RAAF. They had Gladiators in Malaya but were promised a modern monoplane with retractable undercarriage type fighter. They got Buffalos! Within a week they had asked for their Gladiators back. Probably the only plane we had that could dog fight a zero. Like I said, a mad idea. But kinda fun to imagine. Hope the legs are ok, btw!
Re the DC10. The cabin doors were plug doors and the cargo doors were outward opening, which was the standard arrangement for widebody a/c. This is the same setup as a B747 and Lockheed L1011. The problem was that with a cargo door failure the pressurisation loads would cause the floor to collapse into the, now unpresssurised, cargo compartment. The DC10 has it's flight control cables running through the floor beams, which caused jammed the cables and caused loss of control in the case of depressurisation. The B747 control cables ran above the cabin ceiling, avoiding this issue. After the first DC10 floor collapse, all widebody a/c were modified to provide 'blowout' panels in the floor and lower sidewall, which would allow a safe flowpath for the cabin to depressurise into the cargo area. On a 747, these are the grilled panels at the bottom of the side walls next to your feet and run the length of the cabin.
With inadequate cargo door locking and an understrength floor, you could almost say the 10 was designed to crash. The 747 was slightly better - not quite so prone to locking failure, and when UA 811 lost a door it didn't immediately lose control and crash (though its subsequent landing was a close thing) because, as you say, the controls ran through the roof. I don't think a L1011 ever lost a door, or came near to it. (On the other hand, Aloha 243, the topless 737, it's just as well the cables did run through the floor. No location is bulletproof).
NOT control cables but hydraulic lines run under the floor of the DC10. The 747 similarly uses hydraulic lines, NOT control cables. Control cables have minimally been used since the 707 and DC8.
@@larrycooper9487 ... except with the 737, which famously still uses cables as a backup for the tail trim. But I think the point was, the location of the control wires/cables/pipes/lines, whether in the floor or the roof, not so much the nature of the controls.
The 1979 Chicago DC-10 crash happened because the procedure to remove the engine wasn't respected, shortcuts were taken with forklifts resulting in engine mounts damages.
I always enjoyed flying on the DC10s with Northwest Orient Airlines. Very spacious, well-designed interior, exceptional service (lots of cabin crew). Fortunately, I was never involved in any "loss of hull incidents." 😏
I flew in an American Airlines DC10 years after those tragic incidents happened. Many lives were lost so that we can have a safer DC10 and future MD11 (although the latter had a fire and hull loss at Nova Scotia)
The F-104's wings were indeed razor-sharp. So much so, that covers were placed on the wings leading edges to prevent ground crews getting nasty cuts by simply brushing up against the wings.
IIRC they had a radius of 0.4mm. I did not manage to cut myself on them, but I can see how it might be possible to cause damage if you hit them hard and fast.
Not true I was around them all the time when I was a kid, I was hired to crack open the cockpits when the temperature rose above 100 degrees and then close them in the evening. Something that was quite common at Luke AFB ( Glendale Arizona)
Missing THE worst aircraft: Curtiss C-76 Caravan. Transport that was out of CG if not loaded up beyond max weight, structural failures, pilots refusing to fly, air force officers wanted to join a test flight, but pilot refused to let them on board... Which was good, because it crashed on that flight, killing all on board.
Both the F-104 and MiG-23 were pretty good aircraft for their era and intended purpose. The Soviets didn't export a lot of MiG-23s because the air defense version, which was the mission it was intended for, wasn't allowed to be exported because of its secret electronics. The export version had a lower performance engine, inferior radar, and lacked a lot of other things the Soviet versions did. The F-104 had a good record, except in Germany where the crews weren't properly trained for flying and maintaining them, causing a lot of accidents. Other countries had good safety records. The DC-10 worked well once the cargo door problems were solved. Very comfortable ride. If those are the worst aircraft ever, I have a bridge to sell.
@@IrishMike22 the same flight school of underage stupidity (your a yank I'm a brit) but we both had the same stupid idea's of flying at a young age that is clearly universal! !!
@@IrishMike22 no bother my American friend! Interactions with my cross altantic cousins is so fucking lush! (As we say in Newcastle England btw lol!) Love you bro!!!!
I flew to the UK from Australia in 1975 in three successive DC's; DC-9 Melbourne to Sydney, DC-10 Sydney to Bangkok, DC-8 Bangkok to London. I would have to say that the DC-10 from a passenger viewpoint was the quietest, most comfortable aircraft I've ever flown in. The acceleration on takeoff was absolutely exhilarating. The DC-8, by comparison, seemed to struggle to get off the ground. I've flown in most aircraft used by Australia's commercial airlines, from Viscounts to 747s , most of Boeing's passenger jets, Saabs and Fokkers, Airbus, etc. and I still rate the DC-10 as the best ride. I'm just glad that the crew locked the doors properly.
Blackburn ROC: Brand new aircraft being obsolete on entering service is effectively all combat aircraft in the 1930's. You are going from the 180mph bristol bulldog in 1928 to the 310mph Hurricane of 1938 and through 4 models in between. And that is just British fighters. Turret fighters were built on the successes of WW1 of the Sopwith 1 1/2 strutter and Bristol Fighter. However the idea was obviously overtaken by technology. The rivals of the Roc you offer were at the other end of the war. So not a fair comparison. However even the Stuka was even faster and that would have been a fair comparison.
Turkish Airlines 981 was the only fatal accident to occur as a result of the cargo door. American Airlines 191 was the result of faulty maintenance procedures.
Yep bypassed the proper procedure for removing the wing mounted engines and in doing so damaged a mounting bracket which then failed during the take off run, can't really blame the aircraft design for that. There was an American DC-10 that lost it's rear cargo door at 12000 feet, this landed safely and as a result recommended modifications to the cargo door latch mechanism were issued along with adding an inspection window so a visual check could be made that the door was properly locked, unfortunately Turkish Airlines had not done the mods though they did have the inspection window, the problem was the French ground crew member that closed the cargo door did not know he had to visually check through the inspection window to confirm the latch mechanism was fully engaged and the instructions on the door advising this was written in Turkish and English and he spoke neither language, the cargos door failed at 12000 feet and the resulting damage made the aircraft unflyable. The Sioux City crash was a DC-10 but this was down to a defect in a rotor blade in engine number 2 (tail mounted engine) so not really a fault of the Aircraft it's self.
@@luvstellauk Neither the Chicago or the Sioux City crashes were directly caused of design flaws, but you can say, that if MD had split the hydraulic lines into sections (as is done nowadays), the pilots still would've had better control (but still limited) over the aircraft. But with all that said, the multi sectioned hydraulic systems were just introduced in large aircraft (If I remember correctly, the Lockheed L-1011 Tristar was the first one to use it).
Not a very good list, with "maybe" the Roc deserving it. The F-104 and Mig-23 did what they were designed to do, and reasonably well. The DC-10 was a fine aircraft that had some teething issues mostly resolved. The research done for this was poor at best, if existing at all. The usual cries for Devastators, P-39, Buffalo, etc are really not well supported as the aircraft were fine when designed and not altered. The Buffalo as originally built and used by the Finns was outstanding, and the P-39 with oxygen and turbochargers (as designed) would have been more like the Kingcobra which was an equivalent to the Mustang. Crap redesigns and add-ons ruined both. The TBD was about as good of torpedo bomber built in the 30's as possible, and its combat performance was not especially awful. NO torpedo bombers would have fared well against Zeroes while unescorted. Range was indeed short, but it was designed for a larger bomb load for high altitude level bombing. The Swordfish was a good plane, but also rarely faced enemy fighters. When it did, it died. Great ASW platform though. I think the Ba-88 Lince, the Roc, Me-210, Breguet 693, and Ca-310 or Potez-630 series would all get my most serious looks for worst aircraft of WW2. Avro Manchester comes to mind too. Vultee Vengeance and Northrop attack bombers were lousy too. I suspect every aviation era has some real stinkers though.
Indeed!! This list is just WRONG 75% of of the time. The detractors of any and...well, any but the ROC, are barking up the wrong BS. This guy has his head up his afterburner. NONE of these, save the ROC, was a TERRIBLE plane....and they DID what they were supposed to do. I didnt bother to watch the whole thing......sorry.
The DC-10 was a fine aircraft that had some teething issues mostly resolved. The research done for this was poor at best, if existing at all. a fine aircraft from a fine factory from a fine corruption. like you said , a fine example.
The Manchester wasn't great as a plane, but it was more of a stop gap, without it we wouldn't have got the Lancaster. F-104 was great for its intended role, only let down by operators deciding to use it as a tactic bomber. People just jump on the band wagon of hating the Starfighter
@@billding6721 I agree, but the design was so underpowered from the start that they should have known better. That said, it was the frontrunner of the Lancaster, by far the best night bomber of the war. After some more thought I think maybe the Heinkel-177 would also be considered on my list. That plane was just doomed by so many bad designs and role changes. Only thing potentially positive might be that it was also a frontrunner to some scary looking bombers on the drawing board that "might" have ended up be great. "Amerika Bomber" indeed.
Sorry but I have to raise some issues with the DC-10 segment. It did indeed use plug doors for the passenger cabins, and only used outward-opening doors for the cargo space. It's true that this design led to 2 incidents and a fatal accident, but this was more down to implementation than concept. The locking mechanisms for the doors were flimsy and could be easily damaged by ground crew, and if a cargo door did blow at altitude the result would be a pressure differential between the cabin and the cargo space which would cause the cabin floor to collapse, severing flight controls in the process. These issues were fixed by redesigning the cargo door locks, and by introducing vents that would equalise the pressure between the cabin and the cargo space if pressure was lost under the cabin floor. Other successful aircraft, including the 747, use outward-opening cargo bay doors. In fact a 747 suffered a cargo bay door blowout which resulted in a big hole being ripped in the cabin and at least one passenger being sucked through an engine. Early 747s also suffered from faulty cargo bay door lock design and the problem was also solved by redesigning the locks and introducing pressure equalisation valves. The Chicago crash was caused by dodgy engine servicing techniques that weren't approved by Douglas rather than by any inherent design flaws in the aircraft (the engineers had used a forklift to reinstall an engine, and had damaged the engine mounting points in the process, which failed a few weeks later due to metal fatigue).
Just to show how robust the DC-10 really was, there was an incident on a Fed-Ex DC-10 where a soon-to-be-ex employee smuggled several weapons aboard including hammers and a harpoon gun, with the intention of killing the crew, hijacking the plane and crashing it into Fex-Ex HQ in revenge for his pending dismissal. One of the pilots was ex-navy, and when the guy in question started attacking the crew, he responded by rolling the aircraft to 140 degrees (almost upside down!) and putting it into a dive that got alarmingly close to the speed of sound, well beyond its design limits. The plane was badly damaged, but it survived its ordeal (as did the crew, who were hailed as heroes for fighting off their attacker), and continued in service after repairs for a number of years afterwards.
Clarence Kelly designed the F-104 to be an interceptor going high and fast. Lockheed added weight and marketed it to NATO as a do everything fighter. Using it for ground attack was a mistake. Even so only Canada and Germany had a high loss rate.
Canadian pilots were constantly scoring high in competitions involving the 104. But, as you say, it's main claim to fame is the number of good pilots it killed. God rest their souls.
@@ivankrylov6270 Lockheed is no longer in the business of building quality aircraft. It's business is selling contracts to the government -- milking the contract is all they care about.
@@RaysDad If the government is stupid enough to buy from them then who's the sucker? I also hope the government has a good explanation to the tax payers too...
Actually the DC-10 was - and still is - a very reliable aircraft, especially after the cargo door issues were solved. The largest problem was the PR with two major crashes having impactful visuals scaring of the public. The truly sad part is that both those crashes were not due to a faulty design, but due to faulty maintenance and an engine defect.
@@Ihaveanamenowtaken Not quite; the design was more than sufficient for its purpose. What they however underestimated was the amount of abuse ground crews were willing to use to lock the doors when incorrectly - not fully - closed. In that case the hooks would not engage and the locking lever would not be able to be closed by manual force. They however didn't reckon with ground crews using their knee and their full body weight to force the lever into the locked position, bending the mechanism inside with the hooks remaining out-of-engagement. With the locking sensor basically recording the position of the lever rather than the position of the hooks this was a recipe for disaster. At most you can say that the engineers neglected to include such ground crew behaviour in their "foreseeable misuse" analysis which usually is a part of the design process. Same can be said for the O'Hare disaster; The Douglas engineers simply didn't foresee customers using a heavy forklift to exchange engines rather than the dedicated lifting trolley designed for the purpose. It caused major damage to the engine mounts resulting in an engine breaking of during take-off resulting in a fatal crash. You can't engineer for all possible occurences of human stupidity amongst your customers.
@@roykliffen9674 Indeed, not quite. But they had that problem regarding the door in their tests: the door seemed to be closed, but it wasn't latched. So... they kind of knew that their design allowed any ground crew to close the door without latching it.
@@Ihaveanamenowtaken hmmm .... that bit of info does indeed change the narrative. "It'll be alright" is never an acceptable response to a failed test of a safety-critical component. It sure didn't fly when I was engaged in developping medical ventilators. The only acceptable response in such cases is "Back to the drawing board". {edit] BTW when they finally did do that the new design really seems to have solved the problems. The only remaining problem I know of is difficulties landing the aircraft .... when the pilot flying isn't as attentive as he should be it is an easy aircraft to bounce. Besides that the DC-10 after improvements had a pretty good safety record.
Don't come to this channel (or the whole channel family, really) expecting good research, most of it is riddled with errors and misconceptions. It's some fun storytelling though.
The F-104 was a good plane for its intended purpose of being a fast high flying interceptor that was supposed to hunt and shoot down soviet bombers. The Bundeswehr just used the thing as low flying tactical bomber and all kinds of other nonsense it was never designed for and the result was loads of lost planes and dead pilots.
Although I think we can agree that Lockheed bribing the Germans into buying it didn't help the problem either. And yes, we could start a debate on who's at fault there, I'm just saying the officials probably had other, more capable planes (for their needs anyways) in mind.
Actually it was designed and used as a fighter bomber with the option of interceptor role. and loads of lost planes? majority of losses were due to pilot error not the plane itself. When you design a plane that requires decent skill to fly, you expect the pilots to be trained accordingly.
It took 10 years and over 1000 dead to 'finally' deal with the majority (not all) of the fatal flaws. I studied this plane in school and it had numerous flaws that took years to fix during major overhauls. The fact that you still find it flying cargo is because it is a very cheap airplane to buy and can haul a lot of cargo. But no one is risking it with passengers again.
Especially going back to the days of slide rules and drawing boards, I don't know how picked "a" worst of the era. Blackburn Botha, Brewster Buffalo, Heinkel He177, Douglas Devastator, LaGG4, Fairey Battle, Me 210... it's a long list of planes that should been replaced by 1939 or never built in the first place.
ahermmmm.......you include the F104 and MiG-23 but missing the Me-163! I'll tell you why the Komet is a far more dangerous aircraft than a Starfighter, it's the dangers of using Hypergolic fuels. This requires you to ensure the fuel tanks are completely ( and that includes fumes!) Before attempting to land your delta-wing glider at a massively unsafe speed!
The 163 simply exploding if fuel lines got ruptured, the skid being pretty close and far under the COG which had the planes do somersaults on landing way too often (Often resulting in fuel lines rupturing→**BANG!**), the bulletproof block of glass in front of the pilot which would sometimes shatter. At the high subsonic speeds, friction heat from the airflow around the plane heated up parts of the glass which expanded and thus caused tensions in the material. On sufficient tension, the glass exploded right into the pilot´s face. The absence of a pressurized cabin in a plane that took its pilot to the stratosphere in 2½ minutes. A common fart could tear open the pilot´ s bowels in flight!
Indeed, I suppose the Roc was at least moderately safe to operate when no-one was trying actively to kill you, but with the Komet, the plane was. The Allied tested a powered Komet exactly once... and that was not a much "The Allied" than Eric Brown acting on his own.
Not to mention the dangers of sabotage from having parts made in occupied regions as well, kinda hard to justify something being good when people have made great effort to make it bad.
The F104? I mean horrible record, but also insanely successful in terms of selling thousands of units and being in operation for decades! Edit: oh! Bribery...
The big problem the F104 was designed as a daylight fighter/inteceptor as a replacement for the F86. What it was sold as and pressed into service as was a multi-mission multirole fighter bomber, something it was definately not suitable for.
I agree, though maybe Simon spared them because it was a Fairey Battle that disabled the Bismarks rudder and led to its eventual demise, even if the entire squadron were shot down in the process. Useless aircraft but at least it did one good deed 😅
The Fairey Swordfish despite being an obsolete open cockpit torpedo biplane has one of the greatest war records of any aircraft punching well above it's weight class. In addition to the Bismarck it also sunk a large chunk of the Italian battlefleet at Taranto in 1940. It sunk far more tonnage than any other allied torpedo bomber of the war. The Fairey Battle on the other hand was a complete disappointment.
The MiG-25, Brewster Buffalo, and SB2C Helldiver are all disappointed that you forgot them. The Pou du Ciel, too, but I assume the unspoken criteria is 'mass produced'.
Ask the Finnish about the Brewster. ;) Althought those were early B.239 aircrafts not the so called "Buffalos" and F2A-3s what fought desperately against Japanes aircrafts.
Indeed, the Buffalo was a disappointment for the US Navy but hardly one of the worst four ever - and even they used them as advanced trainers and that's not a loss of resources, one of the great advantages USA had over Japan was the amount training the pilots had before their first actual mission.
The flogger also had one other issue. The pilot had to manually select the sweep of the wings. It was not automatically computer controlled like those used on the tomcat or the aardvark
The thunderscreech would have been right at home on this list! If men were standing near it when they were operating, it wasn't uncommon for them to get a splitting headache throw up and maybe pass out.... I believe there is one time that a man actually had a seizure because the plane was just so loud!
@@Meriatar Turkish 981 had 346 fatalities , AA 191 had 271 , The Air New Zealand crash in Antarctica killed another 257 and UTA 772 terrorist bombing killed another 170 . Those 4 accidents killed 1044 people but only The Turkish Airlines crash was because of a design flaw with the aircraft
For anyone who enjoys this, I highly recommend “wings of the luftwaffe” and “wings of the red star”, the latter narrated by Peter Ustinov. They’re high quality documentary series from the early nineties. Both can be found on TH-cam
@@jakedailey4505 - I think you're thinking of "Air Warriors" - that's good! try and find one called "Flat Tops" - it's got some amazingly cheesy music and it's amazing!
oh!! and you'll all really, REALLY love the documentary "Flying through time" - a 26 part look at aviation history (made in australia - totally rocks) and "DC Wings : Strange Planes" is a 6 parter covering the development of some of the weirder aircraft - I love these - same kinda quality as "Wings of the red star" - although nobody had a voice quite like Peter Ustinov!
Simon, you’re killing me dude. You could have put the Bolton-Paul Defiant on that list. Also, it’s worth pointing out that a lot of combat aircraft have earned the monicker of “Widow Maker” because of fatal design flaws. The F-100 had the “Saber Dance” where it would start doing Dutch rolls at low speed in ground effect. That’ll make you shit your flight suit! I could also argue that the DeHavilland Comet was a bigger flop than the DC-10 because after it’s two highly publicized and fatal crashes, the 707 was launched and took over the lion’s share of the commercial jet market while the Comet was grounded. Food for thought mate!
@charles pawl I know he doesn’t but for these aviation videos he should consider consulting someone who knows a thing or two about the subject instead of just throwing random shit together. People who are passionate about aviation will be able to spot the errors and it will bother them
While I agree with the Roc being an atrocity, the status of the other 3 as"bad" is questionable at best. There are far better choices like the brewster buffalo. The F104s faults were not in its design but its use ,especially its use by the Germans. The germans used it as a multirole aircraft while its strength lay in the interceptor role. For this purpose you could hardly find a better aircraft at the time. The MiG23 was a good aircraft with tremendous acceleration climb rate and for the time decent electronics, but again this was an interceptor not a dogfighter, its agility was terrible but still on par with the f4 phantom (which itself was a brick to fly). Only one version (I think the BM?) was truely terrible because it was basicallya watered down export version and it was this one that gave the MiG23 its reputation because it was absolutely horrible. The rest of the MiG23 versions were pretty good and on pr with the standards at the time. Lastly the DC10 suffered from a series of accidents with some attributed to design flaws. However after that and the following elimination of said flaws, one of the main ones being the doors you mentioned, the plane had a fine safety record that is on par with the other big airliners. Its safety record is better than the 747 and pilots who fly it describe it as pleasent to fly and very reliable. Today however the DC10 is no longer in use as a passenger aircraft but it has become quite a popular cargo aircraft
The Mig 23 was good competition for the F4 but by the time it was produced the F14 and F16 fighters were being serviced by the USA and Israel. It was just too far behind then. In an early combat match-up Israeli F-16 made easy lunch out of Mig 23s over Lebanon and they didn't fare much better against nerfed F14s and F4s over Iran/Iraq. I agree on the DC-10 though, if you live in the USA or Canada they probably still fly over your head from time to time via FedEx or KC10s. FedEx recently retired a DC10 (technically MD-10s) built in 1970 and 1971. I have to believe they were the only early 1970 vintage pressurized jet aircraft flying outside Iran in the 2020s. The DC-10s reputation was killed by very high-profile accidents that weren't necessary it's fault such as UA 232, AA 191, NZ 901, and Western Airlines 2605.
I agree with everything you said, except the Buffalo was good for the Finnish pilots who used it, although it wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes in the Pacific
@@billding6721 If an aircraft only works well when in the hands of some of the most dangerous pilots in the world, it’s probably not all that great. If I recall, the Buffalo lost in basically every single engagement it took place in in the Pacific, both under the British and Americans. Midway was just about the only victory it had, but it came at the price of ~75% losses, so draw your own conclusions there. Besides, the Finns are great at making something out of nothing. Ski troops with AT rifles and Molotovs were able to decimate Soviet tank formations in the Winter War, and they even had success using Maxims as artillery. What should demonstrate how the Buffalo actually fared in their hands was the comparison of kill ratios. They had 12:1 using the F2A, but after getting Bf-109Gs, that rose to 25:1 against a more experienced Red Air Force. Most of the planes on this list shouldn’t be there, but the Buffalo should be. The Brits despised it, the Americans were slaughtered in it, and the Finns were seriously held back by it
Probably trying to balance major eras and roles, while focusing on the most well-known. It's the only explanation I've got for why the Brewster Buffalo isn't on this list. Then again, it didn't do too bad in Finnish hands against the Red Air Force.
When they were developed both of those aircraft were considered cutting edge. By the time they were used in war, they badly out of date. Finland used Buffalos quite effectively against the Soviets until 1942.
@@richardm3023 Considered cutting edge and actually being a superior aircraft are different things. Keep in mind that the Devastator was developed in 1935, a year after the Fairey Swordfish (British biplane torpedo bomber), and the same year as the Yokosuka B4Y. Cutting edge I guess as the first effort to make a carrier based torpedo bomber that wasn't a biplane. But while faster than the others it couldn't maneuver well at all and had much less range. Considering the combat performance of the Fairey Swordfish (Taranto, hunting Bismarck, Mediterranean), the Swordfish was a much more versatile and successful plane. (2,400 Swordfish sunk more Axis shipping than about 10,000 TBF Avengers managed to do.) An argument could be made that the Devastator, at its time of introduction, was the worst torpedo bomber in service with a major navy. At best, it can claim second place.
@@iansneddon2956 in fairness by the time the avenger was fully in place with the fleet, it had more of a bombing and ground support role. It was also a good anti submarine warfare platform. You're comparing different phases of the war. There's a reason why the royal navy replaced the swordfish with avenger TBD.
@@iansneddon2956 did you ever think if the mk 13 torpedo wasn't complete and absolutely shit that maybe just maybe the TBD would absolutely destroy the swordfish. The tpd didn't have any losses till midway. The swordfish did have losses though not many
I am surprised the pilot-melting Nazi jet didn't get a mention... with it's poor design that had it land on it's own fuselage, terrible combat performance and that the fuel could melt the pilot if it got into the cockpit.
@@amadeokomnenus1414 What are you talking about? The Bob Semple tank is the pinnacle of human engineering, and the most amazing engineering marvel ever devised and built by humans in all of our collective history!!!
Blackburn Roc: see also Boulton Paul Defiant and other turret fighters. Other names for the F-104: Erdnagel (tent peg), Lawn Dart, Aluminium Death-Tube, and, more affectionately "The Zipper". If it had been kept to its original purpose (high-altitude interceptor) it would have been fine
If you want a jetliner failure, I'd offer up the BAe Trident as a much bigger failure than the DC-10. The DC-10 after 40+ yrs after introduction are still in use.
I've heard that plane described as a very effective fighter, but also very unforgiving. Essentially, it was a great fighter for skilled pilots, but dangerous in the hands of inexperienced pilots. Maybe Japan had a better training program?
I'm glad you DIDN'T put the Sea Vixen in there. It was a difficult beast, but it was too beautiful to be on this list - the lopsided cockpit notwithstanding! I consider that a cute mole on a supermodels face.
It wasn't. It was designed as a high-altitude interceptor meant to stop nuclear-armed bombers. In that role it was exceptional. The issue was that it got used in roles it was never meant to operate in, which caused a LOT of issues.
What about: - Christmas Bullet - an overtly dangerous aircraft designed by a con man (who got away with it), 100% pilot fatality rate. - Tu-144 - built so the USSR could have its own Concorde, two highly publicised fatal crashes. - WSK-Mielec Belphegor - the world's slowest jet aircraft and only production jet biplane, wrong for its intended purpose to the point where the design faults may have been deliberate. More comical than dangerous. - Me163 - utterly lethal. To its crews, never mind the enemy.
I have to disagree with the F104 being in this list. It's true it had a high accident rate in Germany, but this is largely due to using the plane for a purpose it wasn't intended for, namely ground attack. As an interceptor, it's primary role it excelled. The pilots I have spoken to said the F104 was one of their favorite planes to fly because of its sheer speed and capability in its interceptor role. Also, and sorry to troll you. When you say RPMs, you're saying revolutions per minutes. RPM is an uncounted plural like aircraft (not aircrafts) or sheep ( not sheeps) so, you should say more RPM or less RPM. Again. Sorry to be a troll. Just had to add my two cents.
Mig21 in IAF shot down F104 of PAF with relative ease during 1971 war. Infact even subsonic Dassault Mystere shot down F104 in 1965 war. F104 was an extremely vad dogfighter. And those were the days of dogfighting. (Who knows if dogfighting will still happen today?).
There are a lot of terrible aircraft out there and while the F-104 and the Mig-23 had problems they certainly do not belong on this list. The F-104 was incredibly fast, world record breaking fast, had an incredible climb rate, a really good radar for the time, could carry all the current air-to-air missiles and was the first to use the vulcan 20mm cannon still being used today.
The DC-10 had one thing that it was better than anything else at, making certain that all the AB soldiers jumped out of it first chance they got, I'm not certain some of the flight crew didn't jump out with the drop troops.
Lol this whole list could be McDonnell Douglas planes. Never made a decent plane the entire time they existed. I can't believe they were never shut down lmfao
I can't agree about the F-104 damning comment. The problem with this aircraft was that it was designed to be a pure interceptor and this means to spot the target, scramble, intercept and destroy , return to base, full stop and in this was brilliant. Many air forces, and more notably the Germans used this aircraft for roles for which it wasn't designed, hence the high rates of accidents. The fault wasn't in the plane itself but in the way some air forces used it.
Sadly, when originally being designed, the F-104 was supposed to be a bomber interceptor, operating over the US and Canada shooting down Soviet bombers. In that role speed and acceleration were more important than ground attack and dogfighting capabilities. When US and Canadian orders failed to come in, Lockheed went on a round-the-world tour promoting it to foreign governments as an anything you can imagine aircraft. No truth in advertising, and, when accompanied by bribes to procurement officials, nineteen nations bought them.
The F-104 is my favourite fighter. Best name, "STARFIGHTER!" Looks amazing.....saw them at at an air show in Canada in 1978, thought they were soooo cool. widow maker ? Flying Coffin? .....nobody's perfect....
fyi from an old F-111 AF mechanic , we say: "F one-eleven" not "F one-one-one" ... also, the actual DC-10 passenger version may have had woes, but the airframe design is so solid it's still in use today around the world by the USAF, known as the KC-10 Extender tanker!
They cancelled the TSR2 under pressure from American aircraft manufactures in return for a huge cut in the Marshall loan repayments. Part of the deal included the destruction of all the tools and jigs built for manufacturing parts for the TSR2.
The Starfighter was originally designed as a high altitude strategic bomber interceptor. This role was later changed and the F-104s became multi-role fighters. There were quite a few issues with the initial design and the aircraft was significantly redesigned, including the changing of a suicidal bottom ejection seat with a normal upwards ejecting one. There were also significant structural changes made and the new plane was called F-104G. One problem that persisted however, was engine stall during certain maneuvers at low altitude that proved deadly. The F-104G also served in the Hellenic Air Force. It was decided during 1960 to equip 5 squadrons with F-104Gs but later this was reduced to only 2 squadrons, the other 3 being equipped with Northrop's F-5 Freedom Fighters. The first 37 F-104Gs were received in 1964 and equipped the 335 and 336 Squadrons with call signs Tiger and Olympus respectively. In 1972 USA provided nine more items coming from the Spanish Air Force. Between 1978 and 1985 more than 60 airplanes were received, formerly operating with the German and the Royal Netherlands Air Forces. These included some RF-104G, the reconnaissance version of the type. The airplanes were in bare metal until 1971, when they were painted in “Vietnam” camouflage. The F-104 was the first aircraft of the Hellenic Air Force capable of exceeding 2 Mach. It was decommissioned in 1993. Ln the first 19 months of service with the Hellenic Air Force, there were 4 crashes, 3 of them deadly with 4 casualties as one of the planes was a two seater TF-104G. In total the Hellenic Airforce Starfighters completed 224,489 flight hours during their 29 years of service with 16 casualties. This number of casualties was one of the lowest world wide for this plane. The F-104G was very well liked by the pilots that flew it in the Hellenic Air Force, because of it's great agility and fast response, however the F-104G was considered to be an unforgiving aircraft. I remember one pilot saying that you must fly the F-104 with your head first an then with your hands on the stick because this plane does not forgive mistakes. Here are some videos of Hellenic Air force Starfighters : www.ptisidiastima.com/greek-f-104s/ www.ptisidiastima.com/greek-f-104s/ www.ptisidiastima.com/greek-f-104s/ And the ceremonial last flight of the Hellenic Air Force Starfighters : th-cam.com/video/rkPNENFjuiM/w-d-xo.html
Consolidated C-87 should have been there. P39 was also a pos. He's off his rocker on the DC10. Some of them were lost due to improper engine change procedure.
Just like the military version of the De Havilland Comet, the RAF Nimrod ASW and air fueling tanker. And also the Lockheed Electra which became the US Navy's P-3 Orion ASW and famous hurricane hunter and research plane. Once their infamous fatal flaws were fixed the military bought them and they became tough as nails airframes with decades of long and distinguished service.
Wiki states that no pilots or ground personnel in any air force that operated the F-104 ever referred to it as the "widowmaker". That nickname was entirely created by some sensationalistic media. In Canada, the CF-104 (locally made F-104 with a Canadian motor) had a better safety record than the vaunted CF-86 Sabre it replaced.
The DC-10 also caused that Concorde disaster in 2000. It was due to a piece of metal falling off it, onto the runway, and then the Concorde going over it.
How did the Soviet's steal a Starfighter? They bought a piece of land in Germany and waited for one to fall into it.
🤣
Thats theft of government property and is tantamount to a act of war.
@@theenzoferrari458 it was also a joke
@@danielf1506 yes I know. Also if the pilot crashed on purpose to give away secrets of the aircraft to a enemy nation it would be considered treason under US code title 18 chapter 115 § 2381, Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. Since the pilot would've been probably US Air force it falls under that punishment.
Hahahahaha! When I was in the US Army in the 1980s we used to claim to be on “Starfighter Watch” (kind of like barracks fire watch), when we saw them flying overhead.
The F-104 Starfighter had one role: Intercept high flying Russian bombers.
It's build for that. It can do that.
Using it as a multirole aircraft or even ground attack aircraft was the fail.
I think most Starfighters crashed on landing, what would its role have to do with that?
Dunno, they seem to be quite good at attacking the ground?
Being reusable afterwards was the problem!
@@R.Lennartz I’d say being optimized for high-speed flight in straight lines meant its low-speed performance wouldn’t be very good.
Cold, wet air (like in Germany) provides more lift than Arizona’s hot, dry air.
@@R.Lennartz if people crash ferraris do you blame the car?
it has one purpose... it suits that purpose very very well. most all crashes were pilot error cause of its glide aspect.. aka it landed very very fast.
Too dangerous to be called a "vehicle" - it was more assisted suicide. The MIG-25 is how you build an interceptor!
My favorite fact about the F-104 is that it originally had ejection seats, firing DOWNWARDS.
A design feature it shared with the B-47. The B-47 pilot and copilot sat under a fighter-style canopy, but the navigator/bombardier sat deep inside the nose. The 1940s - 1950s weren't just a time of amazing progress in aviation, they were also a time of weeding out bad ideas. Frequently the hard way.
Imagine if some idiot ejected low too the ground. Especially during landing or take-off
@@grantt1589 That is why it was changed.
@@kevin_1230 that's why when went from no brain to big brain
I remember reading Mercury astronaut Deke Slayton’s book where he briefly spoke about test flying F-104s in the 50s and he said that if you wanted to eject you usually had to flip the aircraft over before firing your seat so you weren’t just rocketed into the ground at Mach 3.
The Blackburn Roc was based on a flawed concept, and was out of frontline service from June 1940. From then on the remaining aircraft served for air-sea rescue and target towing. Given that the Me262 did not enter service until April 1944, it's a bit fatuous to compare the 2 aircraft. Just consider what the USAAF considered its front-line fighters in June 1940. The US Navy did not retire the Grumman F3F bi-plane fighter from frontline service until the end of 1941 to be replaced by the Brewster Buffalo! Like the Roc, the F3F served on into 1943 in back-up roles. I doubt either would have fared well against a Mitsubishi A6M.
Very good point, that was a bit of an unfair comparison.
I agree. This is like saying the Brewster Buffalo was a front line fighter against ME-262s. It was out of service long before jet aircraft took off.
gunmnky I disagree. The Buffalo was a frontline fighter for the Finland. Nearly 50 of them were delivered and there are claims that they downed nearly 1,000 Soviet aircraft. They also fought against the Germans when the Fins turned on the Nazis. They were finally retired in 1948. So the Buffalo was definitely still in service when the first jet fighters took to the skies, but they never fought against each other.
@@1992AC There are 10 M3 Stuarts in service in Paraguay as late as 2014. By your logic, this means they were designed to fight Abrams and T90 tanks.
America replaced the Buffalo as quickly as it could. That other countries continued to use them out of desperation does not mean it was intended to be a post 1941 front line fighter.
he really made a big mess of this video so much wrong info it's just not acceptable with all the info out there easily at everyones finger tips
Like others have said, the problem with the F-104 Starfighter isn't with plane itself, but what operators of it tried to shoe horn it into doing. It was originally designed as a missile equiped high speed high altitude interceptor, and the German Airforce tried to make it an all weather multirole aircraft flying nape of the earth. By doing that they made it a death trap. The doctrine failed the aircraft, not the aircraft failing the doctrine.
This. It was being used in a role it wasn't designed for.
But it's still not only the germans to blaim. The aircraft was sold as it could fullfill these roles.
And Lockheed was later known for bribery to various countries. There is evidence they payed about 1.1Mio DM speed money to german officials.
Well, the Starfighter was a troublesome plane even when used in its intended role. It was so hyper-specialized for high-altitude, high-speed performance that its flight characteristics on takeoff and landing were _abysmal_ and most of the losses were over or near airfields. Handling amazingly well at altitude doesn't help much when trying to _get_ to that altitude in the first place is a game of russian roulette :P.
@@DrKlausTrophobie I tend to agree with you on that as well as most of Dave McGs. comment.
Kelly Johnson was no mug at designing aircraft. *BUT* his designs pushed the performance envelopes and as such needed to be used as they were intended. The F104s basic task was to get up as high possible as fast as possible and deliver bomber smashing missiles against the potential fleet of Russian bombers. It was first and foremost an interceptor not a dog fighter, BUT THEN many other planes of that era were also of that mindset.
Don't forget many fighters of that era ONLY had missiles and they were designed to go fast, line up, fire a missile and GET TF OUT as fast as possible.
Go look at the rocket fighter videos the British were proposing at the time or the Canadian Avro Arrow which was a far more rounded aircraft. Simon did a video on the Arrow and if you look through the comments on it or any of the Arrow videos the Canadians are still sore about how Lockheed out muscled (& bribed) them with the business BS that ended up with a set of Laws called the "Lockheed Laws" to this day.
@@GaldirEonai I would just like to say that anyone looking at the very short(21+ft tip to tip)span and T-tail would already know it would not be exactly docile at low speeds. It was designed for berry good pilots. As I recall initially the P-51 was difficult to land (laminar flow airfoil stall characteristics) due to stall at low speed and B-26 Marauder due to the initial short span wings stall at low speed. Combat acct aren't supposed to be docile at low speeds or any speed for that matter.
The statement "changing to doors that open outward instead of inward" Implies that all doors on the DC-10 started off designed to open inward but were changed to open outward. On the DC-10, the passenger door opens INWARD (standard for jet airliners), and the cargo door opens OUTWARD (common).
ACTUAL CAUSE OF ACCIDENTS - The DC-10's "door related" indents were a result of a design defect with its cargo door's latching mechanism. The handle on the cargo door could be forced closed WITHOUT the locking pins inside actually engaging to secure the door from opening during flight. To the ground crew who closed the cargo door, the door would appear secured, AND also indicated as such in the cockpit.
Two incidents resulted from this design defect with the cargo door... The first occurred during American Airline's Flight 96 in 1972, when, in the plane's takeoff climb, at approximately 11,000 feet the cargo door ripped off. This resulted in a cabin decompression that caused the cabin floor to collapse. The floor caused damage to flight control cables routed below the floor, though In this case the pilots managed to safely land the plane. Two year later, however, when the cargo door ripped off during Turkish Airlines Flight 981, all 346 people on board were killed.
Despite having a notoriously bad record over its first few years, after the cargo door's design defect was corrected and other improvements were made, statistics show that the DC-10 went on to be one of the safer jet airliners to fly on throughout the rest of its career.
(Note: I believe that the writing for Simon's videos are normally accurate and excellent, and that this case is simply an exception. )
Thank you, because I certainly took at least one flight on one and appreciate the detail!
There was also the door that blew off the protoype on the ground on its first(?) pressurisation test. McDonnell Douglas were more interested in denying there was a problem, persuading the FAA that no Airworthiness Directives were necessary (sound familiar?) and bickering with their subcontractor Convair over who should pay for a redesign, than fixing the danger.
Good comment and I agree across the board.
My understanding was the doors were designed that way FROM THE START to allow for more cargo including cargo pallets. One of the Aircraft Investigations does a really good job (including a 3d CAD model) of why the lock mechanism could fail. The worst part of the original mechanism was that the mechanical indicator that indicated it was locked for ground crew to know it was locked could give false positives.
I'm an engineer and its one of those mechanisms that ALL engineering students need to study and understand.
Wonder why the muppet attacked the DC10 and not the 737 Max - the DC10 was grounded for only 37 days while the 737 Max was grounded for nearly two years !
After the cargo door was fixed the remaining accidents involved airline maintanence cutting corners mainly by trying to remove the wing engines and pylons as a single unit.
A correction for Simon: turbine blades are not what fly out the inlet when things go horribly wrong, they are compressor blades
Ah, yes, very good.
I mean, with the MIG-23 I bet it could throw turbine blades out the front
How did the Tu144 not make this list? A dreadful aircraft with a miserable record. And barely ever even flown
The Tu-144 would definitely be on my list of worst ever aircraft. I can't think of many other aircraft that even come close to it's record of failure.
Was the Tu144 ever put into real production or was it still "experimental"? All the aircraft on the list had gotten into some production.
@@Gundam944 I believe it was in production, not sure how many were produced.
@@Gundam944 Define "real". 17 planes were made, 7 of them were pre-series experimental airframes. Amongst 10 "serial" aircraft, three were used as testbeds for the Tu-144D modification, and only 5 actually were used for their initial intended purpose. Is it "real production" if there are more pre-series/experimental/flying lab units than ones used as intended?
Wouldn't call it a "dreadful aircraft with a miserable record", though. Unless you count the financial records, heh.
@@Gundam944 Both. It seems it was pushed into production and (limited) operational service for political reasons before it's (many) problems had been fixed. So basically the production aircraft were still experimental and it's passengers were guinea pigs.
With the Starfighter, I remember there was a joke in Germany: "Want to get a Starfighter? Buy an acre of land"
The DC-10 had plug doors... in the cabin. It was the _cargo_ door that swung outward.
Right. Cargo doors are not usually plug-type on modern jetliners.
It’s common sense, you want the full cabin width available for cargo.
No research in this video.
It just irks me.
@@ThePower1037 This video was very poorly researched, I'm disappointed with Simon and crew on this one. F-104 was designed as a dedicated interceptor, NOT a fighter bomber. Air Force is always trying to use every airplane in multiple roles whether or not it's suitable. DC-10's initially poor safety record has continuously improved as design flaws were rectified and fleet hours increased. At least these two were successful aircraft, NOT among the worst four ever. Which makes his other two choices suspect as well. There are dozens and dozens so bad they never made it to production.
@@robertstout6980 And why there isn't MORE European Aircraft are on this list is a mystery to me because there are plenty to pick from.
My father was one of the instructors that cross trained German pilots at Luke. He’ll think it’s hilarious the 104 landed on this list lol 😂
he thought that was a good hilarious, but its a WTF hilarious
Well, I NEVER EVER knew a pilot who actually had the opportunity to fly the Starfighter say that the plane was BAD: they tell it was challanging to fly but extremely rewarding.
@@Leptospirosi i was pretty shocked, because the Starfighter was the backbone of Operation Rolling Thunder before the F-4 Phantom took to the skies, meaning that it had a good reputation
edit: i forgot it was the F-105, not the F-104
@@nitsu2947 That was the F-105 Thunderchief, AKA "Thud".
@@robertcampbell6349 oh i forgot about that
I remember a military instructor (Bundeswehr) describing the F 104 like this: An engine with wings powerful enough to lift an fully loaded bus, but if the engine fails it has the aerodynamic shape of an anvil.
Nope the F-104 was originally designed purely as a high speed missile armed interceptor. All the other duties were added on later grossly increasing weight which is what Kelly Johnson was trying to design out in the F104. IE He designed it to be as light as possible then some muppet adds near 1500kg of dry weight and wonders why it did not fly so well any more. That does not sound like much but it pushed the dry weight up from 4800kg to 6300kg.
Correct. And it was also pretty reliable, if you knew how to fly and maintain it. Which the Germans didn't, thinking "it's another jet, just like the F-84" so they didn't consider training for the pilots and maintenance crews a high priority when they transitioned to the new aircraft.
Compare that to the Dutch air force, who did give transition training, and there were next to no losses.
just look up Franz Josef Strauss and Lockheed bribery scandal and you know why the F-104 starfighter had such problems in Western Germany
@@jwenting or the Spanish... where there really were no losses, a unique achievement among 104 operators.
Yes, and it took to the air in 1954, not in the early -60s, as the muppet told.
The Bachem Natter would have fitted perfectly here, or the Valkyrie, or the Thunderschreech
I tend to agree with you on that as well as most of Dave McGs and others (above on the list).
Kelly Johnson was no mug at designing aircraft. BUT his designs pushed the performance envelopes and as such needed to be used as they were intended. The F104s basic task was to get up as high possible as fast as possible and deliver bomber smashing missiles against the potential fleet of Russian bombers. It was first and foremost an interceptor not a dog fighter, BUT THEN many other planes of that era were also of that mindset.
Don't forget many fighters of that era ONLY had missiles and they were designed to go fast, line up, fire a missile and GET TF OUT as fast as possible.
Go look at the rocket fighter videos the British were proposing at the time or the Canadian Avro Arrow which was a far more rounded aircraft. Simon did a video on the Arrow and if you look through the comments on it or any of the Arrow videos the Canadians are still sore about how Lockheed out muscled (& bribed) them with the business BS that ended up with a set of Laws called the "Lockheed Laws" to this day.
The middle two feel less like failures of the aircraft, and more a failure of how they were used/marketed. Planes optimized for high-altitude, high speed interception of nuclear bombers over or near your home territory. And instead being used as multirole aircraft. Seems like an easy recipe for failure.
Kind of like using a butter knife for steak. It's horrible when used wrong.
f104 is not a bad plane it was just not used for its intended purpose most of the time.
and the germans who had most of the accident since 1962 to 169 but not after that, were keeping those high tech planes parked on the side of the runways instead of storing them inside proper shelters: what could have gone wrong?!?
@@Leptospirosi Plus poorly trained pilots and maintenance crews.
The intended purpose: flying in a straight line for not very long. Kappa
Due to corruption from Lockheed with the German government they bought the totally unsuited F 104 instead of the superb British Buccaneer. Cost a lot of pilots their lives and Hartman Germany’s and the Worlds greatest ace his career when he told his seniors the truth.
It was a developed into an multi-role aircraft thus it should have been able to perform multiple roles safely, if it couldn't the NATO member shouldn't have allowed it use as such and Lockhead should not have sold it as such, also the F104 had a poor safety record long before it was developed into an multi-role aircraft it was grounded by USAF three months into service following a series of accidents.
The main issue with the starfighter was not mentioned. During maneuvers the electrical and electronic cables would rub against the inside of the aircraft, gradually rubbing off the insulation, leading to sudden massive failures of the electronics required to control the aircraft. That caused all the crashes.
You must have mixed something up: the rubbing cables were an issue with the early F-16's. The F-104 had many issues (crapy ejection seats, malfunctioning boundary layer control system, flaps that tended to extend asymetrically - with an instant flip over close to the ground, and so on), but rubbing cables weren't among them.
I cringed every time you said “Eff One One One”. It’s “Eff One Eleven”. 😂😂
Simon does his research about what makes you cringe
Well english is a Phunny language
It is F Eleventy One.
Foxtrot wun wun wun, copy.
Thought it was f one hundred and eleven?
Mystery Science Theatre 3000's riffing on the film based on the Starfighters (The Star Fighters) is worth a watch.
I saw that shit when it originally aired. Fucking lovely!
This plane has chocolate gas
@@niravdarmesh5278 Make sure you have your poopie suit ready.
@@chrisvelazquez6933 They're still leaving. They're still leaving. They're still leaving.
@@elominsha2336 hey guys save the bombs we have all weekend.(paraphrasing haven’t seen it in awhile)
Two other planes I think you could add to the list are the F7U Cutlass and it's successor the F3H Demon.
The "Gutless Cutlass" was a radical delta winged carrier based jet fighter that first flew in 1946 and entered service in the early 50s. It's engines were severly underpowered for it's size and prone to stalling at low altitude which is bad for carrier landings. It nose landing gear was also fragile to the point it would regularly collapse on landing driving up through the cockpit and killing the pilot. After just five years of service over a third of the airframes built had been lost to accidents and the type was refused from carrier use as well as being rejected by the Blue Angels demostration team.
It's follow up the F3H Demon also suffered from an underpowered engine but was heavier, less manuverable, and prone to crashing on catapult launch if the throttle wasn't firewalled. It was also known as the "Lead Sled". By the way it also had a faulty ejection seat.
I was watching this and wondering why he didn't include the F7 Cutlass
The Cutlass yes, although the last version of it finally rectified a lot of the problems, mainly the shitty engine. The F3H I am not too sure about, it wasnt anything special but I wouldnt say its bad
The problem with the F3H Demon is it's initial J40 engine. When the plane entered service the engine didn't provide the required thrust needed to get in the air.
After six of the initial twenty five crashed within a few days of being operational the entire line was grounded and could only be used for mechanic and ground crew training.
Also because of the design only engines of a certain size could fit in the airframe leaving the underpowered J71 as a replacement. The only other plane to use them was the B-66 Destroyer and it required two of them to get it's loaded 50,000lbs airframe into the air. Meanwhile the F3H weighed over half that at 34,000lbs. That means that even if it could now get in the air with the J71 it's performance was now sluggish, it's speed slow, and couldn't carry a full weapons compliment. Not a good combination for something that was theoretically facing Mig-19's and Mig-21's. Thankfully it was withdrawn from service right before the Vietnam War and was only in use for seven years.
And the Mig 23 That was flown in the Soviet Union was actually a good aircraft. It had a completely different engine as well as different avionics. The countries that bought the May 23 from the Soviet Union were actually super pissed because they were shown the original Soviet aircraft and it was alluded to that that's what they would be buying and then upon delivery it was discovered that they had different engines that required lots of maintenance and needed to be replaced frequently which was great for the Soviets cuz then they had to buy more engines. But again, the MiG-23 that was flown by the Soviet Union was actually a decent aircraft with completely different avionics and power plant
They basically did a microsoft in the 60s? That is impressive from an economic stand point 🤣
@@stevejones1488 yep
This was standard Soviet practice for all its military exports (perhaps excepting Warsaw Pact nations). They called the export versions the "monkey model."
It wasn't just about cutting costs. They also (hopefully) provided misleading information to Western intelligence services if, for example, they captured a Syrian fighter plane. And prevented their most secret stuff from falling into enemy hands.
@@suedenim very true but US does it as well export version of M1 Abrams is not any where as good as the US military uses.
Quoting a USAF test pilot: "I thought there´ s no plane that turns worse than the F111 until I got to fly a Mig23."
Ehhhhhhhh.... I usually like your videos, guys, but this one was mostly off the mark. Roc, yes. Bad. The rest... um... there are *far* more deserving aircraft out there. You've even done videos on some of them (Concordski, comrade?)
I would even say the Roc was that bad in the grand scheme of things. A failure and useless fighter yes but at least only about 100 were made and they didn't have a high non combat loss rate.
Look at the Fairey. Thousands made heavily leeching on Merlin engine and aircraft production. A totally excessive crew of three. A very poor light bomber which was too slow, had too little bomb capacity and had a meagre defensive armament. The result was a common loss rate of over 50% in combat sorties and hundreds of aircrew lost to the enemy.
The Turret fighter concept produced two main planes / the BP Defiant and the Blackburn Roc. Roc were adapted from the Skua which wasn’t nearly as awful as a dive bomber and fighter. The Defiant was actually a good plane but a terrible concept. The Roc was a bad plane and a bad concept. However, comparing with a 262 is silly thing. Like comparing a musket to an assault rifle.
Yup. The 262 hadn’t even been invented yet. And, frankly anything pre-war would’ve been laughable comparatively (just talking top trumps not actual capability). Didn’t the Defiant turn out to be adecent night fighter mid war? I know it got replaced but I seem to remember it being liked at the time
@@nauticalwolf6649 The defiant did find its niche as a night fighter, however it was too late and was replaced by the beaufighter I think...
My Great Uncle flew the Defiant on Army cooperation excercises and pulling drogues for AA.
He said it was from the old RFC chaps fixated on the successful Bristol fighters. And he often retorted that his squadron were jolly glad they didn't have to fly em in combat.
The Fairy Battle, now that really was a dud.
@@johnrd5616 It was a stop gap between the Blenheim and Beaufighter nightfighters, it couldn't carry it's own radar though.
@@duggiebader1798 I think it was just nuts that they still thought the Bristols success would be replicated twenty years and much technical improvements later. The Bristol rear gunner was able to engage an attacking plane with a least if not more firepower than the attacker (x2 Lewis guns) plus he could aim independently rather than having to line up the whole kite. This was probably true of the turreted fighter up to the mid 30’s but after that it was obviously rapidly falling behind attacking firepower. Plus faster fighters required quicker cooperation between pilot and gunner to the degree of needing telepathy to work effectively. What baffles me is how was this not identified before the war? Did they not run mock dog fights? Did hurricane pilots not tell them they were dog meat up there? Was there no such thing as ‘aggressor squadrons’?
In wonderful hind site they should have scrapped the Fairy Battle completely and taken the turret off the Defiant and shoved a couple of bombs on the wing and a Vickers K or GO on the back. As for the the Roc - just convert them all to Skuas as a stop gap. The worlds greatest plane ever - the Fairey Fulmar - was in its way so no panic needed. …… What?
That’s one of my good ideas. My mad idea is this - in the Far East the best planes on the inventory at the time of hostilities commencing with the Japanese - with exception of the Spit - were the Defiant and the Gladiator.
No, don’t be rude, let me explain first!
You’re fighting A6Ms. Very manoeuvrable etc. Defiant doesn’t even try to dog fight it. Just turns in a circle and shoots back against notoriously vulnerable Zeros.
The Gladiator idea came from a friends great uncle who was in the RAAF. They had Gladiators in Malaya but were promised a modern monoplane with retractable undercarriage type fighter.
They got Buffalos!
Within a week they had asked for their Gladiators back. Probably the only plane we had that could dog fight a zero.
Like I said, a mad idea. But kinda fun to imagine.
Hope the legs are ok, btw!
Re the DC10. The cabin doors were plug doors and the cargo doors were outward opening, which was the standard arrangement for widebody a/c. This is the same setup as a B747 and Lockheed L1011. The problem was that with a cargo door failure the pressurisation loads would cause the floor to collapse into the, now unpresssurised, cargo compartment. The DC10 has it's flight control cables running through the floor beams, which caused jammed the cables and caused loss of control in the case of depressurisation. The B747 control cables ran above the cabin ceiling, avoiding this issue. After the first DC10 floor collapse, all widebody a/c were modified to provide 'blowout' panels in the floor and lower sidewall, which would allow a safe flowpath for the cabin to depressurise into the cargo area. On a 747, these are the grilled panels at the bottom of the side walls next to your feet and run the length of the cabin.
With inadequate cargo door locking and an understrength floor, you could almost say the 10 was designed to crash. The 747 was slightly better - not quite so prone to locking failure, and when UA 811 lost a door it didn't immediately lose control and crash (though its subsequent landing was a close thing) because, as you say, the controls ran through the roof. I don't think a L1011 ever lost a door, or came near to it.
(On the other hand, Aloha 243, the topless 737, it's just as well the cables did run through the floor. No location is bulletproof).
NOT control cables but hydraulic lines run under the floor of the DC10. The 747 similarly uses hydraulic lines, NOT control cables. Control cables have minimally been used since the 707 and DC8.
@@larrycooper9487 ... except with the 737, which famously still uses cables as a backup for the tail trim. But I think the point was, the location of the control wires/cables/pipes/lines, whether in the floor or the roof, not so much the nature of the controls.
Another nickname for the F-104 was "the pregnant needle with razor blades"
The 1979 Chicago DC-10 crash happened because the procedure to remove the engine wasn't respected, shortcuts were taken with forklifts resulting in engine mounts damages.
I always enjoyed flying on the DC10s with Northwest Orient Airlines. Very spacious, well-designed interior, exceptional service (lots of cabin crew). Fortunately, I was never involved in any "loss of hull incidents." 😏
I flew in an American Airlines DC10 years after those tragic incidents happened. Many lives were lost so that we can have a safer DC10 and future MD11 (although the latter had a fire and hull loss at Nova Scotia)
The military also successfully used it as the KC-10, a mid-air refueling aircraft. They're still in service as of 2021
The F-104's wings were indeed razor-sharp. So much so, that covers were placed on the wings leading edges to prevent ground crews getting nasty cuts by simply brushing up against the wings.
IIRC they had a radius of 0.4mm. I did not manage to cut myself on them, but I can see how it might be possible to cause damage if you hit them hard and fast.
I have touched them, not razor sharp! The guards are to protect the edges from damage.
Correct - I have first hand knowledge of this (and still the scar on my arm 😂)
Not true I was around them all the time when I was a kid, I was hired to crack open the cockpits when the temperature rose above 100 degrees and then close them in the evening. Something that was quite common at Luke AFB ( Glendale Arizona)
Suggestion for a Side or Mega: Sealab, the obscure space station-like habitat at the bottom of the ocean that was even home to American astronauts.
Ooh yes please!
Missing THE worst aircraft: Curtiss C-76 Caravan. Transport that was out of CG if not loaded up beyond max weight, structural failures, pilots refusing to fly, air force officers wanted to join a test flight, but pilot refused to let them on board... Which was good, because it crashed on that flight, killing all on board.
Both the F-104 and MiG-23 were pretty good aircraft for their era and intended purpose.
The Soviets didn't export a lot of MiG-23s because the air defense version, which was the mission it was intended for, wasn't allowed to be exported because of its secret electronics.
The export version had a lower performance engine, inferior radar, and lacked a lot of other things the Soviet versions did.
The F-104 had a good record, except in Germany where the crews weren't properly trained for flying and maintaining them, causing a lot of accidents.
Other countries had good safety records.
The DC-10 worked well once the cargo door problems were solved. Very comfortable ride.
If those are the worst aircraft ever, I have a bridge to sell.
The one I made out of blankets and cardboard in 2nd grade and used to "fly" off the roof of my parents house should be on this list.
*it DID NOT fly
no my umbrella based wings didn't save me when jumping off my mum`s garage aged 8 either funnily enough
@@leemichael2154 we must have gone to the same flight school
@@IrishMike22 the same flight school of underage stupidity (your a yank I'm a brit) but we both had the same stupid idea's of flying at a young age that is clearly universal! !!
@@leemichael2154 🤣 Cheers mate 🤜
@@IrishMike22 no bother my American friend! Interactions with my cross altantic cousins is so fucking lush! (As we say in Newcastle England btw lol!) Love you bro!!!!
What about Monty Burn’s Spruce Moose?
Get in...
I said HOP. IN.
"MODEL"?!?!?!?
Are you kidding?? It could carry 200 passengers for New York's Idlewild Airport to the Belgian Congo in 17 minutes!!
I flew to the UK from Australia in 1975 in three successive DC's; DC-9 Melbourne to Sydney, DC-10 Sydney to Bangkok, DC-8 Bangkok to London.
I would have to say that the DC-10 from a passenger viewpoint was the quietest, most comfortable aircraft I've ever flown in. The acceleration on takeoff was absolutely exhilarating. The DC-8, by comparison, seemed to struggle to get off the ground. I've flown in most aircraft used by Australia's commercial airlines, from Viscounts to 747s , most of Boeing's passenger jets, Saabs and Fokkers, Airbus, etc. and I still rate the DC-10 as the best ride. I'm just glad that the crew locked the doors properly.
Blackburn ROC: Brand new aircraft being obsolete on entering service is effectively all combat aircraft in the 1930's. You are going from the 180mph bristol bulldog in 1928 to the 310mph Hurricane of 1938 and through 4 models in between. And that is just British fighters.
Turret fighters were built on the successes of WW1 of the Sopwith 1 1/2 strutter and Bristol Fighter. However the idea was obviously overtaken by technology.
The rivals of the Roc you offer were at the other end of the war. So not a fair comparison. However even the Stuka was even faster and that would have been a fair comparison.
Blackburn "Lets put a Turret on the Skua Dive Bomber and call it a Fighter"
A lot of home computers are the same. Obsolete before sold at stores
"Short stubby wings" and "ground attack aircraft"
Oh this is going to go well...
Turkish Airlines 981 was the only fatal accident to occur as a result of the cargo door. American Airlines 191 was the result of faulty maintenance procedures.
Yep bypassed the proper procedure for removing the wing mounted engines and in doing so damaged a mounting bracket which then failed during the take off run, can't really blame the aircraft design for that.
There was an American DC-10 that lost it's rear cargo door at 12000 feet, this landed safely and as a result recommended modifications to the cargo door latch mechanism were issued along with adding an inspection window so a visual check could be made that the door was properly locked, unfortunately Turkish Airlines had not done the mods though they did have the inspection window, the problem was the French ground crew member that closed the cargo door did not know he had to visually check through the inspection window to confirm the latch mechanism was fully engaged and the instructions on the door advising this was written in Turkish and English and he spoke neither language, the cargos door failed at 12000 feet and the resulting damage made the aircraft unflyable.
The Sioux City crash was a DC-10 but this was down to a defect in a rotor blade in engine number 2 (tail mounted engine) so not really a fault of the Aircraft it's self.
@@luvstellauk Yeah. Simon was just a little vague on the cargo door issue.
@@luvstellauk Neither the Chicago or the Sioux City crashes were directly caused of design flaws, but you can say, that if MD had split the hydraulic lines into sections (as is done nowadays), the pilots still would've had better control (but still limited) over the aircraft. But with all that said, the multi sectioned hydraulic systems were just introduced in large aircraft (If I remember correctly, the Lockheed L-1011 Tristar was the first one to use it).
Not a very good list, with "maybe" the Roc deserving it. The F-104 and Mig-23 did what they were designed to do, and reasonably well. The DC-10 was a fine aircraft that had some teething issues mostly resolved. The research done for this was poor at best, if existing at all.
The usual cries for Devastators, P-39, Buffalo, etc are really not well supported as the aircraft were fine when designed and not altered. The Buffalo as originally built and used by the Finns was outstanding, and the P-39 with oxygen and turbochargers (as designed) would have been more like the Kingcobra which was an equivalent to the Mustang. Crap redesigns and add-ons ruined both. The TBD was about as good of torpedo bomber built in the 30's as possible, and its combat performance was not especially awful. NO torpedo bombers would have fared well against Zeroes while unescorted. Range was indeed short, but it was designed for a larger bomb load for high altitude level bombing. The Swordfish was a good plane, but also rarely faced enemy fighters. When it did, it died. Great ASW platform though.
I think the Ba-88 Lince, the Roc, Me-210, Breguet 693, and Ca-310 or Potez-630 series would all get my most serious looks for worst aircraft of WW2. Avro Manchester comes to mind too. Vultee Vengeance and Northrop attack bombers were lousy too. I suspect every aviation era has some real stinkers though.
Indeed!! This list is just WRONG 75% of of the time. The detractors of any and...well, any but the ROC, are barking up the wrong BS.
This guy has his head up his afterburner.
NONE of these, save the ROC, was a TERRIBLE plane....and they DID what they were supposed to do.
I didnt bother to watch the whole thing......sorry.
The DC-10 was a fine aircraft that had some teething issues mostly resolved. The research done for this was poor at best, if existing at all. a fine aircraft from a fine factory from a fine corruption. like you said , a fine example.
Agreed.
The Manchester wasn't great as a plane, but it was more of a stop gap, without it we wouldn't have got the Lancaster.
F-104 was great for its intended role, only let down by operators deciding to use it as a tactic bomber. People just jump on the band wagon of hating the Starfighter
@@billding6721 I agree, but the design was so underpowered from the start that they should have known better. That said, it was the frontrunner of the Lancaster, by far the best night bomber of the war. After some more thought I think maybe the Heinkel-177 would also be considered on my list. That plane was just doomed by so many bad designs and role changes. Only thing potentially positive might be that it was also a frontrunner to some scary looking bombers on the drawing board that "might" have ended up be great. "Amerika Bomber" indeed.
13:30 32 DC10 crashes killed @1200 people, 2 747 crashes killed almost that same amount.
True, but those 747 crashes like the huge one in Tenerife, Spain in 1977 weren't due to inherent design flaws. That's the point.
A single car crash only kills a couple people. Yet they kill more people than planes.
Sorry but I have to raise some issues with the DC-10 segment. It did indeed use plug doors for the passenger cabins, and only used outward-opening doors for the cargo space. It's true that this design led to 2 incidents and a fatal accident, but this was more down to implementation than concept. The locking mechanisms for the doors were flimsy and could be easily damaged by ground crew, and if a cargo door did blow at altitude the result would be a pressure differential between the cabin and the cargo space which would cause the cabin floor to collapse, severing flight controls in the process. These issues were fixed by redesigning the cargo door locks, and by introducing vents that would equalise the pressure between the cabin and the cargo space if pressure was lost under the cabin floor.
Other successful aircraft, including the 747, use outward-opening cargo bay doors. In fact a 747 suffered a cargo bay door blowout which resulted in a big hole being ripped in the cabin and at least one passenger being sucked through an engine. Early 747s also suffered from faulty cargo bay door lock design and the problem was also solved by redesigning the locks and introducing pressure equalisation valves.
The Chicago crash was caused by dodgy engine servicing techniques that weren't approved by Douglas rather than by any inherent design flaws in the aircraft (the engineers had used a forklift to reinstall an engine, and had damaged the engine mounting points in the process, which failed a few weeks later due to metal fatigue).
Just to show how robust the DC-10 really was, there was an incident on a Fed-Ex DC-10 where a soon-to-be-ex employee smuggled several weapons aboard including hammers and a harpoon gun, with the intention of killing the crew, hijacking the plane and crashing it into Fex-Ex HQ in revenge for his pending dismissal. One of the pilots was ex-navy, and when the guy in question started attacking the crew, he responded by rolling the aircraft to 140 degrees (almost upside down!) and putting it into a dive that got alarmingly close to the speed of sound, well beyond its design limits. The plane was badly damaged, but it survived its ordeal (as did the crew, who were hailed as heroes for fighting off their attacker), and continued in service after repairs for a number of years afterwards.
you forgot to mention that the roc's turret couldn't be moved smoothly while the plane was actively maneuvering, making it even more vulnerable
Clarence Kelly designed the F-104 to be an interceptor going high and fast. Lockheed added weight and marketed it to NATO as a do everything fighter. Using it for ground attack was a mistake. Even so only Canada and Germany had a high loss rate.
Canadian pilots were constantly scoring high in competitions involving the 104. But, as you say, it's main claim to fame is the number of good pilots it killed. God rest their souls.
Exactly the design was perfect for what was originally required. The operators were not.
Didn't the Italians have some serious problems with it?
@@howardjolley2215 …. Wrong aircraft for the job of low level bombing.
It was a bad dogfighter too.
F-104 served until 2004 in Italy where it was replaced by Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 1, which is also going to retire soon.
The DC-10 was a decent aircraft once the doors were fixed. I would replace it on the list with the current white elephant, the F-35.
Yeah turning it into the wonder waffle really killed the qualities of the 35
@@ivankrylov6270 If the 25 mm gun of the F-35 is fired it cracks the plane!
@@RaysDad i don't even know why it uses a rotary barrel cannon...
@@ivankrylov6270 Lockheed is no longer in the business of building quality aircraft. It's business is selling contracts to the government -- milking the contract is all they care about.
@@RaysDad If the government is stupid enough to buy from them then who's the sucker? I also hope the government has a good explanation to the tax payers too...
Actually the DC-10 was - and still is - a very reliable aircraft, especially after the cargo door issues were solved. The largest problem was the PR with two major crashes having impactful visuals scaring of the public. The truly sad part is that both those crashes were not due to a faulty design, but due to faulty maintenance and an engine defect.
Truth and honestly one of my favorite planes ever
It was a faulty design. The engineers underestimated the forces on the hooks.
@@Ihaveanamenowtaken
Not quite; the design was more than sufficient for its purpose.
What they however underestimated was the amount of abuse ground crews were willing to use to lock the doors when incorrectly - not fully - closed. In that case the hooks would not engage and the locking lever would not be able to be closed by manual force. They however didn't reckon with ground crews using their knee and their full body weight to force the lever into the locked position, bending the mechanism inside with the hooks remaining out-of-engagement. With the locking sensor basically recording the position of the lever rather than the position of the hooks this was a recipe for disaster.
At most you can say that the engineers neglected to include such ground crew behaviour in their "foreseeable misuse" analysis which usually is a part of the design process.
Same can be said for the O'Hare disaster; The Douglas engineers simply didn't foresee customers using a heavy forklift to exchange engines rather than the dedicated lifting trolley designed for the purpose. It caused major damage to the engine mounts resulting in an engine breaking of during take-off resulting in a fatal crash.
You can't engineer for all possible occurences of human stupidity amongst your customers.
@@roykliffen9674 Indeed, not quite. But they had that problem regarding the door in their tests: the door seemed to be closed, but it wasn't latched. So... they kind of knew that their design allowed any ground crew to close the door without latching it.
@@Ihaveanamenowtaken
hmmm .... that bit of info does indeed change the narrative. "It'll be alright" is never an acceptable response to a failed test of a safety-critical component. It sure didn't fly when I was engaged in developping medical ventilators. The only acceptable response in such cases is "Back to the drawing board".
{edit]
BTW when they finally did do that the new design really seems to have solved the problems. The only remaining problem I know of is difficulties landing the aircraft .... when the pilot flying isn't as attentive as he should be it is an easy aircraft to bounce.
Besides that the DC-10 after improvements had a pretty good safety record.
BTW, need to have a word with your researchers, this is the second video in a week with fact issues.
No shit.
Don't come to this channel (or the whole channel family, really) expecting good research, most of it is riddled with errors and misconceptions. It's some fun storytelling though.
@N Webby its true
Sinking to the level of "Dark Skies" in record time.
Its F-1,11, not F-1,1,1.
I object to the DC-10, given that its few failures were merely well publicized. Outside four major incidents it proved safer than the 747.
“Outside four major incidents”. Isn’t that a bit like “other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”
The F-104 was a good plane for its intended purpose of being a fast high flying interceptor that was supposed to hunt and shoot down soviet bombers.
The Bundeswehr just used the thing as low flying tactical bomber and all kinds of other nonsense it was never designed for and the result was loads of lost planes and dead pilots.
Bingo! These vids are just entertainment, not serious study
Although I think we can agree that Lockheed bribing the Germans into buying it didn't help the problem either. And yes, we could start a debate on who's at fault there, I'm just saying the officials probably had other, more capable planes (for their needs anyways) in mind.
Actually it was designed and used as a fighter bomber with the option of interceptor role. and loads of lost planes? majority of losses were due to pilot error not the plane itself. When you design a plane that requires decent skill to fly, you expect the pilots to be trained accordingly.
In Italy the f 104 is referred to as “the rocket coffin”
Anche "spillone"
DC-10 had a poor reputation, but was (is) actually a good aircraft (once they properly dealt with the cargo door issue/pressure equalization vents.)
It took 10 years and over 1000 dead to 'finally' deal with the majority (not all) of the fatal flaws. I studied this plane in school and it had numerous flaws that took years to fix during major overhauls. The fact that you still find it flying cargo is because it is a very cheap airplane to buy and can haul a lot of cargo. But no one is risking it with passengers again.
Especially going back to the days of slide rules and drawing boards, I don't know how picked "a" worst of the era. Blackburn Botha, Brewster Buffalo, Heinkel He177, Douglas Devastator, LaGG4, Fairey Battle, Me 210... it's a long list of planes that should been replaced by 1939 or never built in the first place.
At 10:04 whilst talking about the Mig 23 you're actually showing footage of the Mig 27, the ground attack variant.
That’s a MiG-23BN.
ahermmmm.......you include the F104 and MiG-23 but missing the Me-163! I'll tell you why the Komet is a far more dangerous aircraft than a Starfighter, it's the dangers of using Hypergolic fuels. This requires you to ensure the fuel tanks are completely ( and that includes fumes!) Before attempting to land your delta-wing glider at a massively unsafe speed!
The 163 simply exploding if fuel lines got ruptured, the skid being pretty close and far under the COG which had the planes do somersaults on landing way too often (Often resulting in fuel lines rupturing→**BANG!**), the bulletproof block of glass in front of the pilot which would sometimes shatter. At the high subsonic speeds, friction heat from the airflow around the plane heated up parts of the glass which expanded and thus caused tensions in the material. On sufficient tension, the glass exploded right into the pilot´s face. The absence of a pressurized cabin in a plane that took its pilot to the stratosphere in 2½ minutes. A common fart could tear open the pilot´ s bowels in flight!
Indeed, I suppose the Roc was at least moderately safe to operate when no-one was trying actively to kill you, but with the Komet, the plane was. The Allied tested a powered Komet exactly once... and that was not a much "The Allied" than Eric Brown acting on his own.
Not to mention the dangers of sabotage from having parts made in occupied regions as well, kinda hard to justify something being good when people have made great effort to make it bad.
The F104? I mean horrible record, but also insanely successful in terms of selling thousands of units and being in operation for decades!
Edit: oh! Bribery...
The big problem the F104 was designed as a daylight fighter/inteceptor as a replacement for the F86. What it was sold as and pressed into service as was a multi-mission multirole fighter bomber, something it was definately not suitable for.
Fairey Battle light bomber? Looked impressive, but actually pretty useless.
I agree, though maybe Simon spared them because it was a Fairey Battle that disabled the Bismarks rudder and led to its eventual demise, even if the entire squadron were shot down in the process. Useless aircraft but at least it did one good deed 😅
@rockstarJDP Fairey Swordfish -
@@peterhewson3216 Oh was it? My mistake!
The Fairey Swordfish despite being an obsolete open cockpit torpedo biplane has one of the greatest war records of any aircraft punching well above it's weight class. In addition to the Bismarck it also sunk a large chunk of the Italian battlefleet at Taranto in 1940. It sunk far more tonnage than any other allied torpedo bomber of the war.
The Fairey Battle on the other hand was a complete disappointment.
My uncle was killed piloting one in France 1940. Right up into her death my Nan hated the Battle, everyone knew how rubbish it was.
The MiG-25, Brewster Buffalo, and SB2C Helldiver are all disappointed that you forgot them. The Pou du Ciel, too, but I assume the unspoken criteria is 'mass produced'.
Ask the Finnish about the Brewster. ;) Althought those were early B.239 aircrafts not the so called "Buffalos" and F2A-3s what fought desperately against Japanes aircrafts.
Indeed, the Buffalo was a disappointment for the US Navy but hardly one of the worst four ever - and even they used them as advanced trainers and that's not a loss of resources, one of the great advantages USA had over Japan was the amount training the pilots had before their first actual mission.
The flogger also had one other issue. The pilot had to manually select the sweep of the wings. It was not automatically computer controlled like those used on the tomcat or the aardvark
The thunderscreech would have been right at home on this list! If men were standing near it when they were operating, it wasn't uncommon for them to get a splitting headache throw up and maybe pass out.... I believe there is one time that a man actually had a seizure because the plane was just so loud!
I was wonderring about that one too.
But it was never put into production
True, but it was only a one-off prototype, where as the aircraft in this list were all in series production and service.
i think the critera for the list is being a production bird!!
Simon has very briefly covered it in another video, but on which channel...I can't remember lol
DC10 one of the worst ever? Decades of reliable service world wide. Flying well into the 2000’s in PAX service and still as a freighter. My goodness.
Cargo doors pop open.
1200 people killed by DC10s - if it's true, isn't it something?
@@Meriatar Turkish 981 had 346 fatalities , AA 191 had 271 , The Air New Zealand crash in Antarctica killed another 257 and UTA 772 terrorist bombing killed another 170 . Those 4 accidents killed 1044 people but only The Turkish Airlines crash was because of a design flaw with the aircraft
They are junk
Yes, a good freighter.
For anyone who enjoys this, I highly recommend “wings of the luftwaffe” and “wings of the red star”, the latter narrated by Peter Ustinov. They’re high quality documentary series from the early nineties. Both can be found on TH-cam
Agreed. I’ve been enjoying the Soviet one. Fascinating.
I loved those documentary series. Just saying. But basically anything from Discovery Wings series is wonderful.
Well ahead of you :) "wings of russia" is one of my favourites, you'll also love "Reaching for the skies" - it has interviews with Hanna Reitsch!!!
@@jakedailey4505 - I think you're thinking of "Air Warriors" - that's good! try and find one called "Flat Tops" - it's got some amazingly cheesy music and it's amazing!
oh!! and you'll all really, REALLY love the documentary "Flying through time" - a 26 part look at aviation history (made in australia - totally rocks) and "DC Wings : Strange Planes" is a 6 parter covering the development of some of the weirder aircraft - I love these - same kinda quality as "Wings of the red star" - although nobody had a voice quite like Peter Ustinov!
Simon, you’re killing me dude. You could have put the Bolton-Paul Defiant on that list. Also, it’s worth pointing out that a lot of combat aircraft have earned the monicker of “Widow Maker” because of fatal design flaws. The F-100 had the “Saber Dance” where it would start doing Dutch rolls at low speed in ground effect. That’ll make you shit your flight suit! I could also argue that the DeHavilland Comet was a bigger flop than the DC-10 because after it’s two highly publicized and fatal crashes, the 707 was launched and took over the lion’s share of the commercial jet market while the Comet was grounded. Food for thought mate!
@charles pawl I know he doesn’t but for these aviation videos he should consider consulting someone who knows a thing or two about the subject instead of just throwing random shit together. People who are passionate about aviation will be able to spot the errors and it will bother them
Say "F-one-one-one" one more time, I dare you!
Nobody cares.
@@owenshebbeare2999 a lot of people do this was a bad video period
The F-Eleventy-One. There, fixed it
@@owenshebbeare2999 it's a joke lol.
f one hundred onety one, done
The real mvp is all of you aviation enthusiasts sharing your stories and facts here in the comments. I learned a lot !
While I agree with the Roc being an atrocity, the status of the other 3 as"bad" is questionable at best. There are far better choices like the brewster buffalo. The F104s faults were not in its design but its use ,especially its use by the Germans. The germans used it as a multirole aircraft while its strength lay in the interceptor role. For this purpose you could hardly find a better aircraft at the time. The MiG23 was a good aircraft with tremendous acceleration climb rate and for the time decent electronics, but again this was an interceptor not a dogfighter, its agility was terrible but still on par with the f4 phantom (which itself was a brick to fly). Only one version (I think the BM?) was truely terrible because it was basicallya watered down export version and it was this one that gave the MiG23 its reputation because it was absolutely horrible. The rest of the MiG23 versions were pretty good and on pr with the standards at the time.
Lastly the DC10 suffered from a series of accidents with some attributed to design flaws. However after that and the following elimination of said flaws, one of the main ones being the doors you mentioned, the plane had a fine safety record that is on par with the other big airliners. Its safety record is better than the 747 and pilots who fly it describe it as pleasent to fly and very reliable. Today however the DC10 is no longer in use as a passenger aircraft but it has become quite a popular cargo aircraft
The Mig 23 was good competition for the F4 but by the time it was produced the F14 and F16 fighters were being serviced by the USA and Israel. It was just too far behind then. In an early combat match-up Israeli F-16 made easy lunch out of Mig 23s over Lebanon and they didn't fare much better against nerfed F14s and F4s over Iran/Iraq.
I agree on the DC-10 though, if you live in the USA or Canada they probably still fly over your head from time to time via FedEx or KC10s. FedEx recently retired a DC10 (technically MD-10s) built in 1970 and 1971. I have to believe they were the only early 1970 vintage pressurized jet aircraft flying outside Iran in the 2020s. The DC-10s reputation was killed by very high-profile accidents that weren't necessary it's fault such as UA 232, AA 191, NZ 901, and Western Airlines 2605.
I agree with everything you said, except the Buffalo was good for the Finnish pilots who used it, although it wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes in the Pacific
@@billding6721 If an aircraft only works well when in the hands of some of the most dangerous pilots in the world, it’s probably not all that great. If I recall, the Buffalo lost in basically every single engagement it took place in in the Pacific, both under the British and Americans. Midway was just about the only victory it had, but it came at the price of ~75% losses, so draw your own conclusions there.
Besides, the Finns are great at making something out of nothing. Ski troops with AT rifles and Molotovs were able to decimate Soviet tank formations in the Winter War, and they even had success using Maxims as artillery. What should demonstrate how the Buffalo actually fared in their hands was the comparison of kill ratios. They had 12:1 using the F2A, but after getting Bf-109Gs, that rose to 25:1 against a more experienced Red Air Force.
Most of the planes on this list shouldn’t be there, but the Buffalo should be. The Brits despised it, the Americans were slaughtered in it, and the Finns were seriously held back by it
How the Me 210 isn't on this list is beyond me. They literally had to rename the plane so people would fly it after improvements had been made.
Probably trying to balance major eras and roles, while focusing on the most well-known. It's the only explanation I've got for why the Brewster Buffalo isn't on this list. Then again, it didn't do too bad in Finnish hands against the Red Air Force.
The Brewster Buffalo and Douglas Devestatot deserve dishonorable mentions at least!
When they were developed both of those aircraft were considered cutting edge. By the time they were used in war, they badly out of date. Finland used Buffalos quite effectively against the Soviets until 1942.
@@richardm3023 Considered cutting edge and actually being a superior aircraft are different things. Keep in mind that the Devastator was developed in 1935, a year after the Fairey Swordfish (British biplane torpedo bomber), and the same year as the Yokosuka B4Y.
Cutting edge I guess as the first effort to make a carrier based torpedo bomber that wasn't a biplane. But while faster than the others it couldn't maneuver well at all and had much less range.
Considering the combat performance of the Fairey Swordfish (Taranto, hunting Bismarck, Mediterranean), the Swordfish was a much more versatile and successful plane. (2,400 Swordfish sunk more Axis shipping than about 10,000 TBF Avengers managed to do.)
An argument could be made that the Devastator, at its time of introduction, was the worst torpedo bomber in service with a major navy. At best, it can claim second place.
And the Brewster Buccaneer.
@@iansneddon2956 in fairness by the time the avenger was fully in place with the fleet, it had more of a bombing and ground support role. It was also a good anti submarine warfare platform. You're comparing different phases of the war. There's a reason why the royal navy replaced the swordfish with avenger TBD.
@@iansneddon2956 did you ever think if the mk 13 torpedo wasn't complete and absolutely shit that maybe just maybe the TBD would absolutely destroy the swordfish. The tpd didn't have any losses till midway. The swordfish did have losses though not many
Don't forget that first plane the Wright brothers made. It barely flew a few seconds. What a turd!
I am surprised the pilot-melting Nazi jet didn't get a mention... with it's poor design that had it land on it's own fuselage, terrible combat performance and that the fuel could melt the pilot if it got into the cockpit.
ME-163 Komet.
But when it worked it was an absolute menace with performance (when it worked) unmatched until the fifties.
Think that's on today I found out channel, lovely plane of death or something 🤔
@@Razor-gx2dq Which, if we're splitting hairs, wasn't a jet, it was a rocket... :)
It only ate the pilot if it didn't explode on landing, which was more likely if there was any fuel or oxidant left in the tanks.
The Fairey Battle, Brewster Buffalo, the P-39 /P-400.... The list goes on and on and on
Alternate title: "What if Bob Semple designed aircraft?"
Or Jebidiah Kerman. OH, wait, THAT is why Kerbal Space Program tends to be 90% crashing.
I'd hope its better than his tank
That would be the Christmas Bullet (yes, that's the name of the plane).
@@amadeokomnenus1414 What are you talking about? The Bob Semple tank is the pinnacle of human engineering, and the most amazing engineering marvel ever devised and built by humans in all of our collective history!!!
The worst have to be the BE2 and RE8 from WW1. Hated by the crews who lived long enough to express an opinion.
To add to the problems of the Starfighter, when operated at low level, was that, initially, the ejector seat went through the floor! Not a good idea.
Blackburn Roc: see also Boulton Paul Defiant and other turret fighters.
Other names for the F-104: Erdnagel (tent peg), Lawn Dart, Aluminium Death-Tube, and, more affectionately "The Zipper". If it had been kept to its original purpose (high-altitude interceptor) it would have been fine
Love how you wear regular clothes for Side Projects and Megaprojects, then you swap out of your secret identity to become.. The Boy With The Blaze.
If you want a jetliner failure, I'd offer up the BAe Trident as a much bigger failure than the DC-10. The DC-10 after 40+ yrs after introduction are still in use.
Japanese Starfighter (210 enetered service) losses were very low.
I've heard that plane described as a very effective fighter, but also very unforgiving. Essentially, it was a great fighter for skilled pilots, but dangerous in the hands of inexperienced pilots. Maybe Japan had a better training program?
@@ressljs actually they did not use it at low altitude thus very few accidents
@@alpearson9158 That would make sense.
Not only the Japanese, the Norweigans and the Italians had good record with the Starfighter
I'm glad you DIDN'T put the Sea Vixen in there. It was a difficult beast, but it was too beautiful to be on this list - the lopsided cockpit notwithstanding! I consider that a cute mole on a supermodels face.
My father worked on those ( among others ) I wouldn't fancy ejecting from the co-pilots' position though - through a plywood hatch . .
I built an Airfix kit model of the Starfighter. I loved it, but didn't know it was actually a crap design! I was only 10.
It wasn't. It was designed as a high-altitude interceptor meant to stop nuclear-armed bombers. In that role it was exceptional. The issue was that it got used in roles it was never meant to operate in, which caused a LOT of issues.
@@JacenHawk Didn't Germany use them as ground attackers? Exactly thr opposite of what they were meant for?
@@fnollo7870 Yes, yes they did.
Simon: you missed dirigibles, which are aircraft?
3:17 - RPM, not ‘RPMS’ Simon. Revolutions Per Minute.
Just another clue to his authenticity. NOT.
3:16, not 3:17.
F-104 in the list of worst? No. You failed, Simon.
if it's an f-one-one-one, why isn't it an f-one-four?
normal people say: f-one-eleven
British English and American English often differ like that.
What about:
- Christmas Bullet - an overtly dangerous aircraft designed by a con man (who got away with it), 100% pilot fatality rate.
- Tu-144 - built so the USSR could have its own Concorde, two highly publicised fatal crashes.
- WSK-Mielec Belphegor - the world's slowest jet aircraft and only production jet biplane, wrong for its intended purpose to the point where the design faults may have been deliberate. More comical than dangerous.
- Me163 - utterly lethal. To its crews, never mind the enemy.
I have to disagree with the F104 being in this list. It's true it had a high accident rate in Germany, but this is largely due to using the plane for a purpose it wasn't intended for, namely ground attack. As an interceptor, it's primary role it excelled. The pilots I have spoken to said the F104 was one of their favorite planes to fly because of its sheer speed and capability in its interceptor role.
Also, and sorry to troll you. When you say RPMs, you're saying revolutions per minutes. RPM is an uncounted plural like aircraft (not aircrafts) or sheep ( not sheeps) so, you should say more RPM or less RPM.
Again. Sorry to be a troll. Just had to add my two cents.
Mig21 in IAF shot down F104 of PAF with relative ease during 1971 war. Infact even subsonic Dassault Mystere shot down F104 in 1965 war. F104 was an extremely vad dogfighter. And those were the days of dogfighting.
(Who knows if dogfighting will still happen today?).
There are a lot of terrible aircraft out there and while the F-104 and the Mig-23 had problems they certainly do not belong on this list.
The F-104 was incredibly fast, world record breaking fast, had an incredible climb rate, a really good radar for the time, could carry all the current air-to-air missiles and was the first to use the vulcan 20mm cannon still being used today.
I know that the DC-10 will be on the list
The DC-10 had one thing that it was better than anything else at, making certain that all the AB soldiers jumped out of it first chance they got, I'm not certain some of the flight crew didn't jump out with the drop troops.
@@Nipplator99999999999 so many DC10 pilots had their jump wings we had to make them honorary 509th 🤣
Unlucky yes, bad no
Lol this whole list could be McDonnell Douglas planes. Never made a decent plane the entire time they existed. I can't believe they were never shut down lmfao
I liked the DC10
I can't agree about the F-104 damning comment. The problem with this aircraft was that it was designed to be a pure interceptor and this means to spot the target, scramble, intercept and destroy , return to base, full stop and in this was brilliant. Many air forces, and more notably the Germans used this aircraft for roles for which it wasn't designed, hence the high rates of accidents. The fault wasn't in the plane itself but in the way some air forces used it.
Sadly, when originally being designed, the F-104 was supposed to be a bomber interceptor, operating over the US and Canada shooting down Soviet bombers. In that role speed and acceleration were more important than ground attack and dogfighting capabilities. When US and Canadian orders failed to come in, Lockheed went on a round-the-world tour promoting it to foreign governments as an anything you can imagine aircraft. No truth in advertising, and, when accompanied by bribes to procurement officials, nineteen nations bought them.
Obsolete before it was released: The F-104 Starfighter was designed to protect against the threat of nuclear attack that was superseded by Sputnik
I think the F-102 belongs on here more then the F-104.
wasn't it more unsatisfactory than actually bad?
@@chrisamies2141 it never reached it designed top speed due to bad aerodynamics.
I like the theme song playing in the background... Helps alleviate the deficiencies/cons/downsides of the planes that we're hearing.
The F-104 is my favourite fighter. Best name, "STARFIGHTER!" Looks amazing.....saw them at at an air show in Canada in 1978, thought they were soooo cool. widow maker ? Flying Coffin? .....nobody's perfect....
It’s fantastic when you’re not the one in it… or in its path of destruction when it decides the ground looks attractive.
It did fill in for the cancelled CF105.
So anything with wings was fine after the government realized missiles could not replace aircraft.
Lawn dart
It's perfectly safe, as long as you don't use it as a multi-role instead of an interceptor, like a total idiot.
fyi from an old F-111 AF mechanic , we say: "F one-eleven" not "F one-one-one" ... also, the actual DC-10 passenger version may have had woes, but the airframe design is so solid it's still in use today around the world by the USAF, known as the KC-10 Extender tanker!
I am American and it makes me very said that the Labor Party destroyed the TSR2, that was what Germany needed.😢 EDIT: *sad, very sad.
They cancelled the TSR2 under pressure from American aircraft manufactures in return for a huge cut in the Marshall loan repayments. Part of the deal included the destruction of all the tools and jigs built for manufacturing parts for the TSR2.
@@FireMoon42 Very, very, sad.
The Starfighter was originally designed as a high altitude strategic bomber interceptor. This role was later changed and the F-104s became multi-role fighters. There were quite a few issues with the initial design and the aircraft was significantly redesigned, including the changing of a suicidal bottom ejection seat with a normal upwards ejecting one. There were also significant structural changes made and the new plane was called F-104G. One problem that persisted however, was engine stall during certain maneuvers at low altitude that proved deadly. The F-104G also served in the Hellenic Air Force. It was decided during 1960 to equip 5 squadrons with F-104Gs but later this was reduced to only 2 squadrons, the other 3 being equipped with Northrop's F-5 Freedom Fighters. The first 37 F-104Gs were received in 1964 and equipped the 335 and 336 Squadrons with call signs Tiger and Olympus respectively. In 1972 USA provided nine more items coming from the Spanish Air Force. Between 1978 and 1985 more than 60 airplanes were received, formerly operating with the German and the Royal Netherlands Air Forces. These included some RF-104G, the reconnaissance version of the type. The airplanes were in bare metal until 1971, when they were painted in “Vietnam” camouflage. The F-104 was the first aircraft of the Hellenic Air Force capable of exceeding 2 Mach. It was decommissioned in 1993. Ln the first 19 months of service with the Hellenic Air Force, there were 4 crashes, 3 of them deadly with 4 casualties as one of the planes was a two seater TF-104G. In total the Hellenic Airforce Starfighters completed 224,489 flight hours during their 29 years of service with 16 casualties. This number of casualties was one of the lowest world wide for this plane. The F-104G was very well liked by the pilots that flew it in the Hellenic Air Force, because of it's great agility and fast response, however the F-104G was considered to be an unforgiving aircraft. I remember one pilot saying that you must fly the F-104 with your head first an then with your hands on the stick because this plane does not forgive mistakes.
Here are some videos of Hellenic Air force Starfighters :
www.ptisidiastima.com/greek-f-104s/
www.ptisidiastima.com/greek-f-104s/
www.ptisidiastima.com/greek-f-104s/
And the ceremonial last flight of the Hellenic Air Force Starfighters :
th-cam.com/video/rkPNENFjuiM/w-d-xo.html
Mig 23 could outrun anything that it went up against. Hit and run tactics should be employed with this plane.
It was also a formidable dogfighter, better than most 3rd gen fighter jets.
Consolidated C-87 should have been there. P39 was also a pos. He's off his rocker on the DC10. Some of them were lost due to improper engine change procedure.
The military accepted a military tanker version of the DC-10, known as the KC-10…. The safest heavy jet the military has ever had!
Just like the military version of the De Havilland Comet, the RAF Nimrod ASW and air fueling tanker. And also the Lockheed Electra which became the US Navy's P-3 Orion ASW and famous hurricane hunter and research plane. Once their infamous fatal flaws were fixed the military bought them and they became tough as nails airframes with decades of long and distinguished service.
DC-10 was a lovely ride...comfy flying!
Wiki states that no pilots or ground personnel in any air force that operated the F-104 ever referred to it as the "widowmaker". That nickname was entirely created by some sensationalistic media. In Canada, the CF-104 (locally made F-104 with a Canadian motor) had a better safety record than the vaunted CF-86 Sabre it replaced.
F100 super sabre... Aka the Sabre dance 👌