ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ส.ค. 2018
- Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here: unbound.com/bo...
PayPal - www.paypal.me/...
Blog - hushkit.net/
We take a look at 10 fascinating and terrible US aircraft programmes. Go to hushkit.net to see 1000s of fascinating articles, stories and interviews. Please support us: / hush_kit
IMPORTANT NOTE: Discussing bad American aircraft is not the same as dismissing its many incredible aeronautical achievements, nor it the same as criticising the USA.
The B-36 is the reason I exist.
My father had left the military, having instructed B-17's during WWII. My mother and he were driving up and out of Lancaster, California after a Sunday supper with Dad's folks. As they were driving, they stared out over Antelope Valley and Edwards A.F.B. Down below, there was a HUGE airplane, with many people milling around it.
With a gleam in his eye, my dad casually mentioned to mother that he was one of a handful of men who were qualified to fly it. Both of them knew that he had been at loose ends, since leaving the U.S.A.F. / Army Air Corps (yes, Obama, it's pronounced "Core"). All at once, she firmly stated that she would marry him, if he would go back in.
He did.
That is where we stayed, until the day he died.
Not sure why they've included experimental aircraft which never went into production, but left off the F-3 Demon, F-104 Starfighter, both of which earned the title of "Widowmaker"
The F-104 was dangerous, but it was also awesome. And it was allot less dangerous when it only had two missiles and a gun. Adding weight and extra hard points and more fuel and other things, and the plane kept getting worse and worse. But it also set records and other achievements.
The F-100 Sabre Dance was a one way ticket.
The F-104 needed good super sonic training flights before allowing pilots into the Mach 2 rocket. The Italian's and Japanese managed to fly the F-104 for decades with normal jet accident rates.
F35. Can only go mach 1.6 for 50 seconds before structural issues occur. Also Glimited. Fat Amy as disgusted pilots call the F35 refuses to start if fuel isn't cooled a.It's used to cool its electronics. The weapons in its internal bay get dangerously close to ignition temperature. Ejection seats have strict weight and height limits to prevent fatalities.
Good point
"Nincompoopery" is the BEST word I have ever heard. I can't wait until I can work that into a conversation.
Where's B29 it can't landing
I prefer my OWN term,'Gross Dumbfuckery'.
Exactly what I just commented on.
@@jimnickles2347 rofl
Came to say the same! I knew someone else would have appreciated it as well.
A discussion of the 10 worst operational aircraft would have been much more interesting.
Literally what I was thinking. It's easy to cherry-pick a bunch of awful prototypes and dead ends that were abandoned for that exact reason, but I'm not sure what knowledge is supposed to be gleaned from the revelation that designs that were universally agreed to be bad were, in fact, bad.
No robot voices gets a big thumbs up.
Thanks Wilmer, it's labour intensive and I'm just learning the ropes but it was important to me to have real voices.
You're doing great. Just spend a bit more time practicing your scripts and cutting out when you get tongue tied. Your narration is so professional that it's really jarring when you flub a word and have to say it again.
I absolutely loved the "fishcal" part! So human! And the voice is great, really. The bit about the p75 has loads of subjective statements though, sounds biased. ...still watching, only halfway through (and it's past midnight :P)
the happiest day of the year for me.
I thought the female voice was a robot voice...
The audio tomfoolery in the 12-minute block is great. Thanks for leaving that in, it was worth the laughs!
Puts the Wright Flyer in this list, when there was LITERALLY NO STANDARD FOR POWERED AIRCRAFT at the time of its first flight.
Yes there was, both in theory and practice. Start with reading wikipedia's timeline of aviation. So much was known and done, it didn't need an engine to prove a standard.
@jaydee040 You mean Clément Ader?
First true airplane was Santos Dumont's 14-bis
Not even NASA could make Wright's flyer fly
You can build replicas of 14-bis anytime, with the same configuration and will fly easily, (as exist lots of them)
@@pauloluciomachadodebrito8107 - the Wrights flew their original design, with only minor variations, for years - and so did many many others in Wright-licensed machines. The video is highly misleading in one crucial way; it mentions "its inability to take off under its own power without the aid of a launching rail." Someone has confused the 1903 rail with later ones. In later years the Wrights built a tower containing a weight attached to a rope that was attached to a sled that rode a rail. They'd attach the sled to the plane, lift the weight to the top of the tower, and when the weight was dropped it would pull the rope and drag the sled along the rail, to give the aircraft enough speed to launch. This is NOT what they did in 1903. That first series of flights used the rail ONLY as a guide for the machine that was being driven along solely by its own propellers. There was no propulsive assistance used, and none needed. The use of an unpowered sled with wheels rolling along a rail was basically no different than having jettisonable landing gear, like for example the Messerschmitt 163 rocket fighter of WW2 used. All in all, this is a poorly-researched video indeed.
@@someoldguy383 yeah
United States and its tales that they had invented everything, electricity, electric light, Telephone, and what more do you believe you people did
Almost none of these types actually saw any service... Edit: The Wright Flyer section is absolutely absurd and you people know it.
And your point is...?
The Wright section is silly for reasons they point out themselves in their script. The first is often the "worst" for very obvious reasons. There were plenty of other dumb US planes that could have been in there instead of the "shock" inclusion of one of the very first powered types to fly. As for my "point" about most of these never actually entering service, the other videos about "10 worst planes" they have done, Russia and the UK in particular, contain types that mostly DID inexplicably enter service for whatever reasons, usually resulting in many deaths from accidents. I consider that far "worse" than pilot programs that never got anywhere because forward thinking people said "no way we are going to keep funding this".
Hushkit's UK list had aircraft that made it into service even though they were horrible designs. I know the US has it's share of those.
That's exactly my point. In the UK video they even state that they're only going to focus on aircraft that actually entered service. In this one though they just go all over the place. I don't care as much as some people seem to think I do, but I also think it's kind of odd that they couldn't find better examples.
Alan Taylor - knowing what is available now in aerodynamics and other aircraft, comparing the Wright Flyer to say a Eurofighter is absolute garbage. Aerodynamics weren't available back then along with computers and other applicable sciences. The Flyer now sits in the Smithsonian museum. Not on a woodpile.
The Wrights used a rail to launch the flyer because of the sand. It later took off without the rail when the Wright's moved back to Ohio.
Second narrator - when you are making it so obvious that you are trying to be clever and funny you'd better be clever and funny.
@ So you're agreeing with me then.
“The difference (from the HZ-1 Aerocycle) being, the Segway is unlikely to chop ones body into tiny pieces...” I literally pee’d my shorts. The narration is hysterically funny
Love your narration/voices from both of you (whoever you are, you're really good at talking)! Nice to break from its seriousness and have a laugh though, leaving a few mistakes in and laughing at them you did is good.
She's sounding like bad AI these days.
My grandfather worked on the B-36, even has a photo of it in his office.
...I never had the heart to tell him my opinion of it.
According to the 1945 GM Annual Report, the company produced the following production totals during the Second World War: (119,562,000) Shells, (39,181,000) Cartridge Cases, (206,000) Aircraft Engines, (13,000) Naval Fighters and Torpedo Bombers, (97,000) Aircraft Propellers, (301,000) Aircraft Gyroscopes, (38,000) Tanks and Tank Destroyers, (854,000) Trucks, (190,000) Cannon, (1,900,000) Machine Guns and Sub-Machine Guns, (3,142,000) Carbines. (3,826,000) Electric Motors, (11,111,000) Fuses, (360,000,000) Ball and Roller Bearings and (198,000) Diesel Engines. These numbers are not inclusive of all products but give an understanding of the types and numbers produced. More can be learned looking at the individual divisions.
I would tend to believe that they did not have the capacity to build another plant or assembly line or might have difficulty manning it. I doubt it was because they were doing R+D on one aircraft.
That's very interesting. I'd love to have a look at that in detail. Thanks FlyBaby.
Yes it's typical for Britts to downplay American superiority in every aspect of science with unsubstantiated claims they just mad because we succeeded from there country then made inventions and technologies they could not compete with
Proving that in many ways, WW2 was won in Detroit! Not to take away ANYTHING from the guys on the beaches!
@@deanmcalvert they were equally important and the strength of the United States people is a inspiration same with the people of France poland russia and so on!remember what they faught to defeat
I second this! I was going to post that this was waaaaay too harsh on GM, considering the Defense Production was created and managed by the President of Buick, he leaned on who he knew and, you have to know your limits. Besides, it's not like there weren't plenty of other places able to pitch in (or that the B29 was all that great).
This whole vidieo is just for laughs. Prototype aircraft which most of these are were made to check out concepts. In hindsight, many failures seem obvious, but often failed things in whacky aircraft will evolve into things quite useful later. Technology demonstrators are just that. And failures often lead success later. It often takes failure to expose the path to success. Take your example of the wight flier for example. While it was not a good or great aircraft in its self, it introduced a large number of very advanced technology for the time and solutions to the realm of flight. For example, very efficient propeller design, wing design and shape, wing warping technology for control, weight and balance concepts, coordinated turn and bank for proper maneuvering, and proving and disproving aeronautic theories of the time which are almost too numerous to list. Do not forget that the Wright brothers came up with a workable wind tunnel to verify the designs they were working on. They overcame the problem of a lack of a light weight engine (which they designed and mostly built themselves) with enough power to lift the airplane by applying the technology of the catapult. It worked! They got it correct enough to get airborne, perform controlled and coordinated flight, and carried the first President in an airplane. The future president Theodore Rosevelt. A number of these failed aircraft did introduce new technology’s and concepts not tried before that are in many cases very much in use in many of today’s aircraft.
The main issue I see here is the high cost. A lot of these prototypes did cost millions, up to billions of dollars from taxpayer's pockets. Just because a lot of experimenting is needed, It does not mean it can be done at any cost when such projects are financed by the people. Thus I do believe it is very justifiable that these aircrafts are put into shame, even tough newer technologies came from it, it sure as hell was not the smartest way to go about it.
- A perfect example is the excellent Avro Lancaster, which emerged from the Avro Manchester, a turkey of an aircraft.
@Bob Loblaw You mean the one-eleven? lol The resulting airplane worked, but that jet was how not to do development. They didn't build prototypes instead using "per-production" examples for testing. Then they started building production models before testing was complete. The result was A models falling from the sky with crews onboard, and C and D models sitting in storage for several years, and the B model fortunately canceled. The costs adjusted for inflation may still be the costliest weapons program ever.
@Bob Loblaw Embarrassment yes and more so for why it was making smoking holes. I worked it for 8 years. We had some very interesting experiences during exercises. While it started out a dog, it ended near enough to unstoppable relative to it's time. Many have compared the JSF program to the TFX. But I'm not sure that's fair, as the JSF got a chance to develop before they started building production airplanes.
@@moreiralves Agreed.
And I noticed the Hughes Hercules was not listed.
In light of Hughes being called before Congress, I would like an accounting of how much of their own
money that aircraft manufacturers actually spent on development projects.
Odd how defense aircraft are not bid the way building projects, etc...are.
Hah! I actually contributed to that XFV-12 when I worked as a test engineer at Pratt & Whitney Aircraft back in the late 1970's and early 1980's! It was an F-401 engine modified with that weird plug in the butt.
I was on the VH-71 project when it was cancelled. The huge cost overrun was in fact due to new requirements post 9/11. The program was cancelled the day after the first missionized flight of the new requirements. We were told that the current helicopter manufacturer lobbied hard to keep their chopper in the game.
I enjoyed Hush Kits other documentaries. Not a fan of this one.
But you have to admit Aracuda was one wicked cool name.
Meh. Seems like this channel considers experimental a/c as "worst" examples of air history. The P-75 wasn't a bad aircraft once it went through it's teething process (the P-51 did, too, and ended up being amazing) but was ultimately deemed redundant at the time. That Atomic B-36 was experimental. How does that classify it as "worst?"
Seems that most of these a/c were simply redundant, too complex, or too expensive. No thumbs-up for you.
It's a nuclear-powered airplane... what could be bad about it?
The fact that if it crashed it would have a decidedly worse impact on the enviroment than pretty much any other aircraft in the world other than the TU-95LAL the only other plane with a live nuclear reactor on board.
The only thing that could've conceivably been worse is an actual nuclear powered plane, especially with a direct cycle nuclear jet.
LupusAries
Oh, c'mon, it was experimental. ANY nuke getting away - in a power station, sub, or this plane - presents an environmental threat. Don't act if a successful atomic flight would have turned into 400 atomic aircraft one year later; everything we do successfully begins with a best-guess and crossed fingers, and if this experiment had worked out it would have been subjected to enormous oversight and control, with an emphasis shifting over to public safety. EVERY big system like this has shifty beginnings that eventually develop into a relatively safe system. Nuke subs are safe systems from their propulsion to their payload, but that is a developed result. Power stations are equally safe but, again, after lengthy development.
Had there been an economical benefit to a nuke plane it would have become a safe plane.
There's a bit of a difference between a submarine operating miles out in the ocean and an airplane dangling by its wings above all our heads. What happens if the submarine's engine stops working? You tow it to shore. What happens if the airplane's engine stops? Boom.
Every plane is experimental; the worst planes hopefully never do anything else.
Gorky D
There's a big difference between today's nuke sub and the first nuke subs. With early nukes it was never a matter of them just stopping running, but, rather, those new nuclear systems failing and having the controls in place to control them safely so they don't run away. That hasn't changed, but the systems are safer because improvements have been developed and implemented over time.
If the nuke plane had been a success, and a rational need was found for continuing it (five day Arctic airborne patrols?) then crashes would be factored into any design, and it's possible that the nuke plane today might be as safe as today's nuke sub. But we wouldn't have known if we didn't take a stab at it, and we learned atomic power for aircraft was unfeasible.
Everything is unsafe for us. We learn.
As for the haters to paraphrase MST3K: "It's just a video; I should really just relax."
The wright flyer only flew 4 times because the 35mph wind on the day of the flight rolled the plane over and destroyed it after its 4th flight. Not because it wasn’t controllable. Get the facts straight.
An understanding of aerodynamics and the principal's of flight say that things is little more than very terribly designed glider. There is no aileron, the rudder is in the front of the aircraft and the rudder was tiny. It had no authority on any axis. It required a launcher because it couldn't power its own flight.
Even the designers thought: "nah, lets start over and try something new before that contraption kills us."
Early design: timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/wright-bros.jpeg
Later design: airandspace.si.edu/webimages/previews/6146p.jpg
They learned that they had been lucky in producing flight. If they would have become arrogant due to their success and not learn of the issues they faced, they wouldn't have lived very much longer. Their 'aircraft' was just a bad wind away from killing them. google 'wind shear'.
I watched through the summer of 2002 as a couple groups of people built replicas of the Wright flyer. They both learned very quickly, like the Wrights did, that what makes a good kite does not make a good airplane.
There was a tow test with none other than Scott Crossfield in the pilot's cradle. He described the thing as a 'pitch witch' that would do its very best to kill the pilot. Looking at photos of the first flight, and movies of the Flyer II, you can see that the elevators are often at full throw positive and negative...the same thing that Scott Crossfield experienced as test pilot. It's a good thing that the first flyer got caught in the wind and balled up so that the brothers Wright could lengthen the elevator and rudder moments before going on with their testing using the Flyer II!
Here's a video of yet another Flyer II replica doing a long flight that actually makes it through a turn...still demonstrating pitch issues. th-cam.com/video/Jk4ShDw_TAs/w-d-xo.html
Alberto Santos Dumont built his 14 bis and flew it in 1906. It had separate ailerons and very good control authority from a rudder/elevator mounted at the front of a long fuselage. It also had wheels and could do a standard takeoff roll. BUT the Wrights had beaten him to powered, controlled, flight. He gave up on the 14bis as a dead end, designed a couple unsuccessful planes, then hit big again in 1907 with a very successful plane, the Demoiselle. By 1910, plans for this plane had found their way into American homes through "Popular Mechanics" magazine. Six years later, Dumont was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis and retired to his home in Brazil. He built no more planes after Demoiselle...one wonders what could have been had he not fallen ill.
Ian Greenhalgh
Otto Lilienthal had thousands of flights under his belt before he was killed in a crash, Octave Chanute did all sorts of work in 'pre-Wright' aviation. And worldwide there were many people experimenting with flight...it was only a matter of time, and a decent power source, before someone 'hit'.
What was different with the Wrights is that they went about flying from a very technical angle. They amassed all the papers on the subject that they could...with help from Chanute, passing many letters back and forth starting in 1900. They analyzed these papers and found conflicting data, so they went off on their own a bit. They built a wind tunnel, perhaps the first, to test various airfoil shapes and propeller designs. The Wrights used a wire-braced biplane very similar to what Chanute suggested, as he had designed railroad bridges that functioned similarly...and data supported multi-wing aircraft as providing more lift per unit power than monoplanes at the low speeds of the day.
The wrights getting a powered plane into the air before others was a mixture of tech and luck!
koolkitty8989
Looking back at it is so interesting...watching everyone learn how to do the basic control and balance that I knew as a kid ten years old! Of course, I was standing on the shoulders of giants when I built and flew those planes of my youth.
We see that the first two Wright flyers were very short-coupled, pitchy, and slow on the rudder response. The Flyer III was much longer to make it less troublesome in pitch and to have better rudder response. It was almost flyable by todays standards!
a 35mph wind rolled the plane over and destroyed it
and you call that controllable LOL
The sad thing about the P75 was that GM through their Eastern Aircraft division did great work building Gruman's Wildcat and Avenger as the FM and TBM for the Navy.
Much of the narrative for the Christmas Bullet was paraphrased (if not directly copied) from Bill Yenne's book, "The Worlds Worst Aircraft". C. 1990
Pretty sure I have a copy of "The World's Worst Aircraft" from the 70s...
I like the bloopers being kept, but the recording sometimes skips and cuts out. Still giving you guys thumbs up for the sheer cleverness of your videos.
Can't have good aircraft without some garbage ones too. Lessons learned i suppose.
Yes, absolutely.
Loved how the narrator's crackup (12:28 and following) didn't get edited out.
The NB-36 was a test bed, not a operational duty aircraft. The B-36 Peacemaker that as the test mule, was a phenomenal bomber that never got her chance to do her thing. Still, she kept the Russians at bay. My Step Mom was a Rosie the Riveter on the 2 prototypes and initial production there in Fort Worth Air Force Plant #4 till she left back home for the Family East Texas dairy farm.
All things should be judged in context. To judge the Wright Flyer against any later aircraft is not merely unfair, it's asinine. Doing so, destroys the credibility of the rest of this video. Pity that, you made some good points with the number 10 aircraft the P-75. But now, I have to wonder just much of that was true, and how much was made up.
Call me a conspiracy nut but I think they put in aircraft like the wright flyer so that they didn’t have to put in as many genuinely bad aircraft
poor but hurt PQRavik must be a yankee that doesn't like criticism
about something built in the US
Did you really whip up this quick false outrage cocktail just so you could find a good sentence to insert the word asinine into?
Fred, it's pretty unfair to judge the first ever heavier-than-air aircraft against more contemporary aircraft. The Wright brothers were pioneers. Of course the Wright Flyer wasn't a very good plane. They were literally engineering the first principles of powered flight. To call it a terrible plane and throw it on some arbitrary list of terrible aircraft is disingenuous at best.
fred6319 let’s use bad cars as an example, you have a list with bad cars like the delorean and such, then it says something like the Ford model-T or the very early Mercedes cars from the 1880’s. Not really fair is it now.
Wow. Worst aircraft. Most of them were prototypes.
right, they even included and XF, which are one of experimentals
This whole channel is warm garbage.
If they were prototype US aircraft why are you surprised that people think some of them are some of the worst?
@@gazlink1 yes but u shouldn't count prototypes as we never fielded them they were so bad
Videos like this made by people who know nothing at all about aviation other than what he read on wikipedia.
10. Fisher XP-75 Eagle: A great "War Thunder" aircraft.
9. Bell YFM-1 Airacuda: White elephant on parade.
8. Convair NB-36 Crusader: A nuclear-powered bomber!?
7. Wright Flyer: A dead-end design.
6. Lockheed Martin VH-71 Kestrel: A money pit.
5. Langley Aerodrome: Scale models don't always "scale up" well.
4. Lockheed XFV-1 Salmon: Tail sitter vertical landing = Kamikaze.
3. Rockwell XFV-12: It can't get off the ground!?
2. de Lackner HZ-1 Aerocycle: Soldier chopper.
1. Christmas Bullet: Shoot me now!
Not sure if I should be relieved that the Convair Sea Dart wasn't on this list, as that was one of my father's projects and we were on the restoration crew for the one outside the San Diego Air & Space Museum.
I do notice that quite a few of these were TEST aircraft and were for LEARNING. Not everyday usage. Experimentals were for that purpose only, not much else.
Including the Wright Flyer in this list is absurd.
Why?
Because it's the first? There's nothing before it to compare it to and everything after is bound to be better...
The Wright flyer was the finest aircraft in the world at the time it flew.
@@whelk And also the worst. That was the point made in this video. And anyway, it *was* shit for the reasons given.
bnipmnaa
So, the guy that made the list of what not to do is the idiot not the guy that forgets to read it
I absolutely adore Hush Kits sarcastic commentaries
The xfv-12 could have worked as a regular fighter without the augmented wing. Surprised Rockwell didn't try a conventional version to sell...
It's very interesting to see the leaps and bounds technology was making when people first learned the concept of powered flight... I would say it's a hell of a lot more interesting to watch than the development of the next iPhone. We mock those ideas now as completely absurd and utterly stupid, but at the time, the facts weren't in, and it could of worked.
without the reactor tests on the B-36, we wouldn't have gotten our lovely science from space probes from Voyager to New Horizons lately, all of which have Nuclear power onboard.
The space probes aren't powered by nuclear reactors. They're powered by radioactive isotope decay.
Both Commercial Grade and spacegoing reactors use radioactive decay, also known as Fission to generate electricity.
The Russians are fans of fission reactors in space, TOPAZ being the most obvious, but the most common type of generation using radioactivity are typically radioisotope generators, thermo-electric or piezo-electric, especially for the long range probes. The natural decay of a radioisotope generates sufficient energy to provide the small power demands for probes designed to last for years, if not decades. Fission reactors are much more dangerous to launch out of a gravity well than a lump of radioactive element.
Radioactivity we we know it is Fission decay. Radioisotope is jut a fancy way of saying Plutionium(and a couple of much less used metals), which as we all know is also used to make nuclear weapons aaanndd wait for it...Used in Commercial Nuclear Reactors (Shock). Its the very same stuff that's on the Voyager Spacecraft that Melted down in Fukushima.
@@twotone3471 I am a nuclear physicist who worked on several of these programs in assorted ways, and I am here to tell you that you are full of sh*t. Oldus Grumpus gets it more or less right, although the assertion that fission reactors are more dangerous to launch is not entirely correct; depends on the design of the reactor and, particularly, on what its fuel is. The specific activity of natural uranium is so low that it's used as radiation shielding. Just delete what you wrote and pay attention to OG.
Before you start yelling about the 14-bis: Introduced 22 July 1906 First flight 23 October 1906; Wright Flyer took off into strong head wind and flew in 1903. One year before Santos-Dumont's first flight of just 50 metres (160 ft), Wilbur Wright made a circling flight of 24 miles (38.9 km) in 39 minutes 23 seconds.
"President Obama doomed the Kestrel with an injection if fis....fishcal....oh fuckin' hell" THANK YOU! This is the absolute best of the military update channels by the commentary bloopers alone. Subscribed.
This is one of the 10 worst "documentary" YT videos. Many errors, factual and otherwise.
By your criteria, the B-29 should be on the list because the engines often caught on fire, and in WW2 service more lost by system failures (almost all by flaming engines) than combat.
An anti-American YT video that refers to WWII as "The Great War"? Surely not Russian Agitprop!
@@netabuse Theyve done the same video with French, British and Russian designs, the four world leading aviation countries. You're wrong.
Would that be the same B-29 that the US put the first ATOMIC BOMB in to go calling on the NIPS???
@@ronwilsontringue6574 So it did that successfully. Doesn't mean it was good.
@@netabuse who let the boomer in here?
No gutless F7U Cutlass?
Nor the dangerously named FR2 Fireball?
What about the Airacomet, which was a jet fighter slower than contemporary piston aircraft?
Some of the F104 models could also easily be listed - the base aircraft wasn’t terrible, but trying to turn it into an all weather bomber was... ill advised.
The flying ram? Dumb enough to speak for itself.
The Ass-ender? (Actually not that bad, or good, a plane, just fun to laugh at it).
The Mighty Ear Banger, aka Thunderscreech?
F-35 may have critics, but there are so many other bad options available.
For what it’s worth, the river is pronounced Pōtōmick, with the accent on the second syllable.
Alan Taylor given that two out of the three prototypes crashed, the XP-55 wasn’t exactly a winner.
The P-59 shouldn't be listed. Sure she was slow for a jet but Yeager apparently was impressed by how smooth she flew.
She was single engined where as the -262 and Gloster were twin engined planes hence her slower speed. Look at the Whittle plane and the German equivelant, they flew a single engine.
Considering the issues the -262 had with maintenance, give her a pass.
As for the Starfighter. I one up you with the Super Saber that in USAF service had a higher accident rate than the -104. One of the countries that flew the Starfighter it had a much lower accident rate.
Brandon Clark maybe just “underwhelming” on the P59. Given the problems with early jet engines, it seems unlikely anyone would have picked it over a Mustang.
The F104 as an overall type was mixed - it was fine as a day interceptor. The other roles, well...
The Hun was a bit like the Cutlass - an ill-advised rush job on immature technology. Thing is, the hun was unreliable but otherwise OK. The Cutlass was unreliable and ineffective.
Justanotherconsumer
Yeah, the F-104 was a mixed bag. In the USAF it set a climb record that wasn't broken until the F-15. Its handling characteristics, especially post-stall spin was lethal. Engines had a tendancy to stall on the take-off roll which coupled with the downward ejection seat was a bit odd. Apparently Lockheed thought the idea of pilots coating the runway was a good-idea. It wasn't favored by the USAF and other operators for valid reasons. But holy hell could that thing run, not far mind you, but I am not sure there was an aircraft in the air at the time that could match her. She appeals to the juvenile fantasy of the high-performance motorbike or the Vector sports car.
And I was wrong about Lockheed's Lawndart having a lower accident rate than the F-100, the Starfighter was the worse, but the Super Saber had issues.
As for the Ensign Eliminator. Yeah, it was a dog. The engines were atrocious and it was underpowered (a lot of early jets were) and its landing gear was a liability landing on a flight deck more so than usual. And it featured aerodynamic theories that were um, a little far-thinking.
There are actually better candidates for this entire list. Northrop's early flying-wing bombers had interesting flight characteristics, including if I remember the story spontaneously pitching up spontaneously on its back.
Every aircraft has quirks. The P-38 for a time had a very bad reputation. The F-16 had wire-chaffing issues. The D model Mustang from the stories I heard could kill you on take-off. I remember watching a USAF film about the F-4 and the pilot talking about not being able to use the rudder in the transonic because it'd cause the plane to snap into a spin, and at high-alpha a rudder input could cause an unrecoverable inverted flat-spin.
What about the F2A Brewster Buffalo?
I really love the voice and style of the presenter of this episode!
Seems to me that criticizing experimental aircraft for their ineffective technology is a lot like criticizing the man who first discovered fire because he rubbed two sticks together instead of using a Bic lighter.
Wow. The P-75 truly was a hideous abortion of an aircraft. It looks like something my seven year old son would make if you gave him three different Airfix kits and no instructions.
Inspired by the ME 109 no doubt .
Well, youre not far off, it was effectively a kit-bashed aircraft, in the most literal sense of the word.
The Bf-109 was quite an effective aircraft, though.
It was good at what it was designed to do, which was shoot down enemy aircraft. One flaw didn't make it a terrible aircraft.
Very similar to an airacobra
Not one made it into production. And let's be honest the worlds worst manned aircraft award has to go toYokosuka MXY-7 Ohka since it was actually designed to kill the pilot.
V-1 suicide pilots. poorly trained one way mission into enemy territory on-board a pulse jet engine and a ton of explosives.
_ VesBraun Yeah, but it's the Luftwaffe, they failed anyways
They were classified as "spirit warriors" where their death occurred while fighting for their god, the emperor, mjade them a martyr entitled to the luxury of elite afterlife.
A lot of religions, or branches of them, profess this idea to their warriors. ISIS is one
of them and suitable tactics have to be implemented to combat these individuals...if they die, suicide or not, they believe in becoming a martyr.
@@antonypiniepedus1066 u do know the Japanese killed 3000 people at pearl harbor they got what they deserve
Joshua Lance .....only after your country decided to apply an oil embargo upon the proud empire of the rising sun.
The Japanese were left with no choice other than lash out in an effort to try and change things into a more favorable way for them.....or simply give up - no option for them.
I don't condem them for their decision to go to war, rather I admire their spirit to take up a fight against an enemy, whom they knew was superior!
The #2 hover Segway scares me. Where the soldier stands is barely the size of his feet. And the prop so close to him an untied shoelace could end to all sucking right down into the weed eater blades. This was an insane idea-
A legitimate list of the ten worst American aircraft of all time: Brewster Buffalo, Brewster SB2A Buccaneer/Bermuda, McDonnell F3H Demon, Curtiss SO3C Seamew, Douglas TBD Devastator, Bell AiraCuda, Vought SB2U Vindicator, Vought F7U Cutlass, Christmas Bullet, and the Mizar, (engine and wings of a Cessna Skymaster fastened to a Ford Pinto).
The Mizar flew twice, and it's second flight was the last for the Mizar and its two designers, Henry Smolinski and Hal Blake. Plane and designers were destroyed as poorly-welded and loose parts broke, and the car/plane crashed shortly after take-off.
I'm sure that lies, litigation and threats aren't confined to the US, but boy they had/have some real b@stard captains of industry. Tesla learned that lesson, to his eternal regret.
Most of these planes were experimental from which we learned a great deal (and shared with the World). You are welcome. No need to defend any one of the 10 planes... Vertical takeoff, thrust vectoring and early plane designs (very early) all laid the foundation to today's greatest planes (Made in USA). .
Vertical takeoff and thrust vectoring ? That was England mate
@@mathewkelly9968 We could only say that jet-powered VTOL was a British invention. In general, the XFY Pogo did introduce VTOL capabilities albeit in the dumbest possible way.
The best quote I ever heard about 20 years ago was when a Helocopter pilot told his trainees " This machine has from the time it rolled out of the factory it decided on its on how to best kill itself and its crew as quickly as possible!!!"
How could you miss the XF-84H Thunderscreech? It was the loudest airplane on the planet!
There was at least one test pilot who said there was no amount of money to convince him to get back in that thing.
Fail to mention that the Wright Flyer took off in the sand so a rail was necessary.
Did it do that without a huge headwind?
To my knowledge the. Christmas Bullet is the only plane to ever kill 100% of its pilots.
What about the Japanese Okha flying bomb? Its basically a V-1 missile, but with a pilot inside
So basically they’re saying all experimental aircraft are crap? During an age where there were no computers and the only way to find things out was to just get on and do it, I think these “crap” aircraft were worth their weight in gold for research.
I just adore the big red SCRAM button on the control panel in the atomic bomber. It's like a Looney Tunes joke, but there it is.
You need to read a little history. The XP-75 was cancelled because it was no longer needed for the role it was designed for: a high speed interceptor with an extremely high rate of climb to use against potential attacks from enemy strategic bombers. After discovering that Germany had no plans to build a strategic bomber, the project was cancelled. It was an excellent airframe built around the then-available Allison V-3420.
You should crack open a book before shooting off about something you're not familiar with.
OMFG must be the finest form of British sarcasm, love it!
To be fair, the Wright Flyer for all its instability was in many ways ahead of its time because wing warping is still the dream for many in aviation and it even used the pilot shifting his weight in control of the aircraft which is still done in hang gliders. The Aerodrome did work as a powered model but scaling it up and not taking into account that it changed both lift/wing characteristics was why it belly flopped each time it was launched off what was essentially a floating houseboat. The thinking behind a Nuclear Powered Bomber was that it could be airborne for months on end not just days, indeed midair refueling kept a record making B-52 airborne in a non stop trip,around the globe but the refueling is still it's Achilles Heel.
It says a lot that most of these aircraft are prototypes or experimental, compared to the 3 other videos from this series, "Worst French Aircraft," "Worst British Aircraft," and "Worst Soviet Aircraft," which are mostly production aircraft that saw service.
Yet another awesome video. I must admit the second narrator is definately my favorite. Does each narrator do their own writing as well? The Kestrel part was a bit hard to follow
I stopped at the Wright Flyer. The world's first heavier than air aircraft is a POS? Think about that for a minute. I get riffing on planes, but had to stop there.
You forgot the Chance Vaught Cutlass, and the Barling Bomber.....
For all the Americans getting annoyed and offended by this video, this channel has also made a video on the Ten Worst British aircraft. Do try not to be upset - it's not all about you. It's a deliberate attempt to provoke people.
"snow eating commies" ... Love the narration!
On of the most biased videos I've ever seen. The NB-36 reactor was actually relatively safe. It was disconnected because the weight of the reactor was so high. The shielding not only needed to protect the crew, but also protect the environment in case of a crash.
To call it an "environmental disaster waiting to happen" is not at all fair.
Hell the US had lost about a dozen nukes from aircraft accidents whether from crashing or just falling out of the plane...
you are stupid .geezus H christ your as bad as my own british fools whining on the 10 worst brit aircraft about anti brit bias.GET A LIFE!!!.this author is playing it for laughs with facts ...hilarious commentary!!
I enjoyed the information and the attitude together very much! Nothing wrong with poking a little fun at the technologic and egotistic flaws of the past. Informative and entertaining! Thx!
For the record, that 1 man helicopter/food processor thing wasn't capable of chopping its pilot into small pieces. Those blades were pretty flimsy. More like a few large chunks.
your calling the wright plane a bad one? if it wasn't for that you would still be strapping feathers on your arms and jumping off cliffs......
Wright brothers sued everyone around who tried to build a working plane, probably halting significantly the development of a proper plane. They did produce the first plane, but their impact on the whole industry doesn't seem to be that positive.
Not arrogance, the point is that they started a change for the better. even if it wasn't very good it was a start of a change, you think they would build the stealth bomber on the first try?
Sorry I didn't know about all that. I failed for not doing proper research. I was trying to point out that people shouldn't poop on a first design.
Rumbler: (answer to your first post) Probably not. Somewhere down the line someone else would have learned enough about aerodynamics to build a flyable heavier than air device.
Longer unpowered flights had been made many times before the wright brothers made there first flight ,
3:55 What does Francis Ford Coppola have to do with this?
He directed Frankenstein in 1994.....
andre agog ..
You had to write it down to get it!
Thought it was a misnomer because it was ugly..
It's a play on words regarding the giant windows in the side pods which are called cupolas.
Nick Cage is coppolas son :-D
J P Naah, nephew !
The NB-36 was a testbed for a potentially nuclear-powered bomber with "unlimited range and endurance" armed with nuclear weapons. If you think the NB-36 was a bad idea, just be thankful that none of the nuclear-powered bombers were ever built.
The Salmon was obviously a fish out of water.
Quite apart from any other snide remarks about the supposed failures of design of the aircraft mentioned, those regarding the Wright brothers are just sniping for the sake of it. What exactly have the producers of this posting achieved? Had they invented something entirely original that was later found to be less than perfect and then admitted their failings they would have some grounds to be contrite but this production is just being superior with 20/20 hindsight.
Sod off with your elevators at the wrong end!
Canards are far more stable and efficient than standard.
@ Bruce Baxter
More efficient (in straight and level flight) certainly but more stable is dubious, both of these items being design specific..
Oh and having a canard does NOT mean the elevators are at the front.
..and if Canards are better why do NO animals/birds/W.H.Y. use them.
Cheezsoup
Not sure how a wide range of allowable centre of gravity and inherent stall proof is not stable.
Why would animals do such a thing?
Stall proof, no such thing. I take it you mean the air vehicle is designed in such a way that the canard stalls first before the main plane allowing the vehicle to nose down and so unstall the canard yet not have stalled the main plane .
It is very unstable with wind gusts .
From :-www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aircraft-systems/canards/ (basically because I am a lazy B and can-not be bothered finding the correct words/grammar.)
Stability
Canards can also make an airplane unstable. Simply put, if a wind gust briefly increases the angle of attack on a Cessna 172, the aircraft tends to pitch nose down and return to it's original attitude. In the Cessna's case, the increased angle of attack increases the wing's lift. However, it actually decreases the tail down force, because it decreases the horizontal stabilizer's angle of attack.
However, the canard can actually make your aircraft pitch up further. The increase in angle of attack causes both the canard and the wing to generate more lift. If the canard's increase in lift is greater than the wing's, the nose will pitch further up.
To solve this problem, designers use high wing loading on the canard. This means that the canard generates more lift per square foot than the wing. At high wing loading, an increase in angle of attack causes a smaller increase in lift than at low wing loading.
But here's the downside - high wing loading generates more induced drag. To counter this, designers often use a high aspect ratio canard - which means it's long and narrow. That decreases the drag, but makes a large canard hard to build.
So canards are good (IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS) but they are not a panacea
@@Cheezsoup "and if Canards are better why do NO animals/birds/W.H.Y. use them." Because that is not how evolution works
@@jacobgreengas7121
Apart from Ducks you mean?
Who said anything about evolution?
If I'm not mistaken, the NB-36 would never have been able to fly on nuclear power alone, even if they had a hybrid electric system, it was simply too heavy to fly on 3mw.
The absolute worst of these was the Christmas Bullet. Christmas was the name of the designer, if you can call in insane fool who know ZERO about engineering a designer. It wings were supposed to "flap like a bird's" and were unsupported by struts to the fuselage. It killed the pilots on both of its flights.
I was expecting the Spruce Goose to be number one, and it's not even on the list. Shome mishtake, surely?
Good call, but sadly we can only fit 10 in this list.
If there was a list called "Top One worst aircraft from all nations of all time," the Spruce Goose would be it.
The Spruce Goose was probably a good or great Aircraft. It was just finished too late.
Ken Despain Not forgetting that it suffered severe structural damage on its first "hop", so severe it never flew again.
@ Ken Despain - You're joking, surely? The Spruce Goose was an unmitigated disaster. It only once got off the ground (well, water). Even then it did so whilst empty of any payload (not a good sign for an aircraft intended as a cargo carrier), and achieved a "flight" only slightly longer than the one the Wright brothers managed. Then it was quietly forgotten and left to rot.
In short, the Spruce Goose is a prime candidate for the title of worst "aircraft" of all time.
Sorry to say but the sexy voice doing the narration in the beginning distracted me somewhat from the excellent content. Please continue doing so!
Regarding POGO and Salmon, do you remember Roton, the laucn vehicle which was supposed to land vertically???
NB-36 was not nearly as dangerous as you make it out to be. Most of the extra safety measures you talked about were due to the unique design of the air cooled reactor. Russia did it, they didn't put any real safety measures in place.
Wright Flyer one of the ten worst? What?! Lady, this was the first ever heavier-than-air aircraft. First ever! And, it makes your list. Jeez.
Butt hurt lol
Just because it’s the first doesn’t mean it’s good. In fact the first are usually the worst. Look at the Tank Mark 1. This doesn’t mean we can’t celebrate it for its breakthrough, but you got to admit it’s pretty bad.
Amen...keep the human voice!!!!!!
This narrator has a beautiful voice that is comfortable to listen to.
The first to ever flown inside a hot air balloon wasn’t a person, but a sheep, cockerel & a duck from the courtyard of the Palace of Versailles, France in June 1783.
These animals weren’t the brains in the operation of course... it was a man by the name of François d'Arlandes.
Love the outtakes FSHKAL
How can you say that these aircraft are the worst, without experimentation there would be no progress, i'm English and Without American aircraft during the second world war i wouldn't' be writing this all of which at sometime the aircraft were at a stage of were they or were they not going into production, for goodness sake give the guys that designed these aircraft some recognition not do them down. Alan Brown
Alan Brown You’d have been writing in in German & there’d be no Brexit - not without a bit of aggro!
The Wright Flyer was basically a powered kite!!
True
The Wright Flyer. The true genius of the Wright Flyer were its propellers. In 2003 the original Wright Flyer was recreated. As part of this recreation of the propellers were studied and found to be about 80% efficient. The project head noted the that modern, computer controlled manufactured propeller on his modern Censsa were about 85% efficient. Langley's propellers were about 35% efficient. The recreators had great difficulty in recreating that first flight. The Wrights went on to build better aircraft. However, with one brother dead, the other brother got out of the aircraft business in 1916. First adopters often show the way and those that follow get shown the money.
A classic example where a better writer and a computer voice would be an improvement!
Dalle Smallballs That's why we have a voting system and can comment, toolbag!
Skip the computer voice. To me this signifies laziness on the producers part.
Love reading salty butt hurt comments 😂
"[...] which at 16 mph could be outrun by a not particularly vigorously ridden bicycle" XD
To their great credit, at least Americans are tough enough that you not only could allow comments on this one, but also the comments section isn't packed tight with bawling crybabies. Criticism serves to make real Americans even stronger.
You did watch the videos when they were talking about the UK and Russia didn’t you, as far as am aware you got off lightly compared to us, most likely because they knew people in UK and Russia can take it, whereas they had to hold back to make sure people didn’t cry like ‘bawling crybabies’. Despite less criticism, I’ve scrolled through this comment section and still seen Americans complaining or crying.
@@kpwelshy2066 well all of the so called worst aircraft were prototypes that saw practically no combat.
Whereas your list shows worst aircraft that was put in combat...
* American national anthem starts playing*
Yes I am an American and our failures are but a stepping stone to greater things.
*national anthem intensifies*
You use our aircraft because we build the best there is and you know it!
*American national anthem reaches conclusion and MAXIMUM intensification*
Well you see here mr Christian Blanchard *turns off national anthem* that’s not strictly true, let’s not forget about the harrier jump-jet and the lessons you learned from that, I won’t deny that America makes some fine aircraft but Britain makes some mighty fine aircraft too.
*points at this video*
But this is just fucking biased
*points at europian union*
Also nowadays when ever we help or do something in the aeronautic industry they take the glory and the fucking piss
@@kpwelshy2066 I agree this video is biased af besides at all the aircraft shown could have done something if changes were made the airacuda would have been a great antiship attack aircraft.That rockwell prototype sounds like they should have tried to make it a STOL ( short takeoff or landing) fighter.
@@kpwelshy2066 Well, the Harrier is nice, but it was the US who improved it to the modern version with the nice big canopy (grin).
the Wright Flyer was NOT the first airplane, Gustavos Weisskoph (Gus Whitehead) had already been flying a powered aircraft up and down the Manhattan coast for years..
Possibly, but due to the lack of photographic or motion picture footage of the original "Whitehead Flyer" in flight, this is an interesting claim. As I recall, a modern version created from plans did fly, which is a "proof of concept." th-cam.com/video/Ucm80BYUXEE/w-d-xo.html
Otokichi786
Apparently the actual plane Gus made never was able to lift off under its own power due to its engine being too heavy and underpowered.
The recreation was made with a newer and much lighter engine.
"Undeterred, unrepentant and unprosecuted."
Awesome
Yeah that guy sounded like a piece of work. Billing the Army for $100K in war time for killing 2 pilots, destroying 2 prototype military engines & piecing together something that looked like a plane- he would have a future in modern day Washington DC.
Nice! Excellently written.
The bloke who ended the countdown, his choice diction had me in stitches. :D
When you included the Wright Flyer in the list you lose all credibility...
For gods sake, you lose any credibility when you can not even pronounce Potomac River!
Typical American worldview. How far does one have to shove ones head up their own arse to reach such a conclusion?
In what will surely come as a shock to every American and absolutely no one else, Geography of the United States is actually not a subject that the 95% of the world living outside the US have studied. Thus, we do not view a simple mispronunciation of the name of a geographic feature to be particularly concerning- and certainly not to the point of invalidating an argument. But for what it's worth, I'd be extremely surprised if better than 1-in-4 Yanks could name a river in London, much less pronounce "Thames" correctly.
Also, "Irak" is not a country, "aloominum" isn't an element and "American English" isn't a language.
@@mxp14242 the Potomac isn't some obscure little town in the middle of Kansas, it's the reasonably well-known river that runs through DC. I'm guessing you think Americans who mispronounce the name "Thames" sound pretty uneducated (and I would agree).
@@zackakai5173 Too many words. We think americans sound uneducated.
Actually if you want to get specific, American English is closer to the old English. The UK is the one bastardizing the language.
Then we should disqualify ourselves every time we mispronounce something outside the US. Fuck, man. As long as the arguments are sound, screw the pronunciation.
The Langley Aerodrome didn't fly because the power to weight ratio of the power plant was inverted by the manufacturer. So its power was less then Crawford and its weight was more than proffered which meant that the aircraft was always out of balance. The problem that you have is several years before the Wright brothers that was a man in India that was flying a powered aircraft.
I take issue with several of the opinions found in the list of the ten worst aircraft.
I don't see how a successful prototype can be called a failure or how the aircraft development practices of the Wrights could be called terrible. A prototype is successful when it suggests that the designers are on the right track and identifies what needs to be improved.
The narrator calls the first Wright Flyer a dangerously unstable aircraft.
The statement is true but misleading.
Prior to the Wrights, most of the flying machines crashed and were very unstable. Some didn't even have the means to control them. The Wright Flyers usually crashed but they were designed to save the pilot and to be rebuilt quickly.
I haven' t seen much on the specs for the rotary engine used for Langley's Aerodrome failed attempt at flight before Dec. 17, 2003. The engine was more powerful and available for a price. It probably was too heavy for the glider based flyer.
It could have been used later but I don't think it ever was. There were 3 engines used by companies in England, France, and Germany that purchased the right to build Wright Flyers.
The beefed up airframe could handle the heavier and more powerful engines.
Langley's Aerodrome used a catapult, which was later adopted by the Wrights in mid 1904. No catapult was used in 1903 or in the attempt to replicate the event on Dec. 17, 2003 at Kitty Hawk, NC.
The female narrator sounds just like Siouxsie Sioux.
I don’t think that’s a female
I spent half the video listening closely trying to determine the narrators gender and settled on male
But now you have me doubling myself in the rest of the video