Aircraft that didn't succeed...........discuss

Rheged · January 20, 2023, 07:41:38 AM

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/failure-to-launch-aircraft-that-couldn-t-succeed/ss-AAXVBBb?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=7a4ecbf0eca64917b69c75ac17c9898c#image=1

Do we agree with the opinions voiced here? Discuss, as they say in exam papers.

PR19_Kit · January 20, 2023, 08:03:35 AM

I saw that too, and noted that there was only ONE Boeing on the list.

A trifle biased perhaps?

TomZ · January 20, 2023, 08:28:27 AM

I think this a quite a random list of non succesful designs. We could easily create a list ten times as long of failed designs.
I would agree with some of this list although there are also some of this list which I wouldn't classify as "didn't succeed",..

TomZ

Pellson · January 20, 2023, 08:40:58 AM

Moreover - many of the aircraft featured were not failures at all, so a load of crap, imho!

Gondor · January 20, 2023, 09:13:29 AM

One of them was a tank and another a car so aircraft?

Also what do they mean by "didn't succeed"? As an addendum to the above, a couple where test aircraft with an X designation.

Gondor

kitbasher · January 20, 2023, 09:23:35 AM

Tosh, I say, tosh!

scooter · January 20, 2023, 10:51:35 AM

Steel Penguin · January 20, 2023, 11:19:31 AM

not just the click bait i was expecting, but poorly researched, and badly edited as well. no great suprise

AeroplaneDriver · January 20, 2023, 11:58:32 AM

What a load of drivel...though in the writer's defense the B.E.2 WAS in fact a very poor jet fighter.

scooter · January 20, 2023, 12:10:43 PM

Quote from: AeroplaneDriver on January 20, 2023, 11:58:32 AMWhat a load of drivel...though in the writer's defense the B.E.2 WAS in fact a very poor jet fighter.

sandiego89 · January 20, 2023, 01:42:51 PM

Many on the list are valid, but I take exception to:

- DC-10, citing the outward opening cargo door leading to accidents. While true, this was rectified with interlocks and procedures, they had a long service record (a few still flying). Decent orders.

- PZL. I actually understand it flew quite well, but do you really need a jet powered crop duster.....

- He-162. Citing that the jet engine placement made for an escape problem- ignoring the fact that it had an ejection seat- quite remarkable for the time. It too flew quite well and was developed remarkably quickly. Yes it had issues, but lack of success more of a result of the stage of the war.

PR19_Kit · January 20, 2023, 01:46:11 PM

And most freighters have HUGE outward opening cargo doors to this day too, so that's a load of b******s!

Pellson · January 20, 2023, 02:55:04 PM

It did set off a discussion, though, as the gentleman

suggested..

jcf · January 20, 2023, 03:01:56 PM

Moronic drivel.

As to Boeing bias, nah, just an example of ignorance, only one XB-15 was built therefore it was a failure.

Muppet not grasping that only one was built because the USAAC had changed its mind as to what was
needed and technology had already moved since the Model 294 was designed and constructed.

A realistic listing should include the 377 Stratocruiser, which had a number of problems in service, only
56 were produced and it wasn't in mainline service for very long.

jcf · January 20, 2023, 03:18:38 PM

The DC-10 one is really moronic.

The lower lobe cargo door on the 727-200 opens outwards, the containerized cargo lower lobe doors on the
747 series open outwards - only the bulk cargo door in the rear of the aircraft opens in, ditto 777. On 757 and
767 all lower lobe doors open outwards. Once everybody went to the preloaded standardized containers for
luggage etc., they had to go to outwards opening doors otherwise you couldn't load the things.