avatar_puddingwrestler

Heroic Failures of Group Building

Started by puddingwrestler, December 28, 2009, 08:29:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Joe C-P

My Phoenix group build was to be a military adaptation of the NS Savannah, perhaps a heroic failure. And my own effort never came to fruition, though my failure was one of shifting interest rather than heroism.  :rolleyes:
In want of hobby space!  The kitchen table is never stable.  Still managing to get some building done.

nev

Quote from: Brian da Basher on December 30, 2009, 05:00:14 PM
Quote from: puddingwrestler on December 30, 2009, 01:29:18 PM
Well, there in lies a question.
Could it have worked?
Did it involve enourmous cost over runs?
Did it destroy any careers?
Did the project go on for years without getting anywhere at all?


This describes a lot of GB projects. We had a Phoenix GB a while back for unfinished GB projects. At one point, the proposed Phoenix GB timeframe was eight years.

Oh, wait, you're not talking about GB projects that were never completed but criteria for a new GB idea.
:banghead:
D'oh!
:banghead:
Brian da Basher

:D :D :D :D
Between almost-true and completely-crazy, there is a rainbow of nice shades - Tophe


Sales of Airfix kits plummeted in the 1980s, and GCSEs had to be made easier as a result - James May

Sauragnmon

Hmm, would the Raptor count for that?  Massive budget overruns counts right?  It only succeeded at getting to production because the politicians were bought, compared to Northrop.  One could find irony that I have a feeling the inflation from project overruns and the like inflated the (c)Raptor's unit price over the YF-23's.
Putty-fu, Scratch-jutsu and Bash-chi, the sacred martial arts of the What-If. Mastering them, is Ancient Chinese Secret.

Just your friendly neighbourhood Mad Scientist and Ship-whiffer.

Overkill? Nah, it's Insurance.  So are the 20" guns.

B777LR

A King Tiger with a powerful engine and systems that work, and high speed, and a 120mm gun. Done up in a diorama where it flies over a small bump in the middle of the desert like this one:

http://www.aviationpics.de/prev/t-80u%20firing%20in%20midair.jpg

nev

Quote from: Sauragnmon on January 02, 2010, 05:38:51 AM
Hmm, would the Raptor count for that?  Massive budget overruns counts right?  It only succeeded at getting to production because the politicians were bought, compared to Northrop.  One could find irony that I have a feeling the inflation from project overruns and the like inflated the (c)Raptor's unit price over the YF-23's.

The Raptors inflated price is because the Clinton administration slowed funding down to a trickle barely sufficient to keep the program alive, making it take much longer and therefore costing more. Then the Bush administration slashed the purchase number driving the unit price up even more.

cf "cost-saving" redesigns on the Eurofighter at German insistence....
Between almost-true and completely-crazy, there is a rainbow of nice shades - Tophe


Sales of Airfix kits plummeted in the 1980s, and GCSEs had to be made easier as a result - James May

puddingwrestler

Quote from: B787 on January 15, 2010, 02:25:01 PM
A King Tiger with a powerful engine and systems that work, and high speed, and a 120mm gun. Done up in a diorama where it flies over a small bump in the middle of the desert like this one:

http://www.aviationpics.de/prev/t-80u%20firing%20in%20midair.jpg

Dunno, that looks so cool I'd be inclined to caption it 'Epic Win!'
There are no good kits, bad kits or grail kits, just kitbash fodder.

Joe C-P

The A-12 "Flying Dorito" - billions out, not one aircraft built. (More sad than heroic, I guess.)

The possibly planned 20" armed Yamatos. Big guns that couldn't be properly aimed (barrel whip would have sent the shells well off course) and damaged the ship that carried them with every shot.

The Nelson BBs - compared to the original G3 and N3 designs.
HMS Hood - a glorious ship that fought a battle it wasn't designed for.

The Alaska CBs - pretty but pointless.

Tirpitz, scary yet in the end only a target and a waste of thousands of tonnes of raw material
In want of hobby space!  The kitchen table is never stable.  Still managing to get some building done.

Mossie

I guess you could say the same about Bismarck, the RN were so terrified of her they threw everything they had & hunted her down the first time she broke out.

Thinking of ships & seadudes recent update on his project, HMS Habbakuk would qualify.  She was so large & such a resource magnet that it's doubtful that, like the Bismarck & Tirpitz, she would have been anything other than a target.

Staying big Super Heavy Tanks were a spectacular dead end.  Maus, E-100, P.1000 Ratte (especially), T-28, Tortoise.  Too big, heavy & slow, seemed like good ideas at the time.
I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my mule don't like people laughin'. He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it.

puddingwrestler

I'd be inclined to include some of the ww1 projects designed for the 1919 offensives since the war ended and they just got dumped. I'm not really up on the history of this, but the Mk. VIII International (I think it's Mk. VIII, but might be something else) might qualify.

Oh, and just about every tankette ever.
There are no good kits, bad kits or grail kits, just kitbash fodder.

puddingwrestler

Obviously any subject appearing in a book with a name like 'The World's Worst Aircraft' or 'Lemon!' would count.
If people want, I can go through my copious library of failure and compile a list of things which appear therein (I have four book on worst cars, two on worst planes, and 'The Book of Heroic Failures' AND 'Return of Heroic Failures' - the Hand book of the Not Terrible Good CLub of Great Britain and it's sequel respectively)
Also, anything so bad it has enetered folk-lore or slang on account of badness counts. Edsel is apparently in some dictionaries defined as a synonym for lemon in motoring. And almost all australians known of the Leyland P-76 and use it as a by-word for lemonage.

Not that these things are not collectible - I saw a Lightburn Zeta on ebay for $16,000!
Of course it was such a lemon no one was bidding on it.
There are no good kits, bad kits or grail kits, just kitbash fodder.

puddingwrestler

And here, because no one demanded it; the list of planes which appear in Bill Yenne's 'The World's Worst Aircraft' AND Jim WInchester's 'The World's Worst Aircraft'!

Bill Yenne's List:
Langley Aerodrome
Aerial Experiment Association Cygnet III
Philips Multipolanes
BE.9 Pulpit
BE.12
RE.8
Albatross D-5
Fokker D-5
Tarrant Tabor
Barling XNBL-1
US Amry Engineering Division GAX
Boeing GA-2
Loening PW-2
Curtis PW-8
Boeing XP-9
Chritsmas Bullet
Caproni CA-60 Transaereo
Kalinnin K-7
Tupolev ANT-20
Brewster Buffalo
Bell Airacobra
Blohm & Voss Bv-141
GM P-75 Eagle
Hughes F-11
Me-321/Me323
Mitsubish G4M Betty
Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka
Bachem Ba-349 Natter
Bouglas XSB2D-1 Turkey
Douglas BTD-1 Destroyer
Douglas XTB2D-1 Skypirate
Douglas XA2D Skyshark
Hughes H-4 Hurcules
McDonnell XF-85 GOblin
Curtis XP-87 Blackhawk
REpublic XF-84H
REpublic XF-91 Thunderceptor
Flying cars and roadable planes (anything you like really!)
Saro Princess
Bristol Brabazon
Avro Tudor
Lockheed XFV-1 and Convair XFY-1 Pogo
COnvair XF2Y-1 Seadart
Myasishchyec Mya-4
Tupolev Tu-144

Jim Winchester's list (skipping those in Bill Yenne's list already)

Aviation Traders Accountant
Blohm & Voss BV 238
Boeing XPBB-1 Sea Ranger
Boulton-Paul Defiant
Convair 880/990
Convair B-32 Dominator
Douglas TBD Devestator
Douglas XB-42 mixmaster
Fairey Albacore
Fairey battle
Fairey Fulmar
Farman Jabiru
Republic XF-12 Rainbow
ROyal Aircraft Factory B.E.2
Saab Scandia 90A
Shenyang J-8 Finback
Short SB.6 Seamew
Short Sterling
Short Sturgeon and Sb.3
Sopwith LRTTR
Aerocar
Ahrens AR-404
Allied Aviation XLRA-1 and -2
Anotnov KT Flying Tank
Armstrong Whitworth Ape
Armostrong Whitworth F.K.6
Avro Avrocar
Avro Tudor
Bell FM Airacude
Blackburn AD Scout
Blackburn BLackburd (sic)
Blackburn TB
Blohm Und Voss BV.40
Boeing 2707
Boeing SOnic Cruiser
Boeing XB-15
Bonney Gull
Bristol Braemar, Pullman and Tramp
Bristol Buckingham and Buckmaster
BAE Nimrod AEW.3
Caproni CA.60 Noviplano
Convair NB-36
Convair R3Y Tradewind
Fairey Rotodyne
Fiesler FI 103-IV Flying Bomb (the piloted V-1)
FOcke-WOlfe TA-154 Moskito
Fokker V8
General Aircraft Fleet Shadower
General Dynamics F-111B
Gloster Meteor (prone pilot)
A-12 Avenger
Goodyear Inflatoplane
Hafner Rotabuggy Flying Jeep
Hiller VZ-1 Pawnee
Hughes Xh-17 Flying Crane
Kokusai KI-105 Ohtori
Learavia Learfan 2100
Martin P6M Seamaster
Mitsubish F-2
Myasishchev M-50 Bounder
North American XB-70A
Northrop XP-79B
Pemberton Billing NIghthawk
PZL-Mielec M-15 Belphegor
Rockwell XFV-12A
Ryan X-13 Vertijet
Saro SR/A.1
Snecma Coleoptere
Wight Quadruplane
Avro Manchester
Baade 152
Beardmore INflexible
Bell HSL-1
Bell X-1 and X-2
Bell XP-77
Blackburn Botha
Blackburn Roc
Boeing model 273
Breda BA.88 Lince
Brewster Buffalo
Britsol 188
Caproni Campini N.1
Caproni Stipa
Convair YF-102 Delta Dagger
Curtiss XP-62
Dassault Balzac Mirrage IIIV
Dornier Do.X
Douglas Stiletto
Handley Page Hereford
Heinkell HE 177
Hiller HJ-1 Hornet
McDonnell F3H Demon
Me 163
Percova; P.74
Ryan FR-1 Fireball
Vought F6U-1 Pirate
Vought F7U Cutlass
Yakovlev Yak-38 Forger
Albatross D.III
Beechcraft Starship 2000A
Bleriot Biplanes
Boeing/Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche
Brewster Bermuda/Buccaneer
Dassault Mercure
De Havilland Commet 1
D.H.91 Albatross
FW 200 Condor
PZL LWS.6 Zubr
Seddon Mayfly
Avia S.199 Mule
Blackburn Firebrand
Curtiss SB2C Helldiver
Curtiss XP-55 Ascender
De Bruyere C1
Gee Bee Racers
Grumman XF101 Jaguar
Lavochkin LAGG-1 and -3
Lavochkin LA-250
Lohner Type AA
Me 210
Mignet Flying Flea
Northrop YB-35/YB-49
Northrup XP-56 Black Bullet
Rolls-Royce Flying Bedstead
Supermarine Swift
Tupolve TU-22 Blinder

Interestingly enough from two such extensive lists, there are only about twenty planes which appear on both!
I'll get lists from my various books on bad cars up some other time.
There are no good kits, bad kits or grail kits, just kitbash fodder.

PR19_Kit

Hm, there's a lot of types in BOTH those lists that are open to question. It depends how you define 'worst' of course.......
Kit's Rule 1 ) Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage
Kit's Rule 2) The backstory can always be changed to suit the model

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

redstar72

My pardon - what is "Myasischev Mya-4"?  :huh: Is it a Bison? If so, then I don't see any reasons to include it into a list of "the WORLD'S WORST aircraft"!!! Yes, there were much problems and some disasters during its tests and when it just became operational - but it was fully logical for such an advanced design! (And, of course, ANY Myasischev design was NEVER designated "Mya", just only "M"!)

And why Tu-144 is included in this list? It surely wasn't a bad aircraft: unlucky - yes, but not bad at all. In many reasons it was better than Concorde. By such criteria they could, for example, include XB-70 Valkyrie in this list - but they didn't... Only Soviet aircraft are "judged" so rigorously?

Similar question about ANT-20, which was a great achievement of Soviet aircraft industry in 1930s. It was really an A-380 of its time, and it was not guilty in that tragical crash happened because of irresponcible maneuvers by fighter pilot, Blagin... If the authors consider ANT-20 a "big, slow, clumsy giant" - then why don't I see Douglas XB-19 in their list?..

Excuse me for this, but I couldn't stay silent...
Best regards,
Soviet Aviation enthusiast

PR19_Kit

Perhaps they should have re-titled the books 'Aircraft I don't really like because they were a) not in service with major air arms or airlines or b) don't look conventional'? That's certainly the impression you get.  :angry:
Kit's Rule 1 ) Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage
Kit's Rule 2) The backstory can always be changed to suit the model

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

jcf

Quote from: redstar72 on April 10, 2010, 01:09:12 PM

And why Tu-144 is included in this list? It surely wasn't a bad aircraft: unlucky - yes, but not bad at all. In many reasons it was better than Concorde. By such criteria they could, for example, include XB-70 Valkyrie in this list - but they didn't... Only Soviet aircraft are "judged" so rigorously?


redstar, I wouldn't take it personally as both lists also contain a lot of US and UK types.
The thing to remember is that books like this are cheaply produced for the general market
and are not to be taken, nor intended, as serious references.
Titles like 'The World's Worst Anything' are going to sell, especially on the 'bargain' bookshelf.

Frankly, I find the making of 'worst of ____' or 'ugliest ____' lists to be a pointless pursuit as the inherent subjectivity
means that anyone can make anything fit. Also, I've always found the 'failures' and 'aesthetically challenged'
machines to be more interesting than the 'successful' and popular types.  ;D

:cheers: , Jon

p.s. I've always liked the Maxim Gorky.  :thumbsup: