Problematic aircraft

[vanir]

What were some aircraft in history, military and civilian of all eras, that were problematic either structurally or becuase of unreliable engines?

The original Flanker-A development prototypes had structural design issues, afaik being the first (analogue) FBW fighter in the Russian arsenal I'm not sure if these were more structurally or avionics related, but it was redesigned and structurally modified to the Flanker-B that we know today. I think these also have automatic recovery systems which help them along, it's a superbly performing model but has a reputation for crashes, iirc three test pilots were killed during development.

The F-104 had an infamous stall issue at high AoA which might be considered a structural/design quirk, the T-tail had its airflow blocked nicely by its stubby wedge wings so it lost longitudinal stability. Crashes plagued its service history, particularly when loaded as a fighter-bomber in export nations. More a design problem, but earned it the widowmaker reputation in the Bundeswehr.

The Me-109 has two infamous design problems, being effectively a design based on the BF-108 up-engined with a 12-cyl high performance engine, the way my great uncle described it was like a hot rod where you get a civilian model and put a very big engine in it, so it was a real handful at low speed but handled extremely well at high speeds. This was part of the problem which caused so many accidents, quite a large proportion of all losses were within 1km of the airfield (not just due to the undercarriage during actual take off and landing). The weight saving feature of attaching the undercarriage to the fuselage was of course its other issue, it gave a narrow track and a wide splay which gave it ground spin problems early on, and when the DB605 was fitted it was very easy to pancake (due to torque) which was almost always fatal.

The Fokker Dreidecker had a habit of shedding the top wing in dives, one of the main advantages a/c like the SE5a had over it.

One of the other problems with the P-39/63 was high likelihood of fatality if the pilot rode them through a crash (engine would come into the cockpit). Similar problem with the DH2 from WW1 (pusher config, lots of runway fatalities).

Me210 had structural design problems until modified.

He162 infamously killed a British test pilot cited due to structural problems.

The P-80A had quality control problems for a while with its turbine blades which went undiscovered until several destroyed or removed the tail section entirely from the aircraft.

 

[Shortround6]

Shortrounds

None of the F4Fs had self-sealing prior to late-1941. I still don't understand why the USN would accept a huge increase in fuel capacity just to get self-sealing tanks for the F2A when it wasn't ordering self-sealing for other types.

Also, a note from Jim Maas, "It is bellieved the Navy intended to use the F2A-3 to maintain standing patrols at considerable distances from the carrier, however the advent of shipborne radar made the need for long-range standing patrols unnecessary." This justification makes much more sense to me, and perhaps explains why self-sealing was specified. In the event of battle damage, the F2A would be a long way from friendly vessels hence self-sealing tanks would enhance the chances of rescuing the pilot. Such long-range patrols would also enable the wing tanks to be used first during the transit out to the patrol area.

Cheers,
Mark

It is not really a question of accepting the huge increase in fuel capacity to get self sealing tanks. The way the plane was constructed the front and back walls of the wing tanks were the spars, the top and bottom were a heavier than normal metal skinning that connected the spars in a torsion box fashion and the end plates were solid ribs that were pretty much there anyway. The only weight saving in "removing" the tanks would be the weight of the two fuel fillers, the water drains and the fuel fittings on the bottom of the tanks.
I am not sure of the battle damage story since the "reserve" petcock was still fitted to one of the wing tanks. having your last 25 gallons in an unprotected tank doesn't seem to fit the scenario very well but stranger ideas and orders have happened.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The P-80A had quality control problems for a while with its turbine blades which went undiscovered until several destroyed or removed the tail section entirely from the aircraft.

Try engineering problems...


The turbine disk and blades were manufactured correctly. The material they were made out of was susceptible to fracture due to heat failure. A change of the alloying and heat treat process fixed the problem.

Quality Problems = Things built wrong, poor workmanship, things not built to engineering specification.

Engineering Problems = items built to design and not working properly or failing all together.

 

[renrich]

From Boone Guyton's book" Whistling Death". At the fighter meet in January, 1944, Guyton flew the latest production model F4U1 in a simulated-combat comparison against Ken Walsh in a brand new F3A-1. Walsh already had 21 kills in a Corsair. Guyton's plane had a whole wing tank of water(60 gallons) to use for WEP whereas Walsh had only the standard 10.3 gallons. In spite of that Walsh "shot him down" three times. I wonder if Walsh would have flown a Brewster built Corsair if there were known quality problems with Brewster. Aces like Walsh pretty much had their pick of airplanes. Perhaps the Brewster problem was more inability to deliver AC on time?

Another interesting point. During the time the first production Corsairs were being developed, Guyton flew many, many flights in the XF4U to perfect the ailerons. He said that he could only do those flights for about 40 minutes because the constant rolling made him get nauseated. He was using "Mother Sill's Seasickness Pills". Anyway, he said that by the end of those flights he was able to roll the XF, at combat speeds at better than 360 degrees in two seconds. I don't know if that exact characteristic translated to the F4U1 or subsequent models but he mentions over and over again about the superb rolling ability of the Corsair. Apparently there is no data surviving about the exact numbers on the roll rate of the Corsair.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There are some misconceptions about the Brewster built Corsairs. The biggest is the quality control issue, usually citing wing failure during dives. The fact is that such stories are not true. The U.S. Navy found no quality problems in the Corsairs as they accepted them for service in the U.S. or for the Lend-Lease program. Brewster's problem was poor management and accounting. They were never a large company and produced few Corsairs compared to Vought and Goodyear, but Brewster's output was actually pretty good considering the size of the company.

Brewster produced only a few of the birdcage canopy F3A-1's, approximately 68, before switching production to the raised canopy F3A-1 (aka F3A-1A). Brewster did not finish any F3A-1D's as the company was shut down by the government before -1D production could begin and there is no record of the navy accepting a F3A-1D.

Of the 735 Corsairs produced by Brewster, 430 were sent to the British under the Lend-Lease program. The rest were used for training pilots in the U.S.
12/05/2009 @ 06:40 [ref: 25386]

Aircraft: Brewster F3A-1 Corsair