Top 10 Clunkers in Military Aviation History
- Thread starter bobbysocks
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
The last Firebrands couldn't have been that bad. They served in an active squadron until 1953. Granted the peacetime budgets were pretty small but keeping aircraft that were difficult to control or fly for 7 years after the war? Including the MK V version they served in 7 squadrons post war. A great plane??? NO, but a true clunker?
The Mk 5/5A was the exception in that it had reasonable flight characteristics as a shore-based aircraft but was still characterised by Eric "Winkle" Brown as "...a disaster as a deck landing aircraft." In most other respects it was okay, but this was only after years of development. A contemporary was the AD Skyraider, which was truly a great aircraft: the Firebrand stayed a clunker.
To be fair to Blackburn, it seemed one of the reasons they built so many mediocre aircraft was because they adhered too rigidly to the various FAA specifications, some of which were confused.
View attachment Black Fire 1.pdf
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The Buffalo and Devastator were good airplanes for the time frame they were designed in. Their deficiencies were apparent more because they were obsolete and thrust into a war that had passed them by.
The "Pogo" was an experimental airplane. You cant say experimental airplanes are clunkers because they are to prove concepts, not be a production airplane.
The -110 was far from a clunker.
wuzak
Captain
What about the Curtiss XP-55 Arse-ender (sorry Ascender)?
I think they made 3 XP-55s.
In stalling tests the first XP-55 flipped on its back, the engine stalled and, with no forward air speed, plumetted vertically to the ground. The pilot managed to escape, though it took him several thousand feet to get out.
From then the XP-55 was to avoid stalling.
The third prototype also crashed, this time at a War Bonds drive in May 1945. IIRC it killed the pilot, a passing motorist and his family.
I think they made 3 XP-55s.
In stalling tests the first XP-55 flipped on its back, the engine stalled and, with no forward air speed, plumetted vertically to the ground. The pilot managed to escape, though it took him several thousand feet to get out.
From then the XP-55 was to avoid stalling.
The third prototype also crashed, this time at a War Bonds drive in May 1945. IIRC it killed the pilot, a passing motorist and his family.
meatloaf109
1st Lieutenant
That the Bf-110 excelled in roles other than the original one intended is something that I readily admit. I was refering to it's failure as the "Destroyer" that Goering wanted.
I will happily withdraw the assertion that it was a clunker based on the later niche that it filled.
I stand by my offering the TBD as a clunker, it entered service in 1937, one year after the Fairey Swordfish, the same year as the Bf-109, and two years before the SBD.
I rely on Greg Boyington's opinion of the Buffalo, he flew it.
As far as the Pogo went, it was intended as a VTOL aircraft. It could make Mach1, at a time when jet aircraft were approaching Mach2. The difficulties in landing precluded any but the most proficient of pilots.
In any case, the author of this post asked for the "Top 10 Clunkers in Military Aviation History", I believe it fits.
I will happily withdraw the assertion that it was a clunker based on the later niche that it filled.
I stand by my offering the TBD as a clunker, it entered service in 1937, one year after the Fairey Swordfish, the same year as the Bf-109, and two years before the SBD.
I rely on Greg Boyington's opinion of the Buffalo, he flew it.
As far as the Pogo went, it was intended as a VTOL aircraft. It could make Mach1, at a time when jet aircraft were approaching Mach2. The difficulties in landing precluded any but the most proficient of pilots.
In any case, the author of this post asked for the "Top 10 Clunkers in Military Aviation History", I believe it fits.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The Finnish AF used the Buffalo to good effect. The TBD was an adequate torpedo bomber up to 1941 when its deficiencies became readily apparent.
The Finnish used every aircraft they had to good effect, everything from the M.S. 406, Polikarpov I-153, Fiat G-50, Blenhiem, and over a dozen other rogue aircraft.
I think that says something about the Finns, more so than the aircraft.
I think that says something about the Finns, more so than the aircraft.
Shortround6
Major General
There was never a TBD-2.
If the 109 had stayed with 2-4 Mg17s and a 710hp Jumo 210 for it's full career perhaps it too would be considered a clunker.
Or if the Northrop BT was still in use at Midway ( it first flew 4 months after the TBD).
It got modified and gained about 20-25% in power on the early models and 45% on the more common wartime versions.
I don't think being old and obsolete qualifies as a clunker.
Shortround6
Major General
It may say something about the Caudron C.714 though. The Finns finding unusable inspite of fighting with every other old and obsolete aircraft they could get their hands on.
meatloaf109
1st Lieutenant
And... when was the TBD used in combat, prior to 1941? Adequate like a Chihuahua is a dog. Having owned several of the cute little buggers, I can tell you that, while the Chihuahua might have the will to fight, it is no match for a pit bull. (That being said, I have a 3 pound female that has tore up the neighbours 10+pound male terrier. He gives our place a wide berth now.)
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
Not to mention the quality of the opposition.
- Thread starter
- #53
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
i have to agree with that. whatever the finns had they made the best of....figured out how to use it and were successful with them....be it the buffalo...old fokkers....etc. i have nothing but the highest regard for the finn pilots during that time.
Maximowitz
Tech Sergeant
Quite so - "One hand on the stick, one on the rip cord" was how one pilot described it. It had three main problems:
Taking off
Flying
Landing
But if you were a good pilot it could be tamed....
Actually after flying Me 110 V 1 Hermann Wurster supposedly said that the fuselage would need extending by a metre. He put no such thing in the official report. Despite noting tail heaviness and poor stability along the vertical axis his report on the first series of test flights,dated 15th September 1939 concluded "at present no essential changes are required."
Fritz Wendel was the first test pilot to abandon an Me 210 on 5th September 1940,when the horizontal stabiliser of V 2 failed as he pulled out of a dive. Structural weakness in initial designs was a perennial Messerschmitt problem.
On 5th June 1941,nearly two years after the first prototypes maiden flight Udet sent a long list of problems to Messerschmitt,demanding that they be addressed before full production could start.
Nearly a year later,on 6th March 1942, Jeschonnek was to write "this aircraft is a danger to its crews." This more than two and a half years after the first flight of the prototype!
That is a clunker.
Cheers
Steve
Fritz Wendel was the first test pilot to abandon an Me 210 on 5th September 1940,when the horizontal stabiliser of V 2 failed as he pulled out of a dive. Structural weakness in initial designs was a perennial Messerschmitt problem.
On 5th June 1941,nearly two years after the first prototypes maiden flight Udet sent a long list of problems to Messerschmitt,demanding that they be addressed before full production could start.
Nearly a year later,on 6th March 1942, Jeschonnek was to write "this aircraft is a danger to its crews." This more than two and a half years after the first flight of the prototype!
That is a clunker.
Cheers
Steve
Maximowitz
Tech Sergeant
The sorry tale of the 210/410, Messerchmitt and the RLM is well documented in the Mankau and Petrick book "Messerschmitt Bf 110/Me 210/Me 410 An Illustrated History." A comedy of errors. 
I'd say yes and no. It is part of the sorry tale but was itself not a bad aircraft,certainly not a clunker.
The problem is that the first production Me 410s were delivered in December 1942,more than three years after the flight of the first prototype and four years after the initial order for the Me 210 was placed.
The debacle led to well documented "reorganisation" of Messerschmitt's corporate structure!
Cheers
Steve
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
To be fair Paul, Boyington praises the earlier F2A-1 2 and pans the F2A-3. from: http://www.warbirdforum.com/pappy.htm
"But the early models, before they weighed it all down with armorplate, radios and other sh*t, they were pretty sweet little ships. Not real fast, but the little f*&ks could turn and roll in a phonebooth. Oh yeah--sweet little ship; but some engineer went and f*&ked it up."
With respect to Boyington's rather superficial analysis of the weight gain, it wasn't so much the individual components he cites as the additional fuel tanks and fuel and probably more armor than the plane was capable of carrying. The admittedly skilled Finns were in a fight to the death with the Sovs that may have justified a more minimalist approach to armoring the light B-239 and were quite successful throughout the war; including later when the opposition became more substantial. When it came time to build a domestic aircraft the Buffalo was the design of choice and probably necessity. The F2A-2 seems to have an excellent reputation based on interviews with the pilots who flew it including Tom Cheek (My own interview) and Gordon Firebaugh http://www.warbirdforum.com/fire.htm
According to Firebaugh:
Jim Maas: "You felt the F2A was a better aircraft than the F4F?"
GF: "Well, remember, I'm thinking of the F2A-2. We had the F2A-3 for a couple of months, that was a different aircraft. It had too much fuel. I remember we could fly five hour patrols...." (F4F patrols ware somewhat closer to 2 hours in duration IIRC)
JM: "Did you ever get an explanation for the extra tankage in the F2A-3?"
GF: "They had put in a wet wing - you were able to purge it with CO2 into the main tank, but it meant extra weight. That was maybe the reason we had strut failures - these wheels, the landing gear, landed pretty hard, negative 3 G's. The struts had a tendency to move forward. When you retracted the gear on the next flight, the box strut scraped on the wheel well. You couldn't have that happen, the gear not retracting, so the mechanics would file some off and get closer to the rivets..."
JM: "And if you did that enough times..."
GF: "Exactly, you have a gear failure. I loved the F2A-2, and wasn't as impressed with the -3 and the F4F. Now you know, VF-3 got the first batch and then we got more.
He goes on to mention that the F2A-3's range was so prodigious it was occasionally used for long range scouting in lieu of the SBD.
Cheek told me 'rock happy' pilots joked about flying the -3 back to the mainland from pearl Harbor! I don't believe any fighter in existence could do that on internal fuel alone. Not even the A6M. I doubt the F2A-3 could do it either without a heck of a tail wind and perfect fuel management.
Don't forget the TBD actually provided excellent service through May of 1942, at Coral Sea and during the island and Lae-Salamaua Tulagi raids. At Coral Sea there was some indication the SBD may have been more vulnerable than the TBD! The TBD was a pre-1935 design (first flight April, 1935) that was introduced slowly to the fleet during a period of extreme austerity. Its growing obsolescence was apparent with the USN looking for a replacement in 1939. I would expect that to be the main reason for the low production numbers. AFAIK, the TBD was too big and heavy and underpowered to have the long life afforded to the Swordfish by virtue its CVE compatibility. It wasn't an inherently bad design, just without adequate protection and obsolescent when pressed into service.
and the unmentioned P-36, Yet when they chose an aircraft design to copy for domestic production they chose the B-239.
Is this forum an echo chamber? I say again, lumping all variant of the Buffalo into one disreputable bag makes little sense and I think attributing ANY success it may have had as strictly due to the skill of the pilots who flew it denies the historical record as well as pilot accounts. I assume, if all things were equal, the Finns could have conceivably decided to domestically produce a variant of the P-36 which they flew with only a fraction of the success they enjoyed with the B-239/F2A-1.
I maintain there was something special about the early Buff design that remains largely unheralded or unacknowledged. Also, as stated elsewhere, even the F2A-3 was probably not as bad as it's been characterized. I doubt the contemporary F4F-3As that were then defending Efate and Somoa, would have been any more effective employed over Midway. yes, landing gear failures plagued the -3, but they were also characteristic of the F4F and in basic wide stance design more pilot-friendly according to some.
Last edited:
VinceReeves
Airman
- 47
- Feb 5, 2013
Also the Albacore served with the RCAF until 1949, so it was in service longer than the Swordfish. A very good plane, as you say.
