Planes that should NOT have been built

Jim K said:
Would the M600 be a fair comparison? I think they're a bunch cheaper?
Click to expand...
Actually, the m600 is more expensive believe it or not.. looking at new versions of each on controller the M600 is more expensive

But as with anything, I think a big part of the sales success of the sf50 is the "cool it's a v-tail jet with a chute!" factor.. and they feel huge inside, like a little spaceship

With people moving up from the SR22 to small jets Cirrus was smart to offer something. The COPA magazine has a lot of turboprop ads. Cessna already has a jet lineup and Piper had the Malibu/Meridian, etc
 
Jim K said:
The engine doesn't bother me, and I'm a sucker for a V-tail, but the bulbous mid section is the part I hate. Like a snake that ate too much.

Yeah yeah form follows function. Also my opinion doesn't matter because unless I'm an heir to a minor European monarch I'm unware of, I'll never be playing in that space.
Click to expand...
I agree, outside of the v tail it's not the most attractive airplane.. the inside is huge though so you can tell they prioritized interior comfort.. and it's a dimensions are quite small, if you can fit your current Cirrus into your hanger then you can also fit this into your hanger.. the M600 has a big wingspan

For some reason many of the very light jets seem to have goofy proportions.. the Piper Jet did not (but all the others I can think of do and did).. I actually appreciated Piper's utilitarian miniature DC-10 design for the jet.. it's a bummer that didn't come to market
 
@ktup-flyer, @Velocity173, @simtech and I toured a Starship at the Beechcraft Museum. Pretty neat plane, but honestly is just a King Air fuselage and cockpit with pusher engines and a canard.
 
Jim K said:
In all seriousness...how about the Vision Jet?

I haven't looked into the numbers, but I was sitting in the FBO with a CFI friend who pays attention to such things, and one taxied up outside. His comment was that it doesn't do anything that a turboprop can't do better, with the exceptions of a parachute and being a 'jet'.
Click to expand...

Your friend is right. But I'd still love to have one. I think the single jet engine would be more reliable and less trouble than a turboprop (props and gearboxes do fail), and I like its size and interior fitment. It is truly (IMO) a personal jet. A 300 knot Bonanza, if you will.
 
Airbus A400M. Sukhoi Superjet.
 
Ravioli said:
The other thread got me thinking. I know there are some.

I'll start with C172RG.
Click to expand...
When I saw this thread title, the Gutless was the first airplane that came to mind. One of the very few airplanes I've flown that I hated.
 
It's all about looking cool ultimately. Isn't that why we became pilots anyway?!
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I wonder how the starship would have faired with today's modern manufacturing technologies. My understanding is that it's way overweight due to inefficient lay-up and composite materials/resins of the day. If someone made one today, far lighter, (no, not you Mr. Raptor), it may infact outperform a Kingair.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't matter...they made the irreparable mistake of attaching the wing too low, apparently. And kept getting prop strikes and blaming it on the pilots, until they finally conceded to make it a nose-wheel instead. ;)
 
ktup-flyer said:
The Avanti is basically that
Click to expand...

Not really. It's fast and spacious inside, but also suffers from a lack of both payload and range compared with the King Air 350i.
 
L10 11. Ahead of its time using the available technologies that made it too expensive, and limited itself to only one engine choice - an unproven design from a company that went bankrupt right before it launched
 
Bill Jennings said:
Champion lancer
Click to expand...

I came in here just to say this, and you beat me to it...

I use this as an example in my multiengine training.

Multiengine aircraft with un-featherable, fixed-pitch props? SE service ceiling of something like 2000 ft!
 
PFM Mooney. Great engine, great airframe, poor combination that was far less than the sum of its parts.
 
Rein Hart said:
DC-10
Click to expand...
WDD said:
L10 11
Click to expand...

Funny, and I was thinking of posting the MD11.. at which point Douglas should have instead focused on something to compete in the twin engine market against the Airbus A300, 767, and ultimately the 777

The RB-211 really screwed Lockheed and pushed perspective buyers over to the DC-10 which was just a genuinely crappy product through and through.. how many fatal accidents did it take to get that design right??

Mustard is a pretty cool YouTube channel and did some great videos on these aircraft
 
Stipa-1024x574.jpg


https://www.historynet.com/caproni-flying-barrel.htm
 
Fearless Tower said:
When I saw this thread title, the Gutless was the first airplane that came to mind. One of the very few airplanes I've flown that I hated.
Click to expand...

I've heard that from others, and am puzzled. The C172 RG can carry more, flies faster than the standard Skyhawk. People don't hate the Skyhawk, why the hate for the RG version?
 
Fearless Tower said:
F-35B does a much better job of what it was advertised to do than the A or C models.
Click to expand...

The only reason there is an F-35 of any type is the USMC was running out of AV-8B’s. The result is the proverbial family of Camels.

Cheers
 
In the December 1964 issue of Flying magazine, a young staff writer named Richard Bach quoted Mooney president Hal Rachal ...

"You've got to be very careful on a quote like this, so here is exactly what the president of Mooney Aircraft, Inc., said:

'Within 24 months after the first Mark 22 comes off the production line, within 24 months after the weight-and-balance of the first production Mark 22, in my opinion, production of the Beechcraft Bonanza, S-35 or whatever name they want to give it, production will cease.'"​

How'd that work out for you?

m22_1969.jpg
 
The P47 actually shot down more planes than the P51, and later models had the range of the P1 D at the same time the P51D came on line. Later in the war, a squadron actually switched from P51's back to P 47's.

But - the P51 D cost 1/2 as much, burned a lot less fuel, and of course was quite effective. You could get more P51 D's in the air vs P 47's.

The P47 doesn't IMHO get the credit it deserves, but nothing to take away from the contribution of the P 51.
 
WDD said:
I've heard that from others, and am puzzled. The C172 RG can carry more, flies faster than the standard Skyhawk. People don't hate the Skyhawk, why the hate for the RG version?
Click to expand...
I'll second this motion. It's the high-wing equivalent of a 180 hp Arrow. Underpowered, but nobody hates the Arrow. I had the same sensation in "stepping up" to both of them: they just feel like what your Skyhawk or Cherokee wanted to be deep down.

It's also hilarious that some of the better-performing aircraft of their respective eras (in the market) have been nominated, assuming you believe that markets generally work. I'm thinking especially of the Ercoupe, 182, and SF50.
 
WDD said:
I've heard that from others, and am puzzled. The C172 RG can carry more, flies faster than the standard Skyhawk. People don't hate the Skyhawk, why the hate for the RG version?
Click to expand...
I liked the 172RG. I rented one for a week-long, 1800-nm family vacation in 1983 with my wife and two young boys. The long-range tanks (12 gallons more than a 180-hp Arrow) and adequate performance made Van Nuys to Medford OR nonstop a snap.

Full disclosure -- I haven't owned one, and haven't had to deal with maintenance of the hydraulic landing gear system.

My '78 fixed-gear 172N with the same 180 hp engine is only 5-10 knots slower, but only carries 40 gallons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
Pilawt said:
I liked the 172RG. I rented one for a week-long, 1800-nm family vacation in 1983 with my wife and two young boys. The long-range tanks (12 gallons more than a 180-hp Arrow) and adequate performance made Van Nuys to Medford OR nonstop a snap.

Full disclosure -- I haven't owned one, and haven't had to deal with maintenance of the hydraulic landing gear system.

My '78 fixed-gear 172N with the same 180 hp engine is only 5-10 knots slower, but only carries 40 gallons.
Click to expand...
I did the RG portion of my commercial in a 172RG. I enjoyed it quite a bit... of course it was a rental and I didn't have to maintain it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
Pilawt said:
In the December 1964 issue of Flying magazine, a young staff writer named Richard Bach quoted Mooney president Hal Rachal ...

"You've got to be very careful on a quote like this, so here is exactly what the president of Mooney Aircraft, Inc., said:

'Within 24 months after the first Mark 22 comes off the production line, within 24 months after the weight-and-balance of the first production Mark 22, in my opinion, production of the Beechcraft Bonanza, S-35 or whatever name they want to give it, production will cease.'"​

How'd that work out for you?

View attachment 91870
Click to expand...
Didn't this eventually morph into the TBM? Or am I way off here
 
Pilawt said:
Which one?
Click to expand...
The plastic one the Chinese built. Had they taken all that coin, bought the TC from Univair and spooled up to make the Mooney Cadet they'd have had an airplane to manufacture for the same money. And to add insult to injury the airplane would burn car gas (available everywhere in China) all day long. I'll take Dumb people with too much stinking money for 200, Alex.
 
Tantalum said:
Didn't this eventually morph into the TBM? Or am I way off here
Click to expand...
No, that was the Mooney 301.

4445D382-D8C5-4BE6-8681-1DE094E79183.jpeg

“To avoid another M22-type disaster the LoPresti design team (he brought in his own engineers, rather than using Mooney company employees)[3] chose to start with a new design rather than a rework of the existing models (i.e. the M20 and its various upgrades).”

o_O

“The new owners decided the aircraft was too heavy (200 pounds over target) and too slow for the projected market (300 knots should be the target, according to the new owners). Couvelaire proposed a joint venture between Mooney Aircraft and the SOCATA Division of Aerospatiale. After several iterations (in which Mooney eventually dropped out), that venture resulted in the turboprop-powered TBM 700, in which the "M" stands for "Mooney".”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top