Poor Aircraft Design

LJS1993

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
584
Location
Riverside, California
Display Name

Display name:
LJ Savala
Okay guys I pose this thread to you from the position of someone who knows cars fairly well. In the auto industry throughout the years there have been designs that just didn't work out well. Whether it was the rear engine Corvair and it's supposed weight distribution issues or the early 80's Cadillac's and their aluminum motors that would fry easily and without many options in terms of rebuilds. What aircraft design just proved too problematic or downright dangerous throughout the years?
 
"Most of us [the test pilots] agreed the Cutlass [Chance-Vought F7U-3] could be made into a pretty good flying machine with a few modifications, like adding a conventional tail, tripling the thrust, cutting the nosewheel strut in half, completely redoing the flight control system, and getting someone else to fly it." — John Moore
 
You might enjoy reading some of Ernie Gann's books. He has some really enjoyable descriptions of the best and the worst that he flew.
 
Brewster Buffalo
picture.php
 
or the early 80's Cadillac's and their aluminum motors that would fry easily and without many options in terms of rebuilds.
You had to bring that up, didn't you?! :mad: When the tow truck delivered my '84 SDV to the dealer with a blown head gasket, the service manager seemed very impressed I'd gotten 80,000 miles out of it. :rolleyes:

I've no idea why, but I took a chance on another Caddy, an '89. It was great. Loved that car.
 
Okay guys I pose this thread to you from the position of someone who knows cars fairly well. In the auto industry throughout the years there have been designs that just didn't work out well. Whether it was the rear engine Corvair and it's supposed weight distribution issues or the early 80's Cadillac's and their aluminum motors that would fry easily and without many options in terms of rebuilds. What aircraft design just proved too problematic or downright dangerous throughout the years?

Reminded me of the Chevy Vega with the aluminum block and no liners. :yikes:

My Dad bought a Vega GT new in 1972 or so. Nice car.
 
You had to bring that up, didn't you?! :mad: When the tow truck delivered my '84 SDV to the dealer with a blown head gasket, the service manager seemed very impressed I'd gotten 80,000 miles out of it. :rolleyes:

I've no idea why, but I took a chance on another Caddy, an '89. It was great. Loved that car.

Hey I know first hand myself. I bought an 83 Eldorado back in 1990 and it turned out to be a major waste of money. Sharp looking car but the motors are trash.
 
I bought a new Corvair Spyder in 1963. It had a few problems with the fan belt, but other than that was a great car. Wait....except for the fire!
 
Good question. I suspect the FAA certification process categorically eliminates a lot of bad designs, at least since post WWII.
 
80 something Chevy Cavalier. You have to remove the right front tire to take the oil filter off. :mad2:

I refuse to even look at anything built by GM ever since, even before the bailout. :nono::no::nono::no::nonod:


There was a T tail something, Tomahawk or something that was not the best in spins. :nono:
 
Last edited:
Cars are such high-volume items that scads of them are in customers' hands before word of major problems (e.g., Corvair, '82-'87 Caddy, Vega, Pinto, etc.) gets around. On the other hand, most airplanes with major safety, handling or maintenance issues are quickly either out of production, fixed by AD, or replaced with an "improved" model.

Some "problematic" airplanes that come to mind:

Cessna 411

Beech Duke

Beech A23 Musketeer II (not a bad engine, but it became an orphan)

Mooney M22 Mustang

Piper Pressurized Navajo
 
Last edited:
The B24 killed 15,000 in training missions alone during WWII. These were state side losses, not combat. :eek:
 
The B24 killed 15,000 in training missions alone during WWII. These were state side losses, not combat. :eek:
Im calling shenanigans on this. 18,482 were built, assuming a crew of 7 that would mean 2142 B24's crashed in the US which does not seem reasonable.
 
even so thats more than 10% of them crashing in the US

And the 10% number could only be that low if each crash had 100% mortality among the crew. I'll bet someone botched the stat's. I've seen quite a few doozies in "history" books.

My favorite was in one of those generic "WWII Airplanes" books you find on the discount racks at the bookstore. According to that one, the P-51 Mustang was the best fighter in WWII because "It could climb higher, fly faster, turn tighter, and dive deeper than other fighters."

I though the ground pretty much limited all aircraft to same diving depth. ;-)
 
Last edited:
And the 10% number could only be that low if each crash had 100% mortality among the crew. I'll bet someone botched the stat's. I've seen quite a few doozies in "history" books.

It did sound high to me also, but that's what " The Unbroken" said. I was stunned. It was considered a death trap to those who flew it, known as the "Flying Coffin". Casualties were highly classified so as to not tip the enemy off. More B24 crewmen were killed in training that in combat. These losses were calculated as "acceptable".

http://broeder10.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/unbroken/

"For example, the fact that many airmen considered the B-24 a death trap is set against the fact that more airmen died in accidents than in action with the enemy. Hildebrand reports that in the Pacific Oceans Area Theater where Zamperini served that six planes were lost due to accidents for every plane lost due to enemy actions. Six to One!"
 
Last edited:
I have a book called World's Worst A/C and it covers a lot of them from way back.
 
There was a T tail something, Tomahawk or something that was not the best in spins. :nono:
I thought the Traumahawk was designed specifically so that it COULD be spun, and easily.
 
Okay guys I pose this thread to you from the position of someone who knows cars fairly well. In the auto industry throughout the years there have been designs that just didn't work out well. Whether it was the rear engine Corvair and it's supposed weight distribution issues or the early 80's Cadillac's and their aluminum motors that would fry easily and without many options in terms of rebuilds. What aircraft design just proved too problematic or downright dangerous throughout the years?

:confused::confused::confused: What early 80s Cadillac engine was aluminum? Are you talking about the 8-6-4 engine or Oldsmobile Diesel? I don't recall either being aluminum although it's possible the head on the 8-6-4 was; it's been a long long time since I've seen one I forget.
 
I can't remember what airplane it was for the life of me, but there's one out there that I read about that had this nasty problem where the engine / propeller system vibrated the airframe at its resonant frequency, leading to a ton of inflight breakups. I can try to dig up the model...I think I know what book it's in, but I'd have to check.
 
:confused::confused::confused: What early 80s Cadillac engine was aluminum? Are you talking about the 8-6-4 engine or Oldsmobile Diesel? I don't recall either being aluminum although it's possible the head on the 8-6-4 was; it's been a long long time since I've seen one I forget.
Per Wikipedia:
[For 1982] Cadillac introduced a new aluminum-block 249-cubic-inch 4.1-liter HT series V8 engine to replace the V8-6-4. The new power plant featured a closed-loop digital fuel injection system, free-standing cast-iron cylinders within a cast-aluminum block, and was coupled with a 4-speed automatic-overdrive transmission.
More ...
The HT4100 was prone to failure of the intake manifold gasket due to scrubbing of the bi-metal interface, aluminum oil pump failure, cam bearing displacement, weak aluminum block castings and bolts pulling the aluminum threads from the block. It may not have been the most successful engine to sit under the hood of a Cadillac, but potential buyers were no more satisfied with the other two engines available at the time, the V8-6-4 and the Oldsmobile 5.7 L Diesel. Reliability issues soiled the reputation of the HT4100.
The 368-cu-in V8-6-4 was only on the '81 model. Its main problem was in the electronic controller, not the engine itself.
 
Last edited:
I bought a new Corvair Spyder in 1963. It had a few problems with the fan belt, but other than that was a great car. Wait....except for the fire!

I had a 1960 corvair at one point - and it was a fun little car (not very economical, though). I paid $125 for it, put 10K miles on it, and sold it for $125. Got my money's worth!

Dave
 
I can't remember what airplane it was for the life of me, but there's one out there that I read about that had this nasty problem where the engine / propeller system vibrated the airframe at its resonant frequency, leading to a ton of inflight breakups. I can try to dig up the model...I think I know what book it's in, but I'd have to check.

Spike says, Electra, Braniff, Whirlmode.
 
I can't remember what airplane it was for the life of me, but there's one out there that I read about that had this nasty problem where the engine / propeller system vibrated the airframe at its resonant frequency, leading to a ton of inflight breakups. I can try to dig up the model...I think I know what book it's in, but I'd have to check.
The book would be The Electra Story by Robert J. Serling.
 
The B24 killed 15,000 in training missions alone during WWII. These were state side losses, not combat.

The losses weren't the fault of the aircraft. It was a fine aircraft, and a well built, well designed one. I've got several years' experience in them. They're forgiving, easy to fly (heavy on the controls), relatively simple, straight forward aircraft.

Crews weren't afraid of them. They tended to prefer them to the B17. They were more survivable, carried more, and were better in most respects. The Liberator and Privateer had their drawbacks, but flying qualities wansn't one of the. The big, high-lift Davis wing flew like a charm, and it was controllable right into the stall. It flew like a big four engine cub.

The original wet wings did tend to leak, especially with the mass production and reduced attention that could be devoted to properly keeping them sealed. Avgas leaking down the dihedral of the wing tended to concentrate in the bomb bay area, and these vapors could be ignited. I've had the cat walk and bomb bay full of avgas, before.

The B24 had glass sight gauges for the fuel; tall affairs about three feet high posted next to the bomb bay; damage those and there's a big fuel leak. The hydraulic tank of H5606 was in the flight deck area, as was the aux hydraulic pump, fuel selectors, rotary inverters, batteries, master relays, APU, etc. Everything flammable and every ignition source came together on the flight deck, which was a disadvantage. I've put out two flight deck fires using my nomex jacket before.

Turbo Commanders have had a bit of a problem with their empennages (losing them inflight). The C-119 had a habit of losing wings if roll input was used aggressively under a load. The AT-802 gets squirrely if the tailwheel isn't locked on landing. None of those things made them poor designs; they had limitations that needed some respect. The C-130 can experience rudder reversal in flight, but it's not easy to do. Again, it's a known thing. The B24 has no ground steering: it's differential brakes, or nothing. It won't roll straight more than a few feet; the nosewheel is free castering and canted forward, and even a small rock on the ramp will cause it to turn. It made for an interesting landing with hydraulics out. Again, not a poor design, just a characteristic of which one ought to be aware.
 
Back
Top