Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Deviant BlacktailMale/United States Recent Activity
Deviant for 7 Years
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 666 Deviations 2,444 Comments 36,214 Pageviews
×

Newest Deviations

Favourites

Activity


Warplane Disasters! Episode 13: The Swift
Have you ever wondered what happened to Supermarine after the 1940s, while companies like Hawker, AVRO, and Short continued to prosper and carry-on their names? As it happens, they were done-in by a blunder so colossal, even the company that developed the Spitfire couldn't survive it.

That aircraft was the Swift, the first attempt by Supermarine to develop a transonic swept-wing jet fighter. It was a rejected Navy design, and was re-engineered throughout it's development to within an inch of it's life, ultimately resulting in an aircraft that handled badly, had an appalling safety record, tended to flip-over when pitching the nose up, had an afterburner that wouldn't light at it's combat altitude, and so on. The Swift also had the ignoble distinction of entering service *after* the Hawker Hunter fighter that it was meant to serve as a stop-gap for.

There are more dramatic Warplane Disasters than the Swift, but it's still pretty awful.

These are my sources for this presentation...

"The World's Worst Aircraft", by Jim Winchester (Barnes & Noble, 2005)

www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.…

www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermar…

www.airvectors.net/avsuper.htm…

www.airrecce.co.uk/postww2/ac/…

www.militaryfactory.com/aircra…

www.aviastar.org/air/england/s…
Loading...
Warplane Disasters! Ep.12: The Bullet (Part 2/2)
Loading...
Warplane Disasters! Ep.12: The Bullet (Part 1/2)
The awkwardly-named Christmas Bullet is hailed by many as the worst aircraft ever built --- and it's tough to dispute that assertion, given how awful it was, and the bizarre nature of it's development.

It all started in 1918, when Dr. William Whitney Christmas convinced investors and government officials to help him develop an aircraft to kidnap Kaiser Wilhelm II with (starting to see where this is going?), dubbed the Bullet. It was a three-man biplane with only one seat, no wing bracing, a flexible tailplane that couldn't bend, a nearly non-existent vertical stabilizer, and an "all-steel" construction that was mostly comprised of wood.

Yeah, that couldn't POSSIBLY go horribly wrong. But as difficult as it is to fathom, it only gets crazier from there. You have to watch this presentation to see it for yourself (and this is only Part 1)!

As usual, Screbel edited this presentation for spelling and grammar. I'll include my internet sources in the description for Part 2, but for now I'll show you the blibliography...

"The World's Worst Aircraft", by Jim Winchester (Barnes & Noble, 2005)

"The World's Worst Aircraft", by Bill Yenne (Barnes & Noble, 1990)

"The World's Worst Aircraft", by James Gilbert (MJ Hobbs, 1975)

Note that not only are there THREE different books titled "The World's Worst Aircraft", but also that the Christmas Bullet is prominently featured in all of them!
Loading...
Recently, the USAF finally broke-down and compared the F-35A to the F-16, in a direct fly-off that critics have been calling-for over at least 15 years now.

The F-35A lost. BRUTALLY. Against an F-16D, a bulkier, draggier, heavier 2-seat variant of the F-16, which was even carrying droptanks to boot --- the F-35A was in a clean configuration, with no external stores to hinder it's agility;
www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-m…

The USAF has been working overtime to discredit the findings of their own reports, but the fact is that with a thrust/weight ratio of 0.87 (the F-16C's is over 1.0), a wing loading of 103lb/ft2 at combat weight (the F-16C's is 87lb/ft2), and a stall speed of more than 250mph at combat weight (the F-16C's is 150mph), the F-35A is a battle-loser.

Now Congress is ordering the USAF to do a fly-off between the F-35A and another aircraft it's planned to replace --- the A-10 Thunderbolt II;
www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-m…

The (Br)asshats are hard at work trying to discredit this idea as well and weasel their way out of it, but given precedent set by the recent F-35 versus F-16 test, they'll have a very hard time getting out of it, no matter how "silly" General Mike Hostage claims it to be (that was the word he used; it won't be so silly if the nest-egg of his post-military employment goes up in smoke!).

That said, watch what happens in this fly-off like a hawk, because the USAF will pull every stop to nerf it. Expect some of the following...

1- Gunnery will not be compared, and the fact that the A-10 fires up to 4x as many bursts of fire (and can destroy much more hardened targets) will not be a conclusion of the test. In fact, the static ground testing of gunfire from an F-35 has only just begun a few months ago (after more than 20 years of development, and 15 years of test flights!), and the JSF Program Office says it won't fire it's gun in mid-air until 2017. Even if it does, the F-35 doesn't have a gunsight or a Heads Up Display to aim it's gun, and the software required to aim the weapon from the pilot's Helmet Mounted Display isn't expected to be available until 2019 at the earliest.

2- Full-up live fire testing on F-35 components and complete airframes will not be conducted; the A-10 already proved itself in these tests way back in the early 1970s.

3- Weapons carriage will not be compared. The A-10 has a 50% larger payload, carries larger numbers of munitions, and has hardpoints that can hold heavier individual pieces of ordnance (up to 5000lbs).

4- The A-10 will not be demonstrated use  the Small Diameter Bomb, Hydra 70 rockets, AGM-65 Maverick missiles, Mk.80-series general purpose bombs, and cluster bombs, because the F-35 isn't compatible with any of them.

5- The endurance will not be compared, because the A-10 has a 50%-longer range than the F-35 on internal fuel alone, and nearly 200% more range with droptanks. The F-35's compatibility with droptanks was permanently deleted by 2006, for weight-savings and safety purposes.

6- Loiter time over the target will not be compared, because the A-10 has several times as much.

7- Take-off and landing capability on rough and/or short runways will not be compared, because the F-35 lacks ruggedized landing gear, and has almost 3x as long a take-off run as the A-10.

8- The ability to operate from frontline airstrips will not be compared, because the A-10's APU and batteries allow it to start it's own engines at the push of a button. The F-35 requires a huffer cart and a generator cart.

9- Multi-engine survivability and redundancy will not be compared, because the F-35 has only one engine.

10- The ability of the A-10 to continue flying if it loses electric power and/or hydraulics will not factor in, because the F-35's controls aren't operable without power.

11- Maneuverability at low speeds and altitudes will not be compared, because the A-10 has already been proven to have a faster turn rate and nearly half the turning radius of an F-16A in this arena, and the F-16A maneuvers better than the F-16C, which maneuvers better than the F-16D, which has been proven to maneuver better than the most agile variant of the F-35 (the F-35A).

12- The utility of the A-10's radios to communicate with ground troops and it's laser spot tracker to find marked targets will not be factored-in, because the F-35 has no such capability.

13- The ability of the A-10's pilots to visually detect, identify, and engage targets --- as well as to discern friend from foe on the ground --- thanks to it's bubble canopy and low stall 120mph speed will be factored-in, because the F-35 has a clamshell canopy (with much worse visibility) and a stall speed in excess of 200mph.

14- The A-10's sortie rate in excess of 2-per-day will not be a factor, because the F-35 has never demonstrated the ability to fly even one sortie every two days.

15- The maintenance will not be compared, because the A-10 has the amount of maintenance man-hours per flight hour and average downtime per-day of any combat aircraft currently operational in the US inventory. The F-35 has the worst of these.

Mark my words, the USAF *will* omit as many of these factors as possible.
  • Listening to: Stuff
  • Reading: Stuff
  • Watching: Stuff
  • Playing: Stuff
  • Eating: Stuff
  • Drinking: Seriosuly, who the hell cares?
Warplane Disasters! Ep.11: The CAC Boomerang
Australia was never a nation widely-known for their aviation industry, but they decided to take-up the gauntlet at the start of World War 2 and develop an indigenous Fighter aircraft; the CAC (Commonwealth Aircraft Company) Boomerang. This aircraft was a simple premise; develop a Fighter out of a Basic Trainer that was already known for good performance and maneuverability. Done deal, right?

Well, no. The result was no small embarrassment, saw little combat, suffered several losses in air-to-air combat, and never scored even a single kill. The RAAF soon stopped using them as Fighters.

Though CAC sold the Boomerang on the basis of being an "Emergency Fighter", the it's pundits more wisely labeled it a *"Panic Fighter"*. The design phase was truncated into only 6 months, but the prototyping phase of it's development was skipped to save time --- which HUGELY backfired, because the Boomerang was stuck in development limbo for nearly a whole extra year (during which prototyping could have been used to fix it's many flaws, but wasn't).

The Boomerang in service wasn't so much a "Hangar Queen", a "Dog", or a "Deathtrap", as much as it was simply a wimp. Its climb rate, top speed, maneuverability, range, and high-altitude performance were far too low (and its weight was far too high) in its final configuration. Every attempt at fixing these problems either made them worse, or simply came too late to be of any use.

The bottom line is that a warplane doesn't need to go pear-shaped with a bang to be a disaster; a whimper will suffice.

As usual, meaninter03 edited the script for this presentation for spelling and grammar.

Finally, these are my sources for this presentation...

ww2db.com/aircraft_spec.php?ai…

www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/boo…

www.wwiivehicles.com/australia…

www.airforce.gov.au/raafmuseum…

www.aviastar.org/gallery/boome…

www.aviastar.org/air/australia…

www.ww2warbirds.net/ww2htmls/c…

www.aviationmuseum.com.au/airc…

www.warbirdregistry.org/boomer…

www.adf-serials.com.au/2a46.ht…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_Boom…

www.aarg.com.au/cac-boomerang-…

www.militaryfactory.com/aircra…

www.fighterworld.com.au/az-of-…

www.aviationmuseum.com.au/airc…

www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft…

cacboomerang.com.au/

www.ozatwar.com/vic07.htm

dbdesignbureau.buckmasterfamil…
Loading...

deviantID

BlacktailFA
Blacktail
United States
Current Residence: Somewhere...
Favourite genre of music: Video Game music!
Favourite style of art: Furry art!
Shell of choice: 106mm Recoilless
Skin of choice: My own...
Favourite cartoon character: ???
Interests
Recently, the USAF finally broke-down and compared the F-35A to the F-16, in a direct fly-off that critics have been calling-for over at least 15 years now.

The F-35A lost. BRUTALLY. Against an F-16D, a bulkier, draggier, heavier 2-seat variant of the F-16, which was even carrying droptanks to boot --- the F-35A was in a clean configuration, with no external stores to hinder it's agility;
www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-m…

The USAF has been working overtime to discredit the findings of their own reports, but the fact is that with a thrust/weight ratio of 0.87 (the F-16C's is over 1.0), a wing loading of 103lb/ft2 at combat weight (the F-16C's is 87lb/ft2), and a stall speed of more than 250mph at combat weight (the F-16C's is 150mph), the F-35A is a battle-loser.

Now Congress is ordering the USAF to do a fly-off between the F-35A and another aircraft it's planned to replace --- the A-10 Thunderbolt II;
www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-m…

The (Br)asshats are hard at work trying to discredit this idea as well and weasel their way out of it, but given precedent set by the recent F-35 versus F-16 test, they'll have a very hard time getting out of it, no matter how "silly" General Mike Hostage claims it to be (that was the word he used; it won't be so silly if the nest-egg of his post-military employment goes up in smoke!).

That said, watch what happens in this fly-off like a hawk, because the USAF will pull every stop to nerf it. Expect some of the following...

1- Gunnery will not be compared, and the fact that the A-10 fires up to 4x as many bursts of fire (and can destroy much more hardened targets) will not be a conclusion of the test. In fact, the static ground testing of gunfire from an F-35 has only just begun a few months ago (after more than 20 years of development, and 15 years of test flights!), and the JSF Program Office says it won't fire it's gun in mid-air until 2017. Even if it does, the F-35 doesn't have a gunsight or a Heads Up Display to aim it's gun, and the software required to aim the weapon from the pilot's Helmet Mounted Display isn't expected to be available until 2019 at the earliest.

2- Full-up live fire testing on F-35 components and complete airframes will not be conducted; the A-10 already proved itself in these tests way back in the early 1970s.

3- Weapons carriage will not be compared. The A-10 has a 50% larger payload, carries larger numbers of munitions, and has hardpoints that can hold heavier individual pieces of ordnance (up to 5000lbs).

4- The A-10 will not be demonstrated use  the Small Diameter Bomb, Hydra 70 rockets, AGM-65 Maverick missiles, Mk.80-series general purpose bombs, and cluster bombs, because the F-35 isn't compatible with any of them.

5- The endurance will not be compared, because the A-10 has a 50%-longer range than the F-35 on internal fuel alone, and nearly 200% more range with droptanks. The F-35's compatibility with droptanks was permanently deleted by 2006, for weight-savings and safety purposes.

6- Loiter time over the target will not be compared, because the A-10 has several times as much.

7- Take-off and landing capability on rough and/or short runways will not be compared, because the F-35 lacks ruggedized landing gear, and has almost 3x as long a take-off run as the A-10.

8- The ability to operate from frontline airstrips will not be compared, because the A-10's APU and batteries allow it to start it's own engines at the push of a button. The F-35 requires a huffer cart and a generator cart.

9- Multi-engine survivability and redundancy will not be compared, because the F-35 has only one engine.

10- The ability of the A-10 to continue flying if it loses electric power and/or hydraulics will not factor in, because the F-35's controls aren't operable without power.

11- Maneuverability at low speeds and altitudes will not be compared, because the A-10 has already been proven to have a faster turn rate and nearly half the turning radius of an F-16A in this arena, and the F-16A maneuvers better than the F-16C, which maneuvers better than the F-16D, which has been proven to maneuver better than the most agile variant of the F-35 (the F-35A).

12- The utility of the A-10's radios to communicate with ground troops and it's laser spot tracker to find marked targets will not be factored-in, because the F-35 has no such capability.

13- The ability of the A-10's pilots to visually detect, identify, and engage targets --- as well as to discern friend from foe on the ground --- thanks to it's bubble canopy and low stall 120mph speed will be factored-in, because the F-35 has a clamshell canopy (with much worse visibility) and a stall speed in excess of 200mph.

14- The A-10's sortie rate in excess of 2-per-day will not be a factor, because the F-35 has never demonstrated the ability to fly even one sortie every two days.

15- The maintenance will not be compared, because the A-10 has the amount of maintenance man-hours per flight hour and average downtime per-day of any combat aircraft currently operational in the US inventory. The F-35 has the worst of these.

Mark my words, the USAF *will* omit as many of these factors as possible.
  • Listening to: Stuff
  • Reading: Stuff
  • Watching: Stuff
  • Playing: Stuff
  • Eating: Stuff
  • Drinking: Seriosuly, who the hell cares?

AdCast - Ads from the Community

×

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:iconswissair171:
Swissair171 Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2016  Hobbyist Writer
I reckon you should do a Warplane Disasters episode on the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, a truly dreadful aircraft that only got any exports sales because Lockheed bribed foreign governments!
Reply
:iconpersona22:
Persona22 Featured By Owner Nov 4, 2015
What is your opinion on the JLTV which will be replacing the Humvee fleet?
Reply
:icondystatic-studio:
Dystatic-Studio Featured By Owner Aug 4, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
Take a look of her anthro drawings, I am sure you will love it: derivedjam.deviantart.com/
Reply
:iconnohomers48:
Nohomers48 Featured By Owner Edited Jul 1, 2015
Here is more proof of how terrible the F-35 is if you ever intend to do a series on it. It's a report from a dogfighting exercise back in January involving an F-35 and F-16, the report itself is by the F-35 pilot: The F-35's Damning Dogfighting Report
Reply
:iconcrimsonfalke:
CrimsonFALKE Featured By Owner Feb 18, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Reply
:iconcrimsonfalke:
CrimsonFALKE Featured By Owner Oct 10, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I have got ask will you ever dissect fictional IFVs and Tanks?
Reply
:iconcrimsonfalke:
CrimsonFALKE Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
www.military-today.com/tanks/s… you wrote that yes? I have to say its an ugly patton
Reply
:iconplatovoltaire:
PlatoVoltaire Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2014
Will there be any more worst tanks chapters?
Reply
:iconkashim27:
Kashim27 Featured By Owner Aug 16, 2013
Bit of a question for ya.  What do think we the US government can to correct all this misspending and mismanagement?  Also what do think is a good design for a tank and IFV?
Reply
:iconfalcon01:
falcon01 Featured By Owner Jun 24, 2013
Thank You for the Faves!
Reply
Add a Comment: