Biggest mistakes in aviation history? Which projects should have been built?

overscan (PaulMM)

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
27 December 2005
Messages
16,932
Reaction score
21,818
Many of the projects we are looking at were discarded for very good reasons. Which ones do you think really deserved to be built? What were the big "missed opportunities"?

I think the USSR should have produced a real successor to the MiG-21, like the Project "33". A single engine agile fighter, based on a single RD-33 engine. Nothing too complicated, it was designed for wartime production. I think it could have been the natural heir to the MiG-21 in a great number of air forces.
 
Britain should have developed a proper Harrier successor, instead of waiting fro the F-35B, we should have pressed ahead with the HS 1216 in the mid 80's rather than pause the program in the hope of joining the Americans. A dedicated supersonice VTOL fighter could possibly have got the Italian & Spanish on board and maybe the Indians as well for something to fly in the mid 90's i guess.
 
Did the GSh-6-30 ever work properly? Lots of accounts about the MiG-27 seem to indicate tremendous technical issues with it, like vibrations wrecking the avionics.
 
Canadair C-102 Jetliner. I shudder when I think of what we gave up, years before the Avro Arrow got all the glamour and tears.

Why oh why doesn't somebody make a kit? :mad: :'(
 
I'll agree with Rat, not proceeding with the Avro Jetliner definitely was one of the most boneheaded moves of any Canadian govenment of the 20th century. That could've put them so far in the lead in civil jetliners...
 
Undoubtfully Morane-Saulnier E.3 Just imagine, how impressive this should look in the air. Not because its performance or so, but just for the experience to see it over your head... :)
 

Attachments

  • E.3.jpg
    E.3.jpg
    82.2 KB · Views: 2,021
Mirage G8 or ACF or Mirage 4000 (or the three!!!) Having three fabulous prototypes, and produce none :'( :'( sounds cruel...
 
Ah, the "improbable Moranes " . It's astonishing, I think, that they are so unknown.
Perhaps we should search in the medical reports about the french airforce staff
for more information . There should have been quite a number of heart attacks as
a consequence of these proposals ! ;D

Yes, the E3 would have been quite funny, although I cannot think of this UFO like
canopy. Just remember all the other "flying bedsteds" . The only one with an enclosed
cockpit, I think, was a russian one and this looked like a flying garden house !

But my favourite is the type F, although I don't know, if my drawing is correct, with
vertical take-off attitude and a kind of belly landing, with the lower fins probably
jettisoned. But it would have been a very good requisite for a "Starwars" episode !
 

Attachments

  • type-E3.JPG
    type-E3.JPG
    51.4 KB · Views: 1,787
  • type-F.JPG
    type-F.JPG
    50.9 KB · Views: 1,713
Yep - type F and type F derived missile. Drawings made by Alain J Pelletier and published in Air Enthusiast, Issue 103
 

Attachments

  • TypeF.JPG
    TypeF.JPG
    39 KB · Views: 1,622
  • TypeFderived_missile.JPG
    TypeFderived_missile.JPG
    82.6 KB · Views: 1,584
Nuclear powered airplane, anyone of it. Not much for the thing in itself (but there were some very interesting shapes....), but for what that would have mean for the use of nuclear energy. Think about a second generation gas-core reactor developed for airplanes and put on top a Saturn V....
By the way, anyone has noticed that the new US boosters are copies of Saturn iB and Saturn V? 30 years lost....

Uh, and more distantly ALL the late 30's trans-oceanic planes and flying boats...(yes, the Seversky, Fokker, B&W, Dornier Last bid to a more human way to fly...
 
Ough - nuclear powered plane. And the best open cycle engine. Then we all will have three hands and will be able to write faster on keyboard :D However using the nuclear energy outside Earth is a good idea.
 
The Cargolifter !
I really would have loved to see such a big airship in the air, but I'm
afraid my chances are gone . Quite probably, it wouldn't have been a
commercial success, of course, but just the sight of such a gigantic
flying machine in the air .... what's a A380 against it ?
 

Attachments

  • cargolifter.gif
    cargolifter.gif
    16.6 KB · Views: 412
[quote what's a A380 against it ?
[/quote]

Quite simple: the Cargo lifter would have carried A380 parts over Europe (instead of enlarging 250km of roads to carry it by Trucks :p)
 
I always thought Sukhoi's single-engined multirole S-37 canard fighter would have been very promising and at the least given the Russian Air Forces an affordable and flexible multirole fighter that might well have been a great export success as well.
 
For all the problem that the United States has had with the V-22 / MV-22 Osprey program, I think that the likes of the Dornier Do-31 and Vought-Hiller-Ryan XC-142, with their development bugs ironed out and given a fair chance politically (including inter-service rivalry), would have made very effective assault transport aircraft to this day.

Who knows what versions or new designed aircraft would be flying or in development today?

Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

  • Vought-Hiller-Ryan XC-142A in flight.jpg
    Vought-Hiller-Ryan XC-142A in flight.jpg
    26.2 KB · Views: 611
  • Do-31.jpg
    Do-31.jpg
    9.4 KB · Views: 592
  • 3-view drawing of XC-142.gif
    3-view drawing of XC-142.gif
    10.6 KB · Views: 666
  • 3-view drawing of Do-31.jpg
    3-view drawing of Do-31.jpg
    33.8 KB · Views: 754
The RotoDyne and the AH-56 Cheyenne should have been build. And then goodbye V-22....
 
Concerning VTOL / STOL aircrafts, not build ?
- Br.941
- Rotodyne Z
- AH-56 Cheyenne
- Canadair CL-84
- Yak-41 freestyle
- Hawker P.1216
 
Nuclear powered airplanes?

9/11 with nuclear powered airplanes, eeek...
 
Hispano Aviación HA-200 Saeta V/STOL
Click to expand...

Hi Roberto,

Do you mean this was a real project?. Can you post more info and pics?. I never heard about it :eek:

Gracias

Antonio
 
Nuclear powered airplanes?

9/11 with nuclear powered airplanes, eeek...
Click to expand...

Well, they hijacked airliners, not bombers or AEW aircrafts ....
 
I'm not sure about nuclear powered airliners but I have some conceptual drawings from the 50's about civil nuclear powered cargo aircraft
 
Umm , yes, but if we had them, by now we would have pemament bases on Mars, colonies at the L2 point, and a gas-core nuclear powered spaceship orbiting Saturn discovering the Door to the Stars... (yes Saturn, always tought the book version was more plausible).. and who cares of Osama? ;)
 
pometablava said:
Hispano Aviación HA-200 Saeta V/STOL
Click to expand...

Hi Roberto,

Do you mean this was a real project?. Can you post more info and pics?. I never heard about it :eek:

Gracias

Antonio
Click to expand...


I have something at home...

there was only a paper project, but very interesting...


can you wait... ;D ;D ;D ;D????



El lunes recuerdamelo.


1Saludo
 
pometablava said:
I'm not sure about nuclear powered airliners but I have some conceptual drawings from the 50's about civil nuclear powered cargo aircraft
Click to expand...

I have one! In "Concorde, la veritable histoire", there's a plan of a nuclear powered superCaravelle :eek: supersonic airliner
 
My list of 'Should have':
Avro C-102
F-108 (instead of that F-12 hunk of junk :p)
Vickers VC7/V1000
Avro 730
Avro 720 or Saro SR177
Boeing TFX
Boeing JSF (I'll start my rant on Lockheed's joke later)
Lockheed RB-12
Bell X-16 (at least one)
USAF F-14 ;D
Super Hunter (P.1083)
P.1121
Martin B-68
...I'll put more later...
 
"..there's a plan of a nuclear powered superCaravelle"

Here it is, from the Docavia "Concorde" book. I got a copy of these pages some
years ago from boxkite. In the moment, he's waiting desparately for his upgraded
computer, so he probably isn't online during these days .. :-[
 

Attachments

  • caravelle-nucleaire.JPG
    caravelle-nucleaire.JPG
    41.6 KB · Views: 923
Crusader III (for the USAF if not the USN)
AH-56 Cheyenne
A-12 even if you had to turn it over to Lockheed and Northrop to make it viable.
 
pometablava said:
AH-56 Cheyenne
Click to expand...

I agree with you Anderman, the AH-56 was far better than AH-64
Click to expand...

So was the S-67 Black Hawk which was the worlds record holder for speed and it could almost carry twice the weapons load of the AH-64.
 
Airwolf said:
pometablava said:
AH-56 Cheyenne
Click to expand...

I agree with you Anderman, the AH-56 was far better than AH-64
Click to expand...

So was the S-67 Black Hawk which was the worlds record holder for speed and it could almost carry twice the weapons load of the AH-64.
Click to expand...

One of my favorite helicopter pictures:
 

Attachments

  • sik-s67arms.jpg
    sik-s67arms.jpg
    21.6 KB · Views: 775
sferrin said:
A-12 even if you had to turn it over to Lockheed and Northrop to make it viable.
Click to expand...

From some of the stories I've heard around Ft. Worth, just giving it to one company where things could be coordinated without an extra layer of bureaucracy would've helped. I understand the sharing aspects of the contract led to several gross inefficiencies in both design and management.

I've heard that the Northrop-Grumman (separate companies at that time) design was the preferred one, but they couldn't see how they could do what the Navy wanted for what Congress had authorized for the program, Hence, the Northrop-Grumman team "no-bid" the BAFO (Best And Final Offer) phase of the competition. From what I've heard from those involved at Northrop, their estimates of what it would run did track pretty closely with the EAC (Estimate At Completion) costs projected for the full A-12 program; these were released after the project was cancelled. As a result of the Northrop-Grumman team's decision, the chief designer for the program was told he'd never be allowed to work on another US Navy aircraft - he'd played a strong role in botht he F-14 and A-6 - because he told the bureaucracy what they didn't want to hear and refused to "bid in" to win the contract.
 
elmayerle said:
sferrin said:
A-12 even if you had to turn it over to Lockheed and Northrop to make it viable.
Click to expand...

From some of the stories I've heard around Ft. Worth, just giving it to one company where things could be coordinated without an extra layer of bureaucracy would've helped. I understand the sharing aspects of the contract led to several gross inefficiencies in both design and management.

I've heard that the Northrop-Grumman (separate companies at that time) design was the preferred one, but they couldn't see how they could do what the Navy wanted for what Congress had authorized for the program, Hence, the Northrop-Grumman team "no-bid" the BAFO (Best And Final Offer) phase of the competition. From what I've heard from those involved at Northrop, their estimates of what it would run did track pretty closely with the EAC (Estimate At Completion) costs projected for the full A-12 program; these were released after the project was cancelled. As a result of the Northrop-Grumman team's decision, the chief designer for the program was told he'd never be allowed to work on another US Navy aircraft - he'd played a strong role in botht he F-14 and A-6 - because he told the bureaucracy what they didn't want to hear and refused to "bid in" to win the contract.
Click to expand...

You know, there are times when some bureaucrats need to be put up against the wall. :mad:
 
I note all your proposals are for recent (post war at least) designs. No one for the Junkers J-1000? for a real wide-production of Pou-du-ciel or other cheap aircraft ?
or in the post-war period : Hoppycopter ? Hiller platforms ? Flying Jeeps ?

Indeed most of the designs that never went past the drawing board were flawed , but even some of the built ones should have been allowed to developp : XC-142 , CF-105, Rotodyne ... even Concorde is in the category of the "killed by politicians" ... after , notwithstanding the fact that a few machines were put in service , there were less Concorde build than say Do 335 !!!

JCC
 
JC Carbonel said:
Indeed most of the designs that never went past the drawing board were flawed , but even some of the built ones should have been allowed to developp : XC-142 , CF-105, Rotodyne ... even Concorde is in the category of the "killed by politicians" ... after , notwithstanding the fact that a few machines were put in service , there were less Concorde build than say Do 335 !!!

JCC
Click to expand...


I'm not sure if you were responding to me specifically but my "put them against the wall" comment was directed at politicians, managers, etc. who punish people who don't tell them what they want to hear even when what they want to hear doesn't square with reality ;) Projects with great potential get cancelled all the time and those are just the breaks. :'(
 
Looking at some programs, and the political power, which is or was enforcing them,
(sometimes without any regards to economical wisdom,) don't know, if we shouldn't
open another thread with the title "Which projects should have been killed ?"
For the airforces of a lot of countries we can only hope, that the F-35 won't be
a candidate sometime in the future ! ::)
 
Hmmm...You might be on to something.... :-\
I can think of a few for that list ;D
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom