The ones that crash.
To be fair, they only crash once.
The ones that crash.
J model. And it never fails that about half the time I end up taking the scenic route. I just need them to pick us up in Oman and take us back to Bahrain. Should be 3 hours. But when we get onboard and see pallets, we know we are taking the scenic route, like going from Oman to UAE to drop a pallet, then on to Kuwait to drop two more pallets and refuel, and then back to Bahrain. 7 hours total.They are insulted to keep the noise in! When I was at No-Hope-Pope in the late 90s they were still flying C-130E models (built 63-64.) They SUCKED! They'd long outlived their usefullness at that point (I'm sure they were awesome in Nam, but these were flying in Oman, Kuwait, and Saudi, not Da Nang and Ton Son Nhut.)
Does the USN have the J-Models (6 bladed props) or a different version? USAF still has some H-Models(MUCH newer than the E's) IIRC.
Yes, the F-111B for the Navy. Oversize and overweight with two TF-30 engines with double the complexity and half the reliability.I recall that this plane triggered the Second Revolt of the Admirals. McNamara said that it just needed more thrust to be a viable carrier fighter (didn't happen leading to the birth of the F14). Several admirals testified to the contrary to Congress including the quote "There isn't enough thrust in all Christendom to make a fighter out of the F111." Predictably, McNamara arranged to have all these admirals forced out of the Navy.
In fairness, contrary to its fighter designation, it was a fine interceptor, strike, and recon platform.
DC-10 (and DC-9) There's a reason we called them Douglas Cable and Pulley Company specials. They never quite got past the DC-3... I would rather work the MUX system on an L-10 than work on a DC-10.
Now the L-1011, that was an aircraft! Problem was, Lockheed never built an aircraft that didn't try to be an SR-71. High speed, high performance, and complicated as f***! Man it was fun to chase electrical problems on that aircraft, especially as the kapton wiring began to degrade.
Boeing made good products, but it was obvious something ugly was creeping in by the 737-800. Odd design choices were being made which didn't sit well with me, and the quality of their fault isolation choices were plummeting.
Oh, forgot. Helicopters, any helicopter. They don't fly. They beat the air into submission until it finally gives up and says, do whatever the h*** you want!
V tail bonanza is a fine aircraft. The marketing wasn't. Beech made it sound like anyone could fly a complex high performance aircraft into ifr without a lot of training. It was a victim of a targeted marketing campaign aimed at low time / no time doctors with egos and type a personalities. Arrogance and ignorance of the person in the left seat unfairly gave the vtail a bad name. I like them
My number one hated aircraft...
View attachment 128163
View attachment 128164
F-111A and EF-111A.
After working on F-4s and A-10s, this pig was the reason I got off active duty and moved the Air Reserve Technician program. Powered by the worst engine P&W ever built.
True, it's kind of like the B-1, B-2, and B-52 programs. B-52 is by far the cheapest to operate, and is a workhorse. B-1 is next, but has it's own issues, but the B-2 requires more maintenance per flight hour than the other two combined.For me, the most hated aircraft right now is the F35. When they are working, it’s a great aircraft but they are expensive and complex. That means that we can only afford to build few of them and a high percentage of those built are down for maintenance.
It’s the modern day F111 program on steroids
Not arguing that point. I agree. But we should be designing aircraft that require less maintenance, not more in my honest opinion.To be fair, the 52 is designed for a different threat environment than the 1 and 2.
Cheaper is better, till it's not.
Operating the 52 in the environment the 1 and 2 were designed for will result in a lot of dead crew.
Otherwise, start operating Sopwith Camels.
Hated, no. The Naval Aviators who launched off Enterprise, Hornet, and Yorktown that day knew well their chances. They went anyway and did what needed done.How about the Douglas TBD Devastator? Sacrificial lamb to Japanese carrier fighters at Midway, clearing the way for Dauntless dive bombers to take out the enemy carriers.
View attachment 128224
Something about a jack of all trades...To think, it was supposed to be the do all aircraft. Fighter, bomber, recon and everything else. Boyd helped to limit the mess McNamara was making with that concept
This^V tail bonanza is a fine aircraft. The marketing wasn't. Beech made it sound like anyone could fly a complex high performance aircraft into ifr without a lot of training. It was a victim of a targeted marketing campaign aimed at low time / no time doctors with egos and type a personalities. Arrogance and ignorance of the person in the left seat unfairly gave the vtail a bad name. I like them
Here is one marketed to the consumer as the safest airplane in the sky.V tail bonanza is a fine aircraft. The marketing wasn't. Beech made it sound like anyone could fly a complex high performance aircraft into ifr without a lot of training. It was a victim of a targeted marketing campaign aimed at low time / no time doctors with egos and type a personalities. Arrogance and ignorance of the person in the left seat unfairly gave the vtail a bad name. I like them
Don't forget that the Navy wanted a FIGHTER capable of carrying the Hughes Phoenix missile, not a straight-line interceptor. The plane was simply lacking in maneuverability required of a fighter.I think the B-52, and the F-15 will do the fly overs for the retirements of the F-35, and the F-22, and the B-2, and the Bone....JMHO. The reason the F-111 didn't work well for the Navy was that the wheel width was such that it wouldn't work on an aircraft carrier, the plane could tip over....much like Guam if too many aircraft were to land on it.....