Which Aircraft Company Produced the Largest Amount of Turds?

Kintarō Hattori

I was reading some of my books recently and got thinking about which aircraft manufacturer could be regarded as having produced the largest number of unsuccessful aircraft during its lifespan. So far as I can see Convair possibly tops the list:

B-36 - Although a large number were produced it had a fairly short shelf life
R3Y Tradewind
YB-60 - How not to design a jet bomber
F-102 Delta Dagger - Eventually became a success but only after a fiasco with the prototype
F2Y Sea Dart - Ill thought out concept
B-58 Hustler - Shockingly expensive to maintain and had a short shelf life
880 - Huge financial failure
990 Coronado - Same as above

They also had a large number of prototypes that simply never went anywhere such as the Vultee, XB-53, XB-46, Pogo and lots more.

Can you think of any other major aircraft manufacturer that's been less successful?

Delancey

The L-1011 Tristar programme bankrupted both Lockheed and Rolls Royce Aero.
Mind you , that list of Convair turkeys does look pretty damning.

xflyer

The Wright brothers quite frankly. They may have been the pioneers of powered flight but their subsequent aircraft were mostly turkeys and dangerous with it. Even the Flyer was unstable, by design, and difficult to fly. If they had spent more time refining their designs rather than suing everyone else who built a competing machine. They might have done better.

Most of their aircraft were turkeys.

Turbulent Bill

That's a bit harsh on Convair - unsucessful doesn't necessarily mean rubbish. On your the list most of the military stuff was pretty high risk and bound to be problematic, while the B-36/B-58 were products of their time that were later overtaken by technology. The 880 and 990 weren't bad, just not as good as the 707 and DC-8.

I nominate Yakovlev, purely because their Yak-40 was the worst plane in my Top Trumps deck as a kid, couldn't wait to give it away .

Discodog

If ever there was one aircraft, that should of been preserved for displays, it's the B36. My friends father used to watch them in the UK. His videos are amazing of this huge lump lumbering down the runway & clearing the fence by inches.

Apparently the draught from the props was strong enough to blow people over & the wings were so thick that you could crawl through the wing to service the engines .

The relative low power of Jet engines at the time meant that any big plane of that period was going to suffer problems. The B36 achieved 50,000 ft on piston engines :eek:.

You have to love anything that is this big - compared to it's predecessor the B29:




Experimental landing gear :eek: :



Without the B36 we wouldn't have one of the best aviation movies ever.

I think the B36 deserves an appreciation thread of it's own

Davidth88

I always loved the CV990, saw the occasional one in LGW ( Spantax )

Very very smokey, but fast

However that list is pretty damning

I nominate Tupolev , the TU154 had a horrible habit of falling out of the sky and the TU144 which was a total failure unless you wanted ultra fast air mail .

Or Fiat ? They didn't really produce anything of note ?

Blue Punto

Davidth88 wrote: »

I always loved the CV990, saw the occasional one in LGW ( Spantax )

Very very smokey, but fast

However that list is pretty damning

I nominate Tupolev , the TU154 had a horrible habit of falling out of the sky and the TU144 which was a total failure unless you wanted ultra fast air mail .

Or Fiat ? They didn't really produce anything of note ?

WOW

You would really nominate the TU-154 of which circa 1000 were produced and the aircraft became the mainstay of many Eastern Bloc airlines and also stayed in service for nearly 40 years

The 154 was one of the fastest none supersonic jets in service from the time it flew until retired and of the accidents that the aircraft was involved in during its lifespan (39)very few were down to any problem with the aircraft.

I flew on the 154 on six occassions and found it a fantastic aircraft

The 144 didnt have the backing that Concorde did either but thats another story

The TU-134 had nearly 900 examples made and again stayed in service for nearly forty years and then all the military aircraft they have produced

Sorry Davidth88 but in my opinion your way off the mark with your assessment

L1011

Davidth88 wrote: »

Or Fiat ? They didn't really produce anything of note ?

The ATR family is the eventual legacy (in part) of Fiat's aviation business.

Tenger

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

That's a bit harsh on Convair - unsucessful doesn't necessarily mean rubbish. On your the list most of the military stuff was pretty high risk and bound to be problematic, while the B-36/B-58 were products of their time that were later overtaken by technology......

I agree. In the history of Convair they were definitely suffering from bad timing.

The B-36 was overtaken by events. It was planned to operate long range bombing raids from the USA to Nazi Germany assuming the Great Britain was occupied. It was a WWII design that had no place in the 1950's Cold War.

The F-102 like so many other US aircraft had a rough early life but did emerge as a credible fighter design. (F-104 anyone?) The protottype suffered because jet design was still developing and the Area Rule concept had only just been realised. With modifications the production version hit 1000 units.

The B-58 was a superb aircraft but was very expensive, difficult to fly and hard to maintain but its crews loved it. During its life the SAM threat countered its high and fast operational usage.

CV880/990: Yes, beaten by the better designs of Boeing and Douglas.

Davidth88

Blue Punto wrote: »

WOW

You would really nominate the TU-154 of which circa 1000 were produced and the aircraft became the mainstay of many Eastern Bloc airlines and also stayed in service for nearly 40 years

The 154 was one of the fastest none supersonic jets in service from the time it flew until retired and of the accidents that the aircraft was involved in during its lifespan (39)very few were down to any problem with the aircraft.

I flew on the 154 on six occassions and found it a fantastic aircraft

The 144 didnt have the backing that Concorde did either but thats another story

The TU-134 had nearly 900 examples made and again stayed in service for nearly forty years and then all the military aircraft they have produced

Sorry Davidth88 but in my opinion your way off the mark with your assessment

Fair enough , maybe being a child of the ' cold war ' I have slightly blinkered views of the Soviet era aircraft. I am surprised that only 39 154's were lost , how trust worthy would the Soviet figures be I wonder ?

Davidth88

MYOB wrote: »

The ATR family is the eventual legacy (in part) of Fiat's aviation business.

True , and the G91 was a pretty credible aircraft too ( forgot forgot about that )

Blue Punto

Davidth88 wrote: »

Fair enough , maybe being a child of the ' cold war ' I have slightly blinkered views of the Soviet era aircraft. I am surprised that only 39 154's were lost , how trust worthy would the Soviet figures be I wonder ?

Very

Taken from wikipedia which would be less trust worthy than Soviet sources imo(but you get the idea)

As of January 2011, since 1970 there have been 110 serious incidents involving the Tu-154,[25] and 69 hull losses, 30 of which did not involve fatalities.[26] Of the fatal incidents, six resulted from terrorist or military action (two other war-time losses were non fatal) including an accidental missile shoot-down by Ukraine, several from poor runway conditions in winter (including one in which the airplane struck snow plows on the runway), cargo overloading in the lapse of post-Soviet federal safety standards, and mid-air collisions due to faulty air traffic control. Other incidents resulted from mechanical problems (two cases prior to 2001), running out of fuel on unscheduled routes, pilot errors (including flight training for new crews), and cargo fires. The Tu-154 is described as having an average (or better than expected) safety record considering its length of service and heavy use in demanding conditions where other airliners are unable to operate.[4] On January 2, 2011, Russia's Federal Transport Oversight Agency advised airlines to stop using remaining examples of the Tu-154 (B variant) until the fatal fire incident in Surgut had been investigated.[27] Its operation in Iran, which is subject to an aircraft parts embargo, ceased in February 2011 due to a number of incidents involving the type (almost 9% of all Tu-154 losses have occurred in Iran) [28] In 2010 there were two fatal losses of the Tu-154 due to pilot error and/or weather conditions (a Polish presidential jet attempting to land at an airfield in heavy fog and a Russian-registered plane that suffered engine stall after a crew member inactivated a fuel transfer pump). Following these accidents, in March 2011 the Russian Federal Bureau of Aviation recommended a withdrawal of remaining Tu-154M from service.[29] In December 2010, Uzbekistan Airways also declared that it will cease to operate Tu-154s from 2011

Davidth88

Blue Punto wrote: »

Very

Taken from wikipedia which would be less trust worthy than Soviet sources imo(but you get the idea)

I would almost trust WIKIpedia more than the Soviets :-) . Hardly the most open of societies .

I did jump onto wikipedia as soon as you posted TBH

Discodog

Talking of Wiki no aviation enthusiast could read this without a smile.

Escort fighters carried in the bomb bay, 19ft propellers, 10 engines & 336 spark plugs :eek:

Add to this a 25 ft long Hydrogen bomb that would probably destroy the plane as it wouldn't be able to get out the way in time or a 20 Ton conventional earthquake bomb or even a 40 ton nuclear reactor in the back running whilst you are flying !

The crews described the engines as "two turning, two burning, two smoking, two joking, and two unaccounted for"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36

xflyer

Delancey wrote: »

The L-1011 Tristar programme bankrupted both Lockheed and Rolls Royce Aero.
Mind you , that list of Convair turkeys does look pretty damning.

Actually neither the L1011 or the RB211 engine were turkeys. If anything they were too good, too gold plated. It's difficult to think of any bad Lockheeds or indeed Rolls Royce's.

The Convair airliners were pretty good too, faster than their contemporaries. Just too late in a world of DCs and Boeings.

Stovepipe

British aircraft in general. Built like a brick ****house and a pain to work on.(a trait not confined to Brits, I have to say).If they don't make a balls of their own aircraft, they import and then mutilate other people's designs. Taylorcraft, Sikorsky, F-4 and so on.

regards
Stovepipe

Davidth88

Stovepipe wrote: »

British aircraft in general. Built like a brick ****house and a pain to work on.(a trait not confined to Brits, I have to say).If they don't make a balls of their own aircraft, they import and then mutilate other people's designs. Taylorcraft, Sikorsky, F-4 and so on.

regards
Stovepipe

And the C130 ( send it to Cambridge and stick in a large pipe to stretch it , or the Carvair , get a DC4 and convert it to carry cars .

I nearly said British because of political meddling.

Think Trident , great aircraft , too small until the Trident 3 , VC10 , great aircraft , too late etc the Britannia , fantastic aircraft but just in a wrong era.

Don't get me wrong all these aircraft were fantastic , the VC10 in particular considering it's still servicing the RAF.

Of course these were different companies , but they all became BaE in the end.