Which aircraft do you hate?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • smittygj

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 11, 2010
    490
    43
    Kingdom of Bahrain
    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.
    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.
     

    SnoopLoggyDog

    I'm a Citizen, not a subject
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    61   0   0
    Feb 16, 2009
    6,204
    113
    Warsaw
    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.
    Yes, the F-111B for the Navy. Oversize and overweight with two TF-30 engines with double the complexity and half the reliability.
    a540f4db44e0fcccf9526dc4045aec7f.jpg
    The F-111 needed GE engines and a much better intake design. Even then, the plane was a bomb truck and nothing more.
     

    88E30M50

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Dec 29, 2008
    22,748
    149
    Greenwood, IN
    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!

    The DC 10 also had bonded skin reinforcements that became a problem with corrosion. Boeing solved the same problem with chem milled skins which worked much better.
     

    88E30M50

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Dec 29, 2008
    22,748
    149
    Greenwood, IN
    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

    There’s a V tail bonanza that flies into Greenwood often and I always stop to watch it go by. What a beautiful aircraft
     

    88E30M50

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Dec 29, 2008
    22,748
    149
    Greenwood, IN
    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.

    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
     

    88E30M50

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Dec 29, 2008
    22,748
    149
    Greenwood, IN
    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
     

    smittygj

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 11, 2010
    490
    43
    Kingdom of Bahrain
    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
    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.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,864
    113
    Merrillville
    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.
     

    smittygj

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 11, 2010
    490
    43
    Kingdom of Bahrain
    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.
    Not arguing that point. I agree. But we should be designing aircraft that require less maintenance, not more in my honest opinion.
     

    jwamplerusa

    High drag, low speed...
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Feb 21, 2018
    4,210
    113
    Boone County
    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
    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.

    Those men had a bigger pair than nearly all men I have ever met.

    I cannot imagine launching in those aircraft over the sea, knowing you were going up against substantially superior aircraft.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    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
    Something about a jack of all trades...


    Yes, McNamara had it on his head that DoD could save tons of money using a common platform. It CAN be done as evidenced by the F/A 18 serving as a veritable flying Swiss Army knife but the F111 excelled only at carrying payload in a straight line at high speed.
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,696
    113
    .
    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
    This^

    The fork tailed doctor killer was more a result of the people who flew them rather than the aircraft itself. Transitioning quickly to fast complex planes with retractable gear from a trainer isn't a good idea.
     

    SnoopLoggyDog

    I'm a Citizen, not a subject
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    61   0   0
    Feb 16, 2009
    6,204
    113
    Warsaw
    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.
    Ercoupe-Inflight.jpg
    Had no rudder pedals. My Father tried flying one and hated it.

    Another airplane that both my Father and I disliked was the Piper Tri Pacer. It was short-coupled between the wing and tail, which made it twitchy in flight. It was also harder to see out of, than a Cessna 150 or Piper Cub.
    1317723as.jpg
     

    MrSmitty

    Master of useless information
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Jan 4, 2010
    4,488
    113
    New Albany
    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.....
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    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.....
    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.
     
    Top Bottom