15 of the Worst Planes Ever | History in the Dark

[@CraigCholar]

My dad and I toured the passenger cabin of the Tu-144 "Concordski" at an early 70s Paris Air Show. He worked on the flightline during his US Air Force career doing repairs, and I still remember him disparaging most of the Soviet aircraft when he looked at them close-up. We also saw that humongous Soviet helicopter (an Antonev?} with outrigger twin rotors. He got stationed in Germany during the time they hosted the World Cup and the Olympics. Nice timing, that. Many fond memories were formed that have stayed alive all these decades later.

[@DukeOfTrains]

For April fools you should do a worst ever planes where it’s just the different versions of the wright flyer

[@penguinmaster7]

or a "best trains ever" video but it's just British Rail

[@WinterroSP]

What about model trains? There’s plenty of awful lemons between them. Like exploding capacitor and melting your track terrible.

[@DukeOfTrains]

@@WinterroSP Lionel ho gauge is some how really bad

[@WarblesOnALot]

G'day, What was wrong with the Wright Brothers' Flyer ? In 1903 it had 12 Hp, driving a pair of "Handed" Propellers which achieved 92% of the Theoretical maximum possible Propulsive Efficiency, turning 92% of the "Betz Limit" of converting a maximum of 0.5963 of the Torque in the Shaft into Thrust... The Flyer Mk-1 had 3-Axis Controls - ie Elevator, Rudder & Wing-Warping...; and between them Stable, Controlled Flight was practical. The 1903 Wright Flyer had Double-Surface Aerofoil-Section Wings, with top & bottom Surfaces of Linnen Fabric - stretched over an interior Framework of Ribs & Spars & a Leading & Trailing Edge... To see something TRULY Primitive, Search YT for, "The 8-Hp, 1975, Red Baron Skycraft Scout ; World's 1st Legal Minimum Aircraft!" What took me for my First Solo had 8 Hp, Chain-driving 1 Propeller... 2-Axis Controls (Elevator & Rudder..., plus a lot of Dihedral) ; and the Wings were Single-Surface Dacron in Tension, Aluminium Sailboat Spars for Wing Leading-Edge Spars & the Dacron secured by a Bolt-Rope sewn into the Leading-Edge - running in the Sail-Track on the Rear-side of the Boat-Masts... Three different ways, Wilbur & Orville Had a better Aeroplane in 1903..., Than what took me Up for my First Solo, in 1978... And, after that, Everything else I ever flew Was EASY peasy Lemon squeezie...(!). Another - more recent, Video showing it, is also in my Personal Aeroplanology Playlist..., titled "National Transportation Museum ; Visiting My First Aeroplane...!" Believe you moi, Having flown behind an Actual Lawnmower Motor..., I can say that the Wright 1903 Mk-1 Flyer was Also better than the 12 Production-model Mark-1 Skycraft Scouts, sold in 1976 - despite their having 12 Hp "Pixie-Major Aero-Engines" (built up from Victa VC-160 Lawnmower Motors) ; because they still only had 2-Axis Controls & Single-Surface Aerofoils. The Mk-2 Scouts (1980-'82) boasted 18 Hp Fuji-Robin Engines ; but were still 2-Axis Control. Then in 1983 the Mk-3, with either the 18-Hp Fuji or a 35-Hp Rotax-377 appeared - And..., it Finally had Wing-Warping. (a mere 80 years late...) ! What would be the Worst Hairygoplane that You've ever Strapped into..., and then gone off and actually Levitated while Sitting therewithin ? When I thought I was on track to die from Cancer (of the Right Tonsil) by about September 2022, I made the pilgrimage to visit the old Scout, chained up to the Museum Ceiling, in June 2022, - before starting the Treatment. Full Dental Extraction, a month before 7 weeks involving 70 Grays of X-Rays at 6.1 MegaVolts through the face, and 490 mg of Cis-Platin... (Which actually worked...; And that was more or less Unexpected !). But, please, Try not to Shit-Talk the 1903 Wright Flyer 1...; I've flown LOTS Worse. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

[@UncleJoeLITE]

😂🎉

[@CharlesStearman]

It's a bit misleading to say the G4M was developed to take on the "advancing allies" as it was already in service in 1941.

[@matthewavery]

I had no idea you’re a cancer survivor, Darkness! My dad is one too, so I commend you for beating it! May you forever continue to make amazing content and be cancer-free!

[@Straswa]

Grats to History in the Dark and your dad!

[@tbas8741]

Well the Doctors Beat it, Not the Patients. Its already been proven weather you put all your effort and strength into fighting an illness or cancer Or Simply Give up and not care, it does not effect the outcome. The only effect on outcome is the treatment and dedication of the Medical Professionals. The power of the mind is puny and insignificant compared to something like cancer.

[@matthewavery]

@@Straswa Thank you very much! My dad is STILL cancer-free to this day, thank God!

[@jtjames79]

If the Christmas Bullet isn't at the top of the list, the list is wrong.

[@Isolder74]

Of course a field modified B-17 known as Old 666 had more guns strapped onto it they just put them all facing forwards. The plane was a bit of a monster. The ‘Betty’ was both good and bad. It was good in that it was easy to fly and its range meant it makes an excellent garrison bomber for attacking ships in the Pacific. It was bad in that it was slow and easy to shoot down.

[@kristoffermangila]

And to a certain Japanese admiral, he learned the Betty's faults the very hard way.

[@JimWisniewski2005]

A thing the Zubr was known for was its ''door to heaven'' that was the door on the side of the fuselage. It was positioned very close to the propeller, what made it impossible to jump out with a parachute, but it was as well dangerous on the ground, whenever the engines were running.

[@Isolder74]

If anyone thinks the Zubr was ugly you should see most of the French bombers built during the interwar period. Several were very unpleasant to look at.

[@samaguirre3283]

The Natter rocket engine "could" have been a miniaturized V2 rocket engine that can be throttled by using the fuel mixture pressure instead of what you are thinking a solid fuel rocket engine .

[@malcolmcarter1726]

Really enjoyed this video. I dig your sense of humour on these absolute howlers. Thanks.

[@MrCateagle]

XT40 was two XT38 gas generators driving through a combining gearbox and was quite unsuccessful. The XT38 was drastically redeveloped into the very successful T56 turboprop.

[@RapideWombaticus]

I agree with you in regard to the Rockwell. Great looking machine. Such a wasted opportunity...

[@MrCateagle]

Opening the Zubr's door could added enough drag to drop it out of the sky.

[@MrCateagle]

XFV-12A was an example that not everything scales up from test rigs to full scale aircraft. One could argue that the USN should have gone with the AV-16 advanced Harrier.

[@jonathanhorne6503]

The Curtiss So3C was the only plane my pre war naval aviator flew that scared him. He was happy the navy didn’t adopt it and kept the SOC.

[@kellyswoodyard]

Caproni looked like Borat.

[@tidepoolclipper8657]

Other aircraft bad enough to make it onto a new list of general worst airplanes and not just a more focused time-span or era would be; Blackburn Twin Blackburn, PZL M-15 Belphegor, F7U Cutlass, Japan's copies of the Komet, Shenyang J-15 (there's good reason China wants a new aircraft carrier jet fighter), Mig-27, Brewster SB2A Buccaneer, and Latecoere 631 (though it deserves an award for cool looks).

[@PORRRIDGE_GUN]

The Belphegor as a concept only worked in a world where Jet A1 was super cheap and the jet efflux could be used to disperse insecticide. Neither of which ever materialized. I'd question the idea of a jet cropduster, given that the airscrew is and will remain the most effective form of traction in the air. An AsH 82 engine on a biplane was always going to be hard to be in the economy stakes. I give you the ANT-2

[@asdf9890]

The Me 263’s little propeller makes this death trap look comical. Also the Caproni 😂 I thought it was a building…I was like, I don’t see a plane?! Imagine building a model of that, pure torture.

[@saparotrob7888]

It's always the same planes presented in a different order.

[@Straswa]

Great video, I like your humor. Very fascinating information as well.

[@christopherandersch1299]

And when Dr,Christmas retired to Miami,he became president of the General Development Company ( GDC) and defrauded thousands of people into moving to Florida ,into GDC houses,with GDC financing.

[@Troy_Tempest]

It's a myth that 'a whole bunch of pilots" were killed by the Komet's fuel. It was a great concept as a point defence fighter. As for the YB-40, you can't blame the Air Force for trying to come up with some sort of protective factor before long-range escort fighters became available.

[@Slavicplayer251]

it isn’t a myth it just wasn’t pilots just ground crew mostly

[@phoenix211245]

I'll give you that. A whole bunch of pilots were killed by more faults than just komet's fuel. Reading first hand accounts, they had something like a 5-1 kia due to mechanical failure vs enemy action.

[@Troy_Tempest]

@@Slavicplayer251 references?

[@mrnickbig1]

The account of the Viper (Natter) was complete BS!!! It never was meant to be a "wonder weapon" or was touted as such. It was a last ditch effort to cheaply defend high value tagets from bombers. It was made of cheap, non strategic materials and stationed near the area to be defended. The planes were to be piloted by minimally trained locals, and only meant to make a single pass through a bomber formation, fire all weapons (rockets) at close range, and eject to land. It was a cheap disposeable interceptor, nothing more. Anyone who claims otherwise is an ID10T or lying.

[@jamesricker3997]

The Natter was also built by slave laborers,who had a vested interest in its poor production quality

[@stevenrobinson2381]

The Ranger inverted vee was actually not a bad powerplant-just not installed in a Seamew. Yes-it was an air cooled inverted vee 12 cylinders.

[@aleksanderdomanski222]

Rumors says that during advertisement flight of Żubr ("buffalo") with probably buyer someone opened door and hit propeler with it. Damaged propeler caused vibrations that made whole plane fall apart. Self sealing tanks were kinda invention in late 30's. That's why some designs did not had them. Airframes were designed before some designers (from less advanced countries) knew they even could use such tanks (and how to do it). So, some planes used early in war did not had such tanks. And it was not due to weight but being a bit outdated (2-3 years). Polish Łoś had same problem too. In most cases when designers learned how to use self sealing tanks thed designed new versions of their planes with that feature.

[@aalhard]

4:44 the jet was also used to test inverse taper wings, look it up

[@malcolmcarter1726]

The Natter (Adder in english) had a liquid fuelled hydrogolic Walter rocket engine which was throttleable. Not much more than 'slow, fast, and Woah!' but still a throttle. The four booster rockets were however 'Light the blue touch paper' and fucking leg it! Christmas was basically a charleton and simply a murderer who died at a ripe old age leaving a trail of death, poverty, and misery. If his Bullet had been of cantilever design it wouldnt have required interplane struts. (As in the Fokker DVII ) Blinding stupidity. Horrible. And yeah...Murder!

[@stephendellefave6423]

Can't say I've seen anything on the steam plane they developed in the 1930's on your channel... Interesting idea ..

[@Rangera-ct1xu]

so many good plane designs were failed by their engines.

[@KathrynLiz1]

Small error... the V2 rocket could not be intercepted or defended against..... One of them killed my uncle.... The V! (A cruise missile) could be intercepted because it flew at only about 450mph... the V2 landed at over Mach2....

[@serpentinesecrets6771]

So many of these look like cardboard and packaging tape

[@raymarshall6721]

If anyone wants a in-depth look at the thunder screech, the fat electrician did a great video on it which is absolute comedy gold

[@soco13466]

The Caproni CA60 looks like a flying 30's motel. Imagine if it tried to fly in a crosswind. The klunkiest plane ever built.

[@avnrulz]

Bought the Harrier, stripped it down and improved it. Buddy's dad worked on it.

[@pcowdrey]

As to the Thunderstreak, why didn't they slow the prop down and/or redesign it? =

[@johnnydoe7616]

At 13:00 you mention the “Smithsonian in Maryland”. Thought the Smithsonian was in DC?

[@franklinkz2451]

Lol do not take a hacksaw to your plane lol

[@ABrit-bt6ce]

XFV-12 wasn't an aircraft. Aircraft by definition fly. XFV-12 didn't.

[@budwhite9591]

41:14 Concord didn’t exactly rake in the millions and only flew as long as it did with Uncle Sam’s dollars

[@UncleJoeLITE]

The US was not associated with Concord in any way. Costs were borne 💯% by UK & France. You may be thinking of the cancelled Boeing SST project. Cheers.

[@UncleJoeLITE]

We have a mint looking Me163 in Canberra at the Australian War Memorial. It's parked inside next to our very 2nd hand Me262. Komets are very small & achingly beautiful. To be fair, Komets were NOT meant to be fighters, but used as point defence, protected by fighters. You knock the 163 & we got a problem, even if you're right!🎉

[@Dilbert-o5k]

Paris is the only place to experience supersonic transport crashes , and it got examples of both concorde and the tupolev. See a pattern?

[@cen7ury]

Let me start off by saying that I love the idea behind this video, and i like tge fact that the first plane on the list is one that I had heard very little about. Beyond that, just know that my opinion is not the end all be all, just a single data point in a sea of other data points, and if you find that my feedback is an outlier, then by all means, ignore it. I am also not claiming to be some kind of expert, I'm just letting you know my personal experience as an individual viewer. With that out of the way, I've got a couple really quick notes. The music in the background is really busy, and mixed a bit loud in relation to the volume of your voice-over. The volume is close to where it needs to be, but for me it was still distracting and made it harder for me to understand what you were saying. Speaking of what you were saying, it felt like you really weren't saying all that much about the plane you were supposed to be talking about, instead spending your time bringing up tangentially related subjects, that could have been good context, but you ended up distracting from the point that you were initially trying to make by using those tangents as jumping-off points for you to editorialize in ways that were mainly just rehashing common criticisms of tangentially related subjects that really didn't add to the narrative as a whole or support the overall point you were trying to make, in my opinion. Other than that, great video! Just a little bit of constructive criticism from someone who hasn't seen any of your other videos. Cheers, man. Keep up the good work!

[@themidcentrist]

Honorable mentions IMO The Space Shuttle (It never met expectations and was a dangerous money pit) Lockheed F-104 Starfighter (Have turning or landing) Bristol Brabazon (It might have been good in the 1930s) Hughes H-4 Hercules (Are you really going to fly a giant wooden aircraft across the Atlantic?) LZ 129 Hindenburg (Destroyed by flying into weather that was less than perfect) Dehavilland Comet 1 (Nobody knew metal fatigue was a thing at the time and this is reflected in the design) Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet (So dangerous and useless it was more dangerous to the pilot than enemy aircraft) DC-10 / MD-11 (Explosive decompressions, no hydraulic fuses for the slats, stick shaker was optional for the co-pilot, the insulation was as flammable as gasoline soaked rags, an uncontained engine failure could destroy all of the backup hydraulics, The fuel economy of the MD-11 was below expectations and that tail design makes it a bitch to land, etc.) 737 Max (Boeing lied. People died) B-17 (Slow, needed a large crew, bomb load wasn't that great, It's ability to defend itself was overestimated. Pound for pound even the de Havilland Mosquito was a better bomber. )

[@tidepoolclipper8657]

F-104 was bad as a light bomber, but was fine as an interceptor. B-17 still doesn't belong here considering how important they were. I like the de Havilland Mosquito and is my favorite WW2 bomber, but still. Komet is in this video; although not Japan's even worse copies.

[@phoenix211245]

Though with the Comet, they did correct the problem while writing the book on passenger jet design, and the plane returned to successful service. There are a whole bunch of planes, like the TU 104 (first Soviet passenger jet, that were so unsafe they made songs about how fast it could end you), you have to add loooong before the Comet.

[@TheRealStrikerofLife]

For those curious about the Christmas Bullet Tex from the BlackPants Legion has a great Longformat Video on it its amazing and Top level please go see it.

[@jukku999]

The 262 was not the first operational jet fighter- while it did receive delivery in august of 1944, they didn't actually perform any operations with them until well after the Gloster Meteor was doing combat air patrols over the channel and had already successfully been used to shoot down V-1s. That ACKSHUALLY nitpick aside, great video.

[@Imbel.40]

Who invented the Airplane?

[@krisspradlin715]

Fat Electrician?

[@jimmccauley9099]

"Side to side" Hahahahaha!

[@aalhard]

Don't jump on the brain dead idea that expense equals -overpriced- . F35 had to write the book, not just rewrite. The program was a complete shift in so much of procurement as well as the plane itself. It is disingenuous to claim a figure for any aspect without considering the whole. Just sayin😊

[@friedtomatoes4946]

You repeated a few falsities. First off there were things that could take out the tiger back in its day. And very quickly those guns were mounted to tanks. Things that come to mind are the m10. Another thing the rocket engines especially on the me 163 could be throttled And it seems you corrected the rocket situation. Believe it or not though it is still possible to throttle solid state rockets just Germany had not figured that out :)

[@friedtomatoes4946]

Still good vid tho

[@MrSpringheel]

Worst than the Natter, hard

[@JohnKoenig-db8lk]

I think I hear _Ace Combat 2_ music. 👍

[@tbas8741]

Best Thing a Cancer Survivor can ever Say & I am Sure they Appreciated it. "My Oncologist Saved My Life" Exactly it, Nobody or Nothing else Did it, Specially not anything hiding in the clouds or above them. Only Medical Knowledge and Technology Saves Cancer Patients Lives, Even if they have given up completely there is no change in outcome to someone who is fighting with every drop of sweat they have..

[@steby123]

Caproni You should laugh( very hard ) !!!!!

[@tbas8741]

Dr. Christmas was a Trump ahead of his time. Yeah the other 2 planes were awesome, Best ever, trust me.

[@heinwein421]

The statement that the V2 could be intercepted is, sorry, bogus . The V1 could be intercepted but the V2 travelling with approx 5,500 km/h and reaching an altidude of 120 kilometers made it absolutely impossible to intercept. Once launched there's nothing you could do about it...

[@UncleJoeLITE]

17:31 You're an "equal opportunity offeder" is the expression you're after imho. Ok, first, have you done stand-up? Always love your storytelling. Second, damn you can be sloppy af with details! Ofc this isn't a bloody doco, so who cares?

[@haroldbenton979]

The YB40 was a great concept in theory but the problem came in when the B17s dropped their bombs they became faster and left these behind.

[@asdf9890]

I love the thought of B17 gunship, but yeah, they got left behind on the return flight.

[@LastGoatKnight]

Just like the B-29 gunship

[@tommytwotacos8106]

I believe you may have misunderstood the problem with the yb-40. My understanding was that the guns still weighed the plane down after the other bombers dropped their bombs, so it would be just as slow leaving the target as heading there. The other bombers were going like bats out of hell after hitting their targets. Therefore, they'd outpace the gun truck and be vulnerable on the way back, which was why the project was abandoned. Granted, I've only read this once and seen it in videos a few more times (which could've been sourced to the same book that I've read), so I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you were correct. I just wanted to offer my knowledge of the issue as well. Thanks for the video!

[@alvinrichover9682]

There was never a V2 intercepted.....know your facts

[@sparty94]

the thunderscreech didn't fly mach 1.18, according to test pilot Lin Hendrix, it "never flew over 450 knots indicated, since at that speed, it developed an unhappy practice of 'snaking', apparently losing longitudinal stability."

[@TeamDoc312]

What he said was the tips of the propeller could reach Mach 1.18 at full throttle. This in turn, would make the horrible screeching, and make people on the ground sick from the frequency of the sound.

[@Marcuslovesplanes]

B747:Where is me?

[@tidepoolclipper8657]

Boeing may be a shadow of its former self; but the later B747 variants still don't belong here.

[@charlesdorval394]

You wrote 737 wrong.