Planes that should NOT have been built

R

Ravioli

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
8,021
Location
Somewhere else
Display Name
Display name:
Unwanted Guest - Perma-ban Pending
The other thread got me thinking. I know there are some.

I'll start with C172RG.

Here are the non-allowed responses:
Bonanza
Cirrus
Raptor [We beat that horse routinely]

and of course... anything Vans
 
Frost Ornithopter

Whitehead Model 21 Monoplane
 
Fine, after vacillating on this all morning, the 182

Pour gas into a huge engine to go barely 140 knots.. something that looks just like the trainer everyone else is trying to learn to fly on..

Awful.

Why anyone would buy this:
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...2Q+SKYLANE&listing_id=2380443&s-type=aircraft

Over this:
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?make=PIPER&model_group=PIPER+CHEROKEE+PA32+SERIES&model=CHEROKEE+6/300&listing_id=2388676&s-type=aircraft

Is absolutely beyond me

After the 190/195 (and 180), three of arguably the most beautiful single engine piston planes ever built.. Cessna should have either stopped building piston planes altogether, or at least not given up entirely. After the three aforementioned planes it's almost like Cessna was stuck in a passionless loveless marriage just going through the motions satisfying the flight schools.. everyone else knows that they emotionally gave up decades ago
 
Tantalum said:
Sadly you are right, but damn such a cool looking plane
Click to expand...
I wonder how the starship would have faired with today's modern manufacturing technologies. My understanding is that it's way overweight due to inefficient lay-up and composite materials/resins of the day. If someone made one today, far lighter, (no, not you Mr. Raptor), it may infact outperform a Kingair.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I wonder how the starship would have faired with today's modern manufacturing technologies. My understanding is that it's way overweight due to inefficient lay-up and composite materials/resins of the day. If someone made one today, far lighter, (no, not you Mr. Raptor), it may infact outperform a Kingair.
Click to expand...
The canard design has some inherent advantages, and the avanti is a fast, miserly plane.. though not a "true" canard

Part my draw to the twin velocity is owed to the starship
 
In all seriousness...how about the Vision Jet?

I haven't looked into the numbers, but I was sitting in the FBO with a CFI friend who pays attention to such things, and one taxied up outside. His comment was that it doesn't do anything that a turboprop can't do better, with the exceptions of a parachute and being a 'jet'.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I wonder how the starship would have faired with today's modern manufacturing technologies. My understanding is that it's way overweight due to inefficient lay-up and composite materials/resins of the day. If someone made one today, far lighter, (no, not you Mr. Raptor), it may infact outperform a Kingair.
Click to expand...

The story I've always read is/was that the FAA had no idea how to certify composite materials when the Starship was in development. So the airplane ended up with excessive safety factors on all of the composite structures, driving excess weight.
 
Jim K said:
In all seriousness...how about the Vision Jet?

I haven't looked into the numbers, but I was sitting in the FBO with a CFI friend who pays attention to such things, and one taxied up outside. His comment was that it doesn't do anything that a turboprop can't do better, with the exceptions of a parachute and being a 'jet'.
Click to expand...
Looking strictly at the numbers you are better off purchasing a TBM that's for sure.. but the SF50 is a fraction of the cost.. I don't think there's any plane that you can have new for the price of the SF50 that will go as high or as fast

And who knows, that famous lawyer who just wrecked the TBM in New York, maybe his niece could have pulled the parachute

But success is generally defined by commercial sales.. with a full order book The Vision jet can hardly be considered a failure.. same is true about the 182, I just hate the airplane but it's been a huge success
 
Beech Sierra.

All the maintenance of a retract, at the speed of a fixed gear.
 
Tantalum said:
Looking strictly at the numbers you are better off purchasing a TBM that's for sure.. but the SF50 is a fraction of the cost.. I don't think there's any plane that you can have new for the price of the SF50 that will go as high or as fast

And who knows, that famous lawyer who just wrecked the TBM in New York, maybe his niece could have pulled the parachute

But success is generally defined by commercial sales.. with a full order book The Vision jet can hardly be considered a failure.. same is true about the 182, I just hate the airplane but it's been a huge success
Click to expand...

Would the M600 be a fair comparison? I think they're a bunch cheaper?
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I wonder how the starship would have faired with today's modern manufacturing technologies. My understanding is that it's way overweight due to inefficient lay-up and composite materials/resins of the day. If someone made one today, far lighter, (no, not you Mr. Raptor), it may infact outperform a Kingair.
Click to expand...
The Avanti is basically that
 
Rgbeard said:
You mean the plane that looks like it's awkwardly wearing a backpack, and that you expect to melt the ruddervators?
Click to expand...
The engine doesn't bother me, and I'm a sucker for a V-tail, but the bulbous mid section is the part I hate. Like a snake that ate too much.

Yeah yeah form follows function. Also my opinion doesn't matter because unless I'm an heir to a minor European monarch I'm unware of, I'll never be playing in that space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top