Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Sometimes an Eagle Hatches a Turkey
Over its existence the US Army Air Force and its successor, the US Air Force produced war-winning and spectacularly successful aircraft. Among them were the P-51, B-29, B-52, C-130, and F-15. Not all their aircraft were eagles. There were turkeys in the mix; even a few goose eggs.
Air Force Disappointments, Mistakes, and Failures: 1940-1990 by Kenneth P. Werrell, looks at the flip side of the coin. It examines not-so-great entries to the Air Force inventory. It includes missiles and electronics, too.
Some aircraft included in this collection are those you might expect to see. The YP-75 Eagle, a fighter produced from bits and pieces of other aircraft by automaker General Motors, set a benchmark for awful. So did the parasite fighter XF-85 Goblin. The nuclear-powered NB-36H takes a prize for the “what were they thinking?” award.
Others, like the B-58 Hustler, XB-70 Valkyrie, and Rockwell B-1A were spectacular aviation achievements. They just lacked a meaningful role after newer technology made them impractical. Others were good ideas that did not pan out. These included the XB-40, the escort version of the B-17 or the idea of putting ICBMs on railcars. A few, like the F-104 Starfighter, were downright dangerous, even if commercially successful.
Yet most were not outright failures or mistakes, Werrell shows. They were disappointments. They came in second-best to a better aircraft, like the B-32 did to the B-29, or as the B-70 did with the B-52. Or they were forced on the Air Force to fit a mission the Air Force did not fill. Navy dive bomber in World War II (the Douglas A-24 and A-25 – aka the Dauntless and Helldiver in the Navy) and the F-111 are examples. In World War II, ground support was better done by fighter-bombers and the F-111 simply attempted too much by being all things to all services.
Werrell provides 26 case studies involving nearly fifty different aircraft, missiles, and weapons systems that failed to deliver the goods for the Air Force. Each one goes into the thinking that started each project. He then traces what went wrong and why. He shows the importance of function. If the aircraft fills an unneeded function or cannot fill it better than other candidates, disappointment follows.
Air Force Disappointments, Mistakes, and Failures is a fascinating book. While mainly of interest to those fascinated by aircraft, it is a marvelous examination of the engineering process.
“Air Force Disappointments, Mistakes, and Failures: 1940-1990,” by Kenneth P. Werrell, Texas A&M University Press. March, 2024, 312 pages, $55.00 (Hardcover)
This review was written by Mark Lardas, who writes at Ricochet as Seawriter. Mark Lardas, an engineer, freelance writer, historian, and model-maker, lives in League City, TX. His website is marklardas.com.
Published in History
You keep doing this to me
I gotta go to the beach just to read
And there I thought I was finished buying stuff this weekend…
The Air Force Museum is a must see.
National Museum of the USAF
The one remaining XB-70 is on display there (breathtaking!), along with too many great and historic aircraft to list.
The massive B-36 “peacemaker” looms over one of the galleries.
The 707 that carried JFKs body back to DC.
If I had to visit “one” air museum. it would be a tough choice between this and the Smithsonian and annex in DC … there is so much else to see in DC, but the Apollo 11 capsule and one of the Concordes is hard to pass up.
Been to both and both are excellent (I even visited the Smithsonian’s restoration facility in Suitland). If I may suggest one more? The Pima Air and Space Museum has nearly 400 aircraft on display. (I use it a lot in the “surviving aircraft” sections of my books. It does not have a B-70, but it does have a B-36 and no fewer than three B-52s (a B-52A, B-52D, and B-52G). For those of you west of the Mississippi, it might be more convenient.
I haven’t been there since they moved most of the planes they had outdoors into the new structures.
Really? Seems to me the F-111 was pretty valuable in the Gulf Wars.
Hmm, no, looking at the F-111 photos I’m clearly thinking of something else.
What was the side-by-side two-seater fighter/bomber that got a lot of use then?
As I recall it had a rather stubby nose, not long/sharp like the F-111.
I was thinking maybe FB-111 but searching for that just goes back to the F-111.
Does it seem to anyone else that beautiful aircraft tend to perform better than ugly aircraft. By ugly, I mean having odd proportions. Some aircraft such as the BUFF and the SLUF are called ugly, and some might think the A10 a little odd, but I don’t consider them to be in the same league with the P-75 or F-85 for ugly. Germany and the Brits had some monstrosities back in WWII.
The book go into the Air Force lack of a dedicated ground attack-infantry support aircraft in 1950-1960s?
Nope.
That was the fighter bomber version, not the air superiority version it was originally supposed to be. And it shown in the Raven (ECM) version. It was definitely a disappointment, just like the B-1A
Have not been to that one, however I gave been to A fun visit to the massive Tucson Airplane Graveyard, aka “The Boneyard” (over 3,000 planes!) | Arizona Journey
Very impressive.
A disappointment? A chart I found, while looking for the correct identification/photos, showed that the F-111s/FB-111s destroyed more Iraqi armor in the (First, I guess) Gulf War than the A-10s did.
I think the F-111’s got betetr
Well, let’s see. We develop an airplane intended to be an air superiority and ground attack airplane. One that can fly off carriers as well as operate off airfields. Improvised airfields, too, not developed ones.
When it finally enters production it cannot operate off of carriers or improvised runways – only highly developed airfields. It cannot serve as an air superiority fighter. But it turns out to be really good at tank plinking, but not much else.
I’d say that is a disappointment, especially when you contrast the cost of development and operation for the FB-111 to that of the A-10. Maybe not a failure, but certainly a disappointment.
In that sense, yes. But Fleming didn’t think he was discovering penicillin, either. Was that also a “disappointment?”
And as long as something was learned from it, that’s not so much a failure either.
I think you are just in a mood for an argument. I am not.
Two different applications.
That aside, the F111’s original mission was fast, low altitude penetration of Soviet air space to deliver nuclear weapons. The program was unwisely merged with a Navy requirement for fleet defense and in true Pentagon fashion additional requirements for recon etc were bolted on.
I had a post a few weeks ago about product launch failures in the civilian economy, and for all the differences, there are some similarities. Some mistakes are honorable: they were honest but optimistic mis-readings of what current technology was capable of. Other mistakes are, of course, just stupid. Some fall somewhere in between: not a crazy idea to explore in, say, 1966, but already half-obsolete as a finished solution in 1974. Inertia takes over.
Big projects, of course, create their own constituency, whether they’re the F-111, the space shuttle, or Littoral Combat Ships.
But it did seem to do pretty well in the Gulf. Although for the specific task the A-10 seems better yet.
I am reminded of my uncle Stan Smith, who was the lead engineer for Bell on the X-1 and a very droll man. He told me once, “If a prototype doesn’t break, it didn’t do its job.”
I’m also reminded of a story from Angle of Attack, the book about NAA and the Apollo program (c’mon, aging brain, remember the author’s name! The guy who wrote The China Syndrome.) When NAA was building the prototype Valkyrie, the NAA people called it “The Savior,” because every Air Force general who was shown the big beast stopped in his tracks and announced, “Jesus Christ!”
Thank you for a very cool review! I just emailed my friends at University Press Audiobooks to see if this title is on their radar; there’s a chance, since it was published in March. I would love to narrate it. Fingers crossed.
Good luck – an audio version would be interesting. It’s nearly 300 pages of dense text. On CD it would be 16 to 20 disks.
The Navy selected a new frigate design. To keep costs under control it is a current Italian design in production. The headline was “80% commonality with the original design”. Now, it’s 40% common and three years behind schedule.
Well, I’ve done books on Titan II and Minuteman that have been well received. From the sample I read on Amazon it looks like a very enjoyable book to read. I’ll probably buy one if I don’t get a chance to audition for it.
Yes, I take some exception to the cover, though I love the photo!
Perhaps the field of military aviation would be assisted and advanced if civilian (personal) aviation was allowed to innovate in meaningful ways.
Side by side two seat bomber that has a stubby nose sounds like a A-6 Intruder. Probably still in use in Gulf War 1 was eventually replaced by the F/A-18. It was the main attack aircraft of the US Navy from 1962-1997. Pretty impressive run, all things considered.
F-111 and F-14 were also the last two fighters before before Boyd’s theories really caught on for Aircraft design. As such both were going down a cul-de-sac in ACM. The Tomcat made up for it by having really accurate long range missiles, and eventually got the engine power it needed. F-111 was too big for that. Still not a terrible fighter bomber or Electronic warfare platform.
No definitely not the A-6. Didn’t have the body-side air intakes etc. Maybe the camera angles didn’t show the long nose that was apparently there, or something.
Agree. The XB-70 is my favorite plane and when I was stationed at Wright-Patt I’d stop by the research hangar about once a week to look at it. About twenty-five years ago I was able to have breakfast with Al White, the surviving pilot of the XB-70 crash.
Ah yes, the famed LCS’s which became know as the “Little Crappy Ships” and they lived up to their name; over and over…