For years the United States Navy has been known as one of the top naval aviation organisations in the world; they have operated aircraft that made aviation history, and implemented technology that brought aviation into the future. From devastating fighters, to cutting edge recon platforms, the U.S. Navy has manufactured aircraft that gained renown in combat, and as marvels of aviation engineering. Even having to operate aircraft that are launched from a flight deck, the Navy’s aircraft can only inspire the aviation inspired engineer, the flight loving enthusiast, and anyone fascinated with aviation, but not even a well-regarded operation can avoid failures.

One of the trickiest feats in aeronautical engineering is the task of developing aircraft for carrier operations. Whether the vehicle is intended for attack, search and rescue, or reconnaissance, the designer has to consider all factors of the environment in which the aircraft will operate: short take-off runs, hard landings, shifting weather, minimal deck area, and continuous salt water corrosion. A design that looks good in the development stages could quickly find itself wanting in combat service. Several aircraft in Navy history have fallen prey to their engines, their structure, their handling qualities, or the underlying premise on which they were conceived, but even the failed designs had lessons to teach.

Here’s a look at ten US Navy aircraft that developed a reputation more for their troubles than for any great deeds. These machines had too much their technology hadn’t caught up yet, were hurried into service before ready, or were simply set up to fail from the start. While most were painful failures, their experiences provide important lessons for future military aviators, a useful reminder that invention can take many paths, not all of them happy.

1. A-5B Vigilante

Uniquely configured A-5 Vigilante is one of naval aviation’s more exotic machines. Built for speed, with sleek lines and state-of-the-art systems it looked like one of the more capable military aircraft of its time. It bristled with unique innovations: it was the Navy’s first all-moving tailplane, fly-by-wire, and had an auxiliary flow boundary layer control system to enhance lift at low speed during carrier operations. On paper the A-5 seemed capable of revolutionizing Navy long range strike.

Why the A-5B Vigilante Was Unique:

• Advanced fly-by-wire controls
• High-speed performance
• Innovative carrier technology
• Complex nuclear strike design
• Successful reconnaissance conversion

However, innovative technology was not enough to make the Vigilante effective at its intended mission. Instead of a bomb bay, the nuclear weapon was loaded between the twin engines and released out of the rear after the separable fuel tanks had dropped away. This novel, but problematic, system, often failed due to being sucked back into the wake, which degraded accuracy, thus preventing the Vigilante from carrying out its intended mission.

With all these weaknesses in mind, the US Navy moved the plane to reconnaissance role where it performed very well as the RA-5C in the Vietnam War, delivering very useful post-strike intelligence and serving as the best carrier-based reconnaissance plane of its time. But with all this it continued to be an expensive bird to operate, Mechanically complex and it took up precious room on aircraft carrier flight decks. Though in the end it would do a useful job in another role the failure as a nuclear bomber helped give the Vigilante status as the most difficult of navy planes.

2. McDonnell F3H Demon

The F3H Demon was conceived during a period of explosive growth in jet technology. Although it started as a secondary jet fighter programme, this was elevated following the appearance of the Soviet MiG-15 during the Korean conflict. Because the aircraft was hurried into service, numerous critical engineering and design deficiencies could not be rectified. This resulted in a number of initial production examples being subject to catastrophic reliability problems even before they entered service squadrons.

Why the F3H Demon Struggled:

• Unreliable J40 turbojet engine
• Frequent compressor stall problems
• Poor power-to-weight ratio
• High accident rate
• Eventually replaced by the F-4 Phantom II

The vast majority of the Demon’s difficulties involved its Westinghouse J40 turbojet engine. The engine had never delivered the expected amount of thrust, and was plagued by severe and hazardous compressor stalls, which hampered performance as well as posing a significant safety risk and was the cause of many crash landings and pilot loss. On one memorable occasion an abandoned Demon flew under its own power for over an hour after its pilot ejected.

Engineers replaced the initial power unit with the Allison J71 and added a number of other features to enhance the design. While it boosted performance, it was still less powerful than hoped of a modern carrier fighter and still unreliable. Eventually it was called “Lead Sled” by pilots due to the disappointing performance against weight ratio, and its time as a carrier operational aircraft was ended by the arrival of the McDonnell F-4 Phantom II, which proved so much more capable.

3. Ryan Fireball

Developed in the last stages of the second world war, this experimental aircraft was conceived as an innovative transition from piston-engine bombers and fighters into the world of jet fighters. To do so, U.S. Navy produced an original and hybrid configuration that would be powered by a normal piston engine for takeoff and landing, and by a rear-positioned turbojet to supply increased speed during flight. An original concept, but which immediately brought many difficulties in its development.

Why the Ryan Fireball Fell Short:

• Hybrid piston-and-jet propulsion
• Serious structural weaknesses
• Poor flight stability
• Landing gear failures
• Short operational service life

Test flying rapidly uncovered serious issues, however. Structural engineers soon determined the need for significant tail redesigns because the aircraft had poor longitudinal stability. Structural problems also mounted as engineers furthered development, with all of the first three prototypes ultimately succumbing to structural failures in the airframe. Test flying on a carrier fleet revealed still more problems when, over and over, the nose landing gear collapsed under hard carrier landings.

Engineers also beefed up the landing gear and modified other aspects, but the Fireball was still beset by design flaws. The danger of wing failure during intense aerial combat led to operational restrictions. Luckily, a long combat tour wasn’t in the cards for the Pacific War concluded before the Fireball ever flew a combat sortie. After only a short tenure in the fleet, the Fireball was dropped from active duty in 1947 a cautionary tale of daring technological experimentation going a long way to nowhere.

4. McDonnell FH Phantom

As the U.S. Navy’s first true jet fighter it should rightly have a place in history, but this aircraft represents the problem of moving rapidly with then new jet engine technology, only to see it make your machine obsolete very soon afterwards. This was America’s first truly all jet fighter to join the US Navy, and indeed the McDonnell FH Phantom represented for Navy pilots the beginning of operating an all jet aircraft from an aircraft carrier. Two Westinghouse J30 turbojet engines were built into the wing roots and though progress was slow (delays in the engine development were experienced, even though the prototype flew with just one engine while engineers awaited development of a second one), it did at last begin to set new standards.

Why the McDonnell FH Phantom Was Limited:

• First operational Navy jet fighter
• Delayed engine development
• Limited combat capability
• No bomb-carrying ability
• Mainly used for pilot training

Once introduced into service, the Phantom was briefly the fastest plane in the Navy inventory. This title however masked what had proved to be only marginal performance improvement over existing piston-powered fighter aircraft from aircraft carriers. Newer jet aircraft quickly outclassed its speed and rate of climb, and its lack of any bombing capability confined its mission to almost purely air to air operations and restricted its versatility.

The Phantom was less a front line fighter in the long term and more a trainer for the Navy as it transitioned into the jet age. Relatively few were produced and most had their careers devoted to getting pilots acquainted with advanced jet fighters. By 1949, the survivors were transitioned to the U.S. Navy Reserve and were retired just a few years later. In spite of its importance as the first Navy jet, due to the limited effectiveness of combat the FH Phantom remained one of the more less successful of the early naval jet fighters.

5. Curtiss SB2C Helldiver

The Curtiss SB2C Helldiver was intended as the successor to the enormously popular Douglas SBD Dauntless, a dive bomber with already impressive combat credentials by the time of World War II. Hopes were accordingly very high for it to build on its predecessor’s achievements and further advance its performance, but designers faced considerable problems balancing a compact design suitable for carrier operation with these performance enhancements, leading to many design compromises that followed the plane through its service career.

Why the SB2C Helldiver Struggled:

• Difficult carrier-based handling
• Unstable flight characteristics
• Structural design weaknesses
• Increased aircraft weight
• Unpopular among many pilots

One of the most troublesome areas of the Helldiver was its sluggish and unstable handling qualities. The short fuselage contributed to an imbalance in airframe structure, and a prototype crashed during dive tests because its entire fuselage structure buckled. To give its airframe extra rigidity had made it so much heavier that the engine had been unable to give up its projected performance, so that the pilot ended with an aircraft that was all too heavy and unresponsive and so unwieldy that the name “Son of a Bitch Second Class” came into common usage among naval aviators.

The reputation of the aircraft also spread across the United States, the Royal Navy, after assessing the Helldiver, deemed the flying characteristics unsuitable for handling on a ship, even with its pilots’ familiarity operating aircraft that placed demands on carrier flight characteristics, like the Corsair and the Seafire. Following small trials British authorities decided against adopting the type. The Helldiver finally saw some combat service and was to replace the Dauntless in several US Navy squadrons; its problem-ridden developmental history and difficult flying qualities would mark it as the one of the more troublesome US Navy combat types to serve during the war.

6. Vought F6U-1 Pirate

Not one of the shining successes for a company responsible for some of the U.S. Navy’s finest aircraft, the Vought F6U-1 Pirate was Vought’s first attempt at a jet-powered fighter. The straight-winged Pirate was revolutionary in some aspects of construction using composite panels of aluminium skins glued to a balsa core, but even some radical thinking could not save the F6U-1 Pirate from having crippling design flaws.

Why the Vought F6U-1 Pirate Failed:

• Underpowered turbojet engine
• Poor acceleration performance
• Weak climb capability
• Failed combat evaluations
• Limited operational service

The Pirate used a Westinghouse J34 turbojet, which was never able to generate enough thrust for useful carrier operation, and even after an afterburner was retrofitted the plane still lagged far behind required standards in terms of acceleration and climb rate. Squadron VX-3 conducted numerous trials of the plane, which was found lacking in terms of all-around capabilities for service as a fleet defense fighter, thus sealing the fate of the project.

So few were ever built before the programme was cancelled, instead of being with fighter squadrons the aircraft were allocated to development, with pilots being trained or the carrier arresting-system being evaluated. A few had only a couple of flying hours when they were placed in reserve since the Navy thought that they had little useful to do as they were too underpowered to perform any useful role anyway. Despite incorporating some innovative design features, the underpowered and poor performing Pirate was to go down as one of the least successful jet fighters ever developed for the US Navy.

7. Vought F7U Cutlass

The F7U Cutlass is arguably one of the most striking aircraft that has ever been part of the US Navy’s fleet. Its sharp, swept wing tailless shape, that look decades beyond their time gave it a futuristic appeal. Designers wanted a game changing carrier fighter and hoped to use these attributes to give it an edge for decades to come. Under the pretty skin of the F7U Cutlass though lay more technical headaches than solved engineering issues.

Why the Vought F7U Cutlass Was Problematic:

• Underpowered twin turbojet engines
• Frequent hydraulic system failures
• Dangerous carrier landings
• Nose landing gear collapses
• Exceptionally high accident rate

The problem was the aircraft’s paired Westinghouse turbojet engines didn’t deliver adequate power. Thus, the F7U Cutlass suffered from sluggish acceleration and dismal climb capabilities. Its flying handling, though, wasn’t exactly stellar either. The aircraft’s frequent hydraulic problems also meant that it could be momentarily impossible to pilot, something extremely dangerous, not only when airborne but even during carrier launch-and-landing.

One of the hardest F7U Cutlass duties was landing aboard carriers. The F7U had an exceptionally long nose landing gear which tended to fail at touchdown, in some cases penetrating the cockpit floor and inadvertently setting off the ejection seat! Coupled with a very high attitude at touchdown which meant pilots had limited visibility of the flight deck until almost the very last second, the high accident rate of well over one quarter of all F7U Cutlasses was lost, along with a number of pilots, is the lasting legacy of what is still arguably the most dangerous jet fighter the US Navy has ever operated.

8. Douglas TBD Devastator

When first flying in the mid 1930s, the Douglas TBD Devastator was revolutionary. As the Navy’s first all-metal, monoplane torpedo bomber with an enclosed cockpit, hydraulically folding wings, and a multitude of other firsts in military aircraft, the Devastator represented the shift of carrier aviation into the next generation. It looked ready to serve, no doubt.

Why the Douglas TBD Devastator Became Obsolete:

• Outdated wartime performance
• Unreliable Mark 13 torpedo
• Slow, vulnerable attack runs
• Heavy Battle of Midway losses
• Replaced by the TBF Avenger

With the pace of aircraft development in the years after its design, the Devastator’s contemporary appearance began to look quite dated by the time America joined the war. By 1941 quicker enemy fighter planes, more potent anti-aircraft fire, and more effective aircraft had begun to highlight the Devastator’s shortcomings. Its most significant shortcoming, the troublesome Mark 13 torpedo that necessitated the slow, low, and predictable attacks that enemy ground fire was likely to intercept.

The weaknesses of the Devastator were nowhere better highlighted than at the Battle of Midway, where all of the 41 Devastators sent to attack the Japanese fleet were lost and not one secured a guaranteed torpedo hit on a Japanese vessel. While the faulty Mark 13 torpedo certainly bears some responsibility, it was the relatively slow speed and inadequate defensive qualities of the Devastator that proved catastrophic for so many. Shortly after Midway, the Devastator was retired by the U.S. Navy, and was soon replaced by the vastly superior Grumman TBF Avenger. Revolutionary in the late 1930s, the TBD Devastator quickly demonstrated how quickly an era in military aviation could move on.

9. Brewster F2A Buffalo

For its time, the U.S. Navy’s first successful monoplane, the Brewster F2A Buffalo, represented a revolutionary leap forward in the fleet’s aviation branch. In its earliest iterations, the airframe was lighter than biplanes, with the handling of an acrobatic aircraft, so this promising design appeared well-suited to succeed veteran aircraft while defending a growing naval presence with cutting edge aircraft.

Why the Brewster F2A Buffalo Fell Behind:

• Added weight reduced performance
• Underpowered upgraded variants
• Landing gear reliability issues
• Production and manufacturing delays
• Outclassed by newer fighters

As combat needs shifted, the Buffalo’s protection was strengthened with added armour plating, heavier calibre machine-guns and self-sealing fuel tanks in a bid to protect the pilot. However these modifications increased the airframe’s weight far in excess of its engine’s capacity. As such the aircraft became significantly slower and less agile, and increasingly obsolete in the face of new enemy fighters. The poor landing gear also struggled to support the increased load, and crashes on take off and landing were commonplace.

Production issues with the Brewster Aeronautical Corporation only further set the program back, and the subsequent delays antagonized the Navy and undermined the firm’s creditability. When the Buffalo arrived in the fleet it was obsolete and could not keep up with nimble foes like the Japanese A6M “Zero”, and it’s poor showing during the Battle of Midway served to illustrate how the design was on it’s last legs and soon be retired in favor of the F4F Wildcat, but despite having had a good impact with the introduction of modern monoplane fighter the airplane’s overall shortcomings began to overshadow its good aspects.

10. Curtiss SO3C Seamew

The Curtiss SO3C Seamew how an uncomplicated reconnaissance seaplane made for a technological train wreck intended as a successor to the fine Curtiss SOC Seagull, the Seamew was supposed to be everything. The Seagull was and more or rather, everything the Seagull was and less. But the proposed upgrade didn’t improve anything it actually created many of problems.

Why the Curtiss SO3C Seamew Failed:

• Serious stability problems
• Unreliable engine performance
• Overheating issues
• Poor operational effectiveness
• Replaced by an older aircraft

The other of Seamew’s major issues was the radical Ranger V-770 inverted V-12 engine. The concept of the engine was novel but the implementation resulted in a lack of reliability and poor cooling that hindered aircraft performance. The aircraft was plagued by stability problems which caused difficulty in pilot control especially during strenuous operations on a naval air station.

So serious did Seamew’s flaws become that the U.S. Navy, at some point, retired the plane altogether and went back to the previous Curtiss SOC Seagull, a rare decision to replace one aging type with an older if reliable machine. While SO3C Seamew embodied some progressive ideas, it ultimately failed in its expected role because of unreliable systems and mediocre results. The SO3C Seamew is one of the Navy’s forgotten aircraft. Sometimes, revolutionary ideas need the support of predictable outcomes.