Worst example of 'design by committee'?

[riggerrob]

What is the worst example of 'design by committee' where one designer had no clue about what his fellows were designing until all the different parts arrived at final assembly?

I nominate the Blackburn Roc naval, turret-fighter.
Its Townsend ring cowling looks terribly "1930s."
That circular fuselage might have looked good on the drawing-board, but it is poorly mated to other components.
A slab-sided fairing tries to smooth the wing root junction.
Why does the landing gear retract outboard? Were they stolen from a TBM Avenger? Why do they ruin the chances of installing guns in the wings??????
Was the tail wheel stolen from a Hawker Hurricane?
Where id they find that superbly ugly vertical windshield?
Which bomber is missing its mid-upper turret?
Are the turret fairings made from old shipping crates?
Were the tail surfaces stolen from a Vought F4U Corsair?

 

[Justo Miranda]

This is a horse designed by a committee

 

[Brett Davidson]

The Bristol Brabazon is usually given that honour. Not because it was a mashup - it's rather elegant in a Junoesque way - but because the committee completely misjudged the market.

Cancelled: Design by Committee

The Bristol Brabazon was big and it flew. Much more can’t be said.

www.airspacemag.com

 

[DWG]

The other definition of design by committee is everyone working together, but including everyone's ideas as they come up. From the other side of the requirements process we call that requirement creep, and there's no shortage of examples!

 

[Brett Davidson]

Hear me out... I'll suggest the B-2. Not because it's inadequate or ugly, but because late in the design process low-altitude capability was suddenly added to the requirements, greatly inflating costs. It's a great plane that's frustrating because it could have been even better - and more numerous. The B-21 should put that right, fingers crossed.

Another candidate is the Shuttle. The large payload bay was to meet USAF/NRO requirements, not the scientific or industrial brief of the original concept, and had knock-on effects for the whole concept. That, combined with a steady erosion of capabilities resulted in the chimera that flew... and then there's the lethal managerial shortcomings revealed post-Challenger.

EDIT: DWG sez 'requirement creep' Yep!

 

[Kdmoo]

Fisher P-75 Eagle gets my vote. What started out as a low cost solution using parts from many planes already in production, ended up as a money pit that could not outperform a P-51. There was so much constant input coming from all sides on this project. Take a look at the first XP-75 vs the last P-75A (#14) that rolled off the line. A world of difference.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Commitee of bombardiers

 

[aim9xray]

I understand from captured microfilms that the nose of one of the bombers was modified to add a fifth "tie-breaker" bombardier along the side in an asymmetric configuration. The secretive airframe was retroactivily designated by foreign intelligence services as the Deviated Septum.

 

[Apophenia]

Maybe this thread should be renamed? It doesn't seem to have much to do with design-by-committee.

Take the opening example: the Roc was a simple adaptation of the Skua. Both designs came from Blackburn's chief designer, George Petty. Most of the above-listed objectionable features came directly from that earlier design. And, of course, Petty didn't come up with the turret fighter concept - the Air Ministry held responsibility for Specification O.30/35.

Likewise, we can blame Don Berlin for the Fisher P-75. Sure, GM execs probably cheered on his cheaper approach to aircraft development. But what did these suits know about aircraft? Any design flaws rest at the feet of the otherwise-noted designer, late of Curtiss.

As noted, the Bristol Brabazon seems to fit best. But, even there, it was the requirement which came from a committee. The design came from 'Archie' Russell. But I guess Sir Archibald later made up for it with his work on another committee requirement - Concorde

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Eurofighter Typhoon?

Its a mashup of what the Germans wanted and what the British wanted and not entirely satisfying anyone, with allocated design and production responsibilities split for political reasons.

 

[Archibald]

Apollo Applications Program & wet workshop.
Webb to Mueller, 1966:
- you can create a post Apollo program
- using Apollo main blocks
But
- don't stand in Apollo 11's way
- you have few money
- you can't modify the building blocks too much ( too expensive)
- no lunar missions either (we have Apollos up to mission 20, thanks)
- no Saturn V either, only IBs.

End result: a bad Skylab forerunner launched in inefficient bits. Dragged on for three years. They ended screwing Apollos to give it a Saturn V and launch it single-piece: the irony.

 

[Justo Miranda]

What is the worst example of 'design by committee' where one designer had no clue about what his fellows were designing until all the different parts arrived at final assembly?

I nominate the Blackburn Roc naval, turret-fighter.
Its Townsend ring cowling looks terribly "1930s."
That circular fuselage might have looked good on the drawing-board, but it is poorly mated to other components.
A slab-sided fairing tries to smooth the wing root junction.
Why does the landing gear retract outboard? Were they stolen from a TBM Avenger? Why do they ruin the chances of installing guns in the wings??????
Was the tail wheel stolen from a Hawker Hurricane?
Where id they find that superbly ugly vertical windshield?
Which bomber is missing its mid-upper turret?
Are the turret fairings made from old shipping crates?
Were the tail surfaces stolen from a Vought F4U Corsair?

But the original design was considerably improved on the versatile seaplane prototype, L3057 (122 mph).

 

[Schneiderman]

The Bristol Brabazon is usually given that honour. Not because it was a mashup - it's rather elegant in a Junoesque way - but because the committee completely misjudged the market.

Cancelled: Design by Committee

The Bristol Brabazon was big and it flew. Much more can’t be said.

www.airspacemag.com

While the Brabazon Committeee defined the requirement, that is a multi-engine aircraft to fly direct from London to New York, the design of the aircraft itself is pure Bristol. They had pushed hard for this design regardless of reservations expressed by others, so no committee to blame.

 

[Hood]

Doesn't this topic belong in the aviation section or bar?

 

[fortrena]

In 1926, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) commissioned Canadian Vickers of Montréal, Québec, the only Canadian aircraft manufacturing firm worthy of the name at the time, to design an aircraft for photographic surveys – a Canadian first. This machine was to be a three-seater powered by two 185 hp British pusher engines able to fly with floats, skis or wheels.

The plans and wind tunnel model were barely completed when the responsible authorities decided to radically transform their requirements. A government committee in which mandarins from the cartographic service had a lot of influence drafted a new specification. Canadian Vickers had to restart from scratch, so to speak. Some components which had been manufactured even had to be scrapped.

Completed in October 1927, the Velos prototype now had an enclosed cabin and two 420 hp tractor engines whose power had been cut to 300 or so hp by reducing the size of the carburetor air intakes. This peculiar approach was due to the fact that Reid feared that the structure of the Velos was not strong enough to absorb the full power of its Pratt & Whitney Wasps.

Canadian Vickers informed the RCAF that the Velos would be launched on October 18th, 1927. An RCAF test pilot, Flight Lieutenant Roy Stanley “Bill” Grandy, and an officer from that service's aeronautical engineering division, Flight Lieutenant Alan Ferrier, arrived in Montréal the following day. They saw that the floats of the Velos were almost under water. Representatives of Canadian Vickers informed them that the Velos was about 40% heavier than expected. The two officers were stunned. Obviously, the scale used needed to be checked. This check did not reveal any faults, however. Worse still, the aircraft came close to sinking as a result a snowfall on the night of October 20th. Given the circumstances, Grandy refused to pilot the Velos. Five weeks later, in late November, Ferrier submitted a report outlining the aircraft's weight issues.

Seven months went by without available sources revealing exactly what went on at Canadian Vickers. That said, the manufacturer had to strengthen the structure of the seaplane, which appears to have added many pounds, which did not help one bit.

The Velos, which company employees nicknamed “the dead loss”, made its first flight on July 18th, 1928. In the opinion of Grandy , the Velos was a flying nightmare which could not be accepted by the RCAF. He found absolutely nothing good in it. Grandy stated in a message dated September 9th that he would continue testing the Velos only if ordered to do so.

That same month, the RCAF's aeronautical engineering division discovered that the wind tunnel model of the Velos differed significantly from the actual aircraft. The tail of the Velos seemed to be 3 feet shorter than it should have been for example. The RCAF informed Canadian Vickers of that fact and asked that the aircraft be modified to make it easier to fly.

Loaded by 10 inches of snow that fell during the night of November 30th, 1928, the Velos sank in the early morning of December 1st, while moored in the Canadian Vickers basin in Montréal. A crane lifted the floatplane out of the water the same day. The engines were recovered while everything else was scrapped.

Thus perished the worst aircraft ever designed and manufactured in Canada.

Canadian Vickers later reimbursed most of the money it had received for the project. That sum was used to purchase a few Vickers Vedette forest patrol flying boats, which were also manufactured by Canadian Vickers.

All in all, Wilfrid Thomas Reid was not really to blame. Designed by a committee, the Velos was a monster for which the chief aeronautical engineer of Canadian Vickers could barely conceal his contempt.

 

[Deleted member 2278]

The Bristol Brabazon is usually given that honour. Not because it was a mashup - it's rather elegant in a Junoesque way - but because the committee completely misjudged the market.

Yes, a market in a state of flux and advancement unprecedented since the dawn of the industrial age. How many aircraft of that era were overtaken by events? The Brabazon is hardly singular in this respect!

Time for the pigeons to take the fight to the cats. My nomination: F-35.

 

[jstar]

Vickers Velos,

 

[Deleted member 2278]

No, OK the Velos wins. Take it away before you upset the children!

 

[Archibald]

What a silly name... "veloce" means "fast" in French; it is also plural of "bike": "velos".
This thing is neither véloce nor a velo.
And it is insanely ugly.
"Hey, the phone booth is running away !"

 

[Trident]

Maybe this thread should be renamed? It doesn't seem to have much to do with design-by-committee.

I think you're being too literal in your interpretation there. Aircraft are rarely if ever truly designed by committee, but the spec frequently is. And the constraints on the engineers which flow from it can fatally damage the resulting solution.

Some suggestions that I think have not been mentioned yet: Nimrod MRA4, Il-76MD-90A (the new-builds, not the upgrades), A400M (the civilian certification requirement which caused Airbus so much trouble), TSR.2.

EDIT: Tu-144 & 737MAX could also be argued.

 

[iverson]

Engineering Division GA-X/GA-1, GA-2, or PG-1.

 

[DWG]

Eurofighter Typhoon?

Its a mashup of what the Germans wanted and what the British wanted and not entirely satisfying anyone, with allocated design and production responsibilities split for political reasons.

On that basis I'd call it the best example of design by committee, but I may be biased.

And arguably this is true of any aircraft ever. To quote Sir Sydney Camm "All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics."

 

[Apophenia]

Maybe this thread should be renamed? It doesn't seem to have much to do with design-by-committee.

I think you're being too literal in your interpretation there. Aircraft are rarely if ever truly designed by committee, but the spec frequently is. And the constraints on the engineers which flow from it can fatally damage the resulting solution.

Some suggestions that I think have not been mentioned yet: Nimrod MRA4, Il-76MD-90A (the new-builds, not the upgrades), A400M (the civilian certification requirement which caused Airbus so much trouble), TSR.2.

EDIT: Tu-144 & 737MAX could also be argued.

Perhaps. Nevertheless, thanks to Mods for moving this topic out of Early Aircraft Projects.

 

[TomcatViP]

Latecoere 521

Or...
Farman 222

Potez 631



Among many of the failed aircraft of late 1930's from France (most of them from that era should meet the criteria for this thread!)

 

[Justo Miranda]

Airacobra

 

[Justo Miranda]

Buffalo

 

[TomcatViP]

Given that those planes became legends on the eastern European theater, it would be hard to say they were the worst.

 

[Archibald]

Well @TomcatViP the BCR indeed was the proverbial committee. But you missed the proverbial "horse turned camel" from the BCR: the Potez 540.

Potez 540 — Wikipédia

fr.wikipedia.org

Now that was a true camel.

BCR: Bombardier, Chasseur, Reconnaissance (fighter and bomber and reconnaissance, into the same airframe)

Potez 540 essentially failed at all three levels. Try chasing anything with that; inefficient bomber; and way too slow and vulnerable for strategic reconnaissance. It ended doing tactical reconnaissance for the Army (like a freakkin' Piper Cub or L-19, with 1940 flak levels) or... transport.

Now the sickening irony is that, 30 years later in 1965 the Armée de l'Air finally got its BCR: the Mirage III C/E/R combined all three major roles into the same airframe with stellar success !

(EDIT after a quick check: the Mirage IIIR and IIIRD still had the DEFA guns and some radar... so they could straff ground targets and blast other aircraft... they were the BCR coming true !)

 

[LowObservable]

Stipulated: camels are useful in many harsh environments and racehorses are expensive, short-lived and of no practical use whatsoever.

In one sense, most aircraft are designed by committee: propulsion, aero, structures groups within the contractor, customers and regulators. There are a few that bear the stamp of a Johnson, Heinemann, Rutan, Mitchell or Camm.

But like any team, "committee-think" can creep in if influential members are thinking of their own community more than about the project, or when the need to meet schedule or cost (no bad thing in itself) leads to minimizing risk, or the effect of design changes on downstream work. Such as eliminating all the reserve hours from the flight test program, and pretending that your ModSim is so good that "testing is validation." (You know who you are.)

That said - I see the F/A-18 family as a good example of design by committee carried to excess. VFAX was originally foisted on the Navy by Congress, while industry promised that it could be done and that they would deliver ten pounds of multi-role strike and dogfighting in a five-pound bag. Navy traditionalists stepped in and insisted that a Navy house should prime it - possibly overlooking the fact that its aero design was very complex. Air defenders wouldn't give up MRAAMs. We ended up with handling issues and excess drag.

And then we went and did it again with the Super Bug, a cheap and cheerful gap-filler after the A-12/F-14D/A-6F debacle. More excess drag and handling problems.

Not that the Super Bug is a terrible airplane - but somehow I doubt that Lee Begin would even recognize it.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Well @TomcatViP the BCR indeed was the proverbial committee. But you missed the proverbial "horse turned camel" from the BCR: the Potez 540.

Potez 540 — Wikipédia

fr.wikipedia.org

Now that was a true camel.

BCR: Bombardier, Chasseur, Reconnaissance (fighter and bomber and reconnaissance, into the same airframe)

Potez 540 essentially failed at all three levels. Try chasing anything with that; inefficient bomber; and way too slow and vulnerable for strategic reconnaissance. It ended doing tactical reconnaissance for the Army (like a freakkin' Piper Cub or L-19, with 1940 flak levels) or... transport.

Now the sickening irony is that, 30 years later in 1965 the Armée de l'Air finally got its BCR: the Mirage III C/E/R combined all three major roles into the same airframe with stellar success !

(EDIT after a quick check: the Mirage IIIR and IIIRD still had the DEFA guns and some radar... so they could straff ground targets and blast other aircraft... they were the BCR coming true !)

Back to the drawing board

 

[Archibald]

It served with honours in the Spanish civil war, and... that was it. Well not so much honor nor efficiency (the engines were utter shit, as usual with Lorraine), - but André Malraux was at the controls, so that camel got its brief moment in the spotlight...

André Malraux - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[FighterJock]

What about the X-32 JSF prototype? To this day I do not know why they went with that horrible looking air intake is beyond me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32

 

[Sferrin]

This is a horse designed by a committee

An otter designed by committee:

 

[LowObservable]

What about the X-32 JSF prototype? To this day I do not know why they went with that horrible looking air intake is beyond me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32

The X-32 was less of a committee job than the X-35. It was intended as a much simpler solution to the need for an affordable multi-service fighter (before it was JAST or JSF) than the fan-lift concepts favored by DARPA, using a design concept that kept most of the STOVL-unique hardware isolated to one part of the airframe and that took full advantage of a thick-section, one-piece, non-folding delta wing. For a less demanding requirement (which could have been a good thing) it might have come close to working.

 

[nuuumannn]

That was rather amusing, Riggerrob, you could throw the Skua with which the Roc shared its airframe. It's worth stating that the Skua design predated all these aircraft you mention of course and so your point could only be made in hindsight, the Boulton Paul A.1 turret having been fitted to only the Defiant before the Roc, apart from a test model of the Overstrand, but point taken, the Skua/Roc does look like a tug-o-war between departments and the aerodynamics committee lost.

The problem with this airframe was the requirement behind it, the Air Ministry (not the Admiralty) was in charge of naval aircraft procurement and was concerned about modern designs, this was the very early 1930s, becoming too large for Britain's aircraft carriers, so a combination of roles in one airframe was proposed. The Skua was a fighter/dive bomber, two disparate roles crammed into one not very compatible airframe. The Roc came about as a two-seater interceptor for shooting down reconnaissance aircraft or long-range bombers seeking to attack British fleets at sea, as the navy reasoned that it would not have to tackle enemy fighters so far out to sea, so a requirement for typical fighter-like characteristics was not necessary.

Back in the mid-30s, the turret fighter idea was built around the absence of long-range fighter escorts; the Defiant was designed to attack enemy bombers flying from Germany, which meant there would be no single-seat escorts - no one counted on the Germans invading Western Europe again. The Daffy was to work in conjunction with the single-seaters though, diving through the bomber formations and the stragglers being picked off by the Spits and Hurris, or so the theory went.

As for the Roc, it was, as predicted a dreadful aeroplane, but the theory was sound to a point, even if in practice the resulting aeroplane was too slow and too heavy and operationally a non-starter. The saga of the FAA's attempts at getting decent fighters in the run-up and into WW2 is an interesting one and is not what most people think...

 

[nuuumannn]

The TSR.2, which was indeed designed by a committee...