Hell, make your own list.
Got hed right this time.
Also reported this thread for move to IMHO.
How (or maybe why) the hell did they build over 2,000 of those things?
The A-5 Vigilante was designed to deliver a nuclear bomb through what was termed a “linear bomb bay”, where the bomb was attached to two fuel tanks in a configuration known as a “stores train”, ejecting out the back between the engines.
The problem? The bomb would get caught in the slipstream and chase the plane, thus ensuring that it would miss the target by a substantial distance.
As a result, it never carried a live weapon. As a bomber it was a colossal failure. Fortunately for all involved, it turned into a quite excellent reconnaissance aircraft and its attack role was abandoned. Still, its failed legacy as a bomber followed it for its entire career as it was forever designated the RA-5, a re-purposed attack plane that couldn’t attack anything.
Few days ago I had some burritos…
The Tarrant Tabor was incapable of taking off. The upper engines caused it to nose over when full power was applied.
The Barling Bomber was so slow and low-flying that it would have made a great target for anyone on the ground with a rifle. That would have been a problem for the WW1 operations it was intended for, because with a range of only 170 miles, a mission to Berlin and back would have meant refueling behind enemy lines - twice.
Are we restricted to things that were actually built? The SLAM (facetiously said to stand for “slow, low, and messy”) would have done more damage to enemy territory via the fallout from its nuclear engine than from the actual bombs it would deliver.
I was thinking the Fairy Battle, too. Another contendor would be the Vought Vindicator, nicknamed the “Wind Indicator” by unhappy crews. It wasn’t a bad plane, but was obsolete by 1942.
Huh. A civilian airliner version of this appeared in White Dwarf magazine in the 1980s as a location for, IIRC, a Call of Cthulhu adventure. I have never heard of it before or since.
The poor Battle should never have been used in anything other than clear skies - and even then it was horribly slow, vulnerable and deficient in bomb load. But in 1940 I guess it was go with what you had or go without. The Westland Lysander was originally meant as a ground-attack aircraft too. :smack:
The Battle wasn’t all that bad an aeroplane for the time it was designed and built. It got a bad rep because it had become inferior to the defenses it met, by the time it saw action, not because it was inherently bad. Same story for the Brewster Buffalo at Midway in the fighter thread.
I thought the Vindicator nickname was Vibrator.
The Messerschmitt Me 262. It was a pretty good fighter. But Hitler insisted it be redesigned to also carry bombs, a mission for which it was completely unsuited.
“No one was hurt except for the bomber”. There is Karma there in spades! 
I thought this was about people who were bombers.
Tim Mcveigh came to mind.
You may be thinking of the Vultee BT-13 (known in the US Navy as the SNV). I recall reading a book written by a man who had gone through USN flight training during WWII, and in his opinion the “Vultee Vibrator” was easily the worst aircraft he was exposed to. Along with most everybody in his squadron, he would have much preferred to stay with the Stearman N2S (the famous “Yellow Peril”).
Nah, McVeigh was actually competent. The absolute worst bombers’ bombs fail to detonate, or (as posted above) end up killing no one except themselves.
Edited to say: psychonaut beat me to it!!! But it’s my favorite.
How about Suicide Bomb Instructor Accidentally Kills Iraqi Pupils.