# WWII's ugliest fighter (of these options)



## Oreo (Jul 18, 2012)

Ok, I probably won't remember them all, and I may omit a few on purpose that I think a majority of people would not call ugly.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 18, 2012)

I went over the list twice, couldn't find any I consider as ugly. Till I remembered what the Skua looked like.

Probably generations of Skuas made sure every dump they took, was over a Royal Navy ship, in retaliation for having that aircraft carry their name.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 20, 2012)

Ok, so vote for it!


----------



## futuredogfight (Jul 20, 2012)

I hate that stubby ugly I-16!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## meatloaf109 (Jul 20, 2012)

Naw, that Buffalo.. now there was an ugly craft. If you wanted goofy looking, then the P-35 is your winner!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 21, 2012)

The Bloch 150 series just look like they were designed to win a fight by sheer force of ugliness.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2012)

Voted for the Fiat G. 50 with the way the engine is "stuck" on it looks like something from Junk yard wars.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Oreo (Jul 22, 2012)

futuredogfight said:


> I hate that stubby ugly I-16!


Considering where you live, I can appreciate that! I also consider it to be one of the uglier ones. Now that Hawk 75 on your signature, that is a beauty.


----------



## futuredogfight (Jul 24, 2012)

Thank you!


----------



## ccheese (Jul 27, 2012)

The Blackburn Skua got my vote. It was ugly, but it had a lot of firsts. First to sink a German warship (Koninsberg), first to shoot down a German plane (a seaplane).

Charles

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ccheese (Jul 27, 2012)

The Blackburn Skua got my vote. It was ugly, but it had a lot of firsts. First to sink a German warship (Konigsberg), first to shoot down a German plane (a seaplane).

Charles


----------



## parsifal (Jul 27, 2012)

Me 163....if ever an aircraft just looked wrong.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thorlifter (Jul 27, 2012)

Since the Roc didn't make the list, had to vote for the Skua. Pretty much anything Blackburn made during WWII was ugly as hell, IMO.

The Roc, the Skua, the Firebrand, and the B-20 just to name a few.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 27, 2012)

I rather like the Firebrand, it has a certain "air" about it. Like a 12lb hammer.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 28, 2012)

ah yes, when all else fails, the faithful 12 pounder.....


----------



## ShVAK (Oct 7, 2012)

"Ugly fighter" to me is an oxymoron. 

Though most of the French fighters weren't very attractive.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2012)

ShVAK said:


> Though most of the French fighters weren't very attractive.



The bombers were even uglier.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 8, 2012)

With a capital F for ugly!


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 8, 2012)

The IAR 80 just doesn't look right. More like a '30s race plane than a fighter. A lot of U.S. XP aircraft that were designed and flown before the war would also get my vote.

Geo


----------



## Jack_Hill (Oct 8, 2012)

Arf !
Please be honest Shvak and Adler, D520 was pleasant. Others French planes were, hummm, between awfull and very ugly (yes, especialy bombers).
Was not far from voting Ms406 before seeing my real nightmare on the list : the Skua.
Voted Skua.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 8, 2012)

Jack_Hill said:


> Arf !
> Please be honest Shvak and Adler, D520 was pleasant. Others French planes were, hummm, between awfull and very ugly (yes, especialy bombers).



Eye of the beholder my friend. The D520 was a good attempt at looking good, but I don't think they succeeded. 

Looks however are not what is most important in a combat aircraft...


----------



## Jack_Hill (Oct 9, 2012)

No, i was fair my friend.
I don't really care where an aircraft come from to love her or not.
For D520, i did not said "beautifull", just
pleasant. Moreover, knowing it plagued with so many issues... , not a plane I "love".
Oh yes, the beauty of a plane is not all, i can even love planes i don't aestheticaly really fancy (Hurricane, He 162, F4U, Bf 109E or P 47 for exemple)
Performances and perfect role fitting is more important.
But the thread was about uglyness, so i talked about uglyness.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 9, 2012)

Woof!
I still think the Buffalo was well named.
If you want pure ugly, go no further than the Skua.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 9, 2012)

Heck, I honestly don't think there is an ugly one in the lot.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2012)

Jack_Hill said:


> No, i was fair my friend.
> I don't really care where an aircraft come from to love her or not.



1. I don't care where a plane comes from either. That does not determine what I think about it. I am unbiased when it comes to nationality.

2. You think the D.520 looked "pleasant', I don't think so. I don't like how the nose looks, or how the tail fits. What you like is your opinion, what I like is my opinion. An opinion is all it is.

3. Just because your opinion is that it is pleasant", does not mean mine has to be. If we all had the same opinion, life would be pretty boring.


----------



## Jack_Hill (Oct 10, 2012)

I'm not trying to sell you a D520 my friend !
Neither I have the pretention trying to restrict any single part of your freedom of speach.
First, it's not my kind of thinking, second, i'm not stupid enough to think I could.
D520 is an aircraft I don't care a bag of beans for.
But she's pleasant to me.
Lovely tail.
Nose is not ok at all for sure. 
If you don't love her, don't. It's your right and it's ok.
It's your opinion and I respect it.
There is so many wonderfull a/c on earth to speak about, i'm sure someday, we will agree about one .


----------



## davebender (Oct 10, 2012)

I don't understand that vote. 

The Me-163 was a poor fighter aircraft but it looked pretty. Same goes for the P-39.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 12, 2012)

Well it does look like an egg with wings. When I was a kid I couldn't help but laugh at the small propeller on its nose.

But now that I'm old I think it looks decent. Like a stubby piranha, sort of.


----------



## aircro (Oct 16, 2012)

Here is my list of unatractive:
M.S.406, F. Firefly, Defiant , Re.2000 (but not the rest of Reggiane fighters, don't know why) and Ki-27 looks too ordinary.
In my opinion Skua doesn't belong in this list - it is purposely built dive bomber(Roc is fighter but is more weird looking than unatractive), if you count it than don't forget Do 217J/N-1 (N-2 is sleaker without back and belly turrets).












Maybe is some prototypes or prewar fighter is ugly but I can't say that for planes from that time.

Here is something ugly(not fighters but ...)









This one is more funny looking than ugly


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 16, 2012)

Wait, two people voted for the F4U and the F6F? REALLY? They are nowhere in the ballpark of some of these wolfhounds.

Ah well, makes no sense to me but to each his own, I guess.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 16, 2012)

Huh, I think the Do 217 is quite decent looking, _especially_ the ones with stepped cockpit (since it's "exotic" for a German bomber). All the antenna... well it's a nf, so they have to be somewhere. Defiant, also not ugly imo, just unusual, due only to the turret.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 16, 2012)

Don't know any ugly ww2 aircraft. I actually love the French bombers and the Skua and my favorite the Buffalo. I also love the D.520, think it's a nice little plane. Some are prettier than others, but ugly?


----------



## aircro (Oct 18, 2012)

riacrato said:


> Huh, I think the Do 217 is quite decent looking, _especially_ the ones with stepped cockpit (since it's "exotic" for a German bomber). All the antenna... well it's a nf, so they have to be somewhere. Defiant, also not ugly imo, just unusual, due only to the turret.


As I said unatractive not ugly but for Defiant I was a bit subjetiv, never mind,for me Roc(Skua with turret) is more attractive looking









than Defiant









And about Do 217 I mention fighter not bomber versions, N-1, as J versions have weird shape nose





but N-2 with covered turrets looks much better


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Oct 19, 2012)

I'm surprised this one didn't make it.


----------



## davebender (Oct 19, 2012)

Not a fighter aircraft. It competed against the Fw-189 for the army liason / recon role.

However I agree it was rather ugly.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 20, 2012)

Still holding out for the Fiat G 50






Makes a Buffalo look _Streamlined_


----------



## R Pope (Oct 22, 2012)

Ugly is as ugly does. Any machine that does the job as well as or better than its contemporaries should be the standard by which others are judged. Many thought swept wings were ugly when they first caught on!


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2012)

Skua - long disjointed fuselage with square boxy windows and a windshield that looks far too upright (although this was for practical purposes), wings with raised tips like they've been pranged and an engine nacelle that looks far too small. Not to mention a fin that looks like its too far forward and undercarriage that looks like its bent backwards!

As for the Roc - as stated above, ugly is as ugly does, a useless fighter if ever there was one. Too heavy, too slow, unmanoeuvrable; a waste of a very well designed gun turret.


----------



## stug3 (Oct 23, 2012)

The main reason I became interested in WW2 history in general was because I thought all of these planes were so cool lookin when I was a kid. I still do.


----------



## Elmas (Oct 26, 2012)

Among the Italian planes. Breda BA 65






But, in some other Air Forces, there were some even uglier.....


----------



## vinnye (Oct 28, 2012)

I would have voted for the Buffalo, but went for the Me 163 since it was not there.


----------



## zoomar (Nov 7, 2012)

I had a hard time choosing between the Rogyzarski, G-50, and the Skua, but finally went with the Skua. It's just plain all-round ugliness slightly outweighed the slab-sided and clunky Italian and Yugoslavian jobs. The Rog., in particular , looks like a bad drawing of a Hurricane by someone who doesn't know what an airplane should look like.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 8, 2012)

Funny, but despite its rather poor service record, I kinda like the look of the Breda


I dont have a firm favourte aircraft that I think is the most ugly, but Im thinking the short stumpy ones, or the asymmetrical types perhaps


----------



## Readie (Nov 8, 2012)

Hello again,
I have looked through the thread posts and reckon each airplane has its good points...if you look hard enough lol.
Cheers
John


----------



## parsifal (Nov 8, 2012)

Hi john. nice to hear from you mate.


----------



## Aozora (Dec 24, 2012)

Slightly OT - coming at the question from another direction there were some aircraft that were almost too attractive to be weapons of war; I mean ter say these were the _____ (fill in a name) of the fighter breed...not in order of merit

Whirlwind
Macchi 202/205
Re 2005
Spitfire
262
Ki 43 84

Some look as though they mean business, ugly without being too ugly:
Beaufighter
Typhoon/Tempest
Fw190/Ta 152
Boomerang
VL Myrsky 
Firefly

Somewhere between mean business and truly ug-ly:
He 219
P-61

the Skua was in a league of its own


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 24, 2012)

He 219, Ugly?


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 24, 2012)

in all honesty, not all French bombers were ugly...they had a couple twin jobs that were not bad looking at all...matter of fact, the LeO 451 was a really good looking machine.

I see the YaKs up there in the list...all but the YaK-9 were plain ugly and as far as the Rogozarski goes, I am assuming this is in reference to the IK-3 fighter, because the P-100 was a good looking aircraft.

My vote will go for the Skua simply because anything that Blackburn made, looked goofy as hell...


----------



## Aozora (Dec 24, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> He 219, Ugly?



A better description would be mean and functional, with a touch of elegence, like some birds of prey, or a praying mantis.


----------



## stona (Dec 24, 2012)

Aozora said:


> the Skua was in a league of its own



I agree. If it was a dog you'd tie the lead to it's tail and drag it around backwards!

Steve


----------



## Catch22 (Dec 25, 2012)

Skua for sure on my end. F4U?!  One I really don't get though is the Whirlwind. Gorgeous.


----------



## hedge hopper (Dec 26, 2012)

None of these warbirds were actually built for beauty, but in my opinion the Spitfire has got to be the best looking fighter of all time, from any angle!! The worst, again in my opinion has got to be the Stuka!! Most Italian, Russian, Japanese and French fighters were just doing a job. The P-51D is my second favorite looking aircraft. The Focke Wulfe 190 comes third. The Mosquito was also a fighter of sorts, though obviously twin-engined, but by far the very best looking aircraft of it's type throughout the war.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 31, 2012)

Stuka is no fighter. And while not exactly pretty, I think it looks mean.


----------



## AirWolf (Jan 1, 2013)

I'm with riacrato the stuka isn't the most beautiful aircraft but it isn't the ugliest either if you want real ugliness then you have to look at the Supermarine Type 224


----------



## stug3 (Jan 1, 2013)

I think the Stuka has the most menacing look of any AC Ive seen. Another one would be the A-10 Warthog.


----------



## AirWolf (Jan 1, 2013)

Exactly its just like that, stug3


----------



## Jack_Hill (Jan 1, 2013)

Especialy when fitted with twin 3,7cm gunpods !


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 1, 2013)

Problem here is it's all a matter of personal taste. What some people consider fugly, others consider "purposeful" or "quirky". The Skua has been lambasted for its looks and yet I have a soft spot for that beast. It's no Spitfire in the looks department but it did its job well and was responsible for some remarkable firsts. The problem, for me, is that I'm a sad git who finds all aircraft fascinating (ok, maybe I draw the line at drooling over standard, medium-haul modern airliners...can't find too much to get excited about there!) and I love the voyage of discovery that helps me learn more about what the aircraft did, the men who flew it and the technology that it embodied. Like I said...I'm a sad git. There's no hope for me!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2013)

Besides the fact that the Stuka was not a fighter, I find it actually very nice looking. Probably because I prefer the more menacing look. That is why I find the Bf 109 so beautiful. It looks like a warbird. It looks like it was meant to kill, especially when looked at from the front and especially on the later models.


----------



## Jack_Hill (Jan 1, 2013)

I told you once upon Adler : soon we will agree about (at least) one aicraft, remember.
DONE !
Really appreciated your nice anthem to late 109's.
Again, another a/c ?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 1, 2013)

stug3 said:


> I think the Stuka has the most menacing look of any AC Ive seen. Another one would be the A-10 Warthog.


The Stuka certainly looks like a dangerous machine and there's no surprise that the greatest of all Stuka pilots was an advisor on the A-10 Thunderbolt II's development


----------



## Aozora (Jan 1, 2013)

Sticking with fighters, the P-61 has to be one of the meanest looking bruisers of WW2 - all it needed was tattoos and shaved head


----------



## AirWolf (Jan 1, 2013)

For me it only looks mean because its big, not much more then that


----------



## pattle (Jul 23, 2013)

P51 especially the razor back models? I like the razor back models much more than the bubble canopy models and the same goes for the Spitfire but oddly enough I prefer the P47 with a bubble canopy. I think the Me109F to be the least ugly Me109, while I think the Me109g to be the most ugly but they are included as the same choice. It is just personal taste though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2013)

I understand personal taste and all, but yhe P-51 and Bf 109? Ugly? No way...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 23, 2013)

Skua, mostly because it was, well, ugly. It did do some good things, so its heart was in the right place.


----------



## stug3 (Jul 24, 2013)

pattle said:


> P51 especially the razor back models? I like the razor back models much more than the bubble canopy models and the same goes for the Spitfire but oddly enough I prefer the P47 with a bubble canopy. I think the Me109F to be the least ugly Me109, while I think the Me109g to be the most ugly but they are included as the same choice. It is just personal taste though.



In another thread a couple years ago I compared the look of the razor back Mustang to the Fastback Ford Mustang. I still think its the coolest looking plane ever.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 24, 2013)

Oh, now we're morphing "ugly" into "dangerous looking." For that, I've got to vote "Tempest." Or maybe B-29.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 24, 2013)

Big difference between dangerous and ugly...unless it's a very large woman. Who's ugly. And also angry. 

Now you're talking trouble....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pattle (Jul 24, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I understand personal taste and all, but yhe P-51 and Bf 109? Ugly? No way...


I don't think the P51 ugly, but I much prefer the razor back version to the bubble canopy version and just to be extra fussy it needs to be painted green as well. I find that a lot of planes look much better when painted in certain colours, for me P51s and B17s look better in green while B24s, B25s and P47s look their best in natural aluminium, P40s look best in RAF desert colours while P38s and B26s just look good in any colour. 
I always look upon the Me109E G and as a right pair of munters but for some reason I like the Me109F (particularly in mottled desert colours). 
These are all prejudices I picked up from making airfix kits when I was a nipper.


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 24, 2013)

pattle said:


> ....These are all prejudices I picked up from making airfix kits when I was a nipper.



Well said in a way, no beating around the bush Basil Fawlty style. like a svelte and sexy body with a fugly head on it or vice versa, the beholder has the eye etc...

I'd say the IL-2, DC3/C-47/Li-2/L2D (perhaps), Beaufort, Dewotines/Morraines the Lysander were uglier than most others - the ugliest is the Fairly Gannet or failed/cancelled jet prototype Shturmovik, but their post war...


----------



## Blitzrockie (Jul 19, 2016)

The A5M IS UGLY.I hate it's looks.


----------



## Blitzrockie (Jul 19, 2016)

The A5M is attached least by my definition should be killed with fire. Also nice pic Oreo.


----------



## Guv (Mar 12, 2017)

Hi, new on here.
I was going to pick the I-16 until I saw the Skua on the list!
What's eye opening is some of the others picked as ugly.
Mustang?????????
Whirlwind??????
Hurricane????
F4U???
Zero???


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 12, 2017)

Why is the Skua on the list it's not a fighter. It was a Dive-bomber with a secondary role as a patrol/fleet defense aircraft. If you include the Skua why not other naval dive-bombers that also did fleet defense in an emergency.


----------



## Guv (Mar 12, 2017)

The Skua should be probably replaced with the Roc. I think the Roc was uglier than the Skua, if that's possible!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sir Percy Ware-Armitage (Mar 29, 2017)

ShVAK said:


> "Ugly fighter" to me is an oxymoron.
> 
> Though most of the French fighters weren't very attractive.




I agree however, nothing can beat the period's French bombers! Take for instance the Farman F.211 and Amiot 143. They are Truly UGLY!

Amiot 143 Medium Bomber Aircraft Image

Farman F.211 Day-Night Four-Engined Heavy Bomber Prototype Image


Still better! French warships from the late XIX century. They are nothing less than floating nightmares:

FS Bouvet (1898) Predreadnought Battleship Image

And the gold medalist:

french battleship carnot - Bing images

Yes indeed, the I-16 deserves an ugly prize.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Mar 30, 2017)

Oh my... that Carnot... that is a gold medal in ugly.

It looks like they dredged the Channel for the remains of the Spanish Armada, pieced them together with some iron cladding and called it a day.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sir Percy Ware-Armitage (Mar 31, 2017)

soulezoo said:


> Oh my... that Carnot... that is a gold medal in ugly.
> 
> It looks like they dredged the Channel for the remains of the Spanish Armada, pieced them together with some iron cladding and called it a day.



You are quite right Soulezoo. Perhaps they believed that an enemy, seeing such a "thing" (truly a steam punk horror), would be frightened away. Cherio! Sir P.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 31, 2017)

Sir Percy Ware-Armitage said:


> You are quite right Soulezoo. Perhaps they believed that an enemy, seeing such a "thing" (truly a steam punk horror), would be frightened away. Cherio! Sir P.



Or inadvertently open their bilge cocks because they're laughing so hard.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gabelschwanz_Teufel (Apr 27, 2017)

I'd like to ask the two wankers who voted for the Corsair how they could do so?

For my diner it was one of the best looking aircraft. Those gull wings, deep blue steel coloration, tapered fuselage. Just gorgeous. Right up there with the mustang and that beauty to the left! LOL 

The Stuka was pretty cool too. I must have a thing for gull wings, eh?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 27, 2017)

Hmmm, so far the leaders are.

















One would think that the voting would be further apart 

Is it just me or does it seem on most photos of the G.50 that the engine and fuselage are pointed in different directions? 

The leader, the Skua looks almost _sleek_ in comparison to the G.50.


----------



## DarrenW (Feb 10, 2018)

Gabelschwanz_Teufel said:


> I'd like to ask the two wankers who voted for the Corsair how they could do so?



I was a little annoyed that anyone could find the F6F ugly, until I saw that more people voted for the F4U in this category. And while I think the Corsair is definitely the prettier of the two, the Hellcat has a brutish look to it which I believe makes up for any of the graceful lines that it may lack.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 10, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I was a little annoyed that anyone could find the F6F ugly



Well, it aint pretty.




DarrenW said:


> the Hellcat has a brutish look to it which I believe makes up for any of the graceful lines that it may lack.



To me, not really brutish. More industrial. Like it is made from steel girders.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2018)

wuzak said:


> To me, not really brutish. More industrial. Like it is made from steel girders.



I think it is a great improvement on the "ironing board forced through a beer barrel" look of the Wildcat.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 10, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Hmmm, so far the leaders are.
> View attachment 464675
> View attachment 464676
> 
> ...



Shows that looks are deceiving


----------



## DarrenW (Feb 10, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Well, it aint pretty.



I don't think you'd find anyone here who would disagree with you, including myself. But if pretty is what I was looking for in an aircraft I would pick the first couple marks of the Spitfire, or maybe even the P-51D Mustang....



wuzak said:


> ...More industrial. Like it is made from steel girders.



That's a great way to describe it too.


----------



## ARTESH (Feb 10, 2018)

Well, I don't know most of them!
But i selected "F4U CorsAir" ...


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I don't think you'd find anyone here who would disagree with you, including myself. But if pretty is what I was looking for in an aircraft I would pick the first couple marks of the Spitfire, or maybe even the P-51D Mustang....


There is pretty, then there is ugly and then there is mean. The first Bf 109s were so pretty they were cute, by the time they had sprouted all their lumps bumps and carbuncles they were just plain mean looking. The Spitfire was the belle of the ball but became tired of various ne'er do wells playing on her better nature she developed a lumpy, bumpy mean streak. The P51 was lowly borne but ambitious, no looker in adolescence she made the best use of all her assets and when fully mature she had everyone's attention. Meanwhile there was the Skua, an ugly plane named after an ugly bird, it decided what it really needed was a turret and to be named after a mythical beast with an ugly name. Gentlemen I give you the Blackburn Roc, the ugliest of ugly ducklings.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2018)

ARTESH said:


> Well, I don't know most of them!
> But i selected "F4U CorsAir" ...


Were you between a Roc and a hard place?


----------



## ARTESH (Feb 10, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Were you between a Roc and a hard place?


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2018)

There was a floatplane version of the Roc, it was competitive with maritime gliders of the period/

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ARTESH (Feb 10, 2018)

pbehn said:


> There was a floatplane version of the Roc, it was competitive with maritime gliders of the period/


Aha!
Sorry.
But i knew (and currently, know) less than 10 of them! (as you can guess, mostly German ones).

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 10, 2018)

pbehn said:


> There was a floatplane version of the Roc, it was competitive with maritime gliders of the period/




Barely. I think a Catalina could out-dogfight a Blackburn Roc on floats.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2018)

ARTESH said:


> Aha!
> Sorry.
> But i knew (and currently, know) less than 10 of them! (as you can guess, mostly German ones).


Feast your eyes on this little honey

Blackburn Roc - Wikipedia

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ARTESH (Feb 10, 2018)

But can someone Explain me why is "IAR 80" in the List?
a little hard for me to understand it!


----------



## ARTESH (Feb 10, 2018)

Well, not a ww2 Warplane!
But i think that F-313 is Ugliest plane ever made!


----------



## ARTESH (Feb 10, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Feast your eyes on this little honey
> 
> Blackburn Roc - Wikipedia


Currently reading Article.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 10, 2018)

Gabelschwanz_Teufel said:


> I'd like to ask the two wankers who voted for the Corsair how they could do so?
> 
> For my diner it was one of the best looking aircraft. Those gull wings, deep blue steel coloration, tapered fuselage. Just gorgeous. Right up there with the mustang and that beauty to the left! LOL
> 
> The Stuka was pretty cool too. I must have a thing for gull wings, eh?


Herr "Fork-tailed Devil" has it right- I vote the P-51 series and the F4U Corsair the best looking of the American fighter plane line-up. The great advantage the P-38 Lightning had was the front mounted guns that didn't have to be fired through a propeller arc-- where you had the nose pointed, there were the guns also pointed, right?? I'm not a serious student of the Japanese, or Russian planes in WW2- but of all the various fighter planes flown by the Luftwaffe 1939=1945-- The BF-109 series had that same deadly line that a Luger P08 pistol possesed- and many of Germany's top pilots ran up a large number of "kills" in Messerschmitts--Ja!!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Feb 10, 2018)

The SE.580. Never completed - probably a good thing....

Sud-Est (SNCASE) SE 580 Fighter


----------



## Bernhart (Feb 12, 2018)

always thought that the fiat g 50 and early Machhi looked like the engine was put on as an afterthought.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 12, 2018)

probably was


----------



## DarrenW (Feb 12, 2018)

Bernhart said:


> always thought that the fiat g 50 and early Machhi looked like the engine was put on as an afterthought.



They were a bit strange looking to me at first too but after a while their "unique" looks started to grow on me....


----------



## Freebird (Feb 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Meanwhile there was the Skua, an ugly plane named after an ugly bird, it decided what it really needed was a turret and to be named after a mythical beast with an ugly name. Gentlemen I give you the Blackburn Roc, the ugliest of ugly ducklings.



The Skua is not a fighter!

(But it was ugly)


----------



## Graeme (Feb 13, 2018)

freebird said:


> The Skua is not a fighter!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 13, 2018)

Where did you dredge that up from?


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 13, 2018)

Would appreciate seeing photos of this SUKA fighter plane. Not one bit familiar with it at all. In the ETO, my 2 top picks for best fighter planes are the P-47 and the P-51, for the USAAF, and the Spitfire for the RAF.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 13, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Would appreciate seeing photos of this SUKA fighter plane. Not one bit familiar with it at all. In the ETO, my 2 top picks for best fighter planes are the P-47 and the P-51, for the USAAF, and the Spitfire for the RAF.


Just google Skua aircraft pics. Named after a predatory sea bird.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SuperFire (Feb 13, 2018)

Typhoon from my perspective. Great ground attack plane but that intake on it is just by-God hideous and the wings; the plane is an abortion! Gear is too long. It's looks like a retarded Chicken-lady with a jacko-jaw!

It's like when your brother brings a fat-girl to Thanksgiving Dinner. "Sweet Jesus! You can do better than that! What's wrong with you?"


----------



## Graeme (Feb 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Where did you dredge that up from?



From the graphic novel - Dive Bomber! The _true_ story of Bill Martin and how he overcame life's adversities to strike hard at the hearts of the Nazis!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 13, 2018)

Looks like Bill's cartoon plane carried a much bigger bomb load than the real plane did, unless those are really fat 20lb bombs


----------



## SuperFire (Feb 13, 2018)

I still hold out that the Typhoon, and it's Ruprecht brother the Tempest, are the worst offenders in the actual "Fighter" category. They are an officers interpretation of the Spitfire. They only worked because the rebel ethos was so strong in the alpha-source.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 14, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Would appreciate seeing photos of this SUKA fighter plane. Not one bit familiar with it at all. In the ETO, my 2 top picks for best fighter planes are the P-47 and the P-51, for the USAAF, and the Spitfire for the RAF.



The Skua was designed as a dive bomber, not a fighter.
As it had decent speed (for 1937) the British thought it might double as a fighter, but by 1940 it was outclassed.

The Skua's claim to fame is that two FAA Skua squadrons made the first ever sinking of a ship by dive bombing, the German cruiser Konigsberg in Bergen Harbour in 1940.
German cruiser Königsberg - Wikipedia


----------



## pbehn (Feb 14, 2018)

I am always amazed how frightfully well spoken WW2 aviators were, even when their plane is being shot up they utter nothing worse than "Donnerwetter".


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 14, 2018)

freebird said:


> The Skua was designed as a dive bomber, not a fighter.
> As it had decent speed (for 1937) the British thought it might double as a fighter, but by 1940 it was outclassed.
> 
> The Skua's claim to fame is that two FAA Skua squadrons made the first ever sinking of a ship by dive bombing, the German cruiser Konigsberg in Bergen Harbour in 1940.
> ...



The Skua also achieved the UK's first fighter kill of WW2, on 26 September 1939.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 14, 2018)

true but then the DO 18 wasn't a particularly hard aircraft to shoot down.




No disrespect to the men involved, I am sure the Germans were shooting back and the Skuas had nothing in the way of armor or protected fuel tanks. 
But the Do 18 topped out about 155mph and the early ones had a single 7.9mm machine gun in the bow and dorsal positions. 
Being able to deal with 'snoopers' is not the same as dealing with attack aircraft let alone enemy fighters.


----------



## fastmongrel (Feb 14, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> They were a bit strange looking to me at first too but after a while their "unique" looks started to grow on me....



A bit like a Fungal infection

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> true but then the DO 18 wasn't a particularly hard aircraft to shoot down.
> View attachment 482341
> 
> No disrespect to the men involved, I am sure the Germans were shooting back and the Skuas had nothing in the way of armor or protected fuel tanks.
> ...



I wasn't making any claims about the Skua's abilities as a fighter, simply that in addition to being the first aircraft to sink a ship by dive bombing, it also achieved the first fighter air-to-air victory by UK forces. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 14, 2018)

True, but while such marks of distinction are interesting they often don't point to any quality of the aircraft, although they do point to the quality of the men flying them. 
I believe the first RAF Victory of the war went to a rear gunner of a Fairey Battle (Sgt. F. Letchard) who managed to shoot down a Bf 109. Sure didn't mean you fly Fairey Battles without escort into defended airspace. 

The Skua was one of those comprises forced on the RN by the restricted numbers of aircraft on each carrier. Each aircraft had to perform several roles and so was not the best at any one role, although better at some than others. I don't know if the Skua had any 'stretch' in it. Like a few other British aircraft they abandoned it after the MK I and went after shinier new toys that took too long to get into operation. 
One wonders how the Dauntless would be remembered if production stopped after the first few hundred and limited them to the original 1000hp engine and no armor or selfsealing tanks.


----------



## DarrenW (Feb 14, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> A bit like a Fungal infection


----------

