# Most Unattractive Aircraft of WW2



## Glider (Aug 2, 2018)

We often talk about the best of something or the worst but how about the most unattractive aircraft of WW2. I must emphasise we are talking about looks.

I know that there are some good French contenders but I will go with my personal choice the Barracuda.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Aug 3, 2018)

As you mentioned the French, here is the Amiot 143. Not a great looker for sure.

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


----------



## GregP (Aug 3, 2018)

I'll go with the LWS-6 (PZL.30 Zubr).






No performance to speak of, ugly beyond belief, and had a useful life of only several missions, including training. The few survivors ended up as airfield decoys to be destroyed in attacks in lieu of useful aircraft.

Has a face that makes a train want to take a dirt road on a rainy night. Well, maybe that's an exaggeration. OK, uglier than a Barracuda.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
4 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 3, 2018)

Leaving out the French heavy bombers, which just about make my eyes bleed, some other "winners" in the ugly category would include:

US -- B-18
Britain -- Roc
Germany -- Ju87
Soviet -- TB-3

As soon as my eyes stop bleeding, I'm going to walk my dog.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Aug 4, 2018)

Not WW2 but the French continued with ugly planes post war.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 4, 2018)

Ah Milosh, the MS1500 is positively cute compared with many other French planes.

Here are a very few that come to mind:

1) SNCAC NC.1071.





2) Latecoere Late L.570.





3) Loire-Nieuport LN-10.





But, your choice isn't bad, as ugly planes go.

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


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 4, 2018)

Oh, everybody had ugly planes, and quite a few handsome planes were pieces of crap (XF-87, anyone?)

Nobody could, realistically, call the Westland Lysander, Northrop Raider, Grumman Hawkeye and Tracker, Fairey Gannet, or Martin Marlin "pretty."


----------



## Ascent (Aug 4, 2018)

Personally I'd call the Westland Lysander rugged, certainly not ugly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Aug 4, 2018)

How about the Potez 63. 11? Unusual looking certainly, what about ugly?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Oh, everybody had ugly planes, and quite a few handsome planes were pieces of crap (XF-87, anyone?)
> 
> Nobody could, realistically, call the Westland Lysander, Northrop Raider, Grumman Hawkeye and Tracker, Fairey Gannet, or Martin Marlin "pretty."



What is so ugly about the Hawkeye?


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 4, 2018)

......and why is it in a WW2 thread?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2018)

I think I have to go with the PZL.30/LWS.6.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 4, 2018)

Farman F-222

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 4, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> ......and why is it in a WW2 thread?



For the same reason as post-WW2 French aircraft




DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What is so ugly about the Hawkeye?



I didn't say it was ugly; I said it wasn't pretty. And why?
All those excrescences, the antenna, the plethora of tails (which is more noticeable on the C-2)


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 4, 2018)

Westland P.12 Wendover, looks like a Lysander backed into a Lancaster





from the WEB​

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Funny Funny:
6 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 4, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think I have to go with the PZL.30/LWS.6.
> 
> View attachment 504402
> View attachment 504403
> View attachment 504404



Were there expatriate Farman designers working in Poland?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 4, 2018)

When a Daddy Lancaster and a Mummy Lysander love each other very, very much...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
10 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 4, 2018)

How about the Arsenal-Delanne 10? (yes, it's French)

What's truly amazing, is that the Germans actually took the time to evaluate it...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Were there expatriate Farman designers working in Poland?



It would make sense...lol


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> For the same reason as post-WW2 French aircraft
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree about the C-2, but I think the Hawkeye looks pretty neat.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2018)

There is a difference between "not pretty" and downright, makes you throw up breakfast, lunch and diner *UGLY!*

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 5, 2018)

Like a Rodney Dangerfield joke. "My sister was so ugly we had to tie a roast beef to her face to get the dog to play with her ..."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 16, 2018)

Miles M.35 Libellula - Wikipedia

*




*​

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 16, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> Miles M.35 Libellula - Wikipedia
> 
> *
> View attachment 505666
> *​





fubar57 said:


> Miles M.35 Libellula - Wikipedia
> 
> *
> View attachment 505666
> *​


When I saw the title of this thread I thought" there aren't any realy ununattractive aircraft from ww2"
Seems I was wrong.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Aug 16, 2018)

Vickers Wellesley was no beauty. Surprisingly ungainly

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Aug 16, 2018)

or this monster, the Handley Page Hayford...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 16, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> View attachment 505782
> 
> Vickers Wellesley was no beauty. Surprisingly ungainly


 Kind of depends on the angle (and the bomb pods)

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 16, 2018)

Getting back to the Miles M.35 Libellula . Let's try and forget that it beget this...Miles M.39B Libellula - Wikipedia

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 16, 2018)

You have been letting your 6 year old nephew at the parts box again

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Aug 16, 2018)

I really didn't intend to disparage the British, but who thought this was a good idea? The Fleet Shadower

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 16, 2018)

Unbelievable as it may seem, the competition wasn't much better looking.




It is a different airplane, not just different landing gear. 
folding the wing didn't help (rarely does)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Aug 16, 2018)

agreed, the Airspeed version was even worse. Barely


----------



## parsifal (Aug 16, 2018)

Not hard to find....


10 Of The Most Ugliest Aircrafts You Would Never Want To See


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 16, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I really didn't intend to disparage the British, but who thought this was a good idea? The Fleet Shadower
> 
> View attachment 505807


Wow............. Maybe the goal was to cause such visual discomfort among attacking pilots that they would be unable to continue or risk permanent eye damage.


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 16, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> You have been letting your 6 year old nephew at the parts box again


Ya, alot of seemingly unrelated stuff going on there.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 17, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Wow............. Maybe the goal was to cause such visual discomfort among attacking pilots that they would be unable to continue or risk permanent eye damage.



Not likely as most German planes didn't have the range to fly where the Shadower would be flying.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 17, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> View attachment 505782
> 
> Vickers Wellesley was no beauty. Surprisingly ungainly



Steady on there. There's nowt wrong with the Wellesley. Damn fine aircraft!

Yes, I'm hurrumpf-ing!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Aug 17, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Steady on there. There's nowt wrong with the Wellesley. Damn fine aircraft!
> 
> Yes, I'm hurrumpf-ing!!



Here's one with the right squadron badge.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 17, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Not likely as most German planes didn't have the range to fly where the Shadower would be flying.


I must confess I had not considered the effect of range as a limiting factor in the efficacy of ugly as a defensive asset.


----------



## herman1rg (Aug 17, 2018)

The Vickers Wellesley was designed by Barnes Wallis, can't think what else he did............................................................................


----------



## at6 (Aug 17, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Not WW2 but the French continued with ugly planes post war.
> 
> View attachment 504325


Now that is too ugly even to scrap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Aug 17, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Steady on there. There's nowt wrong with the Wellesley. Damn fine aircraft!


ok ok, I retract my comments about the Wellesley. Perhaps it isn't "ugly", but it IS bizarre and oddly per-portioned.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
 1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 17, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> ok ok, I retract my comments about the Wellesley. Perhaps it isn't "ugly", but it IS bizarre and oddly per-portioned.



I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. I still think it's a pretty amazing design. I'm pretty sure it held the long-distance record for single-engine aircraft from 1938 to 2006!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 17, 2018)

i


michael rauls said:


> I must confess I had not considered the effect of range as a limiting factor in the efficacy of ugly as a defensive asset.



Clearly, ugly as a defensive technique had very restricted utility. If it did, war would be a lot less common, considering that it, itself, is uglier than any possible aircraft.


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 17, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> i
> 
> Clearly, ugly as a defensive technique had very restricted utility. If it did, war would be a lot less common, considering that it, itself, is uglier than any possible aircraft.


How true. Think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody here that would disagree with you on that.


----------



## GregP (Aug 19, 2018)

With regards to post 34, it was a fleet specification (S23.37) for an airplane that could shadow enemy fleets at night, fly very slowly so as to better stay with a ship formation and look for U-boats and other unfriendly things over the horizon and around the ships. The Fleet Shadower stalled at only 39 mph and could fly about comfortably at 50 mph. While I would NOT have wanted to serve flying one, it WOULD have been pretty good at shadowing enemy freighters in the absence of air cover.

Not many freighters were faster than a slow Fleet Shadower, even if it WAS uglier than a mud fence.

Perhaps they did it because they COULD ...

Now here's a ugly airplane:







It's the SD Scout. And here's another one, the French Duck:






But for a more modern look at a French Ugly Airplane:






I give the Deux.Ponts. Looks like an airborne Grouper (the fish).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Aug 20, 2018)

GregP said:


> With regards to post 34, it was a fleet specification (S23.37) for an airplane that could shadow enemy fleets at night, fly very slowly so as to better stay with a ship formation and look for U-boats and other unfriendly things over the horizon and around the ships.


Also of interest was the odd reduction gearing for the propeller. The result of which is a strange "off-centre" look.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 20, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Also of interest was the odd reduction gearing for the propeller. The result of which is a strange "off-centre" look.
> View attachment 506461
> 
> View attachment 506463


It’s much easier to design and build an offset gearbox like that than an epicyclic or reverted gearbox.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 20, 2018)

now I know where the inspiration for the International Rescue plane has come from.....GregPs post 46

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Mar 22, 2019)

The most ugly of all heavy bombers has to be the Avro Lancaster. With it's low-lying stabilizer, the non-retractable tailwheel, the hideous protruding bulb snout that is the bombardier's position, the dihedral, which starts at the inboard engine, and the unattractive wing shape it looks like a flying hunchback.
As a comparison the similarly outlined B-24 really looks cool. You could see there that small details matter visually.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Mar 22, 2019)

Oh boy, here we go.

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


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 22, 2019)

Incomming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Mar 22, 2019)

I expect now, someone is going to say the P-51 looks like a guppy giving birth.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 22, 2019)

Piaggio P 108 
Google it, but only if wearing protective goggles/glasses (tinted)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Mar 22, 2019)

special ed said:


> I expect now, someone is going to say the P-51 looks like a guppy giving birth.



It does, but this is a defining feature. Stylish.


----------



## spicmart (Mar 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> View attachment 532823
> 
> Piaggio P 108
> Google it, but only if wearing protective goggles/glasses (tinted)



I have to say that, apart from the nose which can be rectified, it is a good-looking airplane with pleasing lines.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 22, 2019)

did you see the two staggered turrets on top?


----------



## spicmart (Mar 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> did you see the two staggered turrets on top?



Yes. Could be replaced with a single one B-17 style.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 22, 2019)

I always felt the Lancaster, Sterling and the Halifax were elegant looking. I liked the P.108 but thought the nose did look a little odd.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Mar 22, 2019)

P.108 would look great with a B-17F nose.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 22, 2019)

Probably the French am not 143


----------



## Greyman (Mar 22, 2019)

spicmart said:


> The most ugly of all heavy bombers has to be the Avro Lancaster. With it's low-lying stabilizer, the non-retractable tailwheel, the ugly protruding bulb snout that is the bombardier's position, the dihedral, which starts at the inboard engine, and the unattractive wing shape it looks like a flying hunchback.



I assume you've already been banned for this post so there's no sense in responding.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 22, 2019)

The Bristol Freighter; the box the aeroplane came in.





TC-330 01 




ZK-CPT Taxi 03 




ZK-CPT 04 

Whilst not strictly WW2, the specification it was built to appeared in 1944 and it was based on technologies and ideas from the Bristol Bombay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Mar 22, 2019)

Greyman said:


> I assume you've already been banned for this post so there's no sense in responding.



Sure the Lancaster is a plane of high merits and it was the best plane for the job it did.
Regarding aesthetics alone, to me it just looks butt-ugly.
I don't quite understand why it seems such a holy cow. Maybe you can tell.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 22, 2019)

spicmart said:


> The most ugly of all heavy bombers has to be the Avro Lancaster. With it's low-lying stabilizer, the non-retractable tailwheel, the ugly protruding bulb snout that is the bombardier's position, the dihedral, which starts at the inboard engine, and the unattractive wing shape it looks like a flying hunchback.
> As a comparison the similarly outlined B-24 really looks cool. You could see there that small details matter visually.
> 
> View attachment 532768


Oh man, I gotta disagree a bit with that.
I think the Lancaster is a beautiful/ majestic looking aircraft.
Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder so certainly respect your view but.......the Lancaster..........Ugly?


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 22, 2019)

spicmart said:


> Regarding aesthetics alone, for me it just looks butt-ugly.



Not meaning to bust your balls on this, but I take it you've never seen one in flight?




Lancaster-3 ii




Lancaster-4 ii

My own photos. Michael's comment about majestic certainly applies when you see one flying.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 22, 2019)

I know the Lancaster has quite a following, but I rather like the lines of the Stirling over those of the Lanc.

Then again, for me, the two best looking bombers of WWII were the B-29 and the Me264.

It all boils down to the "beauty in the eye of the beholder" thing.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 22, 2019)

I'd love to see a B-29 fly. Maybe my next trip to Oshkosh?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 22, 2019)

By the way, Grant, your Bristol 170 looks quite like the Budd RB-1 "Conestoga" transport.

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 22, 2019)

Ah, great minds think alike! The US version seems to have gotten the loading a bit more efficient, with a rear ramp, and level floor as a result of a tricycle undercarriage layout.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 22, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> I'd love to see a B-29 fly. Maybe my next trip to Oshkosh?


Fifi is scheduled to be at Oshkosh 23 July through 26 July this year and I understand Doc will attending Oshkosh as well.
I know for a fact that Fifi will be providing rides while there, Doc may also.

And you know, when the two are at Oshkosh, they do a tandem fly-by. How's that for a spectacular photo op?


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 22, 2019)

Oh hell yeah Dave! That'd be great! Sadly not going to Oshkosh this year; a buddy of mine, a fellow photographer type is heading there and keeps urging me to go with him, but I'm off to Europe in summer for the D-Day anniversary and my engineering wages wont allow me to do two big trips in a year!

As long as they keep Doc and Fifi flying for a few more years...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 23, 2019)

Doc and Fifi are nice and fresh, so they should be good for quite some time.

I know that Eric (evangilder) has been an Airventure regular there for years and I believe he captured the historic flight of the two at Oshkosh in 2017.
Things have been realy hectic for me, so I haven't made it back there yet, but maybe we can all plan on a big get together at Airventure 2021 - like get as many friends from across the pond (and of course, our friends under the Southern Cross, too) and here in the states to converge for a bash!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 23, 2019)

The British love a good tail dragger! Supermarine Attacker, with the wing of a Spiteful/Seafang mated to a new jet powered fuselage.




0307 FAA Museum Attacker 

Handley Page Hastings. I remember a story about the Hastings during the Berlin airlift, where one had just landed at some airfield, and the American controller asked the British what type of plane it was. They replied "a Hastings", to which the American said, "they should have called it a Dragon, because it's draggin' its *ss on the ground!" (I may have told this story elsewhere...)




0807 Newark Air Museum Hastings 

Neither types would win a beauty contest...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 23, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> maybe we can all plan on a big get together at Airventure 2021 - like get as many friends from across the pond (and of course, our friends under the Southern Cross, too) and here in the states to converge for a bash!



Ooooo, I might be able to manage that! A tentative yes!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 23, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Doc and Fifi are nice and fresh, so they should be good for quite some time.
> 
> I know that Eric (evangilder) has been an Airventure regular there for years and I believe he captured the historic flight of the two at Oshkosh in 2017.
> Things have been realy hectic for me, so I haven't made it back there yet, but maybe we can all plan on a big get together at Airventure 2021 - like get as many friends from across the pond (and of course, our friends under the Southern Cross, too) and here in the states to converge for a bash!


Sounds like a great idea...........I'm in!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 23, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Ooooo, I might be able to manage that! A tentative yes!





michael rauls said:


> Sounds like a great idea...........I'm in!


Then perhaps we should start an Oshkosh 2021 thread in the events section and get something going.
It's only two years out...so we should get on the ball.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Mar 23, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Not meaning to bust your balls on this, but I take it you've never seen one in flight?
> 
> View attachment 532875
> Lancaster-3 ii
> ...



Know what you mean but the B-24, B-17 and B-29 are just as graceful when in the air imho.
As I said I'm just judging on aesthetics, and there those other bombers win by a long shot.


----------



## spicmart (Mar 23, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> By the way, Grant, your Bristol 170 looks quite like the Budd RB-1 "Conestoga" transport.
> 
> View attachment 532882



Funny-looking. . The Cockpit reminds me of the Discovery One from 2001.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 23, 2019)

The Lancastrian civilian version of the Lancaster hurts my eyes for reasons I cant explain, I suppose a Lancaster looks like a Lancaster.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Mar 23, 2019)

pbehn said:


> The Lancastrian civilian version of the Lancaster hurts my eyes for reasons I cant explain, I suppose a Lancaster looks like a Lancaster.
> View attachment 532921



And I thought I were the only one with this opinion.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 23, 2019)

spicmart said:


> And I thought I were the only one with this opinion.


From some angles the Lanc looked very businesslike

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Mar 23, 2019)

pbehn said:


> From some angles the Lanc looked very businesslike
> View attachment 532924


Well..

Pouting snout. The epitome of ugliness.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 23, 2019)

spicmart said:


> Well..
> View attachment 532925


Interesting, look at the finish on the nacelles compared to the mosquito.


----------



## spicmart (Mar 23, 2019)

pbehn said:


> The Lancastrian civilian version of the Lancaster hurts my eyes for reasons I cant explain, I suppose a Lancaster looks like a Lancaster.
> View attachment 532921



While the nose looks better, the tail, that is attached too low at the fuselage, does not win any prizes.


----------



## Marcel (Mar 23, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Doc and Fifi are nice and fresh, so they should be good for quite some time.
> 
> I know that Eric (evangilder) has been an Airventure regular there for years and I believe he captured the historic flight of the two at Oshkosh in 2017.
> Things have been realy hectic for me, so I haven't made it back there yet, but maybe we can all plan on a big get together at Airventure 2021 - like get as many friends from across the pond (and of course, our friends under the Southern Cross, too) and here in the states to converge for a bash!


Oh man, I would love to go to Oshkosh someday, especially with you guys. But I don’t think I could pull this off at the moment with two upgrowing kids at home.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 23, 2019)

spicmart said:


> While the nose looks better, the tail, that is attached too low at the fuselage, does not win any prizes.


That was so you could get in the tail turret.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 23, 2019)

pbehn said:


> That was so you could get in the tail turret.



Actually, it was so the toilet lid had something to rest on!  That's the tailplane spar.




SCN_0256 

Crawling over the spar (as Pbehn said) to get to the rear turret. Excuse the blurry photo, taken with a film camera many years ago.




SCN_0258 

There's not much room in a Lancaster, it'd be a rough cramped ride in a Lancastrian as a passenger, let alone as bomber crew. These raised frames are the fwd and aft main spars and had to be climbed over to get to the cockpit.




SCN_0264 

Taken from the navigator's position, with the mannequin standing in front of the flight engineer's panel. Pilot's headrest armour plate visible.




SCN_0270

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 23, 2019)

spicmart said:


> Know what you mean but the B-24, B-17 and B-29 are just as graceful when in the air imho. As I said I'm just judging on aesthetics, and there those other bombers win by a long shot.



Yeah, the B-17 is a beaut in flight.




B-17 smoky pass 

But the B-24? Hmmm, like someone once said, it was the box the B-17 came in!

As mentioned, not seen a B-29 in flight, but even on the ground it is a beautiful bird.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 23, 2019)

Marcel said:


> But I don’t think I could pull this off at the moment with two upgrowing kids at home.



Oh yeah, I know how that feels. While my daughter was growing up, we didn't go very far, and we just have one!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Mar 23, 2019)

That's why with my last one, while all were at Disney World, I went to airports and air museums. Returned to pick them up at nightfall, then to motel. All went to bed happy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Mar 24, 2019)

Last time I made it to Oshkosh (and I even live IN Wisconsin) I did get to catch the Boeing 307. Now that is the ultimate in elegant aircraft. But I love the shark fin B-17s too. 

For purposes of this thread, thought, I nominate the BV-141:

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Mar 25, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Yeah, the B-17 is a beaut in flight.
> 
> View attachment 532957
> B-17 smoky pass
> ...



Imho the B-24 has a futuristic appeal to it. The slender Davis wing gives it a grace in contrast to its hull which looks cool somehow. The twin tail shape is unmistakable.
The PB4Y-2 Privateer with its longer fuselage and turrets shapes looks especially badass though I don't quite like the single tail.
Main thing is they are not as angular as the Lanc, together with them lacking all the ugly features I mentioned before.
The eye of the beholder...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Mar 25, 2019)

Sorry. Wrong thread. 

Focke Wulf Ta154

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 25, 2019)

The Ta154 was a good looking ship.
But if we want to talk fugly bombers, then the Soviet's archaic TB-3 even beats anything made by the French for the title of: "most unattractive aircraft that even a drunk wouldn't appreciate"...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 25, 2019)

Please check out this list.

Be forewarned to wear your best protective eyewear, suitable for solar eclipses.

Category:French bomber aircraft 1930–1939 - Wikipedia

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 25, 2019)

Ouch! I thought you were just kidding about the protective eye wear. I'll take such warnings seriously from now on.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 25, 2019)

Yes, but they did have drapes and came with room service.


----------



## Elmas (Mar 25, 2019)

from the Italian side, Breda Ba 65

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 25, 2019)

Dornier produced some truly ugly aircraft, such as the DoX and the Dornier Dolphin


The Soviets produced the Kalinin K-7

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 25, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> ...The Soviets produced the Kalinin K-7


There was only one K-7 built and it's dismal failure upset Uncle Joe, which didn't go well for Kalinin...


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 25, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> There was only one K-7 built and it's dismal failure upset Uncle Joe, which didn't go well for Kalinin...


Even a murderous dictator can have taste...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## N4521U (Mar 25, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Getting back to the Miles M.35 Libellula . Let's try and forget that it beget this...Miles M.39B Libellula - Wikipedia
> 
> View attachment 505804​



That's a very very early Long Easy!!!!!!!


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 25, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> Even a murderous dictator can have taste...


Truth be told, Stalin supported the K-7 and was excited about it's "promise" as a civil and military aircraft as well as a propaganda tool. It was the first all metal Soviet type that used all native materials as well as the notion that it would be a dominating military aircraft.


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 25, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Truth be told, Stalin supported the K-7 and was excited about it's "promise" as a civil and military aircraft as well as a propaganda tool. It was the first all metal Soviet type that used all native materials as well as the notion that it would be a dominating military aircraft.



If he didn't support it, it wouldn't have been started. Of course, in a capitalist system, Kalinin would have not gotten any future contracts instead of being, say, shot.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## YF12A (Mar 28, 2019)

My Dad always thought the Boeing 314 was just one of the ugliest flying boat produced. Compared to his beloved Sikorsky VS-44A, the only surviving flying boat from that era thank God, I have to agree. Then Dad gets the B-377 Stratocruiser which he liked, but called it a pregnant B-29! Boeing then redeemed itself forever with the 707, and the rest in History.

After seeing it many, many times, I still feel the Curtis XP-55 is still just absolutely hideous and will always wonder how that company went from hero to zero in just a couple of years. 

Surprised no one has mentioned the Me-323 Gigant, doesn't get much uglier either.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 28, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> If he didn't support it, it wouldn't have been started. Of course, in a capitalist system, Kalinin would have not gotten any future contracts instead of being, say, shot.


Lavochkin was on the verge of also contracting a terminal case of "Stalin Flu", but was able to redeen himself at the eleventh hour.
How very fortunate for him, the Su-2 nose adapted well to the LaGG-3's fuselage...


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 28, 2019)

Pegas by Tomashevich.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 28, 2019)

YF12A said:


> My Dad always thought the Boeing 314 was just one of the ugliest flying boat produced. Compared to his beloved Sikorsky VS-44A, the only surviving flying boat from that era thank God, I have to agree. Then Dad gets the B-377 Stratocruiser which he liked, but called it a pregnant B-29! Boeing then redeemed itself forever with the 707, and the rest in History.



Well, we all have our favorites 
but the Boeing 314 doesn't look that bad.





Sikorsky VS-44A






Short empire class 





Now please put on your protective gear suitable for viewing French aircraft.

Liore 102 - Google Search

Latecoere 521 - Google Search

Bréguet 730 - Google Search

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Mar 28, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> View attachment 532823
> 
> Piaggio P 108
> Google it, but only if wearing protective goggles/glasses (tinted)





special ed said:


> P.108 would look great with a B-17F nose.



But could the B-17F carry a 102mm (4") cannon?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Mar 28, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> swampyankee said:
> 
> 
> > The Soviets produced the Kalinin K-7
> ...



Wot, no pics?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 29, 2019)

GreenKnight121 said:


> But could the B-17F carry a 102mm (4") cannon?


If a B-25 could carry a 75mm cannon, then I'm pretty sure the B-17 could have easily carried a T8 105mm or even the T5E1 105mm that was being developed (though a bit more complex).

Heck, for that matter, the little Hs129B-3 carried the heavier BK7.5, which weighed in at 2,600 pounds and the Ju88P-1 carried the heavier version, the PaK40.

But like the P.108A, the B-17 would have been at a disadvantage due to it's lesser mobility than the B-25 or Ju88 and how would the B-17 have stood up to the recoil? The B-18 cannon tests proved that a 75mm could be carried aloft, but it ravaged the airframe. The lessons learned from the B-18 trials were passed on to the XA-26B, B-25G/H and XA-38 builds (the B-25 being the only one used operationally).


----------



## wlewisiii (Mar 29, 2019)

Now I'll admit that the Martin Mars came close, the 314 was by far the best looking flying boat ever. The XB-15 wings were so well proportioned that none of them, before or after, could match them.


----------



## YF12A (Mar 29, 2019)

wlewisiii said:


> Now I'll admit that the Martin Mars came close, the 314 was by far the best looking flying boat ever. The XB-15 wings were so well proportioned that none of them, before or after, could match them.


Heresy I say, heresy! Look at the Boeing, 3 tails, 4 wings, looks like the XB-15 mated with a ships' hull and a Constellation tail!Look at how integrated the Sikorsky looks in comparison. Realistically, the VS-44A had better range and payload over the 314 and the Martin M-130. If you really want to get crazy, look up the Short Mayo Composite, a small flying boat stacked on top of a large flying boat! Leave it to the British!


----------



## special ed (Mar 29, 2019)

I forgot about the Martin M-130. Very pretty, but there were only three.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2019)

wlewisiii said:


> Now I'll admit that the Martin Mars came close, the 314 was by far the best looking flying boat ever. The XB-15 wings were so well proportioned that none of them, before or after, could match them.



Nope, the Do 24 is the most beautiful flying boat ever.


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 29, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Nope, the Do 24 is the most beautiful flying boat ever.




No way. Republic Seabee


----------



## Graeme (Mar 29, 2019)

Not a WW2 aircraft - but worthy of some sort of Ugly Award. Skroback's Roadable....

First flying car goes under the hammer

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 29, 2019)

It's impossible to give all the kudos at once so I made one

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## herman1rg (Mar 30, 2019)

YF12A said:


> Heresy I say, heresy! Look at the Boeing, 3 tails, 4 wings, looks like the XB-15 mated with a ships' hull and a Constellation tail!Look at how integrated the Sikorsky looks in comparison. Realistically, the VS-44A had better range and payload over the 314 and the Martin M-130. If you really want to get crazy, look up the Short Mayo Composite, a small flying boat stacked on top of a large flying boat! Leave it to the British!


No No; The Short Mayo Composite was beautiful and designed for a need to transport mail over a long distance.


----------



## Glider (Mar 30, 2019)

The Walrus has to be a contender

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> No way. Republic Seabee


----------



## Skyediamonds (Mar 30, 2019)

I’ve aleays been attracted to the “ugly” a/c if for no other reason than the more popular WW2 types were photographed so often, talked about in such detail, their places in history discussed to almost no end, & of course modeled in their different variants to death that they all becomes a blur. To me at least, it’s gotten to the point where if I’ve seen one, I’ve seen ‘em all. I could walk down a modeling table & see row after row of Spitfires, Mustangs, Zeros, & Messerschmitts all seemingly blending into one. They all have one engine, low wings, machine guns in the wings & nose, one pilot, (I didn’t mention Bell) all are tail draggers, & all have subtle variants & sub-types to no end. To a lay person, they would all look alike & boring. 

Now for those who question why am I modeling and super-detailing Guillow’s P-51D Mustang (you can see my modeling thread in this site), in all defense, it is for my daughter. I tried to talk her out of it (Lord knows I’ve tried), but she was adamant. What’s a loving father to do? 

I still enjoy all types including the boring ones, but those ugly planes make me want to send away for modeling plans & start building: especially those Latecoeres, Farmans, & Potez’s. Nice & ugly -or better still- nice & “ unique.”  I’d also vote for the Barracuda & actually looked into scoring some plans & any detailed photos, especially the interiors but no luck. Any volunteers?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 30, 2019)

Glider said:


> The Walrus has to be a contender
> View attachment 533701


Of course, it was also good at its job.


----------



## Glider (Mar 30, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> Of course, it was also good at its job.


And I have absolutely no doubt that to the people it rescued, the Walrus was the most beautiful aircraft in the world, better than any Mustang or Spitfire.

My favourite story along this line which I am sure I have posted before was when one picked up a P51 pilot. Instead of taking the pilot to the normal station he persuaded the crew to drop him off at his home station which was nearby. They landed at the fighter field and after a slight delay a Jeep came to them with a senior officer on board. This stopped a little distance away, then it drove around the Walrus in a slow circle. It stopped again, the rescued pilot went over and as the pilot got on board the senior officer was heard to mutter, Dear God and drove off again.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 30, 2019)

I actually kinda like the looks of the Walrus. It exudes just the right amount of ugly to have character but not so much that it becomes unpleasant to look at.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Crimea_River (Mar 31, 2019)

Look what several dozen sheets of 4x8 3/4" shop grade plywood gets you:

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 31, 2019)

Then there were the designs by the Frenchman, Roland Payen, who had a very interesting take on aircraft design.
They were all...uh...unique and yet managed to fly somehow.

I'd include a photo of one of his creations but I have no idea which one is the ugliest (they all are), so I'll leave it up to you to decide.

Just search the internet for "Payen Aircraft" and let the retinal damage commence - but keep in mind, what has been seen, cannot be unseen.

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


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 31, 2019)

Just so no nation gets left out: 

The B-10.





The WF





The C-93

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


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 31, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> Just so no nation gets left out:
> 
> The B-10.
> View attachment 533904







Oh no you did not!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
4 | Funny Funny:
5 | Winner Winner:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 31, 2019)

I'll get a head start here and call 911

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 31, 2019)

vikingBerserker said:


> View attachment 533918
> 
> Oh no you did not!


I saw that and thought "uh oh...sh!t's about to get real!"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 31, 2019)

That one is sort of like this one ...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## newst (Apr 4, 2019)

I have just run through this full thread and have to admit you have all come up with a gaggle of butt ugly aircraft. I am surprised that nobody has seen fit to offer up one of my all time favorite ugly aircraft, and a totally useless one as well, the Curtiss SO3C Seamew:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Buster01 (Apr 4, 2019)

newst said:


> I have just run through this full thread and have to admit you have all come up with a gaggle of butt ugly aircraft. I am surprised that nobody has seen fit to offer up one of my all time favorite ugly aircraft, and a totally useless one as well, the Curtiss SO3C Seamew:
> 
> View attachment 534254


It looks a whole lot better on floats. The landing gear just does not look right.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 4, 2019)

Buster01 said:


> It looks a whole lot better on floats. The landing gear just does not look right.


The Kingfisher and Curtiss SC-1 do not look too good on wheels, either

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Apr 5, 2019)

Glider said:


> The Walrus has to be a contender
> View attachment 533701


The Walrus, popularly known as the Shagbat or Steam Chicken (from seawater spray hitting the engine) was the most beautiful aircraft on the allied side in WW2 if you happened to be shot down in the water. The designer of the Shagbat was R. J. Mitchell who's next design was the Spitfire, he probably just wanted to do something different.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2019)

newst said:


> I have just run through this full thread and have to admit you have all come up with a gaggle of butt ugly aircraft. I am surprised that nobody has seen fit to offer up one of my all time favorite ugly aircraft, and a totally useless one as well, the Curtiss SO3C Seamew:
> 
> View attachment 534254


That is a newly hatched Fairey Barracuda.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Apr 7, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> The Bristol Freighter; the box the aeroplane came in.
> 
> View attachment 532868
> TC-330 01
> ...


I think it's beautiful !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 7, 2019)

in that French list there are a couple of lookers in there, not just uglies...

The Bernard 82 has elegance to it:

Bernard 82 - Wikipedia

The Bloch MB.162 was a very attractive four engined bomber, of which only one was built:

Bloch MB.162 - Wikipedia

Bloch MB-162-B5, Broplan MS-160 (2012)

As does the Amiot 354:

Amiot 354 - Wikipedia

Single, or twin finned variants:

Amiot 354.B4

Avions Amiot 354 Twin-Engine Bomber Airplane Desktop Wood Model Regular | eBay

And the Potez 630; this was actually a very good aeroplane and was easily a rival to the Bf 110 as a multi role combat aircraft, which it vaguely resembles, but with radial engines. The Potez had a distinguished wartime career. It suffered because it had that very distinctive characteristic going for it that it couldn't shake off, it was French.

Potez 630 - Wikipedia

Azur 1/48 Potez 631, by Tom Cleaver

Granted, the rest leave a lot to be desired, but these are proof the French had some good looking and performing machines.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 7, 2019)

I think the LeO451 is a great looking bomber.
Not only clean lines, but it was fairly fast for it's time, making it difficult to intercept.
It was also packing a 20mm Hispano in it's dorsal turret, which caught a good many Luftwaffe pilots by surprise.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> And the Potez 630; this was actually a very good aeroplane and was easily a rival to the Bf 110 as a multi role combat aircraft, which it vaguely resembles, but with radial engines. The Potez had a distinguished wartime career. It suffered because it had that very distinctive characteristic going for it that it couldn't shake off, it was French.



No, what the Potez 630 could not shake off was the fact that it was using 700hp engines when it's rivals had moved on to 1000-1100hp engines. And this is after they switched from Hispano radials to Gnome-Rhone radials. (Some of the Hispano radial engines established a reputation for the propellers parting company with engines/aircraft in flight)

The Bf 110s reputation would have been pretty poor if they tried to fight the Battle of France and the BoB using Jumo 210 engines.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 7, 2019)

So it was more like the Blenheim, then, which still had an enviable wartime career. These engine issues were a French characteristic though, as you well know!


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2019)

The Potez 630 used the same engines as the Germans later used in the Hs 129 ground attack plane. 
An 1159 cu in (19 liter) 14 cylinder radial that ran at 3030rpm at full power. It was light, it was only 37.4 in (less than a meter) in diameter. 

The fighter versions were certainly sleek and good looking (the recon version leaves something to be desired) but the low powered engines doomed it. At least with 100 octane fuel you could push the engines on a Blenheim to about 1000hp for a short period of time.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2019)

By the late 30s the French had figured out that you could not scare the air molecules out of the way of an airplane and proper streamlining and easy curves took over, just in time as the French failed to develop any _production _high powered engines despite a few promising prototypes.

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


----------



## spicmart (Apr 8, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, we all have our favorites
> but the Boeing 314 doesn't look that bad.
> View attachment 533478
> 
> ...



I think all of them look great with the Sikorsky being the standout. But then again. I'm a sucker for flying boat configuration. Hence my penchant for the B-24 which looked like such and whose predecessors were flying boats. 
The Sunderland version of the Short has a more attractive canopy. 
Another great one is the Japanese H8K Emily, which was the best of its kind in WW2.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 11, 2019)

Might be here already, I dunno, the PZL.30BI







PZL P-30 (LWS-6) Zubr​


----------



## spicmart (Apr 12, 2019)

Most of the ugly planes suggested here are actually cuddly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Apr 12, 2019)

You mean, like an injured dog?


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 12, 2019)

Or road kill...


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 12, 2019)

Not sure how one would go about cuddling with a dumpster fire, but go ahead and give it a try - we'll watch from over here...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 12, 2019)

I think the PZL.30 has to rank up there, its one thing being a butt ugly aircraft that operates well, but another being a butt ugly plane that cannot do squat.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 12, 2019)

Back to the French theory of scaring the air molecules out of the way...

The SAB AB.20:





The LeO 208:





The Amiot 140:

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 12, 2019)

France did build some remarkably ugly aircraft (especially its bombers).

Britain did manage some "winners," too: I offer the Fairey Handley-Page Heyford:




(This image was created and released by the Imperial War Museum on the IWM Non Commercial Licence. Photographs taken, or artworks created, by a member of the forces during their active service duties are covered by Crown Copyright provisions. Faithful reproductions may be reused under that licence, which is considered expired 50 years after their creation. )

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## herman1rg (Apr 12, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> France did build some remarkably ugly aircraft (especially its bombers).
> 
> Britain did manage some "winners," too: I offer the Fairey Heyford:
> View attachment 535050
> ...


Sorry to be picky but that's actually the Handley Page Heyford.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 12, 2019)

#153 looks like a combination of the 50's styling with steam punk mixed in.


----------



## spicmart (Apr 12, 2019)

I meant most of them are so ugly it's actually funny in a way. With the Lancaster it's not.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 12, 2019)

herman1rg said:


> Sorry to be picky but that's actually the Handley Page Heyford.


Thank you. It's corrected.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Oct 23, 2019)



Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 24, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 6, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> View attachment 505782
> 
> Vickers Wellesley was no beauty. Surprisingly ungainly


Given its massive span, I‘d like to see how it’s designers could create a FAA variant to fit down Ark Royal’s 45ft by 22ft and 45ft by 25ft lifts. At 39 ft 3 in long, we’re okay on lift length.

If we fold the wings just outside the undercarriage, will it be less than 22ft wide? But can the geodetic wing structure be cut? And what of those under wing pods?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 6, 2019)

I do think it was a beautiful plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 6, 2019)

Under-wing pods hold 2000lbs of bombs. Kinda need those to be classified as a bomber. With wings folded up it wouldn't fit in the Ark Royal hangar decks


----------



## pbehn (Dec 6, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Under-wing pods hold 2000lbs of bombs. Kinda need those to be classified as a bomber. With wings folded up it wouldn't fit in the Ark Royal hangar decks


 Couldn't they roll them up, like a pipe line or summat?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 6, 2019)

It is not just the wings. You only had so many feet of height between the hanger floor and the ceiling (deck above)




The Wellesley was BIG airplane and not just in wing span. 

as for the wing, without multiple folds like an origami swan or unrolling like a Goodyear inflatable plane I think you are out of luck.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 6, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> It is not just the wings. You only had so many feet of height between the hanger floor and the ceiling (deck above)
> View attachment 563025
> 
> The Wellesley was BIG airplane and not just in wing span.
> ...


Can the wing be lifted and lowered as it passes the tower, as if saluting the captain?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 6, 2019)

Or carry a torpedo.


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 6, 2019)

I take the view that there's no such ting as a ugly airplane, it's just that some look better than the rest.
If it flies at all, there's a little bit of beauty in it.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Dec 6, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> It is not just the wings. You only had so many feet of height between the hanger floor and the ceiling (deck above)
> View attachment 563025
> 
> The Wellesley was BIG airplane and not just in wing span.
> ...



Like this maybe? Gannet AEW3

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 6, 2019)

wingnuts said:


> Like this maybe? Gannet AEW3
> View attachment 563066



The Wellesley and 20 ft more span than the Gannet. Add another fold at the Gannets wing tip with 10 feet of wing coming back down over the lower joint?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Dec 6, 2019)

Not seen very well in the cutaway above, but there are 132 gallons of fuel in tanks midway in each wing.
Why would you want a Wellesely on an aircraft carrier?


----------



## wingnuts (Dec 6, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Wellesley and 20 ft more span than the Gannet. Add another fold at the Gannets wing tip with 10 feet of wing coming back down over the lower joint?



I know, I just needed an excuse to post a photo of a Gannet.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 6, 2019)

Graeme said:


> Not seen very well in the cutaway above, but there are 132 gallons of fuel in tanks midway in each wing.
> Why would you want a Wellesely on an aircraft carrier?



I don't but some people seem to delight in putting square pegs in round holes 

extra long range but extra large aircraft that cut down on the carriers number of aircraft carried and that need gobs more work to make ready or strike down seem to be a very poor bargain indeed.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 7, 2019)

Just going to toss this out there, but instead of trying to re-work (or completely rebuild) an aircraft that is not really suited for the job, why not go with an existing type already in service?

I know, crazy talk...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 7, 2019)

Graeme said:


> Not seen very well in the cutaway above, but there are 132 gallons of fuel in tanks midway in each wing.
> Why would you want a Wellesely on an aircraft carrier?
> 
> View attachment 563068


Just as a design experiment.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 7, 2019)

wingnuts said:


> I know, I just needed an excuse to post a photo of a Gannet.



You never need an excuse to do that. 😁

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Dec 7, 2019)

Capelis XC-12

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Dec 7, 2019)

Blackburn Blackburn

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Dec 7, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Blackburn Blackburn
> View attachment 563124



So good they named it twice. Blackburn's produced some shockers, only redeemed themselves with the Beverley and Buccaneer, (I was an apprentice at Blackburn's in the early 60s)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Dec 8, 2019)

Ah, the Beverley. Let's build a barn, and see if it will fly !

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


----------



## glennasher (Dec 8, 2019)

I'll give the Hampden an "honorable mention", but after seeing what the French offered, it's only that, a mention.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 8, 2019)

glennasher said:


> I'll give the Hampden an "honorable mention", but after seeing what the French offered, it's only that, a mention.


If they're unwanted and unloved I opt to send all the Hampdens to Malaya in 1940. 

Torpedo capable...







...with a good bomb load...






....rather agile...



Commence earlier, increase and expedite their Canadian production if domestic units are needed for UK defence, Canadian Associated Aircraft - Wikipedia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Dec 12, 2019)

Airframes said:


> Ah, the Beverley. Let's build a barn, and see if it will fly !



I flew in Beverleys a few times from Khormaksar in Aden to various places, nothing else the RAF had could transport big loads to rough strips back then. Sorry, not WW2 but deserves mention.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Huub Vink (Dec 13, 2019)

With all aircraft already mentioned I'm surprised I haven't seen the Breguet 27 among them.....

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 13, 2019)

Please, for the sake of humanity, please post warnings for French aircraft!!!!!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 13, 2019)

The Italians usually have an eye for style, but sometimes they make a dog....

Caproni Stipa Flying Barrel

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## herman1rg (Dec 13, 2019)

wingnuts said:


> I flew in Beverleys a few times from Khormaksar in Aden to various places, nothing else the RAF had could transport big loads to rough strips back then. Sorry, not WW2 but deserves mention.
> View attachment 563770
> View attachment 563771


Must have been a long ladder up to the cockpit.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Dec 14, 2019)

herman1rg said:


> Must have been a long ladder up to the cockpit.



The ladder is on the inside, in the cargo bay.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 14, 2019)

Washing the windshield was still a bitch😁

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 14, 2019)

Since the "WW2 aircraft" has been extended to include aircraft from the 1920s to the 1950s, I propose we add an aircraft from an under-represented country: the US. For a nomination, I propose this aircraft: 





This is the Northrop C-125 
(source: File:Northrop YC-125B Raider USAF.jpg - Wikimedia Commons)

A winner of beauty contests, it ain't.

A second nominee is the C-124: 




(from File:Phoenix 2011 c124 globemaster.JPG - Wikimedia Commons)

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## warbird51 (Dec 14, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Please, for the sake of humanity, please post warnings for French aircraft!!!!!



plus 1


----------



## GrumpyOldCrewChief (Dec 14, 2019)

Neat bit of trivia about the A/C in post #177 - it was designed to be held together with screws. The reports from the unlucky air and ground crews from the time reported "buckets of screws would be found inside after every flight." While undoubtedly a bit of an exaggeration, it does not speak well for the continued airworthiness of an airframe, if it constantly and continuously loses fasteners! That aircraft was that designers first (and last) foray into airframe design and building. IIRC, the single example built crashed, after shedding its tail on a cargo flight...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## herman1rg (Dec 14, 2019)

I'll just leave this here

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 14, 2019)

I'll just fixed that for you.....

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
6 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Dec 14, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Washing the windshield was still a bitch😁



Ther is a hatch in the roof, you can climb outside and lay across the top of the cockpit and reach the windshield, although in Aden when wearing only shorts you risk third-degree burns.

We had no fear of heights in the RAF, I used to work on "Whistling Wheelbarrows" (Argosys) at Muharraq in Bahrain, to inspect the tail area we had to walk along the narrow tail booms, made more difficult due to the antenna cable running down the middle. The Argosy could also be a contender for funny-looking aircraft but I liked them, nothing ever seemed to go wrong with them... at least from a 1st Line servicing point of view.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Dec 14, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> Since the "WW2 aircraft" has been extended to include aircraft from the 1920s to the 1950s, I propose we add an aircraft from an under-represented country: the US. For a nomination, I propose this aircraft:
> View attachment 563909
> 
> 
> ...



The C124 looked OK to me, To carry big loads you need a big aircraft (see my Beverley post).... and you gotta stick the radar somewhere. :O

I'm not sure about the C-125, what was the idea behind that? :O


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 14, 2019)

When you want to build a real kick-a$$ fighter but your funding runs out halfway through the project.





AD Scout anti-zeppelin defender​

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


----------



## at6 (Dec 14, 2019)

I can remember when C-124s were flying. Very beautiful planes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 15, 2019)

Handley Page H.P.47

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Dec 16, 2019)

wingnuts said:


> Ther is a hatch in the roof, you can climb outside and lay across the top of the cockpit and reach the windshield, although in Aden when wearing only shorts you risk third-degree burns.
> 
> We had no fear of heights in the RAF, I used to work on "Whistling Wheelbarrows" (Argosys) at Muharraq in Bahrain, to inspect the tail area we had to walk along the narrow tail booms, made more difficult due to the antenna cable running down the middle. The Argosy could also be a contender for funny-looking aircraft but I liked them, nothing ever seemed to go wrong with them... at least from a 1st Line servicing point of view.
> View attachment 563951
> View attachment 563952


Marvellous what you can do with a Shackleton wing, four Viscount engine units and two Meteor fuselages.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## PFVA63 (Dec 16, 2019)

Herman1rcg,
Thanks for posting that pic. I had never heard of the SE-100 before. It is a fascinating looking craft.
Pat


----------



## Airframes (Dec 16, 2019)

Always liked the Argosy. Did my basic para course on them - more comfortable and less noisy than the 'Fat Albert',, much more 'gentlemanly'.


----------



## wingnuts (Dec 17, 2019)

yulzari said:


> Marvellous what you can do with a Shackleton wing, four Viscount engine units and two Meteor fuselages.



If you have bits leftover you might as well use them, I am sure other companies have done the same.


----------



## wingnuts (Dec 17, 2019)

Airframes said:


> Always liked the Argosy. Did my basic para course on them - more comfortable and less noisy than the 'Fat Albert',, much more 'gentlemanly'.



I found them "gentlemanly" too, I only worked on them for a few months at Muharraq in Bahrain after Aden closed, up until then I'd only worked on Shackletons at Kinloss and Khormaksar, Shacks required constant attention and Hunters, also at Khormaksar, where things were quite frantic at times. I really don't remember having to do anything on Argosys on the line as an airframe mech apart from marshall them in, replenish them and send them away again. Things may have been different for other trades. After Argosys at Bahrain I went back onto my favourite Shackletons at Ballykelly.





Replacing Hunter brake chute, three 37 Sqn Shacks overhead, probably the day after the mortar attack to say " narr narr you missed us"





8 & 43 Sqn HUnters at Khormaksar, the barrels are filled with sand to protect against mortars... and to make it more interesting marshaling.






A Hunter supporting the army "up country" in the Radfan.

Sorry for going off-topic again, Hunters could never be considered ugly, but some people might be interested and may prompt other posts.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Dec 17, 2019)

GrumpyOldCrewChief said:


> it was designed to be held together with screws.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Dec 17, 2019)

Some planes were very unattractive without makeup.


----------



## herman1rg (Dec 17, 2019)

WARSPITER said:


> View attachment 564299
> 
> 
> Some planes were very unattractive without makeup.


Like some women................................................

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 17, 2019)

WARSPITER said:


> View attachment 564299
> 
> 
> Some planes were very unattractive without makeup.


Most of them look pretty bad after a crash and fire. Some of the aircraft above (French bombers!) may look worse before, however.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CATCH 22 (Dec 18, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> I'll just fixed that for you.....
> 
> View attachment 563929​


I think this bird is a beauty! Look at her from a different angle and with some more appreciation for strangeness/awkwardness.




Compare with the ugly duckling below, that never became a swan (it's even ready to drop an egg but has no self-confidence to do it):

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Dec 18, 2019)

CATCH 22 said:


> I think this bird is a beauty! Look at her from a different angle and with some more appreciation for strangeness/awkwardness.
> View attachment 564358
> 
> Compare with the ugly duckling below, that never became a swan (it's even ready to drop an egg but has no self-confidence to do it):
> View attachment 564359



The Short Seamew, competition for the Fairey Gannet, something about the role of ASW aircraft that leads to ugly designs, the Breguet Alizelooked a little better..... just a little.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 18, 2019)

CATCH 22 said:


> I think this bird is a beauty! Look at her from a different angle and with some more appreciation for strangeness/awkwardness.
> View attachment 564358



Dr. Zarkov, your ship is ready!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Dec 19, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Dr. Zarkov, your ship is ready!



This is the aircraft that always reminds me of Dr Zarkov's rocket ship, the Handly Page Victor.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 19, 2019)

wingnuts said:


> This is the aircraft that always reminds me of Dr Zarkov's rocket ship, the Handly Page Victor.
> View attachment 564481



I’ve always liked how the Victor looked. Of course, the ugliest jet is the Belphegor.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 19, 2019)

The Victor just looks like a bad MF'r to me.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Dec 19, 2019)

“Belphegor,” - a hideous mythical demon who tricks people into thinking they have something that will make them rich....


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 19, 2019)

There's three candidates that come to mind when comparing aircraft to Dr. Zarkov's ship (none of which are ugly) and they would be the B-36, Me264 and the B-29...


----------



## AMCKen (Dec 19, 2019)

The XC-12 was also in this one.
Five Came Back - Wikipedia


----------



## Skyediamonds (Dec 20, 2019)

Gentlemen one & all,
I truly enjoyed your marvelous testing of your skills in determining the ugliest aircraft of WW2. The descriptive words along with the enclosed photos had me laughing & eagerly anticipating reading the next post. 
From all things considered, I’d say the French won the accolades. However I must qualify by noting they also produce some of the worlds finest wines. It is with that in mind, perhaps the designers indulged in a bit too much of their finest Bourdeux while in the midst of their work?

After all, the joke here in the U.S. was the primary reason why our (late) President Gerald Ford tumbled down the stairway while disembarking from his Air Force One was due to his excess in indulgence of France’s finest.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Dec 20, 2019)

There is always this fine aeroplane which even saw action as a bomber in 1941.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pgf_666 (Dec 23, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> By the way, Grant, your Bristol 170 looks quite like the Budd RB-1 "Conestoga" transport.
> View attachment 532882


----------



## wingnuts (Dec 23, 2019)

yulzari said:


> There is always this fine aeroplane which even saw action as a bomber in 1941.
> View attachment 564621



Vickers Type 264 Valentia - Wikipedia


----------



## GrumpyOldCrewChief (Dec 23, 2019)

Re: the A/C mentioned in post #190 - The YC-125, and its competitor for the contract at the time, the XC-123, were efforts to provide a short-field, short-haul, tactical transport, to take up the space that gliders had formerly held, and helicopters could not yet fill. The promise of turbine power for helos was on the near horizon, though, and these two stout but ugly birds remained as two-or-three build prototypes / service test only. There was also the dust-up between the Air Force and the Army over who got to do what, where, and when, unfolding through this development period, so there was that, too.
And I would like to thank Graeme for finding and sharing a more complete mention of that wretched Capelus attempt, in post #205. I remember first reading of it in an ancient edition of "Air Enthusiast". I stand humbly corrected on the crash part of the statement...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Dec 23, 2019)

GrumpyOldCrewChief said:


> I remember first reading of it in an ancient edition of "Air Enthusiast".



Exceptionally good memory sir! 
November 1973 - to be precise.


----------



## pgf_666 (Dec 24, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> By the way, Grant, your Bristol 170 looks quite like the Budd RB-1 "Conestoga" transport.
> 
> View attachment 532882


Hey! That beautiful beast was mt Grandmother's design.

Her name was Fransis Walsh, and she was athe ebgineer they assigned to the project at Budd. My Aunt had pix, but I was never able to get copies...

Oh, and sorry for the weird file names, got the pix off the net--in fact, I think it was from this site


Feel free to rename them.... (;^)>

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 24, 2019)

Wow! Didn't know they could squeeze that much ugly into one airplane.


----------



## GrumpyOldCrewChief (Dec 24, 2019)

The US designed some ugly cargo aircraft, most of them also attempting to avoid "strategic material" use. The Curtiss C-76 was wooden, and poorly proportioned, to be kind. Wasn't the Conestoga built from stainless steel?


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 24, 2019)

Sorry for the triple post guys. When I pressed the post reply button it didn't Look like it registered so I kept tapping it but apparently it did.


----------



## Airframes (Dec 24, 2019)

It did.
It did.
It did.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 24, 2019)

Also that post was meant for a plane on a previous page. Didn't mean to poke fun at Pgf 666s Grandmothers design.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Dec 24, 2019)

Well, you should have poked fun at pgf 666 grandmother's design because it is hedious , butt ugly and an abomination in the sametime.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 24, 2019)

Companies that build things like this




should probably not build airplanes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 24, 2019)

Canadian Car and Foundry - CPTDB Wiki


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 24, 2019)

Bristol started by building and running street cars..........................which may explain a lot


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 24, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Companies that build things like this
> View attachment 564936
> 
> should probably not build airplanes.


Funny you post that. When I was a kid I had a book with a picture of that very train. I remember thinking it was the ugliest thing on rails I'd ever seen.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 24, 2019)

Budd didn't get much better.
1966




proved that with enough power you can make anything go fast. Might still hold the US record for fastest train?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 24, 2019)

Just so American aircraft companies don't feel too left out: 
XP-79 (which also goes into the category "What the h*** were they thinking?")




and the XF-85, most aptly named "Goblin"





Both images are from Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Buster01 (Jan 2, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> It is not just the wings. You only had so many feet of height between the hanger floor and the ceiling (deck above)
> View attachment 563025
> 
> The Wellesley was BIG airplane and not just in wing span.
> ...



How about rotating back, like the Grumman design?


----------



## Buster01 (Jan 2, 2020)

Airframes said:


> Ah, the Beverley. Let's build a barn, and see if it will fly !


Landing gear down and welded.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Mar 5, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> The Italians usually have an eye for style, but sometimes they make a dog....
> 
> Caproni Stipa Flying Barrel
> 
> View attachment 563831



The sound track should have been Yakkity Sax.


----------



## Skyediamonds (Mar 7, 2020)

True. That’s pretty well, ugly. However, was this aircraft if WWII?


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 7, 2020)

Skyediamonds said:


> True. That’s pretty well, ugly. However, was this aircraft if WWII?


The "Flying barrel" was interwar, first flew in the early 30's.


----------



## spicmart (Mar 8, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Companies that build things like this
> View attachment 564936
> 
> should probably not build airplanes.




Dieselpunk.


----------



## pgf_666 (Mar 10, 2020)

GrumpyOldCrewChief said:


> The US designed some ugly cargo aircraft, most of them also attempting to avoid "strategic material" use. The Curtiss C-76 was wooden, and poorly proportioned, to be kind. Wasn't the Conestoga built from stainless steel?



Indeed it was, but most people aren't aware that Weight-for-weight since Aluminium is as strong as steel, strength-for-strength, steel is a s light as aluminium. The main reason for the steel, according to G'ma Fran, was to minimize corosion concerns--after all, it was a Navy plane, expected to see a lot of sea-side service--she was terribly amused at the general disparagement of the MiG 25's stainless steel construction, as a number of electronic engineers in re her vacuum tube electronics; an EMP will permanently destroy a transistor, not so a vac-t---with the 'non-strategic material being an extra benifit.

But, if you compare the design to that of the C-47/R4D, as a cargo plane, you'll see that, steel excepted, all of her not-a-DC-3 features are now pretty much standard to cargo planes:

Landing Gear that allows for a flat cargo bay
Ramps for loading and unloading cargo directly (you shouldn't have to watch the fun of getting a Jeep into or out of a C-47.
High cockpit to clear those ramps.
High wings--among other things, minimizes FOD
Landing gear optimized for rough field operations.

After the war, the Flying Tiger Airlines bought 'em up, and made quite a business, because all of it's advantages meant that they could ship shomething large cross-country for less that somebody else using war surplus DC's or C-46s.

Now, I'm not saying she was a beauty--I'd give that crown to the Constellation, hands down--but ugly?

I reserve that for things that don't work, like the F-85. Speaking of which...
_______________________________________



swampyankee said:


> Just so American aircraft companies don't feel too left out:
> XP-79 (which also goes into the category "What the h*** were they thinking?")
> View attachment 564944
> 
> ...



Hey, I kinda like the P-79. Don't think much of the armament, but hey, nobody's perfect


----------



## Spitlead (Mar 10, 2020)

Ascent said:


> As you mentioned the French, here is the Amiot 143. Not a great looker for sure.
> 
> View attachment 504115


This airplane is so ugly I sort of like it... in sort of an art deco grotesque kind of way


----------



## Spitlead (Mar 10, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> How about the Arsenal-Delanne 10? (yes, it's French)
> 
> What's truly amazing, is that the Germans actually took the time to evaluate it...
> 
> View attachment 504409



Looks like a couple of drunk Germans raided the spare parts bin one night!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 10, 2020)

Spitlead said:


> Looks like a couple of drunk Germans raided the spare parts bin one night!


More like the French designers were well into their 4th bottle of Chardonnay one evening when one exclaimed "Pierre, hold my glass and watch this!!"

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spitlead (Mar 10, 2020)

Milosh said:


> Not WW2 but the French continued with ugly planes post war.
> 
> View attachment 504325



Just park a 1960's Citroen car next to it. A pair made in heaven!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spitlead (Mar 10, 2020)

GrumpyOldCrewChief said:


> The US designed some ugly cargo aircraft, most of them also attempting to avoid "strategic material" use. The Curtiss C-76 was wooden, and poorly proportioned, to be kind. Wasn't the Conestoga built from stainless steel?


You are correct GrumpyOldCrewChief, the Conestoga was made of stainless steel. I just saw one at the Pima Air Museum (see image below). As they tell it, the military was afraid there was going to be an aluminum shortage so they turned to other materials. When the aluminum shortage didn't occur they abandoned the project.


----------



## Spitlead (Mar 10, 2020)

GregP said:


> Ah Milosh, the MS1500 is positively cute compared with many other French planes.
> 
> Here are a very few that come to mind:
> 
> ...


I'm beginning to see a trend here, oui? Some designers just have a way... and others... well let's just say the French seem more about form than functionality.


----------



## Spitlead (Mar 10, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> Miles M.35 Libellula - Wikipedia
> 
> *
> View attachment 505666
> *​


I actually felt sorry for the pilot who had to fly that thing.


----------



## Spitlead (Mar 10, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> View attachment 532823
> 
> Piaggio P 108
> Google it, but only if wearing protective goggles/glasses (tinted)



The Italians are all about "theater" seating in the front!


----------



## GregP (Mar 10, 2020)

I like the P 108 myself. The front isn't any "uglier" than a Lancaster, and we are ALL fond of that one.

Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beerholder. After a certain number of them, anything looks good!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 10, 2020)

GrumpyOldCrewChief said:


> The US designed some ugly cargo aircraft, most of them also attempting to avoid "strategic material" use. The Curtiss C-76 was wooden, and poorly proportioned, to be kind. Wasn't the Conestoga built from stainless steel?


The US designed Burnelli CBY-3 has to be a contender. Ugliest aircraft made in Canada?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## beartown550 (Mar 10, 2020)

GregP said:


> I'll go with the LWS-6 (PZL.30 Zubr).
> 
> View attachment 504228
> 
> ...


That is one ugly airplane !!!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Mar 11, 2020)

> Ah, the Beverley. Let's build a barn, and see if it will fly !
> Landing gear down and welded.



I'd say more it's a double-long double-decker greyhound bus ... now let's make it fly.


----------



## Scuzfink (Mar 12, 2020)

Ascent said:


> Personally I'd call the Westland Lysander rugged, certainly not ugly.


Homely, which can indeed be attractive.


----------



## Denniss (Mar 12, 2020)

That CBY looks like a flying wing where they forgot to chop the tails off.


----------



## Ed Williamson (Mar 13, 2020)

herman1rg said:


> Must have been a long ladder up to the cockpit.



Flight deck crew entered via a door low down on port side directly below flight deck - only a short ladder needed to get in, but they then had to climb more internal fixed ladders to get into the office.

There were two passenger size doors, set into the main cargo doors, short ladders only needed, or you could mount through the big doors and ramp if they were open. There was a hatch in the floor of the troop compartment right at the end of that narrow tail boom, which could be used for entry - and that did need a long ladder ! However, the normal route into the boom was to enter the aircraft through lower doors, then clamber up things like gymnasium wall bars through not-quite large enough holes in the floor of the upper deck (the boom). That floor hatch was also used for parachute exit for troops in the boom, and the lower doors set into the cargo doors were used for troops if exiting from the main cargo compartment.

A fatality occurred on the runway at Khormaksar when a co-pilot was doing internal pre-flight checks. There was a chemical toilet compartment right at the back of the tail boom, just beyond that floor hatch. The toilet was a tight fit - if you needed a Number 2 you went in backwards. Anyway, co-pilot was just checking cables and what have you inside the compartment, so went in forward, backed out, then straight down through the hatch which had been opened, on to the concrete 20 odd feet below.


----------



## spicmart (Mar 15, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> The US designed Burnelli CBY-3 has to be a contender. Ugliest aircraft made in Canada?
> 
> 
> View attachment 572908


It looks very elegant and different.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 15, 2020)

spicmart said:


> It looks very elegant and different.


The design was innovative. Tons of internal space and easy access for a WW2 transport.






Check out the wide side doors.






This 360 panorama pic is informative of the internal volume.

Burnelli CBY-3 'Loadmaster' Cockpit Jun 14 360 Panorama | 360Cities

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Mar 15, 2020)

Also known as "The Bitch".







(The photo shown in #253 is the earlier and smaller Burnelli UB-14 design.)


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 7, 2020)

Curtiss S03C Seamew


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 7, 2020)

That always looked like an aircraft built out of a lot of extra spare parts.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Apr 7, 2020)

vikingBerserker said:


> That always looked like an aircraft built out of a lot of extra spare parts.


I think the same of the Duck-billed Platypus.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 7, 2020)

vikingBerserker said:


> That always looked like an aircraft built out of a lot of extra spare parts.



Agree...tail feathers from a Helldiver, undercarriage from a Lysander, engine cowling from a Lancaster...and a couple of barn-door sections for wings.

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


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 7, 2020)

Engine problems didn't help, but the poor flight characteristics were all Curtiss' fault.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 7, 2020)

Curtiss built some beautiful aircraft in their time and I always wondered what happened with the SO3C - especially when you look at the SC Seahawk, one of the best, but little-known floatplane of the war.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 7, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Curtiss built some beautiful aircraft in their time and I always wondered what happened with the SO3C - especially when you look at the SC Seahawk, one of the best, but little-known floatplane of the war.



Curtiss also built some aircraft with reputations for great flight characteristics. The SO3C Seamew wasn't one of them. Neither was the SB2C Helldiver. 

I agree the SC Seahawk was a great floatplane, but one wonders if it was just too late to be particularly useful, especially as catapult aircraft, by that time, were being used less for scouting than for SAR.


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 7, 2020)

Couzinet 70

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spitlead (May 8, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Couzinet 70
> 
> 
> View attachment 580571



You win

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spitlead (May 8, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Curtiss S03C Seamew
> 
> View attachment 576473



I kinda like it. That airplane looks manly with its strong chin scoop.


----------



## swampyankee (May 8, 2020)

Couzinet seemed to have an unhealthy attachment to trimotors: he made several models with three _Pobjoy_ engines, which didn't come much bigger than 60 hp.


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 8, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Couzinet seemed to have an unhealthy attachment to trimotors: he made several models with three _Pobjoy_ engines, which didn't come much bigger than 60 hp.


I like the Pobjoys. They avoid competing with the big radials and found a profitable niche.

Delays in Bristol Centaurus service entry


----------



## swampyankee (May 8, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> I like the Pobjoys. They avoid competing with the big radials and found a profitable niche.
> 
> Delays in Bristol Centaurus service entry


Oh, I think the Pobjoy radials are just too cute, kind of like a baby radial.


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 8, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Oh, I think the Pobjoy radials are just too cute, kind of like a baby radial.


I'd like to see info on Pobjoy's sleeve valve flat six engine - the one that overheated (because the operators forgot to activate its cooling function), caught fire and destroyed the Short Shetland prototype. Sounds like something that could be used in a late 1940s car.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (May 8, 2020)

Hmmm....Pobjoy. The little engine that could...providing you bolt at least 3 of them to the front of any aircraft that you want to get airborne.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 8, 2020)

Most of Couzinet's production types used Hispano inlines.


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 8, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Hmmm....Pobjoy. The little engine that could...providing you bolt at least 3 of them to the front of any aircraft that you want to get airborne.


Makes one wonder how many Poboy Niagara’s you‘d need to get something carrying 1,500 lbs of bombs to over 300 mph at 15,000 feet. Something like 24 engines sharing couplings to six props? But keeping those radials cool will be a designer‘s challenge.


----------



## Freebird (May 8, 2020)

Fairey "Frog" trainer

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 9, 2020)

If we're looking for the smallest radial that Couzinet used, don't forget the Salmson 9AD (40hp) or the Walter Vega (85hp)


----------



## Shortround6 (May 9, 2020)

Salmson 9 AD on a Taylor E-2 Cub, used a a variety of light planes in around 1930, it was an elegant and smooth but expensive way to get 40hp.


----------



## TheMadPenguin (May 9, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> View attachment 580757
> 
> Salmson 9 AD on a Taylor E-2 Cub, used [on] a variety of light planes in around 1930, it was an elegant and smooth but expensive way to get 40hp.



Considering the other posts on this thread, this little feller is downright cute!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Jul 23, 2020)

Hawker Hurricane

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 23, 2020)

spicmart said:


> Hawker Hurricane



Go.and stand in the naughty corner until you recognize the error of your ways and are willing to apologize!

😊

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Jul 23, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Go.and stand in the naughty corner until you recognize the error of your ways and are willing to apologize!
> 
> 😊


...Places spicmart in a round room...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 23, 2020)




----------



## at6 (Jul 24, 2020)

spicmart said:


> Hawker Hurricane


Suggesting that the Hurricane is unattractive might get you banned or at the very least flogged by Lucky's 800 pound Aunt Hildegaard.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Jul 24, 2020)

at6 said:


> Suggesting that the Hurricane is unattractive might get you banned or at the very least flogged by Lucky's 800 pound Aunt Hildegaard.





Being a (British) war icon doesn't take away any of its ugliness. That's really the only reason its aesthetics are hold dear. Agree?

Same with the Lancaster.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EDFN (Jul 24, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Dr. Zarkov, your ship is ready!


You know there is a Doctor Zarkov who is a prolific paper model designer with his own web shop? A very friendly man at that if I can judge from several exchanges of E-Mails: www.cadbest.com

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## herman1rg (Jul 24, 2020)

spicmart said:


> Being a (British) war icon doesn't take away any of its ugliness. That's really the only reason its aesthetics are hold dear. Agree?
> 
> Same with the Lancaster.


Disagree very strongly on both!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Jul 24, 2020)

herman1rg said:


> Disagree very strongly on both!


Lanc appears to have been modeled a stunning beauty, then partly melted, then built to the partly melted model. "Ugly" would be best applied to anything the Lanc bombed.

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


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 24, 2020)

spicmart said:


> Being a (British) war icon doesn't take away any of its ugliness. That's really the only reason its aesthetics are hold dear. Agree?
> 
> Same with the Lancaster.



Strongly disagree. The Hurricane isn't a pretty aeroplane, at least not in the way a Spitfire is pretty. However, it's anything but ugly. Purposeful? Yes. Pugnacious? Yes. Charismatic? Yes. Ugly? Definitely not!!!!

I don't think the Lancaster is ugly either. I'd place it second to the B-17 in the looks department when compared to all other WW2 4-engined heavy bombers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 24, 2020)

TheMadPenguin said:


> Lanc appears to have been modeled a stunning beauty, then partly melted, then built to the partly melted model. "Ugly" would be best applied to anything the Lanc bombed.
> View attachment 589552


If we are bringing in vodka-fueled dreams, we should start bringing in the heroin dreams from the Luft46 site.....

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 24, 2020)

Ok I can't find a real pic of the SNUD, did it really exist?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2020)

vikingBerserker said:


> Ok I can't find a real pic of the SNUD, did it really exist?



No. 
Google 

Major Howdy Bixby’s Album of Forgotten Warbirds

for more humorous pictures and stories/captions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 24, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> No.
> Google
> 
> Major Howdy Bixby’s Album of Forgotten Warbirds
> ...


I’ve been trying to find that issue of the National Lampoon for quite a while. I just couldn’t remember the title of that article. Thank you.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 24, 2020)

Thanks! I seriously thought I was loosing it.


----------



## N4521U (Jul 24, 2020)

TheMadPenguin said:


> Lanc appears to have been modeled a stunning beauty, then partly melted, then built to the partly melted model. "Ugly" would be best applied to anything the Lanc bombed.
> View attachment 589552



There should be kits!!!!!!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 24, 2020)

TheMadPenguin said:


> Lanc appears to have been modeled a stunning beauty, then partly melted, then built to the partly melted model. "Ugly" would be best applied to anything the Lanc bombed.
> View attachment 589552


Well that just made my eye's hurt.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 24, 2020)

N4521U said:


> There should be kits!!!!!!



Your supposed to encourage kids to take up modeling, not scare them away.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Jul 25, 2020)

As warped as kids seem to be today it might actually appeal to them. I'm warped enough myself to want one and I'm 70.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 25, 2020)

Alrighty then, I need to get another beer...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Jul 25, 2020)

TheMadPenguin said:


> Lanc appears to have been modeled a stunning beauty, then partly melted, then built to the partly melted model. "Ugly" would be best applied to anything the Lanc bombed.
> View attachment 589552



This thing looks cool, in a cartoony way. Not really ugly like the Lanc. Just in my opinion.
Coolest looking British designs are the Beaufighter (now THAT is pugnacious and mean) and the Mosquito (really beautiful).


----------



## N4521U (Jul 25, 2020)

at6 said:


> As wartped as kids seem to be today it might actually appeal to them. I'm warped enough myself to want one and I'm 70.



Perhaps in a plane brown box?!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jul 25, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> I don't think the Lancaster is ugly either. I'd place it second to the B-17 in the looks department when compared to all other WW2 4-engined heavy bombers.


To my eye the Halifax is the prettier bomber.


----------



## GregP (Jul 26, 2020)

Need to resurrect this thread. There are plenty of homely newcomers out there to admire!

How about this one, the More DB-10 (and "DB" does NOT mean Daimler-Benz):







They thought of almost everything. It even has a handrail should you accidentally fall forward from the cockpit!

or the Farman F.120:






Now THAT likely has some fugly genes in it, like the "drool bucket" below the center engine. There may be one or two more ugly design features, but ... they escape me just now.

Another candidate:





There is NO logical explanation for this work of art.

Oops, looks like we LEFT OFF an engine from this Viscount. OK ... let's FIX that quick, before the flight is late for departure! Get me some superglue! I bet that helps visibility during final approach. See below:






Fiat made a helicopter. About what I'd expect:






Think you'll win the business negotiation if you shown up on the roof in THAT? It screams out "my mother wears Army Boots, lives in a tent, and I'm stupid!" Heck, the two guys in the pic can't even decide which side of the door leads inside. The tail rotor is a hoola-hoop with a prop inside it. Fix It Again Tony!

See below:






This Great Lakes aircraft was designed by three different committees who were not allowed to communicate with one another. The people who designed the rear of the cockpit wanted a picture window so the people inside could inspect the tail surfaces before flight. What is even scarier is that it has a tail hook for carrier operations! Looks like if you yank on the tail, it would just fall over onto its nose. Luckily enough, they only built 1. The question in my mind is "Why weren't they shot?"

Only a Frenchman could think of these lines:






Bleriot 125. Maybe it needs a bra? On the other hand, maybe the twin fuselages were turned over, had axles added, and were used to make the first Airstream travel trailers. They certainly didn't waste any time making curved plexiglass for the cockpit. They saved the hard work of bending plastic for the curved windows in the Airstreams. Wonder if you can actually steer any of the wheels?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Jul 26, 2020)

GregP said:


> How about this one, the More DB-10 (and "DB" does NOT mean Daimler-Benz):
> 
> View attachment 589698


That's ugly enough to be a French aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Jul 26, 2020)

Be still my heart. I'm in love!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Jul 26, 2020)

N4521U said:


> Perhaps in a plane brown box?!


Shipped discreetly like Depends?


----------



## Elmas (Jul 26, 2020)

GregP said:


> Need to resurrect this thread. There are plenty of homely newcomers out there to admire!
> 
> How about this one, the More DB-10 (and "DB" does NOT mean Daimler-Benz):
> 
> ...



The source of inspiration for Bleriot 125 designers:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Jul 26, 2020)

Elmas said:


> Their source for inspiration:
> 
> View attachment 589709


Give it wings and engines. The French will make it fly.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Jul 26, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> To my eye the Halifax is the prettier bomber.



Stone me, but best-looking is the B-24 Liberator.


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Jul 26, 2020)

GregP said:


> Need to resurrect this thread. There are plenty of homely newcomers out there to admire!
> 
> How about this one, the More DB-10 (and "DB" does NOT mean Daimler-Benz):
> 
> ...


The DB-10 does not show up in my web searches. Can you toss us a link?
I found this picture but no information:


----------



## GregP (Jul 26, 2020)

I just Googled ugliest airplane and clicked some of the links and then followed up clicking ugly planes. I MIGHT be able to find it again ... I'll try for a short while and let you know.

OK, I Googled More DB-10 airplane and it's there, at least in my browser. Found here: Ugliest airplane? and here: File:Dyle et Bacalan DB-10 L'Aérophile August,1927.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

I'm afraid it doesn't get any better-looking as you continue to find pictures of it. I'm hoping this is the only picture. If there were any others, it might be considered as a conspiracy.

I spoke too soon! It IS a conspiracy:






Unfortunately, the designer did it AGAIN and made a ground attack version, the DB-20:






Not quite as ugly as his first effort with the DB-10! His innate sense of the abstract caused him to "dress it up" a bit, or so it seems.

I know it performed well, but this is just wrong:






If it were female, you'd have to tie a roast beef to her face to get the dog to play with her.

I don't care if this hauls a lot of cargo, it's UGLY:






I give you the Ayres Loadmaster or ... load-a-bricks.

Maybe this tells us something:






Ya' think? You would not think a primitive tribesman would have had much practice at hitting a target going 60+ mph, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Them boys should try out for the Olympic Team.


----------



## herman1rg (Jul 26, 2020)

I think if there was a sweepstake of unattractive/ugly a/c there would be many interwar French designs in the top 10.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Jul 26, 2020)

Some planes really appear as contemporary art masterpieces...


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 26, 2020)

GregP said:


> Need to resurrect this thread. There are plenty of homely newcomers out there to admire!
> 
> How about this one, the More DB-10 (and "DB" does NOT mean Daimler-Benz):
> 
> ...



The PL-11 AirTruck is actually very logically designed: the fuselage contains the hopper, as it's an agricultural aircraft, which is placed so trim doesn't change during flight. The pilot is placed atop the hopper as it gives both good visibility and keeps the hopper from squashing him if he happens to run into a utility pole*. The separated tail booms are so a truck can back up and load the hopper from as closely as possible. 

I wonder if the Farman designers were influenced by those at Dornier (Dornier Delphin, Dornier Delphin (Dornier, Friedrichshafen) - Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek)







Dornier made some other less-than-lovely aircraft (we won't talk about the Do X here...), such as the Do Y (By Unknown photographer - <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bww1/doy/doy-5.jpg">http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bww1/doy/doy-5.jpg</a>, <a href="Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Unported — CC BY 3.0" title="Creative Commons Attribution 3.0">CC BY 3.0</a>, <a href="File:DornierdoY.jpg - Wikipedia">Link</a>)

-----

* Many years ago, when I was at Lycoming, an LTP-101 came in that had been installed in an agplane, which ran into a concrete utility pole. The pilot hit the pole with the spinner at about 100 knots. Rather amazingly, he survived without permanent disability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jul 26, 2020)

spicmart said:


> Stone me, but best-looking is the B-24 Liberator.


IDK, a face only its mother could love.






and then perhaps not....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jul 26, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> IDK, a face only its mother could love.
> 
> View attachment 589740
> 
> ...


Silly boy. Now go to your room untill we call you.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Jul 26, 2020)

Snautzer01 said:


> Silly boy. Now go to your room untill we call you.


We haven't figured out yet what we'll call you...


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 26, 2020)

I keep looking at the DB10. It looks like something Wallace and Grommet would build.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jul 26, 2020)

We ? Deary me. What am i going to do? In any case if you too think a b-24 is ugly you ( all 3 of you Pen, Quin and Mad ) must go too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 26, 2020)

I was aware of the AirTruck's design features, but was trying to get into the spirit of the thread.

We're all aware of the aircraft below, for instance, but the paint job finishes it off and puts it smack in the middle of "ugly":








At least they didn't add eyebrows ...

How about the Vickers Gunbus:






Perhaps not quite as "ugly" as "strange." Perhaps not. I would NOT have wanted to bail out with an operating engine ... or even in inoperative engine.

Another French candidate:






The Leduc 0.22 might not be exactly ugly, but it ain't cute either. Even has ugly landing gear ... which SHOULD put it into the ugly class. Maybe.

On the other side of the coin, here's a B-24 with a B-17 nose grafted on:










Looks better than a stock unit to me with the nose job.

Honorable "ugly" mention?






Looks like a dromedary to me. They absolutely could not decide where the cockpit should have been, so they provided choices. Maybe the rear cockpits were in case they changed sides in the middle of a mission?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 26, 2020)

GregP said:


> I was aware of the AirTruck's design features, but was trying to get into the spirit of the thread.
> 
> We're all aware of the aircraft below, for instance, but the paint job finishes it off and puts it smack in the middle of "ugly":
> 
> ...


I flew on one of these Heathrow to Teesside, it was slower than the train and made half the passengers sick, like being on a powered kite.


----------



## GregP (Jul 26, 2020)

Here's what happens when you take a part off an ugly airplane and put it on a better one.






What can we take off a Beverley and use for something? How about a SPINNER?

What can we put it on? How about a race plane:






Good use of spare parts! Literally, the racing Bearcat Rare Bear has a spinner from a Beverley! It surely never went so fast as it does now.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Jul 28, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> IDK, a face only its mother could love.
> 
> View attachment 589740
> 
> ...



The last picture. If it weren't so tragic (six people lost their lifes) it could be right out of a Wile E. Coyote cartoon. 


Admiral Beez said:


> IDK, a face only its mother could love.
> 
> View attachment 589740
> 
> ...


 The wing makes it special.


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Jul 28, 2020)

spicmart said:


> The last picture. If it weren't so tragic (six people lost their lifes) it could be right out of a Wile E. Coyote cartoon.
> 
> The wing makes it special.


This is not what is meant by "wing in ground effect".


----------



## GregP (Jul 28, 2020)

How about another ... wait for it, French candidate?






Not the Airbus, but the decidedly French SNCASO Onera Deltaviex below. Now those are some bug eyes, huh! Jeepers creepers, where'd you get those peepers? From France.

This next one is more strange than truly ugly. For some reason, I cannot get the Boeing YL-15 Scout pic to post. I tried 4 - 5 different pics and it just won't post. I guess the browser thinks it's ugly, too. So, maybe I'm wrong, and it IS ugly. The Boeing YL-15 Scout. To give it it's due. it comes apart and can be stowed VERY compactly. That doesn't make it any prettier, though.

How about the Nemeth Parasol?






The designed must have had too much to drink, looked at himself in a fun-house mirror and came up with this. The shocking thing is that he persisted after he sobered up.

Then again, the Lanier Vacuplane XL-4 reminds me of the north end of a southbound jackass:






I cannot understand the inspiration for this creation, except that is was designed at the University of Miami, widely regarded as a party school. Still, it looks better than the Scroggs Last Laugh, seen below:






Looks like a paper airplane with the front pointed part replaced with an engine. I don't care who you are, that's funny.

Flying saucers might have inspired the Roe UFO below:






Which apparently flies quite nicely. That doesn't make it pretty, though. Maybe flying saucers got their start early, as seen below:






Don't know much about it except that it apparently was tried in 1911. On the plus side, it afforded plenty of shade if you built a round table under it.

Somehow, the Messerschmiit Bf 109 below just doesn't seem right:






Does it?

Company ... HALT!






All for now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## herman1rg (Jul 28, 2020)



Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## herman1rg (Jul 28, 2020)

There's the Boeing YL-15


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 28, 2020)

That was a neat little aircraft.


----------



## GregP (Jul 28, 2020)

I had to come back in and add this one:






This is how nature says, "Stay Away!" Even children don't like it.

Look! It's a bay window on floats! ... complete with sliding doors in the front.






And here's one standing on its tiptoes!






Not sure if the SNCASO SO-30R Bellatrix qualifies as ugly:






But it DOES make wonder why they spent actual money to build something that screamed, "Don't build me!" so loudly. Which begs the question, "Why, oh why did they build that?" One look at the 3-view should have sent them all to the rest room with gastrointestinal distress. It's like three cigars with wings and a fin ...

Had it been built, maybe the Comet would not have had to be the one that crashed until they discovered square windows and pressurization don't mix.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Jul 28, 2020)

OP put in the thread title "least attractive of WWII".
MANY horrid things seen here have been from post-war years.
One of the least attractive would be The Jug, with 8 guns blazing at you and your Bf 109.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2020)

Blasphemy the 109 is a beautiful aircraft.  Beautiful is a warbird kind of way.


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Jul 28, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Blasphemy the 109 is a beautiful aircraft.  Beautiful is a warbird kind of way.


Re-read: The UNATTRACTIVE is the JUG WITH ITS GUNS BLAZING AT YOU. You and your Bf 109 are about to become unattractive.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2020)

Maybe...


----------



## yulzari (Jul 28, 2020)

GregP said:


> I had to come back in and add this one:
> 
> View attachment 590045
> 
> ...


Aagh no! Not the 'square' windows myth.............


----------



## Graeme (Jul 28, 2020)

GregP said:


> Not sure if the SNCASO SO-30R Bellatrix qualifies as ugly:



Certainly not with the piston-engined variety - but's that's just my opinion.



GregP said:


> But it DOES make wonder why they spent actual money to build something that screamed, "Don't build me!" so loudly. Which begs the question, "Why, oh why did they build that?"



They built it (SNCASO SO.R.30R-02 F-WAYB with Hispano Suiza-built Rolls-Royce Nenes) at a request by the French Air Ministry to investigate/study the problems of operating commercial aircraft at high altitudes. This was March 1951 and it was never intended for production.
Another, (SO.30P F-WAYD) was an engine testbed for the SNECMA Atar101.

Note that they both adopted a single fin (originally seen on the Bretagne prototype...


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 28, 2020)

Oh, the Bf109 was unattractive beforehand. It may soon become unattractive and broken.

Another US entry: the XP-79




By U.S. Air Force photo; The original uploader was Jep2000316 at English Wikipedia., 27 November 2005 (original upload date). - National Museum of the U.S. Air Force photo 110516-F-XN622-003; Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by Yousaf465 using CommonsHelper., Public Domain, File:Northrop XP-79.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 29, 2020)

herman1rg said:


> There's the Boeing YL-15





vikingBerserker said:


> That was a neat little aircraft.


To be honest, it looks like a Piper that got run down on the ramp by a heavy


----------



## at6 (Jul 29, 2020)

GregP said:


> How about another ... wait for it, French candidate?
> 
> View attachment 590033
> 
> ...


I like the "V" tail BF-109. Nothing ugly about it.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Jul 29, 2020)

Most of the aircraft posted here are more quirky (in a funny way) than ugly.
A really unattractive thingy imo is the F6F Hellcat.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 29, 2020)

A few posts up someone said this is about unattractive aircraft in WWII.

Mea culpa. I was just going for unattractive aircraft ... I shall desist. Cheers.

Might as well leave with an "attactive" aircraft in the WWII era, the Latecoere 631:









The Buffalo IS fairly homely ... at least to me.






That may or may not exactly be ugly, but certainly isn't "pretty."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Jul 29, 2020)

spicmart said:


> Most of the aircraft posted here are more quirky (in a funny way) than ugly.
> A really unattractive thingy imo is the F6F Hellcat.




The Hellcat isn't really "pretty" but it beats the heck out of the Wildcat, which is even uglier than the Brewster Buffalo, in my book.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 29, 2020)

glennasher said:


> The Hellcat isn't really "pretty" but it beats the heck out of the Wildcat, which is even uglier than the Brewster Buffalo, in my book.


As much as I have a soft spot in my head for the Buffalo, the Wildcat is prettier than Buffalo, IMHO.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Jul 29, 2020)

Actually, the Wildcat is prettier than the Hellcat. Not as lethal, but prettier. It also makes the Buffalo look like 110 year old Aunt Edna.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 29, 2020)

Arguing aesthetics is even more likely to devolve into fuming annoyance than arguing about sports teams.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 29, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Arguing aesthetics is even more likely to devolve into fuming annoyance than arguing about sports teams.


I have no idea what you said but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it!

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


----------



## at6 (Jul 29, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Arguing aesthetics is even more likely to devolve into fuming annoyance than arguing about sports teams.


Not if we just allow ourselves to have fun with it. Besides, I don't watch sports.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Jul 29, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Arguing aesthetics is even more likely to devolve into fuming annoyance than arguing about sports teams.





SaparotRob said:


> I have no idea what you said but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it!


I think that he's worried that an overheated argument could erupt.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 29, 2020)

at6 said:


> Not if we just allow ourselves to have fun with it. Besides, I don't watch sports.



I only watch on rare occasions. 

Hopefully, the ugliest plane thread keeps going in a fun way. 

Accessories can also spoil a look. The He119 looks OK, albeit pretty odd, but when it's put on floats? 




_By MLWatts - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, File:Heinkel He 119 profiles.svg - Wikimedia Commons_

The combination of the spindly fuselage, designed for low drag, with the huge floats, their supporting struts, and a fixed ladder, moves it into the realm of the ugly.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 29, 2020)

spicmart said:


> A really unattractive thingy imo is the F6F Hellcat.



I can see why some people would find the Hellcat "unattractive" but that's because Grumman didn't take any liberties with it's design, being primarily concerned with producing a relatively simple low-cost fighter plane with handling qualities that made it easy to fly and a performance that kept it competitive with it's primary antagonists. By these measures I think they succeeded in spades.

And while I will always love the Spitfire and Mustang for their sheer beauty, my heart still belongs to the Hellcat. I guess like most things I choose functional over glamorous, and watching a squadron of fully loaded F6Fs screaming down the deck of a carrier and into action is about as functional as it gets for me....

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 29, 2020)

They always remind me of really pissed off hornets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 29, 2020)

I may get beat up for saying this but I'm I the only one who doesn't think the A6M is attractive? By all accounts I should, but there's something about the design that just doesn't look right to me but I can't figure it out. What makes this even more strange is that I would describe most other Japanese fighter aircraft of WWII as pleasing designs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 29, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> I may get beat up for saying this but I'm I the only one who doesn't think the A6M is attractive? By all accounts I should, but there's something about the design that just doesn't look right to me but I can't figure it out. What makes this even more strange is that I would describe most other Japanese fighter aircraft of WWII as pleasing designs.


Yes. You are the only one.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 29, 2020)

vikingBerserker said:


> They always remind me of really pissed off hornets.


Now that you mention it......


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 29, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Yes. You are the only one.



Thought so. I also think the FW 190A is a much better looking machine than the Dora (gasps). The long ugly snout gives the impression that the engine was just stuck on it like a bottle cap lol.

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


----------



## at6 (Jul 29, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> I may get beat up for saying this but I'm I the only one who doesn't think the A6M is attractive? By all accounts I should, but there's something about the design that just doesn't look right to me but I can't figure it out. What makes this even more strange is that I would describe most other Japanese fighter aircraft of WWII as pleasing designs.


It is the most attractive Japanese plane next to the Kate.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 29, 2020)

at6 said:


> It is the most attractive Japanese plane next to the Kate.



I can get on board with that.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 29, 2020)

Many of the earlier IJN/IJA types did not have a great deal of appeal (at least to me) but they were an example of form following function - on the otherhand, the KI-45 was a beauty.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Jul 30, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> I may get beat up for saying this but I'm I the only one who doesn't think the A6M is attractive? By all accounts I should, but there's something about the design that just doesn't look right to me but I can't figure it out. What makes this even more strange is that I would describe most other Japanese fighter aircraft of WWII as pleasing designs.



No, you are not alone in this.
The Zero is one of the airplanes which have the cockpit too far forward being detrimental to their looks.
The Hellcat and the George (though I quite like this one) are also examples.
I prefer the cockpit to be more to the middle of the fuselage.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2020)

I guess the Bloch 152 is not high on your list of likes?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 30, 2020)

From all the entertaining posts on this Forum, it seems French aircraft are in their own category.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Jul 30, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> From all the entertaining posts on this Forum, it seems French aircraft are in their own category.


The French wouldn't have it any other way.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 30, 2020)

spicmart said:


> No, you are not alone in this.
> The Zero is one of the airplanes which have the cockpit too far forward being detrimental to their looks.
> The Hellcat and the George (though I quite like this one) are also examples.
> I prefer the cockpit to be more to the middle of the fuselage.


 
Yes, having the cockpit closer to the nose does lend to a stockier, albeit less graceful appearance. But on the positive side it has a remarkable effect on forward vision, something that really comes in handy in a dogfight. 

And it's funny that you mentioned the Kawanishi N1K because it was sometimes mistaken for the F6F and visa versa, their silhouettes being somewhat similar from a distance.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 30, 2020)

The KI-100 was misidentified as a P-47 on a few occasions, too.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Jul 30, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> Yes, having the cockpit closer to the nose does lend to a stockier, albeit less graceful appearance. But on the positive side it has a remarkable effect on forward vision, something that really comes in handy in a dogfight.
> 
> And it's funny that you mentioned the Kawanishi N1K because it was sometimes mistaken for the F6F and visa versa, their silhouettes being somewhat similar from a distance.



A short nose is also good if you want to land on a carrier, visibility is much better.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 30, 2020)

OK, I'll say it again ... you talked me into it ...

If it's weird, it's British. If it's ugly, it's French. If it's weird AND ugly, it's Russian. Doesn't mean they are ALL that way ... but, as general rule ... that is not original with me ... just repeating it in this thread about aircraft that are "appearance-disadvantaged" in politically-correct symbiospeech.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 31, 2020)

British ... Wierd:






French ... Ugly:






Russian ... Weird AND ugly:






Not quite WWII (1948), but designed during the war.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 31, 2020)

You make a strong case, sir.


----------



## GregP (Jul 31, 2020)

Obviously not all aircraft follow the "rule" but, if you aren't sure, it's a good place to start looking for an unknown "strange" plane.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Jul 31, 2020)

Some of the French stuff looks like flying art deco buildings. I'm a big fan of art deco but the buildings shouldn't fly.

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


----------



## Mad Dog (Aug 1, 2020)

Glider said:


> We often talk about the best of something or the worst but how about the most unattractive aircraft of WW2. I must emphasise we are talking about looks.
> 
> I know that there are some good French contenders but I will go with my personal choice the Barracuda.
> View attachment 504105


Well, I do like the nose lines on the Barracuda, it's kinda handsome up to the cockpit, then the Navy's design influence starts to show.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Aug 1, 2020)

michael rauls said:


> Wow............. Maybe the goal was to cause such visual discomfort among attacking pilots that they would be unable to continue or risk permanent eye damage.


The Fleet Shadower concept wasn't a combat aircraft as such, it had no offensive capability. It was an extremely demanding requirement - able to loiter at 30 knots (!) all night whilst tracking an enemy fleet so that they could be attacked immediately at dawn, yet also able to fit on the cramped carrier lifts and in the cramped hangars of RN's fleet carriers.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 1, 2020)

The Fleet Shadower was a very narrow-niche airplane, and it was VERY good at it's intended design mission. Ugly? Perhaps, but I bet everyone would have been very happy had a Fleet Shadower been available when they were after the Bismark, especially when they were out of range for land-based German fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Aug 1, 2020)

wingnuts said:


> The Walrus, popularly known as the Shagbat or Steam Chicken (from seawater spray hitting the engine) was the most beautiful aircraft on the allied side in WW2 if you happened to be shot down in the water. The designer of the Shagbat was R. J. Mitchell who's next design was the Spitfire, he probably just wanted to do something different.



The Walrus stemmed from a long line of amphibians that were Supermarine's bread and butter. Doing something different was Mitchell switching from flyingboat (Sea Lion I through III) to seaplane (eventually the S.6B) for the Schneider Trophy, which led to the racing design experience used for the Spitfire. Mitchell was forced to switch to a seaplane by the Schneider-winning Curtis CR3, so some reflected glory for the Yanks there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Aug 1, 2020)

WARSPITER said:


> View attachment 564299
> 
> 
> Some planes were very unattractive without makeup.


Looks like a Fiat CR42, which wasn't exactly ugly..


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 1, 2020)

Skyediamonds said:


> True. That’s pretty well, ugly. However, was this aircraft if WWII?


If you're referring to my post with the XP-79 and XF-85, I think the former's design was started during WW2, but the XF-85 was conceived as a parasitic fighter attached to the B-36.


----------



## Mad Dog (Aug 1, 2020)

spicmart said:


> Most of the aircraft posted here are more quirky (in a funny way) than ugly.
> A really unattractive thingy imo is the F6F Hellcat.


Wash your mouth out! The Hellcat certainly wasn't a Spitfire, but it wasn't that bad!

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


----------



## GregP (Aug 2, 2020)

Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder ...






Beer kegs under Spitfire wings to get them cold! ... or to shake off the heebie jeebies whenever they saw a truly UGLY airplane.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 2, 2020)

Ha Haaa! Mad dog, I see you disagreed with my assessment of the Attacker and the Hastings! Gonna stick to my guns mate, the Attacker's a short fat thing and the Hastings with its nose in the air looks ungainly, but that's the fun of this, its all in the eye of the beholder...


----------



## Mad Dog (Aug 2, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Ha Haaa! Mad dog, I see you disagreed with my assessment of the Attacker and the Hastings! Gonna stick to my guns mate, the Attacker's a short fat thing and the Hastings with its nose in the air looks ungainly, but that's the fun of this, its all in the eye of the beholder...



Well, the Attacker is not at all ugly, it actually looks quite sleek compared to many of the contemporary early jets:






And the Hastings was not too bad either, on par with American products of the day:





Yes, both were tail-draggers, but they were elegant in flight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 2, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Yes, both were tail-draggers, but they were elegant in flight.



Hmmm, a pig with wings? We'll just hafta disagree!


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 2, 2020)

As an aside, if you put a prop on the nose of the Attacker, you would have either an Me509 (Messerschmitt) or an R2Y (Yokosuka).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Aug 2, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> As an aside, if you put a prop on the nose of the Attacker, you would have either an Me509 (Messerschmitt) or an R2Y (Yokosuka).



Thanks for the heads-up on the Me 509 Dave - haven't heard of that one before. But yeah, it could look like the R2Y - if ya squint...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Aug 2, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> The Walrus stemmed from a long line of amphibians that were Supermarine's bread and butter. Doing something different was Mitchell switching from flyingboat (Sea Lion I through III) to seaplane (eventually the S.6B) for the Schneider Trophy, which led to the racing design experience used for the Spitfire. Mitchell was forced to switch to a seaplane by the Schneider-winning Curtis CR3, so some reflected glory for the Yanks there.



Mitchell did do another design before the Spitfire, the Type 224 but it turned out to be a big disappointment (and ugly), so he had a rethink and came up with the Spitfire... thank goodness!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Aug 2, 2020)

GregP said:


> Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder ...
> 
> View attachment 590525
> 
> ...



Shoot this thing and you got a beer shower, cockpit open if possible.


----------



## Mad Dog (Aug 2, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Hmmm, a pig with wings? We'll just hafta disagree!



If you're complaining about "short and fat", I think maybe you're getting the Attacker confused with the Saab Tunnan?





Or Maybe the MiG-9?





I do have a soft spot for the tubby Tunnan, but the Attacker looks better. But, if you have a hatred for tail-draggers, surely the uglier Yak-15 should be your target :
*



*

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Aug 2, 2020)

wingnuts said:


> Mitchell did do another design before the Spitfire, the Type 224 but it turned out to be a big disappointment (and ugly), so he had a rethink and came up with the Spitfire... thank goodness!


It's probably a very good thing the Type 224 was let down by the Rolls-Royce Goshawk engine and its evaporative cooling system, otherwise the RAF would have bought Type 224s instead of the Gloster Gladiator, and that could have kept Supermarine too busy to develop the Spitfire before 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 2, 2020)

A LOT of people laugh at the SAAB J-29 Tunan ... until they try to fight one with almost any other contemporary jet fighter. It would give an F-86 everything it could handle and maybe a bit more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Aug 3, 2020)

Does the J-29 have any heritage with a certain Fw a/c designed by Kurt Tank?


----------



## GregP (Aug 3, 2020)

An interesting question, Milosh ... I had never thought about that, but I see where you are coming from. Hmmmm ...


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 3, 2020)

According to Wikipedia (I know, I know....), SAAB received some design drawings from Messerschmitt.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 3, 2020)

Saab's J-29 looks a great deal like Messerschmitt's P.1092/4 design.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 3, 2020)

GregP said:


> A LOT of people laugh at the SAAB J-29 Tunan ... until they try to fight one with almost any other contemporary jet fighter. It would give an F-86 everything it could handle and maybe a bit more.



Was it’s performance due to smaller lighter and shorter legged or aerodynamics/ motor?


----------



## GregP (Aug 4, 2020)

Actually BiffF15, I have not tried to analyze the J.29 before.

A quick check tells me ... I am assuming combat weight of about 16,000 pounds for both.

J.29 level speed is maybe 30 mph slower than best speed for an F-86F at best altitude, but it is faster at some altitudes.
J.29 has a higher service ceiling than F-86 by some 2,800 feet ... 50,853 vs 48,000.
J.29 has an afterburner (or reheat, as appropriate). With A/B, J.29 has a slightly better thrust to weight (.39 vs. .37.). .31 without A/B, but better fuel consumption.
Wing loadings are close, with F-86 slightly lower.
J.29 has four 20 mm cannons va. six 50-cal MG. Armament WAY in favor of J.29.
J.29 initial rate of climb: 6.320 fpm. F-86F initial rate of climb: 8,100 fpm. But ... J.29 has higher service ceiling so, at some point, J.29 ROC is better. I assume it evens out at 35 - 40,000 feet.
Range: Combat radius: F-86: 463 miles, Ferry: 1,525 miles. J.29 range: 685 miles, but no mention of combat radius or ferry. They DID fit drop tanks.
J.29 was considered as VERY agile against all potential adversaries.
J.29F had more thrust and better takeoff and climb.

Weights are very similar.

The J.29 appears to have been MUCH better than it gets credit for. We all KNOW the F-86 was a good one.

They never met as foes. J.29 got into combat very late in it's career in Africa, mostly in ground attack. None were lost in combat. One was lost when a senior officer aborted a takeoff too late to stop in the runway. Three were burned rather than fly them back to Sweden since they were then being phased out (1970s) and the cost to return them home was more than the worth of the aircraft ... at least to Sweden.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Aug 4, 2020)

Milosh said:


> Does the J-29 have any heritage with a certain Fw a/c designed by Kurt Tank?



Some silhouettes to compare...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 4, 2020)

Here's the afore-mentioned Messerschmitt P.1092/4 for comparison.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 11, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Wash your mouth out! The Hellcat certainly wasn't a Spitfire, but it wasn't that bad!



No one in their right mind would ever call the Hellcat graceful but on the other hand it certainly isn't ugly....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 11, 2020)

Another airplane that has mixed reviews concerning its looks is the Macchi MC.200 Saetta. It looks pretty sweet from certain angles but is questionable in others IMHO.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 13, 2020)

Different variations of the cyclogryo, each one uglier than the other...





















FROM THE WEBS, COULDN'T FIND ORIGINAL SOURCES​

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


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 13, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> Different variations of the cyclogryo, each one uglier than the other...
> 
> View attachment 591765
> 
> ...


 Did any of those ever get off the ground ?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 13, 2020)

The first one if it ever landed in water could still go

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 13, 2020)

It's kind of ironic that these all failed, as cycloidal propellers are pretty common in boats and ships, especially tugs.


----------



## GregP (Aug 13, 2020)

A Voith-Schneider drive on a tugboat is quite effective, and points the thrust in only one direction with heavy use of cams.



In an aircraft, it would be like aiming the jet pipe on a Harrier. The Harrier has standard horizontal wings, and pointing the thrust straight backward results in standard propulsion. The first one above looks like it might be able to do the same. However, the entire point of a Voith-Schneider drive is the captain has the ability to make the propulsion point in any direction. So, he can some up next to a ship gently, and then have full propulsion sideways to push the ship ... or he can come up, tie off, and pull the ship, all while not changing his position relative to the ship. I really don't see the point for some of the above. They would need to provide both propulsion and lift, so it appears they were hunting for a helicopter application.

Here's an animation of a Voith Water Tractor:



Not too sure an aircraft could stand the cams, gears, and associated structure. The water tractor is at about 28 - 35 seconds into the animation.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Solita2022 (Feb 25, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Back to the French theory of scaring the air molecules out of the way...
> 
> The SAB AB.20:
> View attachment 535043
> ...


----------



## Solita2022 (Feb 25, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Back to the French theory of scaring the air molecules out of the way...
> 
> The SAB AB.20:
> View attachment 535043
> ...


What the hell is that!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Feb 25, 2021)

A flying bathtub... IMHO.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tord55 (Feb 25, 2021)

fubar57 said:


> Westland P.12 Wendover, looks like a Lysander backed into a Lancaster
> 
> View attachment 504406
> 
> from the WEB​


Harald Penrose, Westland's chief test pilot, loved to fly this odd aircraft, that had for a while self castering mainwheels, so could behave a bit like a B-52 at taking off, rolling down the runway askew, the nose pointing at the wind even before take-off!

According to Harald, the idea was that its four-cannon gun turret would be used to strafe the beaches during D-day, but the idea was dropped so no production was started. Eventually, it was turned back into a normal Lysander, if my memory serves me right (its been almost 50 years since I read Harald's memoirs)! Guns were never installed, by the way.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spitlead (Feb 25, 2021)

Solita2022 said:


> What the hell is that!!!



Clearly they weren't following the guideline that if it looked good, it flew good. You have to remember this is not an anomaly, the French made the Citroen. I rest my case.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 25, 2021)

Spitlead said:


> Clearly they weren't following the guideline that if it looked good, it flew good. You have to remember this is not an anomaly, the French made the Citroen. I rest my case.



On the other hand, Citroens were very interesting, technically advanced cars. Their pre-WW2 aircraft weren't. Also, there was certainly nothing wrong with how the Traction Avant looked. Or Bugattis. I wonder if the engineers hired by the French aviation industry had all been trained by people who hated art.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 25, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> On the other hand, Citroens were very interesting, technically advanced cars. Their pre-WW2 aircraft weren't. Also, there was certainly nothing wrong with how the Traction Avant looked. Or Bugattis. I wonder if the engineers hired by the French aviation industry had all been trained by people who hated art.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Citroen_AMI_6_(1).jpg
It’s hard to pick which angle to view the Ami 6 from. I think looking in the opposite direction is best.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 25, 2021)

..


Reluctant Poster said:


> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Citroen_AMI_6_(1).jpg
> It’s hard to pick which angle to view the Ami 6 from. I think looking in the opposite direction is best.


The Ami 6 doesn't even have the "ugly cute" think going on, as does the 2CV. On the other hand, the Traction Avant



(By Traction.fr - Oberentzen 2007, Public Domain, File:Tractionfr02.jpg - Wikimedia Commons) looks quite nice. 
And, of course, the Bugatti Atlantic was the most beautiful car ever made. 
On the other hand, one may be inclined to think that the French aircraft industry (possibly especially Amiot) had been taught design by people who were expelled, with great prejudice, from art school.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Feb 25, 2021)

GrsuGeist; gentlemen, if you or anyone else can produce more detailed photos of the SAB AB 20 as well as three views & any written references, I’m of the mind to scratch out a detailed scale model. As some of you may know by following my current modeling build of the Guillow’s P-51 Mustang, I really go all out in larger scale aircraft. You may also reference my S.E.5 & Wright Bros’ Flyer. I’d be delighted to model such a frightening flying apparition in a large scale of perhaps 1:12 or larger.

I’m always attracted to off-the-wall or odd aircraft that no one else has modeled. I can see it has corrugated surfaces. I already have a stack of corrugated plastic sheets from Evergreen. They would be out to good use.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 25, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> On the other hand, one may be inclined to think that the French aircraft industry (possibly especially Amiot) had been taught design by people who were expelled, with great prejudice, from art school.



You are quite wrong, they graduated with high honors from art school, unfortunately the Art Deco and Cubism schools of art are incompatible with the school of aerodynamics

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Feb 25, 2021)

I’d even model the Amiot 140.... after or in place of the AB 20.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 25, 2021)

Just give suitable warnings to children, excitable women and men with weak hearts. 
Perhaps limit viewing to not more than two minutes at a time?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 25, 2021)

Skyediamonds said:


> GrsuGeist; gentlemen, if you or anyone else can produce more detailed photos of the SAB AB 20 as well as three views & any written references, I’m of the mind to scratch out a detailed scale model. As some of you may know by following my current modeling build of the Guillow’s P-51 Mustang, I really go all out in larger scale aircraft. You may also reference my S.E.5 & Wright Bros’ Flyer. I’d be delighted to model such a frightening flying apparition in a large scale of perhaps 1:12 or larger.
> 
> I’m always attracted to off-the-wall or odd aircraft that no one else has modeled. I can see it has corrugated surfaces. I already have a stack of corrugated plastic sheets from Evergreen. They would be out to good use.


That's quite a challenge you're wanting to undertake, would be interesting to see it modelled, though.
I did a quick Google image search of "*French SAB AB-20 bomber*" and got some really good images.
The only 3-view I could find, was this:


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 25, 2021)

A lot of these ugly aircraft were useless, but the Stuka with its twin cannons has both vulture-like ugly looks and potency.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Feb 26, 2021)

Grau:
Thank you! It’s a very good start. Almost any modeler can do some extrapolation of those 3-views. Onky Ned some detailed photos &/Orr drawings for supplementary data. Excellent!

I have already downloaded them into my newest file.


----------



## MikeMeech (Feb 26, 2021)

Tord55 said:


> Harald Penrose, Westland's chief test pilot, loved to fly this odd aircraft, that had for a while self castering mainwheels, so could behave a bit like a B-52 at taking off, rolling down the runway askew, the nose pointing at the wind even before take-off!
> 
> According to Harald, the idea was that its four-cannon gun turret would be used to strafe the beaches during D-day, but the idea was dropped so no production was started. Eventually, it was turned back into a normal Lysander, if my memory serves me right (its been almost 50 years since I read Harald's memoirs)! Guns were never installed, by the way.



Hi

I am not sure how 'real' the name for the Westland Lysander P.12 as quoted 'Wendover' actually is. The Wiki page mentions it quoting p.34-35 of 'Unconventional Aircraft' by Peter M Bowers (1984), however, books I have on Westland Aircraft and Lysander articles that mention the P.12, dating both before and after 1984, appear not to use this name. It is common on the internet, especially modellers sites, that does not mean that it is true. Does anyone have the actual quote that mentions this as an unofficial name? The name itself is slightly problematic as 'Wendover' (the nearest rail station to RAF Halton) seems an odd choice, especially as an unofficial name for another variation of the Lysander with an under-fuselage gun position (from the same time period) was 'The Pregnent Perch', 'Wendover', in comparison, appears rather 'poor' for an unofficial name.
Its design was nothing to do with D-Day of course, but could have been used to strafe English beaches during a German invasion with its four .303 inch guns. However, it was mainly to test out the 'Delanne-type tandem wing configuration, which also appears in the Westland bomber design for Specification B.8/41, probably not a coincidence.

Mike


----------



## Solita2022 (Mar 1, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> ..
> 
> The Ami 6 doesn't even have the "ugly cute" think going on, as does the 2CV. On the other hand, the Traction Avant
> View attachment 613933
> ...


Frenchs had a tendence to build very "advanced on time" things (cars like Ami 6/8,or buildings like Carles de Gaulle Airport),and on the other hand bizarre things like some aircraft and trains with rubber wheels, and a plethora of such things.

BTW I owed 2 Ami-8 and is a very nice little car ,not fast of course since it sports the same 2CV engine on a heavier but more aerodynamic body.


----------



## Sten (Mar 1, 2021)

The AT-9 Jeep


----------



## VALENGO (Apr 24, 2021)

I assume that Ju 287 was already posted here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 24, 2021)

TheMadPenguin said:


> Lanc appears to have been modeled a stunning beauty, then partly melted, then built to the partly melted model. "Ugly" would be best applied to anything the Lanc bombed.
> 
> View attachment 589552

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Solita2022 (Apr 26, 2021)

VALENGO said:


> I assume that Ju 287 was already posted here.
> View attachment 620653


Infact I love all those "outlaw" planes , they become subjec of inspiration and research.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------

