# Butt-ugly airplanes



## evangilder (Jan 25, 2005)

Alright guys, dust off those photos and let's see some of the really ugly airplanes. I will start off with the LACAB GR.8 "Doryphone". Mercifully, only one prototype was made. Made in Belgium, the Germans captured it at Evere airfield in 1940.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

Here are what some of the other countries around the world were trying to do while Kelly Johnson was designing the P-38. The first is Holland's Fokker D.XXIII - a novel concept for the times, but poorly refined, under-powered, and using a very poor airfoil. The second is Gloster's F.9/37 which was the absolute contemporary of the P-38. It certainly never had the looks of the Lightning.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 26, 2005)

Funny, the Cessna O-2 resembles the Fokker. But they are both good additions for this category.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

In concept, the D.XXIII wasn't a bad idea. Unfortunately, it was powered by Czech engines (that WAS a bad idea) and the aircraft industry of the Dutch lacked the ability to refine the aircraft to the needed levels.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 27, 2005)

Blohm und Voss Bv-40...UGH


----------



## evangilder (Jan 27, 2005)

Whew, good one CC. That is one butt-ugly bird!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 27, 2005)

I know. Try this Farman F.222. You just know it has to be French


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 27, 2005)

The Gloster F.9/37 looks a bit like a Beaufighter with a twin tail


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 27, 2005)

The nose is a little different as well.


----------



## JCS (Jan 27, 2005)

How about the Potez 540....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2005)

the F.222 and that potez are both very good looking planes..........


----------



## JCS (Jan 27, 2005)

Hopefully thats a joke


----------



## evangilder (Jan 27, 2005)

I guess it's in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 27, 2005)

Well the the French must have lousy eyes because they had a lot of trouble building a decent looking place.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 27, 2005)

The Dewoitine D.520 was a decent plane, they must have had a couple of drunk designers when they were designing their bombers


----------



## evangilder (Jan 27, 2005)

Art deco bombers, only the French!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 27, 2005)

Well aside from the D.520 the fighters were pretty ugly as well.


----------



## JCS (Jan 27, 2005)

The Arsenal VG-33 wasnt too bad either


----------



## Andrew (Jan 28, 2005)

There is always the good old Handley Page Hendon Heavy Bomber, one of Britains many entries into the Butt-Ugly Airplanes contest






There is also the Heyford Bomber


----------



## evangilder (Jan 28, 2005)

AUGH!, My EYES!  That is one seriously ugly bird too!


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 28, 2005)

The Heyford wins, one look and I'm blinded


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 28, 2005)

I understand pilots have a saying. "If it looks good, it flies good." So what were the designers of these types thinking?


----------



## Andrew (Jan 28, 2005)

The worst thing about the Hendon and the Heyford, is that they are both built by Handley Page.


----------



## Andrew (Jan 28, 2005)

There is of course my all time favourite Butt ugly aircraft, the one only Fairey Barracuda


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> the F.222 and that potez are both very good looking planes..........



Fuck that, it just goes to show you have no taste whatsoever 

This is a good looking French bomber...the Amiot 354






And ive always like the looks of the Barracuda... (I have a feeling I know whats coming now...)


But ill post an ugly plane (again, French  ) The Bloch MB-200


----------



## evangilder (Jan 28, 2005)

Whew! That one is definitely fugly.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 28, 2005)

The Barracuda's only ugly on the groung because of it's stilts (sorry, undercarriage). Those French bombers are ugly in the air aswell


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 28, 2005)

Yeah it does look a bit shoddy on the groud. In the air though i think it looks rather great...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 28, 2005)

The Barracuda should have been named the Flounder. Barracuda conjures up images of a sleek, quick, lethal fish. The plane just looks comical. Ridicuously long landing gear, a high mounted wing, and those flaps all contribute to its ugliness.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 29, 2005)

Fairey Albocare...gross.

I know its basically a Swordfish with an enclosed cockpit but somehow this makes it look ing...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2005)

hey i like french bombers.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 29, 2005)

The Amiot 354 I posted up there looks good, but the others? No...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2005)

yes..........


----------



## HealzDevo (Feb 16, 2005)

Actually, there were one or two proper Swordfish variants for service in Canada and the cold parts with enclosed cockpits. I don't think those pilots would be concerned about whether the cockpit spoilt the plane's look so much as being able to stay warm with all the modern features such as cockpit heating. I don't think the cockpit is too ugly, but I hate the Handley Page Heyford. I had a model of the Heyford in FS2002 and no sooner would one engine start then the other engine would die. I only ever got it off the ground once, only to suffer a dangerous multi-engine failure and crashed.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

Here's a Russian entry:


----------



## evangilder (Feb 16, 2005)

That one looks like a bad Sci-Fi film prop, plan_d!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

THIS is ugly....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 16, 2005)

the Hs-124 is ugly, that russian plane is not..........


----------



## Crazy (Feb 16, 2005)

The DB-3 looked good in the air, anyway


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

Yeah the DB-3 looks ok.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

The Russian plane was not? Are you kidding? It looks like someone went over board with a chainsaw! It's stumpy nosed ugly twat. It looks like a Polish dog (been running into parked cars)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

I agree it certainly isnt pretty, but I have seen far uglier planes


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2005)

How about this one...Look at the size of the engine!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 18, 2005)

good call..........


----------



## JCS (Feb 18, 2005)

Lets not forget the Ju287, the big ugly landing gear and that hideous rear fuselage and tail ruined any chances that plane had at looking good


----------



## evangilder (Feb 18, 2005)

The landing gear alone are enough to put this one in the category! Bleck!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2005)

it's not that bad looking............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

It aint pretty, but the swept-forward wings are cool


----------



## JCS (Feb 19, 2005)

Heres some more ugly German planes:

Fieseler Fi 167:






F.F.G. Berlin 9:


----------



## JCS (Feb 19, 2005)

As ugly as that Berlin 9 is, its actually pretty interesting...

http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/berlin9.html


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 20, 2005)

What were those designers thinking


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

I wouldnt call either of them ugly


----------



## evangilder (Feb 20, 2005)

Ugh, the Berlin 9 looks like what you would get after turning a 9 year old loose with the drafting board!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

Perhaps thats why its called the Berlin 9, because at the time it was designed all of Germany's top designers were dead so they had to use 9 year olds, and Berlin was their only city left


----------



## evangilder (Feb 20, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

The Lippisch DM-1


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 21, 2005)

That looks more at home in a dodgy sci-fi film


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2005)

looks like an upside down paper aeroplane............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 21, 2005)

And here's the windtunnel model of it...


8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

Dont let Walmart get hold of it, theyll try and sell it off as a Kitchen unit!


----------



## evangilder (Feb 21, 2005)

What a lovely and stylish cutting board!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 22, 2005)

much rather have one in the shape of the lanc...........


----------



## evangilder (Feb 22, 2005)

Why did I know you were going to say that?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 22, 2005)

because i'm extremely predictable.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 22, 2005)

A Lancaster cutting board would be extremely weak and wowuldnt even survive haveing bread buttered on it...


----------



## evangilder (Feb 22, 2005)

But think of how much bread you could put on it!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 22, 2005)

But if you layed it upside down and buttered the bread it would have no ventral turret to deferd itself from the knife!


----------



## evangilder (Feb 22, 2005)

Hmm... a weakness indeed. Especially the Schrage Musik knife.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 22, 2005)

That would be nasty  Think of all the poor woodworm on board that would die.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 23, 2005)

but the ability to carry so much bread would surely make up for it's lack of defence from the Schrage Musik knife............


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 23, 2005)

Especially if there were Mosquito rulers there would be to prevent the schrage musik knife cutting the entire board


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 23, 2005)

i think a mosquito shaped knife holder would make it much safer for the lanc cutting board...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 23, 2005)

What about flak? (aka children using the board for other purposes)


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 23, 2005)

Chidren are only dangerous if they're proximity fused children


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2005)

But how will it stack up if you need to ditch? (ie. wash up)


----------



## JCS (Feb 25, 2005)

Some more ugly planes....

Curtiss SO3C Seamew:












Latécoere Laté 570:






Liore-et-Olivier H.43:











Center (SNCAC) NC.130:






Sud-Est SE.100:


----------



## evangilder (Feb 26, 2005)

Wow! A flock of fuglies!


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 26, 2005)

I actually like the last one of those for some reason


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 26, 2005)

It looks like a flying turd.


----------



## trackend (Feb 26, 2005)

That an insult to bodily functions skim I would have thought a turd has better aerodynamic qualities, I shall experiment and give you the results of my scientific findings. Now where did I put my ladder


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

The Seamew is one ugly bird, I was reading about it this morning


----------



## trackend (Feb 26, 2005)

Agreed cheesy it looks like a dog or should I say cat of a plane.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

Messerschmitt P.1106..












Also, isnt strange how much the Yak-17 resembles this plane...


----------



## trackend (Feb 26, 2005)

It looks like its flown under a low bridge. Imagine trying to land it on a tricycle under carriage with the cockpit that far back from the nose.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

Indeed...look at the Yak-17, its very similar.


----------



## trackend (Feb 26, 2005)

more like yuk


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

I agree


----------



## BountyHunter15 (Feb 26, 2005)

The most ugliest plane was the British Short Singapore Mk1 twin-engined flying boat.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

Hmmmmmm that is pretty bad, but I think the Supermarine Walrus was worse!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2005)

the walrus was a very good looking plane.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

Moving on...


----------



## trackend (Feb 27, 2005)

Very Quickly


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 27, 2005)

Leave the Walrus alone, they look better in real life (I've seen one)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2005)

they're very attractive..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2005)

Yes, in the same way that the big old wart on my dogs head is attractive, ir not at all


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 27, 2005)

If there's an ugly plane, it's the one on your sig CC. You think the lancaster's nose looks bad have a look at that P.108 that you champion


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

The P.108 looks great (Although the nose is the worst part...) Still, it fits with the plane more than the nose of the Lancaster, because the whole plane is curvy. On the Lancaster, youve got a curve on an oter wise square plane. The nose of that of a Ju-88 or Do-17Z would suit it more...


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 28, 2005)

The Walrus had character, just look what it's crews called it- the Shagbat. Best biplane amphibian ever IMO


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

I rather would shag a bat than look at the Walrus to be honest


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 28, 2005)

Oh well, each to their own!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2005)

and what part of the lanc is square CC??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

All of it except the Nose, which is why the nose is hideous...looks like a big old zit


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 1, 2005)

there is nothing square about the lanc, there's only a few straight edges...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 1, 2005)

Look at the fuselage. Its a bloody square box. Most of the egdes are straight. The tail, same goes for that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 2, 2005)

dude of you look at the lanc nose on you will see that the fusilage is far from a box........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2005)

It is...its a box...Doesnt have a nice round fuselage like that of the B-29 or P.108...


----------



## reddragon (Mar 2, 2005)

I've always thought all flying machines were beautiful but looks like someone has proven me wrong.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2005)

With what plane? 8)


----------



## trackend (Mar 3, 2005)

I think he means Lanc's plank


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 4, 2005)

Ah, that wouldnt surprise me 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 4, 2005)

hey the lanc aint a plank.........

although that did make me chucckle, never heard her called that before.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 4, 2005)

I think the Lancaster is very much a Love-Hate plane in terms of styling. Im in the Hate camp as you know...I like the plane though 8)


----------



## G1Guy (Mar 6, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Here are what some of the other countries around the world were trying to do while Kelly Johnson was designing the P-38. The first is Holland's Fokker D.XXIII - a novel concept for the times, but poorly refined, under-powered, and using a very poor airfoil. The second is Gloster's F.9/37 which was the absolute contemporary of the P-38. It certainly never had the looks of the Lightning.



LOL

Then you are forgetting about the Fokker G.1, which was allready available in 1936. Even before the FW-189.

You just have to admit that the P-38 was a good copy with the techniques learned from the G.1 that was tested by the RAF and other things learned in the years after that. And still it took until the J version to get a succesfull fighter. The first series had a lot of serious problems, where the Fokker G.1 was known as the secondbest allied fighter in 1940 (after the Spitfire) 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 7, 2005)

CC i never knew you liked the lanc??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 7, 2005)

Yeah I do, its a great plane, im just not a fan of the styling.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 7, 2005)

Most of the Early WW2 Bombers look to be built by someone who was at home making boxes. A lot of them seem to look very rectangular and not at all like a cylinder, which is what the B-29 looks more like to me.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 7, 2005)

Maybe the Russian Plane is being hidden, to prevent its own side mistaking it for a target plane. It is ugly enough after all. What pilot wouldn't want to have a go at it?


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 8, 2005)

There's nothing wrong with a boxy looking plane. The Whitley was slab-sided but it had that essential quality called style


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2005)

Again, I like the Whitley but not its styling 8) The Coastal Command markings improve its looks somewhat though.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 8, 2005)

Definitley


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 9, 2005)

G1Guy said:


> Lightning Guy said:
> 
> 
> > Here are what some of the other countries around the world were trying to do while Kelly Johnson was designing the P-38. The first is Holland's Fokker D.XXIII - a novel concept for the times, but poorly refined, under-powered, and using a very poor airfoil. The second is Gloster's F.9/37 which was the absolute contemporary of the P-38. It certainly never had the looks of the Lightning.
> ...



The P-38 was an independent design.

The P-38 was compettive from the first. In the MTO it achieved a 6/1 P-38 kill ratio almost exclusivly with pre-J models. In the ETO there were problems primarily Attitude/training, Fuel and lack of heat add all problema it still did the job it was sent to do drop bomber losses from 10 % ave. to 4/5% ave. It's also not mentioned often there were substantial losses in ground attack in the ETO Air to air it achieved a 4/1 P-38 kill ratio.
In the Pacific it was always superior to it's competition too. 

The late J/L aircraft could not only take it to the enemy but was competitive/dominant to all commers in any environment!


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 9, 2005)

I've posted this in the other ugly planes thread but it's so bad it deserves to go in here for anybody who hasn't seen it


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 10, 2005)

Thats cool! 8)


----------



## JCS (Mar 10, 2005)

Yea sure is...






......If you like things that are extremely ugly


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 10, 2005)

Well, enemy pilots might laugh themselves to death I suppose.


----------



## Ome_Joop (May 8, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Here are what some of the other countries around the world were trying to do while Kelly Johnson was designing the P-38. The first is Holland's Fokker D.XXIII - a novel concept for the times, but poorly refined, under-powered, and using a very poor airfoil. The second is Gloster's F.9/37 which was the absolute contemporary of the P-38. It certainly never had the looks of the Lightning.



Pff the P-38 is (just like the FW-189 Uhu) a copy of the Fokker G1 wich was a real beauty!

http://www.fokkerg-1.nl/

BTW Is this Ugly?






Fieseler Fi-167


----------



## Aggie08 (May 8, 2005)

I don't think so, the landing gear looks a little squarish for me but overall it's not a bad lookin plane.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 9, 2005)

I like the Fi-167. Not exactly dripping with beauty but its ok.


----------



## wmaxt (May 9, 2005)

Ome_Joop said:


> Lightning Guy said:
> 
> 
> > Here are what some of the other countries around the world were trying to do while Kelly Johnson was designing the P-38. The first is Holland's Fokker D.XXIII - a novel concept for the times, but poorly refined, under-powered, and using a very poor airfoil. The second is Gloster's F.9/37 which was the absolute contemporary of the P-38. It certainly never had the looks of the Lightning.
> ...



The Lightning guy is correct.

The P-38 was not a copy it's design is officialy given a date of March 12, 1936. And was totaly indipendant of other designs in the US or abroad.

wmaxt


----------



## Smokey (May 9, 2005)

A Farman
Imagine the noise the pilots heard (if it ever flew)





1930s Canadian Vickers Velos
The test pilots flew it only under protest, and it was known as "The Dead Loss" around the factory.










Aeronca C3 "Flying Bathtub"

All from this link
http://www.popularaviation.com/UgliestPlane.asp?Page=1


----------



## HealzDevo (May 21, 2007)

That one with the piston engine set in the front taking up the whole thing, what is it? Whatever it is I think it would be hard to find an uglier plane than that... The big propeller just ruins it somehow...


----------



## Negative Creep (May 21, 2007)

A face only its mother could love







Some people like it, to me it looks like a child's toy 






Would look nice if it weren't for the fact someone appears to have cut most of the rear section out and glued it back together







Again, the proportions are all wrong







This Polish Zubr that was posted in the 'Worst Aircraft' thread also caught my ete. It appears to have been knocked together in a shed. Comically ugly


----------



## Marcel (May 22, 2007)

Koolhoven FK.55 Very ugly in my opinion. Was quite a remarkeble plane in 1936, retractable wheels, Engine behind the pilot (hey where did I see that before  )
Two counter-rotating propellers....
According to Koolhove history:


> The plane has flown one single short flight. On 30th June 1938 test pilot Thomas Coppers took off - and immediately started a turn to land again - with the wind! - Koolhoven ran to the plane, to see what had happened. Both men had a short, furious discussion. We do not know what was said, but one thing is certain - the FK-55 never flew again.



Crew 1
Engine 1× Lorraine Petrel 860 hp
Maximum speed 520 km/h
Range 850 km
Starting weight 2280 kg
Wingspan 9.6 m
Overall length 9.3 m


----------



## HealzDevo (May 22, 2007)

Hang on, that is the Avro Manchester I think you are posting there, isn't it? The RAF big bomber is it? If so tell us the picture source so that if there are any more I can find them. The Avro Manchester even with google and AlltheWeb.com searchengine seems to be one of the hardest aircraft to find pictures of. But that is only the Avro Manchester II. The Avro Manchester I is even harder to find pictures of...


----------



## Gnomey (May 23, 2007)

The British bomber is an Armstrong Whitworth Whitley...


----------



## Marcel (May 23, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Hang on, that is the Avro Manchester I think you are posting there, isn't it? The RAF big bomber is it? If so tell us the picture source so that if there are any more I can find them. The Avro Manchester even with google and AlltheWeb.com searchengine seems to be one of the hardest aircraft to find pictures of. But that is only the Avro Manchester II. The Avro Manchester I is even harder to find pictures of...



The Avro Manchester II is better known as the Lancaster, I'm sure you'll find dozens of pictures of it


----------



## Negative Creep (May 24, 2007)

Didn't the Manchester basically look identical to the Lanc, bar the twin engines and shorter wings?


----------



## Gnomey (May 25, 2007)

Negative Creep said:


> Didn't the Manchester basically look identical to the Lanc, bar the twin engines and shorter wings?



Yes, pretty much.

Manchester






Lancaster


----------



## HealzDevo (May 27, 2007)

Yes, but I consider them two separate aircraft. The Lancaster is a development of the Mancester II but it is not the Manchester bomber by itself. I already have a lot of pictures of the Lancaster and I happen to like the Manchester. Incidently the Avro Manchester I was a biplane bomber developed near the end of WWI but never saw production. That is why most people forget that the Avro Manchester that developed into the Lancaster was the Avro Manchester II.


----------



## GADGET (May 31, 2007)

I found this:






Sure is ugly


----------



## k9kiwi (May 31, 2007)

> The Lancaster is a development of the Mancester II but it is not the Manchester bomber by itself



The last 100 Manchester airframes were converted to Lancasters on the production line.

The sole major difference was increased wing span, 4 RR Merlin engines, and an extra fuel tank in the extra wing space.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 1, 2007)

GADGET said:


> I found this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What's that, looks like a autogiro or something.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 1, 2007)

That was my guess. Butt ugly is right though.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 1, 2007)

I don't see anywhere obvious place for the pilot to sit either...


----------



## YakFlyer (Jun 1, 2007)

The Dornier 228, a modern STOL medium twin, is absolutely dreadful to look at it, fantastic performance though..


----------



## Graeme (Jun 2, 2007)

GADGET said:


> I found this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Flettner Fl 282 Kolibri (Hummingbird) two seat observation helicopter


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 2, 2007)

Walrus and the Lancaster are some B.E.A.U.T.I.F.U.L aircraft....
Check these "beauties" out.
Paul's Ugly Aircraft Shrine


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 2, 2007)

I think you've hit the motherload there!


----------



## Graeme (Jun 2, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Incidently the Avro Manchester I was a biplane bomber developed near the end of WWI but never saw production. That is why most people forget that the Avro Manchester that developed into the Lancaster was the Avro Manchester II.



Not quite so simple. The Manchester dynasty is complex but has a repetitive theme. The Avro Type 533 Manchester of 1918 vintage was built in two versions. The Manchester Mk I and the Type533A Manchester MkII . Oddly the Mk I was the one intended for production. The Manchester MkIII airframe was built but remained engineless. Now move forward to1939. The Avro Type 679 Manchester of 1939 was built in two versions as well, the Manchester Mk I and the Manchester Mk IA. There was a projected Manchester MkII designed to take Centaraus or Sabre engines, but never built. Next, came the 4-engined Manchester III, which eventually became the Avro Lancaster B.Mk I prototype.
Courtesy of Peter Lewis's 'The British Bomber since 1914'.


----------



## Negative Creep (Jun 2, 2007)

From Paul's shine, some real shockers but I have to take issue with one of them






It's still a Spitfire, hence still beautiful


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 22, 2008)

How about this: Tupolev TB-3:










And lets not leave the US out: Boing Y1B-9


----------



## B-17engineer (Mar 22, 2008)

How about this General Aircraft Fleet SHadower


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 23, 2008)

Yup.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 23, 2008)

BOY....!! Haven't seen thread for while!


----------



## wilbur1 (Mar 24, 2008)

I was just gonna say something about that lucky


----------



## ScOoTeR1992 (Nov 25, 2008)

hey wasn't the TB-3 designed so that the paratroopers had to walk down the wing to jump off?


----------



## fly boy (Nov 25, 2008)

ok who in gods name even thought these would A: even thought of being made,B: that they would actually be flown and C: that they could make them war planes


----------



## Flyboy2 (Nov 25, 2008)

Whoever designed them... Sometimes wartime urgency yields amazing airplanes... other times OUCH!!!

But I agree


----------

