British aircraft tailplane design (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Always thought the later models of B 17 looked like they built a tail and then stuck an aircraft underneath it.

Any thread on aircraft aesthetics should just have some 20s or 30s French aircraft pictures in it that stops all arguments in there tracksView attachment 174970

They had to look that way inorder to fit the jacuzzi, wet bar, and drapes.
 
same thing that happened to the french in WWI WWII.. they had to farm out there problems.
 
Yes a beautiful airplane, NOT!

welly.jpg


Or this one,

blackburnskual2923.png


Now what is ugly about this a/c?

bug100-15.jpg
 
The British planes actually flew??

By 1938-40 the French conceded that they could not bludgeon the air into submission any more than King Canute could command the tide and moved to more streamlined aircraft.


The Welly was the inspiration for the B29 so I'm told....

Now this is er, unusual...

Beardmore Inflexible


Even the Germans had a bad hair day with this one Messerschmitt 323 Gigant and this one too...Linke-Hofmann R1

But the French take the biscuit with this..Bleriot 127/2

Cheers
John
 
This thread has drifted on to ugly aircraft as a whole - the 1930's French bombers are difficult to beat in that respect. To quote "Major Howdy Bixby's Album of Forgotten Warbirds" the French are "Lovers, not engineers". ;)

But I'm purely querying tailplanes. The Spitfire is unquestionably the second most perfect aircraft (after the Mosquito) but both have tailplanes which look out of character with the rest of the aircraft. And it's a general theme with British 'planes.
 
This thread has drifted on to ugly aircraft as a whole - the 1930's French bombers are difficult to beat in that respect. To quote "Major Howdy Bixby's Album of Forgotten Warbirds" the French are "Lovers, not engineers". ;)

But I'm purely querying tailplanes. The Spitfire is unquestionably the second most perfect aircraft (after the Mosquito) but both have tailplanes which look out of character with the rest of the aircraft. And it's a general theme with British 'planes.


Quite right, sorry for drifting off topic.
Cheers
John
 
I appreciate that this is a very superficial issue, but this has been bugging me for a while. Basically, it's about the aesthetics of British tailplanes (and rudders) letting the rest of the aircraft down.

The British made some of the most beautiful (or brutal) looking aircraft of WWII. But the tailplane/rudder always look like it's just an added appendage - designed by the office boy on a Friday afternoon. The 'Heath Robinson' approach...

To back up my argument, this is a pic of a Tempest - cover the bit beyond the white stripe with your hand, then remove it and look again...

View attachment 174937


  1. Why do British WWII tailplanes/rudders look so naff? (or do they?)
  2. Prove me wrong with a good example
  3. Give examples from other nations re. bad tailplanes

Unfair on the Tempest! Look at the lighting and the angle of the lighting, that's what makes the tail look a little naff: bad lighting and the wrong angle will show up the pimples on a super-model's face, without the required airbrushing :D

As for the P-51B to D fin fillet; from what I remember the problem of yaw was exacerbated by the extra fuel tank fitted in the rear fuselage; it was to counter this that the fillet was introduced and metal covered elevators fitted. The pilot's manual recommended emptying the fuselage tank first to restore the c.g.
 
Last edited:
This thread has drifted on to ugly aircraft as a whole - the 1930's French bombers are difficult to beat in that respect. To quote "Major Howdy Bixby's Album of Forgotten Warbirds" the French are "Lovers, not engineers". ;)

But I'm purely querying tailplanes. The Spitfire is unquestionably the second most perfect aircraft (after the Mosquito) but both have tailplanes which look out of character with the rest of the aircraft. And it's a general theme with British 'planes.

As has been mentioned, in many cases it was sort of a "trademark" thing. If you could see the tail of a De Havilland, you knew it was a De Haviland even if you couldn't see the rest of the plane.

It was also what the designer knew worked. He might have to adjust the size a bit or push/pull an edge but it worked the last X number of times they used that shape. In the 1920s/30s aerodynamics was really in the dark ages. One book claims Supermarine's first wind tunnel was a hairdryer and a cardboard box. With all calculations being done on slide rules and mechanical adding machines the fewer "new" features on a "new" aircraft the better.
 
As for the P-51B to D fin fillet; from what I remember the problem of yaw was exacerbated by the extra fuel tank fitted in the rear fuselage; it was to counter this that the fillet was introduced and metal covered elevators fitted. The pilot's manual recommended emptying the fuselage tank first to restore the c.g.

The addition of the ventral was all about yaw stability due to the increased torque of the Rolls. The issue existed in the B/C before the fuselage Tank addition. The SOP was to reduce the fuse tank from 85 to 25 gallons before switching to externals.

The only solution was the redesigned P-51H extra fuselage length, reduced fuselage tank capacity to 50 gallons and adding greater area vertical stabilizer.
 
The addition of the ventral was all about yaw stability due to the increased torque of the Rolls. The issue existed in the B/C before the fuselage Tank addition. The SOP was to reduce the fuse tank from 85 to 25 gallons before switching to externals.

The only solution was the redesigned P-51H extra fuselage length, reduced fuselage tank capacity to 50 gallons and adding greater area vertical stabilizer.

Spot on Tom, There was a danger of the Merlin getting too powerful for the airframes.
I think that the Mustang has a beauty that got better as it got older, the teardrop canopy and sleek profile. A very formidable fighter and one to cherish.

The end of line piston engined fighters had a brutal purpose to them,massive power and presence. The Grumman Bearcat's performance is unbelievable.

Cheers
John
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back