vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
They had to look that way inorder to fit the jacuzzi, wet bar, and drapes.
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
same thing that happened to the french in WWI WWII.. they had to farm out there problems.
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.
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.
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
- Why do British WWII tailplanes/rudders look so naff? (or do they?)
- Prove me wrong with a good example
- Give examples from other nations re. bad tailplanes
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 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.