Most Unattractive Aircraft of WW2

[spicmart]

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]

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

 

[SaparotRob]

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

 

[TheMadPenguin]

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.

 

[DarrenW]

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]

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

 

[glennasher]

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.

 

[GregP]

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.

 

[GregP]

British ... Wierd:

French ... Ugly:

Russian ... Weird AND ugly:

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

 

[SaparotRob]

You make a strong case, sir.

 

[GregP]

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.

 

[Ascent]

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.

 

[Mad Dog]

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.

 

[Mad Dog]

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.

 

[GregP]

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.

 

[Mad Dog]

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.

 

[Mad Dog]

View attachment 564299

Some planes were very unattractive without makeup.

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

 

[swampyankee]

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]

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!

 

[GregP]

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.