SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
It seems that just about every plane has its fans, no matter what it looks like.
Skyediamonds
, I like the Amiot 143 too.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
My personal opinion is that, whilst their Supermarine arm was looking purely at performance with their background in artisan made flying boats and racing aeroplanes, the Vickers arm was thinking about production ease and costs. The geodetic construction they went for in large aeroplanes required a large capital investment in tooling etc. but once invested it could churn out mass bits to be assembled by less skilled workers and (whatever modern gender views may be) draw upon cheaper women for the skin coverings. I suspect that the Venom was far easier and thus cheaper to build in quantity than the complex Spitfire and may have been aimed at a slightly different market but would fit the RAF specification too. The real curiosity was the choice of engine. Build it around the Perseus or Mercury and the minor nations would beat a path to Vickers door. The Aquila was pushed too far and was too small and light to be simply swapped for some other engine type in the existing Venom airframe.It's an odd thing that two wings of the same company were each working on an eight gun fighter for the RAF. It seems like such a needless duplication of effort and waste of resources, time and money when instead the Vickers division could be expediting the Wellington program (also first flying in 1936, same as the Spitfire and Venom).
That is correct. The idea behind the Venom came from the French idea of smaller, lighter, single seaters which were highly manoeuvrableMy personal opinion is that, whilst their Supermarine arm was looking purely at performance with their background in artisan made flying boats and racing aeroplanes, the Vickers arm was thinking about production ease and costs. The geodetic construction they went for in large aeroplanes required a large capital investment in tooling etc. but once invested it could churn out mass bits to be assembled by less skilled workers and (whatever modern gender views may be) draw upon cheaper women for the skin coverings. I suspect that the Venom was far easier and thus cheaper to build in quantity than the complex Spitfire and may have been aimed at a slightly different market but would fit the RAF specification too. The real curiosity was the choice of engine. Build it around the Perseus or Mercury and the minor nations would beat a path to Vickers door. The Aquila was pushed too far and was too small and light to be simply swapped for some other engine type in the existing Venom airframe.
But the OP is about aesthetics not engineering but it has a neatness and air of simplicity that appeals to me.
The Bristol Taurus was an Aquila related design giving about twice the power for an additional 250kg more so of the same diameter as the Aquila but a twin row so longer too. The issue would be centre of gravity and extra tankage to feed the beastie were it stuck on a Venom. As it was the Venom used Aquila was pushed too far for reliable use and put out the same power per litre as the late Taurus did. Bristol was not ready to deliver production Aquilas at 650bhp at the time, only later on in line with contemporary Taurus progress.Also, a WARSPITER indicates, per the original Air Ministry Spec F.5/34 from Wiki:
"The Vickers Venom was designed to meet Air Ministry specification F.5/34 which called for a single-seat eight-gun aircraft with the high maximum speed and rate of climb needed to catch 200 mph (320 km/h) bombers flying at 15,000 ft (4,600 m). Submissions were expected to use a radial engine for good performance in the tropics".
With further development, Bristol expected (rightly or wrongly) the Aquila (at an eventual .9 BHP/lb) to meet or exceed the contemporary performance of the Mercury engine (at .8 BHP/lb). That it did not is not (I think) attributable to the engine itself except in that the engine size became obsolete as so many smaller displacement engines did during the same period.
Also, if the numbers from Wiki are correct, the Aquila had a Ø46" diameter vs the Mercury's Ø55.3 - the Venom's smaller diameter engine and smaller (but thicker) wing resulting in a very significant (~20% I think) lesser Cd. Again per Wiki, the Venom did 312 mph on 625 BHP at ~15,500 ft during the testing, while the Bristol F.5/34 did 316 mph at about the same altitude on 840 BHP.
I like the XB-19, but it's no looker. I always thought those heavily-framed cockpit and turret glazings looked like the sort of bomber types we used to draw as kids.I think the B-19 is definitely one of the best looking planes, especially in its pre-Pearl Harbor paint.
This is one butt-ugly airplane. It reminds me of a Rodney Dangerfield joke when he said, "when the doctor saw me, he slapped my mother!"
It'll look OK once they finish inflating it........I'll just leave this here
View attachment 563927
When the doctor saw the Zubr he picked it up and slapped it, then the nurses got in a few as well.This is one butt-ugly airplane. It reminds me of a Rodney Dangerfield joke when he said, "when the doctor saw me, he slapped my mother!"
The only thing ugly about the Handley Page Hampton is its name. If it had been named Hampden, it would most certainly have been a winner.I'll give you the Hampton though. Odd looking ugly duckling. lol
I find your reasoning unassailable.The only thing ugly about the Handley Page Hampton is its name. If it had been named Hampden, I'm sure it would have been a winner.
An understandable mistake especially for a non UK resident. The name Hampton is far more common and likely than Hampden.I find your reasoning unassailable.
Anybody a fan of the LWS-6 Zubr?
View attachment 779896
This is one butt-ugly airplane. It reminds me of a Rodney Dangerfield joke when he said, "when the doctor saw me, he slapped my mother!"
17 were built. The prototype crashed due to a mid-air structural failure of the wing. Fixing that made it a lot heavier, reducing the already-light bomb load. The type was used exclusively for training and ended up with some being employed as decoys to be destroyed in attacks instead of actually-useful airplanes.
The Luftwaffe used a few as blind-flying trainers. Of course, if you WEREN'T blind, you'd never get in one of them, and if anyone saw you getting into one, there went your reputation. Looks like a flying railroad tram. Perhaps if they filled it with helium, it would be lighter than it actually was.
That's the first cab-over aircraft I can recall. I think cab-over trucks are butt-ugly, too..................Il-20. Wodka-induced design.View attachment 780707
Disagree. The B-19 is definitely impressive in its size, the the R2D2 turrets and the lumpiness of its Piaggio-like forward section take it off the list of best looking planes.I think the B-19 is definitely one of the best looking planes, especially in its pre-pearl harbor paint.
View attachment 779826