Most Unattractive Aircraft of WW2

spicmart · Mar 23, 2019

pbehn said:
The Lancastrian civilian version of the Lancaster hurts my eyes for reasons I cant explain, I suppose a Lancaster looks like a Lancaster. View attachment 532921

And I thought I were the only one with this opinion.

pbehn · Mar 23, 2019

spicmart said:
And I thought I were the only one with this opinion.

From some angles the Lanc looked very businesslike

spicmart · Mar 23, 2019

pbehn said:
From some angles the Lanc looked very businesslike View attachment 532924

Well..

Pouting snout. The epitome of ugliness.

pbehn · Mar 23, 2019

spicmart said:
Well..View attachment 532925

Interesting, look at the finish on the nacelles compared to the mosquito.

spicmart · Mar 23, 2019

pbehn said:
The Lancastrian civilian version of the Lancaster hurts my eyes for reasons I cant explain, I suppose a Lancaster looks like a Lancaster. View attachment 532921

While the nose looks better, the tail, that is attached too low at the fuselage, does not win any prizes.

Marcel · Mar 23, 2019

GrauGeist said:
Doc and Fifi are nice and fresh, so they should be good for quite some time.

I know that Eric (evangilder) has been an Airventure regular there for years and I believe he captured the historic flight of the two at Oshkosh in 2017.
Things have been realy hectic for me, so I haven't made it back there yet, but maybe we can all plan on a big get together at Airventure 2021 - like get as many friends from across the pond (and of course, our friends under the Southern Cross, too) and here in the states to converge for a bash!

Oh man, I would love to go to Oshkosh someday, especially with you guys. But I don't think I could pull this off at the moment with two upgrowing kids at home.

pbehn · Mar 23, 2019

spicmart said:
While the nose looks better, the tail, that is attached too low at the fuselage, does not win any prizes.

That was so you could get in the tail turret.

nuuumannn · Mar 23, 2019

pbehn said:
That was so you could get in the tail turret.

Actually, it was so the toilet lid had something to rest on! That's the tailplane spar.

SCN_0256

Crawling over the spar (as Pbehn said) to get to the rear turret. Excuse the blurry photo, taken with a film camera many years ago.

SCN_0258

There's not much room in a Lancaster, it'd be a rough cramped ride in a Lancastrian as a passenger, let alone as bomber crew. These raised frames are the fwd and aft main spars and had to be climbed over to get to the cockpit.

SCN_0264

Taken from the navigator's position, with the mannequin standing in front of the flight engineer's panel. Pilot's headrest armour plate visible.

SCN_0270

nuuumannn · Mar 23, 2019

spicmart said:
Know what you mean but the B-24, B-17 and B-29 are just as graceful when in the air imho. As I said I'm just judging on aesthetics, and there those other bombers win by a long shot.

Yeah, the B-17 is a beaut in flight.

B-17 smoky pass

But the B-24? Hmmm, like someone once said, it was the box the B-17 came in!

As mentioned, not seen a B-29 in flight, but even on the ground it is a beautiful bird.

nuuumannn · Mar 23, 2019

Marcel said:
But I don't think I could pull this off at the moment with two upgrowing kids at home.

Oh yeah, I know how that feels. While my daughter was growing up, we didn't go very far, and we just have one!

special ed · Mar 23, 2019

That's why with my last one, while all were at Disney World, I went to airports and air museums. Returned to pick them up at nightfall, then to motel. All went to bed happy.

wlewisiii · Mar 24, 2019

Last time I made it to Oshkosh (and I even live IN Wisconsin) I did get to catch the Boeing 307. Now that is the ultimate in elegant aircraft. But I love the shark fin B-17s too.

For purposes of this thread, thought, I nominate the BV-141:

spicmart · Mar 25, 2019

nuuumannn said:
Yeah, the B-17 is a beaut in flight.

View attachment 532957B-17 smoky pass

But the B-24? Hmmm, like someone once said, it was the box the B-17 came in!

As mentioned, not seen a B-29 in flight, but even on the ground it is a beautiful bird.

Imho the B-24 has a futuristic appeal to it. The slender Davis wing gives it a grace in contrast to its hull which looks cool somehow. The twin tail shape is unmistakable.
The PB4Y-2 Privateer with its longer fuselage and turrets shapes looks especially badass though I don't quite like the single tail.
Main thing is they are not as angular as the Lanc, together with them lacking all the ugly features I mentioned before.
The eye of the beholder...

spicmart · Mar 25, 2019

Sorry. Wrong thread.

Focke Wulf Ta154

GrauGeist · Mar 25, 2019

The Ta154 was a good looking ship.
But if we want to talk fugly bombers, then the Soviet's archaic TB-3 even beats anything made by the French for the title of: "most unattractive aircraft that even a drunk wouldn't appreciate"...

Shortround6 · Mar 25, 2019

Please check out this list.

Be forewarned to wear your best protective eyewear, suitable for solar eclipses.

Category:French bomber aircraft 1930–1939 - Wikipedia

michael rauls · Mar 25, 2019

Ouch! I thought you were just kidding about the protective eye wear. I'll take such warnings seriously from now on.

vikingBerserker · Mar 25, 2019

Yes, but they did have drapes and came with room service.

Elmas · Mar 25, 2019

from the Italian side, Breda Ba 65

swampyankee · Mar 25, 2019

Dornier produced some truly ugly aircraft, such as the DoX and the Dornier Dolphin

The Soviets produced the Kalinin K-7

Most Unattractive Aircraft of WW2

Staff Sergeant

Colonel

Staff Sergeant

Colonel

Staff Sergeant

rotartsinimdA

Colonel

Major

Major

Major

1st Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major General

Tech Sergeant

Lieutenant General

Staff Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads