WWII's ugliest fighter (of these options) (1 Viewer)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Arf !
Please be honest Shvak and Adler, D520 was pleasant. Others French planes were, hummm, between awfull and very ugly (yes, especialy bombers).

Eye of the beholder my friend. The D520 was a good attempt at looking good, but I don't think they succeeded.

Looks however are not what is most important in a combat aircraft...

 

[Jack_Hill]

No, i was fair my friend.
I don't really care where an aircraft come from to love her or not.
For D520, i did not said "beautifull", just
pleasant. Moreover, knowing it plagued with so many issues... , not a plane I "love".
Oh yes, the beauty of a plane is not all, i can even love planes i don't aestheticaly really fancy (Hurricane, He 162, F4U, Bf 109E or P 47 for exemple)
Performances and perfect role fitting is more important.
But the thread was about uglyness, so i talked about uglyness.

 

[meatloaf109]

Woof!
I still think the Buffalo was well named.
If you want pure ugly, go no further than the Skua.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Heck, I honestly don't think there is an ugly one in the lot.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No, i was fair my friend.
I don't really care where an aircraft come from to love her or not.

1. I don't care where a plane comes from either. That does not determine what I think about it. I am unbiased when it comes to nationality.

2. You think the D.520 looked "pleasant', I don't think so. I don't like how the nose looks, or how the tail fits. What you like is your opinion, what I like is my opinion. An opinion is all it is.

3. Just because your opinion is that it is pleasant", does not mean mine has to be. If we all had the same opinion, life would be pretty boring.

 

[Jack_Hill]

I'm not trying to sell you a D520 my friend !
Neither I have the pretention trying to restrict any single part of your freedom of speach.
First, it's not my kind of thinking, second, i'm not stupid enough to think I could.
D520 is an aircraft I don't care a bag of beans for.
But she's pleasant to me.
Lovely tail.
Nose is not ok at all for sure.
If you don't love her, don't. It's your right and it's ok.
It's your opinion and I respect it.
There is so many wonderfull a/c on earth to speak about, i'm sure someday, we will agree about one .

 

[davebender]

I don't understand that vote.

The Me-163 was a poor fighter aircraft but it looked pretty. Same goes for the P-39.

 

[riacrato]

Well it does look like an egg with wings. When I was a kid I couldn't help but laugh at the small propeller on its nose.

But now that I'm old I think it looks decent. Like a stubby piranha, sort of.

 

[aircro]

Here is my list of unatractive:
M.S.406, F. Firefly, Defiant , Re.2000 (but not the rest of Reggiane fighters, don't know why) and Ki-27 looks too ordinary.
In my opinion Skua doesn't belong in this list - it is purposely built dive bomber(Roc is fighter but is more weird looking than unatractive), if you count it than don't forget Do 217J/N-1 (N-2 is sleaker without back and belly turrets).

Maybe is some prototypes or prewar fighter is ugly but I can't say that for planes from that time.

Here is something ugly(not fighters but ...)

This one is more funny looking than ugly

 

[Thorlifter]

Wait, two people voted for the F4U and the F6F? REALLY? They are nowhere in the ballpark of some of these wolfhounds.

Ah well, makes no sense to me but to each his own, I guess.

 

[riacrato]

Huh, I think the Do 217 is quite decent looking, especially the ones with stepped cockpit (since it's "exotic" for a German bomber). All the antenna... well it's a nf, so they have to be somewhere. Defiant, also not ugly imo, just unusual, due only to the turret.

 

[Marcel]

Don't know any ugly ww2 aircraft. I actually love the French bombers and the Skua and my favorite the Buffalo. I also love the D.520, think it's a nice little plane. Some are prettier than others, but ugly?

 

[aircro]

Huh, I think the Do 217 is quite decent looking, especially the ones with stepped cockpit (since it's "exotic" for a German bomber). All the antenna... well it's a nf, so they have to be somewhere. Defiant, also not ugly imo, just unusual, due only to the turret.

As I said unatractive not ugly but for Defiant I was a bit subjetiv, never mind,for me Roc(Skua with turret) is more attractive looking

than Defiant

And about Do 217 I mention fighter not bomber versions, N-1, as J versions have weird shape nose

but N-2 with covered turrets looks much better

 

[Night Fighter Nut]

I'm surprised this one didn't make it.

 

[davebender]

Not a fighter aircraft. It competed against the Fw-189 for the army liason / recon role.

However I agree it was rather ugly.

 

[Shortround6]

Still holding out for the Fiat G 50

Makes a Buffalo look Streamlined

 

[R Pope]

Ugly is as ugly does. Any machine that does the job as well as or better than its contemporaries should be the standard by which others are judged. Many thought swept wings were ugly when they first caught on!

 

[nuuumannn]

Skua - long disjointed fuselage with square boxy windows and a windshield that looks far too upright (although this was for practical purposes), wings with raised tips like they've been pranged and an engine nacelle that looks far too small. Not to mention a fin that looks like its too far forward and undercarriage that looks like its bent backwards!

As for the Roc - as stated above, ugly is as ugly does, a useless fighter if ever there was one. Too heavy, too slow, unmanoeuvrable; a waste of a very well designed gun turret.

 

[stug3]

The main reason I became interested in WW2 history in general was because I thought all of these planes were so cool lookin when I was a kid. I still do.

 

[Elmas]

Among the Italian planes. Breda BA 65

But, in some other Air Forces, there were some even uglier.....