How about worst looking airliner?

[Andrew Burke]

Of the current crop, I'd say the Beech 1900D. Nose wheel RIGHT at the nose,
the cockpit looks like it's from another plane, as does the passenger door,
all those appendages around the tail...

Andy

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Andrew Burke"
> wrote:

> Of the current crop, I'd say the Beech 1900D. Nose wheel RIGHT at the
> nose,
> the cockpit looks like it's from another plane, as does the passenger
> door,
> all those appendages around the tail...

nah, that 4 engine high wing RJ that almost looks like
a mini C-5.

--
Bob Noel

[Steve]

Andrew Burke wrote:
> Of the current crop, I'd say the Beech 1900D. Nose wheel RIGHT at the nose,
> the cockpit looks like it's from another plane, as does the passenger door,
> all those appendages around the tail...

Do we count cargo? If so, then the Super-Guppy...

[Ron Natalie]

"Andrew Burke" > wrote in message
...
> Of the current crop, I'd say the Beech 1900D. Nose wheel RIGHT at the
nose,
> the cockpit looks like it's from another plane, as does the passenger
door,
> all those appendages around the tail...

Ah, it's not all that bad. The real ugly ones in my opinion are the
BAC-146 (kind
of cool looking, sort of like a miniture C5, but not pretty) or the DASH-X
line.

The Fairchild/Swearingen Metro is a really elegant plane, but is one of the
more
uncomfortable things I've ever flow in.

For the big boys, the DC-10/MD-11 Engine #2 really looked like a wart
compared
to the L-1011 configuration. The 737 is rather unelegant either with it's
squashed
engine nacells on the older variants or the out of scale bypass fans on the
newer one.

[Ron Natalie]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Andrew Burke"
> > wrote:
>
> > Of the current crop, I'd say the Beech 1900D. Nose wheel RIGHT at the
> > nose,
> > the cockpit looks like it's from another plane, as does the passenger
> > door,
> > all those appendages around the tail...
>
> nah, that 4 engine high wing RJ that almost looks like
> a mini C-5.
>
BAe 146 ... great minds think alike.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> For the big boys, the DC-10/MD-11 Engine #2 really looked like a wart
> compared to the L-1011 configuration.
>

The rear engine on the DC-10 looked like an afterthought. Of course, if
they had made it look "right", like Lockheed did, it couldn't have become
the KC-10.

[Roy Smith]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote:
> The 737 is rather unelegant either with it's squashed engine nacells

I think they look kind of cool.

[Ron Natalie]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > For the big boys, the DC-10/MD-11 Engine #2 really looked like a wart
> > compared to the L-1011 configuration.
> >
>
> The rear engine on the DC-10 looked like an afterthought. Of course, if
> they had made it look "right", like Lockheed did, it couldn't have become
> the KC-10.

I'm not sure that would have been the case. The 727 similar S-ducted
center
engine and still has room for rear airstairs.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I'm not sure that would have been the case. The 727 similar S-ducted
> center engine and still has room for rear airstairs.
>

It wasn't a matter of not having room for the boom operator, it was the
effect on the receiving aircraft.

[L Smith]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
>>For the big boys, the DC-10/MD-11 Engine #2 really looked like a wart
>>compared to the L-1011 configuration.
>>
>>
>
>The rear engine on the DC-10 looked like an afterthought. Of course, if
>they had made it look "right", like Lockheed did, it couldn't have become
>the KC-10.
>
>
The L-1011 may have looked "right", but I imagine the arrangement on
the DC 10 was
more efficient. Didn't have to go bending the airflow this way and that
just to get it to the
engine.

Rich Lemert

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"L Smith" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> The L-1011 may have looked "right", but I imagine the arrangement on
> the DC 10 was more efficient. Didn't have to go bending the airflow this
> way and that just to get it to the engine.
>

Yes, but this discussion is all about looks. As for inefficiency of the S
duct, I think you'd have to consider the efficiency of the installation as a
whole. How did putting the thrust line that high affect it?

[Mike O'Malley]

"Andrew Burke" > wrote in message
...
> Of the current crop, I'd say the Beech 1900D. Nose wheel RIGHT at the nose,
> the cockpit looks like it's from another plane, as does the passenger door,
> all those appendages around the tail...
>

What about the Shorts 330? Throw some sailplane wings on a shipping crate, then
stick a couple of barn doors out on the tail, and you've got one uckn fugly
airplane. I of course, would be more than willing to fly one, if someone else
were to pay the bills.

The Dornier 228 isn't much to look at, the nose looks like it got caught in the
hanger door and pulled out. And then there's the Do. 28 with the motors just
kind of tacked onto the landing gear like an afterthought. Or the Do. 27, where
it looks like they glued the wing on top as an afterthought.

I know I'm getting away from airliners, but the PZL 104 is a perfect example of
form following function. Don't know what kind of short field performance it
had, but the Helio Courrier was probibly comperable, but looked a helluva lot
nicer.

--
Mike

[Steve]

Mike O'Malley wrote:
> "Andrew Burke" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Of the current crop, I'd say the Beech 1900D. Nose wheel RIGHT at the nose,
>>the cockpit looks like it's from another plane, as does the passenger door,
>>all those appendages around the tail...
>>
>
>
> What about the Shorts 330? Throw some sailplane wings on a shipping crate, then
> stick a couple of barn doors out on the tail, and you've got one uckn fugly
> airplane. I of course, would be more than willing to fly one, if someone else
> were to pay the bills.

I took a flight from Gatwick on a Shorts thingy (might have been a 360).
While waiting on board for the flight crew to arrive, I noticed some
fluid dripping from the left engine nacelle. I pointed this out to our
stew and her bored reply was, "Oh yeah, it always does that". We were
then told that the truck hadn't arrived with the hot water for
beverages, so we were asked to vote whether to wait or to go without and
be content with alcoholic drinks. Given that we were all journalists,
guess what we decided...

When the captain boarded, I noted that he had bottle-thick glasses
(makes me wonder if he was flying on a Class 2 medical in those days)
and had trouble closing the sliding door to the flight deck. He then
introduced himself as ... wait for it ... Captain Hazard. I kid you not.

[CASK829]

Congrats. This is in the running for the biggest BS story I have heard in a
long while. Keep it up I need the laughs.

>I took a flight from Gatwick on a Shorts thingy (might have been a 360).
>While waiting on board for the flight crew to arrive, I noticed some
>fluid dripping from the left engine nacelle. I pointed this out to our
>stew and her bored reply was, "Oh yeah, it always does that". We were
>then told that the truck hadn't arrived with the hot water for
>beverages, so we were asked to vote whether to wait or to go without and
>be content with alcoholic drinks. Given that we were all journalists,
>guess what we decided...
>
>When the captain boarded, I noted that he had bottle-thick glasses
>(makes me wonder if he was flying on a Class 2 medical in those days)
>and had trouble closing the sliding door to the flight deck. He then
>introduced himself as ... wait for it ... Captain Hazard. I kid you not.

[Steve]

CASK829 wrote:
> Congrats. This is in the running for the biggest BS story I have heard in a
> long while. Keep it up I need the laughs.

Except it happens to be true. Of course, if you care not to believe,
there's no reason why I should give a **** about that.

[Geoff Miller]

Ron Natalie > writes:

> For the big boys, the DC-10/MD-11 Engine #2 really looked
> like a wart compared to the L-1011 configuration.


I've always thought the DC-10/MD-11 #2 engine placement resembled
something that a kid might've drawn. And the plane's windshield
design makes it look like it's perpetually squinting. Despite
their similarities, I always thoughteved that the Tristar was the
better looking aircraft. Too bad I never had the opportunity to
fly on one...



Geoff

--
"While everyone was delighted that P.J. had finally spoken
his first words, 'Give me back my zweiback, cock-gobbler'
was eventually deemed unfit for the baby book."
-- lizmo the Wonder Horse

[Geoff Miller]

Steven P. McNicoll > writes:

[ L-1011 vs. DC-10 #2 engine placement ]

> It wasn't a matter of not having room for the boom operator,
> it was the effect on the receiving aircraft.


The RAF has used Tristar tankers for years. They use the
U.S. Navy-style probe and drogue refueling system, which,
if I remember correctly, appears to place receiving aircraft
at least as close to the #2 engine exhaust stream as the boom
system would've.



Geoff

--
"While everyone was delighted that P.J. had finally spoken
his first words, 'Give me back my zweiback, cock-gobbler'
was eventually deemed unfit for the baby book."
-- lizmo the Wonder Horse

[Dave]

"Geoff Miller" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Steven P. McNicoll > writes:
>
> [ L-1011 vs. DC-10 #2 engine placement ]
>
> > It wasn't a matter of not having room for the boom operator,
> > it was the effect on the receiving aircraft.
>
>
> The RAF has used Tristar tankers for years. They use the
> U.S. Navy-style probe and drogue refueling system, which,
> if I remember correctly, appears to place receiving aircraft
> at least as close to the #2 engine exhaust stream as the boom
> system would've.
>

B777 - bland boring unimaginative and just dull.

[Vern]

"Dave" > wrote in
:

>>
>
> B777 - bland boring unimaginative and just dull.
>
>
>

Still better looking than the A320 series though... they look like a flying
math equation. I remember a time when the pointy end of a jetliner used to
be put on the front.

[Geoff Miller]

Dave > writes:

> B777 - bland boring unimaginative and just dull.


That's true of most airliners nowadays. Everything
looks generic, with two engines either under the
wings or stuck onto the aft fuselage. I never
thought I'd consider the once-ubiquitous 727 to be
exotic. but as far as design and appearance are
concerned, it certainly is by today's standards.



Geoff

--
"When a woman behaves like a man, why doesn't
she behave like a _nice_ man?" -- Edith Evans