Question for the group in re: Hawker

[Jess Lurkin.]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

That said, for my nickel a disproportionate number of
British A/C designs are ugggg-leeee. Yes, yes, the
U.S. has had their share of ugly ducklings. But the
Brits are far and away the leader of the pack.

The one exception to this is the Hawker livery. The
postings of Joseph T and many of the others in here
have led me to believe that Hawker has apparently
never hatched an ugly bird. Even the bi-planes look
like works of art (to me).

So, I was wondering if any or all of you would be
willing to post any or all of your Hawker pics?

I'm trying to see if there is a Hawker that gives
me pause in my opinion.

Anyone know of a Hawker with a gag-factor?

[Ramsman]

On 22/02/2014 04:26, Jess Lurkin. wrote:
> "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
>
> That said, for my nickel a disproportionate number of
> British A/C designs are ugggg-leeee. Yes, yes, the
> U.S. has had their share of ugly ducklings. But the
> Brits are far and away the leader of the pack.
>
I think you're doing the French a great disservice. The UK has indeed
produced aircraft that are less than elegant, sometimes as a result of
the specifications, but IMO the prizes for individual ugliness has to go
to the land of Blériot. The Farman Jabiru and the Amiot 140 series
spring to mind.

> The one exception to this is the Hawker livery. The
> postings of Joseph T and many of the others in here
> have led me to believe that Hawker has apparently
> never hatched an ugly bird. Even the bi-planes look
> like works of art (to me).
>
> So, I was wondering if any or all of you would be
> willing to post any or all of your Hawker pics?
>
> I'm trying to see if there is a Hawker that gives
> me pause in my opinion.
>
> Anyone know of a Hawker with a gag-factor?
>

The Horsley was not up to the standards of the Hart/Fury family in the
looks department, certainly not the radial-engined versions. Gag factor?
Not really sure. More research needed, but I don't have much time today.

--
Peter

[Bob (not my real pseudonym)[_2_]]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 08:08:56 +0000, Ramsman >
wrote:

>On 22/02/2014 04:26, Jess Lurkin. wrote:
>> "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
>>
>> That said, for my nickel a disproportionate number of
>> British A/C designs are ugggg-leeee. Yes, yes, the
>> U.S. has had their share of ugly ducklings. But the
>> Brits are far and away the leader of the pack.
>>
>I think you're doing the French a great disservice. The UK has indeed
>produced aircraft that are less than elegant, sometimes as a result of
>the specifications, but IMO the prizes for individual ugliness has to go
>to the land of Blériot. The Farman Jabiru and the Amiot 140 series
>spring to mind.

Or the Couzinet 70 'Arc-en-Ciel'...

http://s636.photobucket.com/user/Lightning_29/media/couzinet70photo.jpg.html

>> The one exception to this is the Hawker livery. The
>> postings of Joseph T and many of the others in here
>> have led me to believe that Hawker has apparently
>> never hatched an ugly bird. Even the bi-planes look
>> like works of art (to me).
>>
>> So, I was wondering if any or all of you would be
>> willing to post any or all of your Hawker pics?
>>
>> I'm trying to see if there is a Hawker that gives
>> me pause in my opinion.
>>
>> Anyone know of a Hawker with a gag-factor?
>>
>
>The Horsley was not up to the standards of the Hart/Fury family in the
>looks department, certainly not the radial-engined versions. Gag factor?
>Not really sure. More research needed, but I don't have much time today.

The Hurricane wasn't exactly beautiful, but made up for it in sheer
chutzpah.

But yeah - the Hart/Fury bipes and the immortal Hunter are definitely
beauties you'd be proud to take home to meet the folks.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Jess Lurkin." > wrote:

> "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
>
> That said, for my nickel a disproportionate number of
> British A/C designs are ugggg-leeee. Yes, yes, the
> U.S. has had their share of ugly ducklings. But the
> Brits are far and away the leader of the pack.
>
> The one exception to this is the Hawker livery. The
> postings of Joseph T and many of the others in here
> have led me to believe that Hawker has apparently
> never hatched an ugly bird. Even the bi-planes look
> like works of art (to me).
>
> So, I was wondering if any or all of you would be
> willing to post any or all of your Hawker pics?
>
> I'm trying to see if there is a Hawker that gives
> me pause in my opinion.
>
> Anyone know of a Hawker with a gag-factor?

Most of the DeHavilland line were sheer beauties, starting with the Dh
88 Comet and later the Albatross.

Yes -- many of the 1920s-30s British (and French) bombers looked as if
they were designed with an ugly stick, but there were some beauties
later.

[Charles Lindbergh]

On 22 Feb 2014 04:26:12 GMT, "Jess Lurkin." > wrote:

>
>"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
>
>That said, for my nickel a disproportionate number of
>British A/C designs are ugggg-leeee. Yes, yes, the
>U.S. has had their share of ugly ducklings. But the
>Brits are far and away the leader of the pack.
>
>The one exception to this is the Hawker livery. The
>postings of Joseph T and many of the others in here
>have led me to believe that Hawker has apparently
>never hatched an ugly bird. Even the bi-planes look
>like works of art (to me).
>
>So, I was wondering if any or all of you would be
>willing to post any or all of your Hawker pics?
>
>I'm trying to see if there is a Hawker that gives
>me pause in my opinion.
>
>Anyone know of a Hawker with a gag-factor?

The Supermarine Spitfire and the de Haviland Mosquito were amongst the most
beautiful airplanes ever produced, IMHO. As an American, I would rank the above
aircraft right up there with the P-51D Mustang, the B-29, the B-47, P-38, F-86,
707 and SR-71

[®i©ardo[_3_]]

On 23/02/2014 19:22, Charles Lindbergh wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2014 04:26:12 GMT, "Jess Lurkin." > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
>>
>> That said, for my nickel a disproportionate number of
>> British A/C designs are ugggg-leeee. Yes, yes, the
>> U.S. has had their share of ugly ducklings. But the
>> Brits are far and away the leader of the pack.
>>
>> The one exception to this is the Hawker livery. The
>> postings of Joseph T and many of the others in here
>> have led me to believe that Hawker has apparently
>> never hatched an ugly bird. Even the bi-planes look
>> like works of art (to me).
>>
>> So, I was wondering if any or all of you would be
>> willing to post any or all of your Hawker pics?
>>
>> I'm trying to see if there is a Hawker that gives
>> me pause in my opinion.
>>
>> Anyone know of a Hawker with a gag-factor?
>
> The Supermarine Spitfire and the de Haviland Mosquito were amongst the most
> beautiful airplanes ever produced, IMHO. As an American, I would rank the above
> aircraft right up there with the P-51D Mustang, the B-29, the B-47, P-38, F-86,
> 707 and SR-71
>

....and even the P-51D Mustang only achieved immortal fame because of its
British engine - the same engine that powered the Spitfire and the Mosquito!

--
Moving Things In Still Pictures

[Andrew Chaplin]

®i©ardo > wrote in
:

> On 23/02/2014 19:22, Charles Lindbergh wrote:
>
>> The Supermarine Spitfire and the de Haviland Mosquito were amongst the
>> most beautiful airplanes ever produced, IMHO. As an American, I would
>> rank the above aircraft right up there with the P-51D Mustang, the
>> B-29, the B-47, P-38, F-86, 707 and SR-71
>
> ...and even the P-51D Mustang only achieved immortal fame because of
> its British engine - the same engine that powered the Spitfire and the
> Mosquito!

Degustibus non disputandem. The Mustang, Mosquito and Spitfire were all
examples of form following function and, thereby, beauties.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Charles Lindbergh]

On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:29:29 -0600, Andrew Chaplin
> wrote:

>®i©ardo > wrote in
:
>
>> On 23/02/2014 19:22, Charles Lindbergh wrote:
>>
>>> The Supermarine Spitfire and the de Haviland Mosquito were amongst the
>>> most beautiful airplanes ever produced, IMHO. As an American, I would
>>> rank the above aircraft right up there with the P-51D Mustang, the
>>> B-29, the B-47, P-38, F-86, 707 and SR-71
>>
>> ...and even the P-51D Mustang only achieved immortal fame because of
>> its British engine - the same engine that powered the Spitfire and the
>> Mosquito!
>
>Degustibus non disputandem.

Aside from posting it in Latin, just why do you feel there is no disputing of
taste? I would disagree, there is much "taste" I take issue with. Most of it
involves publicly funded art.

>The Mustang, Mosquito and Spitfire were all
>examples of form following function and, thereby, beauties.

Regardless of form following function, they all would have been beautiful
aircraft even if they had not been excellent aircraft.

[Charles Lindbergh]

On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:41:32 +0000, ®i©ardo > wrote:

>On 23/02/2014 19:22, Charles Lindbergh wrote:
>> On 22 Feb 2014 04:26:12 GMT, "Jess Lurkin." > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
>>>
>>> That said, for my nickel a disproportionate number of
>>> British A/C designs are ugggg-leeee. Yes, yes, the
>>> U.S. has had their share of ugly ducklings. But the
>>> Brits are far and away the leader of the pack.
>>>
>>> The one exception to this is the Hawker livery. The
>>> postings of Joseph T and many of the others in here
>>> have led me to believe that Hawker has apparently
>>> never hatched an ugly bird. Even the bi-planes look
>>> like works of art (to me).
>>>
>>> So, I was wondering if any or all of you would be
>>> willing to post any or all of your Hawker pics?
>>>
>>> I'm trying to see if there is a Hawker that gives
>>> me pause in my opinion.
>>>
>>> Anyone know of a Hawker with a gag-factor?
>>
>> The Supermarine Spitfire and the de Haviland Mosquito were amongst the most
>> beautiful airplanes ever produced, IMHO. As an American, I would rank the above
>> aircraft right up there with the P-51D Mustang, the B-29, the B-47, P-38, F-86,
>> 707 and SR-71
>>
>
>...and even the P-51D Mustang only achieved immortal fame because of its
>British engine - the same engine that powered the Spitfire and the Mosquito!

The Merlin was an outstanding engine, but it did not contribute to the visual
aesthetic appeal of the Mustang. In my opinion, it was the tear-drop canopy in
the D version which turned it into aviation eye candy.

Remember, the Lancaster had four Merlin engines and it was no beauty.

[®i©ardo[_3_]]

On 24/02/2014 11:41, Charles Lindbergh wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:41:32 +0000, ®i©ardo > wrote:
>
>> On 23/02/2014 19:22, Charles Lindbergh wrote:
>>> On 22 Feb 2014 04:26:12 GMT, "Jess Lurkin." > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
>>>>
>>>> That said, for my nickel a disproportionate number of
>>>> British A/C designs are ugggg-leeee. Yes, yes, the
>>>> U.S. has had their share of ugly ducklings. But the
>>>> Brits are far and away the leader of the pack.
>>>>
>>>> The one exception to this is the Hawker livery. The
>>>> postings of Joseph T and many of the others in here
>>>> have led me to believe that Hawker has apparently
>>>> never hatched an ugly bird. Even the bi-planes look
>>>> like works of art (to me).
>>>>
>>>> So, I was wondering if any or all of you would be
>>>> willing to post any or all of your Hawker pics?
>>>>
>>>> I'm trying to see if there is a Hawker that gives
>>>> me pause in my opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone know of a Hawker with a gag-factor?
>>>
>>> The Supermarine Spitfire and the de Haviland Mosquito were amongst the most
>>> beautiful airplanes ever produced, IMHO. As an American, I would rank the above
>>> aircraft right up there with the P-51D Mustang, the B-29, the B-47, P-38, F-86,
>>> 707 and SR-71
>>>
>>
>> ...and even the P-51D Mustang only achieved immortal fame because of its
>> British engine - the same engine that powered the Spitfire and the Mosquito!
>
> The Merlin was an outstanding engine, but it did not contribute to the visual
> aesthetic appeal of the Mustang. In my opinion, it was the tear-drop canopy in
> the D version which turned it into aviation eye candy.
>

....where as the P51 Mustang 1...

> Remember, the Lancaster had four Merlin engines and it was no beauty.
>

But it had a certain purposeful grace - and it did an excellent job!

--
Moving Things In Still Pictures

[D. St-Sanvain]

Charles Lindbergh a écrit dans
> :

> Remember, the Lancaster had four Merlin engines and it was no beauty.
But definitely closer to beauty than uglyness !

--
D520
Delta Reflex : http://bdd.deltareflex.com
Light aviation : http://tagazous.free.fr
Roundels of the World :
http://cocardes.monde.online.fr/v2html/en/accueil.html

[Orlando Quattro[_2_]]

M;-5T':?6XGX_\@U-)^Q7XQEC&=5T+K@'[1/D?^0:?;_L4^,$D);5-".!A3Y\
MV?\`T34LW[&/C#S"1J6A`KQ_Q\3<_P#D*J,G[(?C+)5+W0%(R.;J?!]_]34T
M/[(GBY%R;W0?,V[1_I,Q`_\`(-.M_P!D_P`;":3=J&@E0-J'[1-D?^0:NV/[
M(7B_'[S4-#W$X#+/-G'_`'ZJV/V4/%RS^1]OT0!1MW">;G\/*J2']D'Q?+,Z
MKJ.A+GI^^F_^-5(W[('C%F7&J:'E?EVF>;&/^_520_L=>+FN=_\`:FBA6XXF
MFR/_`"%23_L=^+68XU/10K'`(GF!`_[]58C_`&0/%J1A?[5T8G&`3/-_\:J.
M+]CGQ=YI9]7T;+$#Y9IL8_[]4Z]_91\5:>8Q]OT9MYY'GS`8_P"_53VW['_B
M:5@XU'1U#'A?/F./_(5))^R%XH%X&&HZ*2>"3--D#V_=5N6G[)7B:.+C4='(
M;KF67/\`Z+IX_9(\3'(34](0,/\`GK+_`/&Z=%^R;XE:W*/J.D^8QZB:7&/^
M_=17'[(_B)(\1:AI`);)W32XQ_W[KN_AA^S]XGT&[:*74=,:WD&2J22'!]LH
M*]//P5U4R+F^L]IXZO\`_$TX?!/4\D&^M".W+?X4R#X(ZNK`F_L@#Z%\_P#H
$>,>6I
7;'\JU+;X0ZC%=IB\M"`X(R6!Z_2O_]D=
`
end

[Charles Lindbergh]

On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:06:02 +0100, D. St-Sanvain
> wrote:

>Charles Lindbergh a écrit dans
> :
>
>> Remember, the Lancaster had four Merlin engines and it was no beauty.
>But definitely closer to beauty than uglyness !

I disagree, but the Lanc is certainly not as ugly as these 13 aircraft.

http://www.historynet.com/the-13-ugliest-airplanes.htm?

[Ramsman]

On 25/02/2014 13:14, Charles Lindbergh wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:06:02 +0100, D. St-Sanvain
> > wrote:
>
>> Charles Lindbergh a écrit dans
>> > :
>>
>>> Remember, the Lancaster had four Merlin engines and it was no beauty.
>> But definitely closer to beauty than uglyness !
>
> I disagree, but the Lanc is certainly not as ugly as these 13 aircraft.
>
> http://www.historynet.com/the-13-ugliest-airplanes.htm?
>

As Andrew Chapiln nearly said, Degustibus non est disputandum; or even
chacun à son goût. It's all a question of taste.

By no means all of those 13 were designed with an ugly pencil. Some
definitely were, and others were just a bit on the utilitarian side.

--
Peter