Poll: best looking GA prop plane of all time?

[xerj]

For me, it's the King Air.

Other opinions?

[[email protected]]

xerj wrote:
> For me, it's the King Air.
>
> Other opinions?

Best looking twin: Beech Duke
Best looking single: Spitfire!
Best looking GA single: Cessna Cardinal

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> xerj wrote:
>
>>For me, it's the King Air.
>>
>>Other opinions?
>
>
> Best looking twin: Beech Duke
> Best looking single: Spitfire!
> Best looking GA single: Cessna Cardinal
>

I'll second the Duke. Always liked its looks.
I like the Falco rather than the Spitfire.


Matt

[xerj]

> Best looking twin: Beech Duke
> Best looking single: Spitfire!
> Best looking GA single: Cessna Cardinal

The Cardinal is very nice. Something about strutless high wings is really
appealing.

[Dan Luke]

Vintage: Beech Staggerwing, the G-model.
http://www.popularaviation.com/PhotoGallery/2773.jpg

Modern choice: Lancair Legacy
http://www.lancair-kits.com/Legacy_images/Legacy_1_lrg.jpg

[[email protected]]

xerj wrote:
> > Best looking twin: Beech Duke
> > Best looking single: Spitfire!
> > Best looking GA single: Cessna Cardinal
>
> The Cardinal is very nice. Something about strutless high wings is really
> appealing.

Cardinal is pretty, but the Helio Stallion gets my vote for
strutless high-wing single. See
http://www.stolaircraft.com/maytagstallion.html
Rare, too; only two left flying. Helio is supposedly putting it
back into production. Cruises at 175 kt, can fly at 37 kt. Hard to beat
that for speed range. See
http://www.helioaircraft.com/ourplanes_stallion.htm

Dan

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "xerj" > said:
>For me, it's the King Air.

deHavilland Beaver. On floats. With me sitting on the float, fishing.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"You are in front of me. If you value your lives, be somewhere else." -
- Delenn, Babylon 5

[Aluckyguess]

The Cirrus is the best looking Single, how could you even say Cessna
Cardinal in the same breath. The Cherokee is a lot better looking than the
Cardinal. The Bonanza A36 is a pretty good looking Single also.

jmho

[Aluckyguess]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "xerj" > said:
>>For me, it's the King Air.
>
> deHavilland Beaver. On floats. With me sitting on the float, fishing.
>
That sounds fun.
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> "You are in front of me. If you value your lives, be somewhere else." -
> - Delenn, Babylon 5

[Jose]

The Starship.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Seth Masia]

Swift. Hands down.

"xerj" > wrote in message
...
> For me, it's the King Air.
>
> Other opinions?
>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"xerj" > wrote:

> For me, it's the King Air.
>
> Other opinions?

Classics:

Beech Model 17 Staggerwing
Lockheed 12A
Beech 18
Spartan Executive
Johnson Rocket (I HAD to vote for my own here!)

Homebuilts:
Polen Special
Swearingen SX-300

Spamcans:
Early Cessna 310
Meyers 200
Twin Comanche
Beech Baron
Lear 20 - series

[W P Dixon]

Always thought a Culver Cadet was a cool looking little plane. And of course
I like Luscombes ;)

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "xerj" > wrote:
>
>> For me, it's the King Air.
>>
>> Other opinions?
>
> Classics:
>
> Beech Model 17 Staggerwing
> Lockheed 12A
> Beech 18
> Spartan Executive
> Johnson Rocket (I HAD to vote for my own here!)
>
> Homebuilts:
> Polen Special
> Swearingen SX-300
>
> Spamcans:
> Early Cessna 310
> Meyers 200
> Twin Comanche
> Beech Baron
> Lear 20 - series

[tony roberts]

Any open cockpit wood/rag biplane beats all of the nominations I have
seen so far.

Tony
(who doesn't own one but wishes that he did :)

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

In article >,
"xerj" > wrote:

> For me, it's the King Air.
>
> Other opinions?

[[email protected]]

xerj,

Good question.

Hmm, Biplane: Beech 17 Staggerwing series. Monoplane: Cessna AW
(Cessnas never had wing struts until 1945) or Cardinal, military, the
Mk. IX Spitfire. Twin biplane: DeHavilland Dragon Rapide. Twin
monoplane: DeHaviland Mosquito or early Cessna 310. Three engine:
Stinson trimotor (high wing version, the low wing was hideous) or
Boeing 727. Four engine: DeHaviland Heron.

Cheers,
Rick

[Sylvain]

wrote:
> Twin monoplane: DeHaviland Mosquito

I know it is a matter of taste, but the DeHaviland Comet
(the DH 88 of the 1934 MacRobertson Air Race, not the airliner)
looks a lot better to me in this category (and there is a superb
replica flying in Hollister...)

--Sylvain

[Bob Martin]

xerj wrote:
> For me, it's the King Air.
>
> Other opinions?
>
>

RV-4

[Thomas Borchert]

Xerj,

> For me, it's the King Air.
>

What's GA about a King Air?

Beech Staggerwing.

Best looking Cessna (and that has to be its own category, since most
are so ugly): Cardinal

Best looking modern GA single: Cirrus

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Longworth]

jmho,
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. IMHO, the Cirrus can't hold a
candle to the Cardinal when it comes to good look. Our Cardinal will
the best looking plane on any field after its paint job ;-)

Hai Longworth, a proud Cardinal owner.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> What's GA about a King Air?
>

Everything

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"xerj" > wrote in message
...
>
> For me, it's the King Air.
>
> Other opinions?

Waco SRE

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Best looking single: Spitfire!
>

I'm not familiar with a GA plane called Spitfire. Can you tell us more
about it?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Cherokee is a lot better looking than the Cardinal.
> jmho

You're twisted.

[cwby-flyer]

Classic Single
Beech Staggerwing

Classic twing
Beech 18

Modern Single
Cessna 210

Modern Twin
Adam A-500
Beech Duke


Mike

[buttman]

Bonanza (non V-tail) for singles and the Baron for twins.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> xerj wrote:
>> For me, it's the King Air.
>>
>> Other opinions?
>
> Best looking twin: Beech Duke
> Best looking single: Spitfire!
> Best looking GA single: Cessna Cardinal
>

The Cessna 310 just does it for me. I don't really no why.

[Stefan]

The Sukhoi 26, of course. And the most fun, too.

Stefan

[Thomas Borchert]

Longworth,

> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
>

Well, in your case, beauty seems to be in the eye of the owner ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Thomas,

forgot a close second contender to the Cirrus: Socata TB-10 Tobago.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Robet Coffey]

xerj wrote:
> For me, it's the King Air.
>
> Other opinions?
>
>

EADS Socata TBM 700
piper meridian

[Longworth]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
> Well, in your case, beauty seems to be in the eye of the owner ;-)
>

Tom,

We were the beholders before becoming the owners of our Cardinal.
It was much harder to locate a Cardinal than a Skyhawk or an Archer but
once we dediced it was the right plane, we kept searching (for almost 2
years) until finding one. We were first interested in the Cardinal for
its lack of struts, the two large doors and big cargo area. It was a
pleasant surprise to see that it was also a swan among its ugly
duckling siblings, the 172s.

Hai Longworth

[Mike Rapoport]

Haven't you seen a Piaggio P180? The King Air is ugly and so slow that the
radome should be in the rear so the airplane can avoid being run down by
thunderstorms.

Mike
MU-2


"xerj" > wrote in message
...
> For me, it's the King Air.
>
> Other opinions?
>

[Trent Moorehead]

"Seth Masia" > wrote in message
...
> Swift. Hands down.

I'll second that.

[[email protected]]

Sylvain,

DH 88. Sound of forehead slap. You're right, one of the sharpest
looking airplanes ever, although I would not care for its forward
visibility in three point attitude.

Cheers,
Rick

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Sylvain > wrote:

> wrote:
> > Twin monoplane: DeHaviland Mosquito
>
> I know it is a matter of taste, but the DeHaviland Comet
> (the DH 88 of the 1934 MacRobertson Air Race, not the airliner)
> looks a lot better to me in this category (and there is a superb
> replica flying in Hollister...)
>
> --Sylvain

I should have included that one in MY nomination list, too! Add in the
Mew Gull, too.

[George Patterson]

wrote:

> .... although I would not care for its forward
> visibility in three point attitude.

It has some? :-)

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Ken Chaddock]

xerj wrote:

> For me, it's the King Air.
>
> Other opinions?

Classic Single - Globe Swift
Classic Twin - Grumman Widgeon

Modern Single - Seawind 3000
Modern twin - Beech Model 2000 StarShip

....Ken

[George Patterson]

wrote:

> DH 88. Sound of forehead slap. You're right, one of the sharpest
> looking airplanes ever, although I would not care for its forward
> visibility in three point attitude.

If you're starting to discuss characteristics other than appearance, I think you
would also dislike the two-speed props the DHs had. Most people hated them.

They were locked into fine pitch on the ground before takeoff. They had a sort
of flywheel arrangement that would shift them into coarse pitch once a certain
airspeed was reached. They could not be changed back to fine pitch in the air.
Invariably, one prop would go into coarse pitch before the other, which I'm told
led to a period of interesting flight characteristics. Occasionally one prop
wouldn't go into coarse pitch at all, and things got *really* interesting.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[George Patterson]

xerj wrote:

> Other opinions?

So many planes .... so little time.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[[email protected]]

George,

Hadn't known that about the props on the DH88. (Sort of ties in with
the seeming proclivity of British engineers to make things as complex
as possible <g>.) That could get interesting, especially back then
when the designers seemed to like little bitty vertical stabilizers and
rudders. I also wouldn't much care for it if I had to make a go-around
in coarse pitch when very slow. Differential activiation of devices
that affect yaw and roll are usually just disconcerting rather than
dangerous, but I can't help but wonder how many Allied pilots were
saved because the slats in the Bf-109 usually wouldn't deploy together
when turning tightly, and would throw off the pilot's aim at least
briefly.

All the best,
Rick

[[email protected]]

Tony,

With all due respect, there were some pretty odd-looking open cockpit
biplanes; a few come to mind: The Briston Fighter, Loehning OA-1A,
Martin MB-2 and Douglas O-38. Nevertheless, most are truly attractive,
although the Beech 17 is in a class by itself.

All the best,
Rick

[Sylvain]

wrote:
> Hadn't known that about the props on the DH88. (Sort of ties in with
> the seeming proclivity of British engineers to make things as complex
> as possible <g>.)

you have to put the thing in its context: this aircraft was
designed in the early 30s; wasn't this aircraft the first to have
variable pitch props and retractable gear at the time? this
thing was ahead of its time by a very long shot...

--Sylvain

[[email protected]]

Thomas,

Most Cessnas so ugly? What are your thoughts on the AW, BW, DC-6 and
Airmaster? Or the T-50, 177, 195, 210, 310, 402, 421, 425, 441 and
650?

Yeah, when they went to struts on some of them in 1945, esthetics did
suffer, but it saved a lot of weight.

Warmest regards,
Rick

[Seth Masia]

Of course. Best looking plane of all time: Spitfire. Best looking GA plane:
DH88.

All the twin deHavillands were gorgeous, sometimes in a kind of
alternative-universe ancient-science fiction manner. Consider the DH84
Dragon. And it all leads to the Mosquito.

Wasn't it Geoffrey deHavilland who said "If it looks right, it is right?"

How about the ugliest GA airplane of all time? I exclude military a/c so as
to disqualify interwar French bombers.

My nominee: Transavia Airtruck.

Seth

Seth

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Sylvain,
>
> DH 88. Sound of forehead slap. You're right, one of the sharpest
> looking airplanes ever, although I would not care for its forward
> visibility in three point attitude.
>
> Cheers,
> Rick
>

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Tony,
>
> With all due respect, there were some pretty odd-looking open cockpit
> biplanes; a few come to mind: The Briston Fighter, Loehning OA-1A,
> Martin MB-2 and Douglas O-38. Nevertheless, most are truly attractive,
> although the Beech 17 is in a class by itself.
>
> All the best,
> Rick

Except the Beech 17 isn't an open cockpit.

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Thomas,
>
> Most Cessnas so ugly? What are your thoughts on the AW, BW, DC-6 and
> Airmaster? Or the T-50, 177, 195, 210, 310, 402, 421, 425, 441 and
> 650?
>
> Yeah, when they went to struts on some of them in 1945, esthetics did
> suffer, but it saved a lot of weight.
>
> Warmest regards,
> Rick

The Airmaster is the best of the lot especially on floats. It makes the
Cardinal look like one of Cinderella's ugly sisters. Not to mention it is
one of the most efficient four place airplanes ever designed and built. The
AW was outstanding for it's day in looks and performance especially in light
of the fact it was designed by a guy with a fifth grade education.

[Bob Chilcoat]

I vote for the Cessna 195, although the Falco (preferably with the Nustrini
canopy), LoPresti's Fury before he changed the tail, and the P-51 Mustang
all are high on my list.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Seth Masia" > wrote in message
...
> Swift. Hands down.
>
> "xerj" > wrote in message
> ...
>> For me, it's the King Air.
>>
>> Other opinions?
>>
>
>

[Bob Chilcoat]

Oh, yeah, and at the very top of the list, Jim Wright's Hughes H-1 replica.
Without a doubt, the best looking airplane ever built.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in message
...
>I vote for the Cessna 195, although the Falco (preferably with the Nustrini
>canopy), LoPresti's Fury before he changed the tail, and the P-51 Mustang
>all are high on my list.
>
> --
> Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)
>
>
> "Seth Masia" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Swift. Hands down.
>>
>> "xerj" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> For me, it's the King Air.
>>>
>>> Other opinions?
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in message
...
> Oh, yeah, and at the very top of the list, Jim Wright's Hughes H-1
replica.
> Without a doubt, the best looking airplane ever built.
>
> --
> Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I'll second that vote. Not only the design but the workmanship was also
outstanding.

>
>
> "Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I vote for the Cessna 195, although the Falco (preferably with the
Nustrini
> >canopy), LoPresti's Fury before he changed the tail, and the P-51 Mustang
> >all are high on my list.
> >
> > --
> > Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)
> >
> >
> > "Seth Masia" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Swift. Hands down.
> >>
> >> "xerj" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> For me, it's the King Air.
> >>>
> >>> Other opinions?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

[xerj]

> Haven't you seen a Piaggio P180? The King Air is ugly and so slow that
> the radome should be in the rear so the airplane can avoid being run down
> by thunderstorms.

:)

Yeah, it ~is~ kind of homely, but that's what I like about it I think. It
has a sort of unpretentious quality.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> xerj wrote:
>
>>>Best looking twin: Beech Duke
>>>Best looking single: Spitfire!
>>>Best looking GA single: Cessna Cardinal
>>
>>The Cardinal is very nice. Something about strutless high wings is really
>>appealing.
>
>
> Cardinal is pretty, but the Helio Stallion gets my vote for
> strutless high-wing single. See
> http://www.stolaircraft.com/maytagstallion.html
> Rare, too; only two left flying. Helio is supposedly putting it
> back into production. Cruises at 175 kt, can fly at 37 kt. Hard to beat
> that for speed range. See
> http://www.helioaircraft.com/ourplanes_stallion.htm
>
> Dan
>

That thing is ugly as a mud fence!

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The Cherokee is a lot better looking than the Cardinal.
>>jmho
>
>
> You're twisted.
>
>

Or blind.

Matt

[Mike W.]

For twins, I like the Commanders (AC-500 and AC690)

For singles, I guess I am biased, but I like the Skylane.

I know a lot of you will scoff, thinking 'ugly, run of the mill' or
whatever. But I think I like them because they look like airplanes. Not
somebody's art project.


--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

[xerj]

> For twins, I like the Commanders (AC-500 and AC690)
>
> For singles, I guess I am biased, but I like the Skylane.
>
> I know a lot of you will scoff, thinking 'ugly, run of the mill' or
> whatever. But I think I like them because they look like airplanes. Not
> somebody's art project.

Exactly why I like the King Air. It's there to do a job. Maybe not a
particularly fast or spectacular job, but a good, solid one.

[Morgans]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
> Or blind.

Hey, a Cherokee owned by me is better looking than a Cardinal owned by
someone else! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>>Or blind.
>
>
> Hey, a Cherokee owned by me is better looking than a Cardinal owned by
> someone else! ;-)

Can't argue with that logic!

Matt

[[email protected]]

Stinson Reliant with a bump cowl

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:51:58 GMT, "xerj" > wrote:

>For me, it's the King Air.
>
>Other opinions?
>

Howard 500
Falco

[[email protected]]

Dave,

True, which is partially why it's in a class by itself <g>.

All the best,
Rick

[Aluckyguess]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The Cherokee is a lot better looking than the Cardinal.
>> jmho
>
> You're twisted.
>
I must be because they are a good looking plane.

[Aluckyguess]

Lets put your freshly painted cardinal on the field next to a Cirrus any
Cirrus I might add and start asking people what they think looks better. I
bet the Cardinal doesn't get one vote.
"Longworth" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> jmho,
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. IMHO, the Cirrus can't hold a
> candle to the Cardinal when it comes to good look. Our Cardinal will
> the best looking plane on any field after its paint job ;-)
>
> Hai Longworth, a proud Cardinal owner.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
>
> I must be because they are a good looking plane.

Definitely not better looking than the Cardinal.

[Mike W.]

Bumpy cowl, makes me think of a Cessna 195. another fine aircraft.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Stinson Reliant with a bump cowl
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
> Lets put your freshly painted cardinal on the field next to a Cirrus any
> Cirrus I might add and start asking people what they think looks better. I
> bet the Cardinal doesn't get one vote.

If I was there it would.

> "Longworth" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > jmho,
> > Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. IMHO, the Cirrus can't hold a
> > candle to the Cardinal when it comes to good look. Our Cardinal will
> > the best looking plane on any field after its paint job ;-)
> >
> > Hai Longworth, a proud Cardinal owner.
> >
>
>

[Matt Whiting]

Aluckyguess wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>The Cherokee is a lot better looking than the Cardinal.
>>>jmho
>>
>>You're twisted.
>>
>
> I must be because they are a good looking plane.
>
>

Yes, compared to a Wilga.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Aluckyguess wrote:

> Lets put your freshly painted cardinal on the field next to a Cirrus any
> Cirrus I might add and start asking people what they think looks better. I
> bet the Cardinal doesn't get one vote.
> "Longworth" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>jmho,
>> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. IMHO, the Cirrus can't hold a
>>candle to the Cardinal when it comes to good look. Our Cardinal will
>>the best looking plane on any field after its paint job ;-)
>>
>> Hai Longworth, a proud Cardinal owner.

I bet it does. It would certainly get mine. The Cirrus is pretty plain
vanilla looking. I find the curve of the tail partricularly ugly.

Matt

[Cub Driver]

J-3 Cub!


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[[email protected]]

Sylvain,

The DH88 was built in late 1933 or early 1934. The DC-1 had been
built, as had the Boeing 247, both with retractable gear. I think the
247 had two position props, adjustable from in the cabin and the DC-2
had constant speed props (at least it did at some point). In fact, in
the race to Australia, won by the DH88, third place was taken by a DC-2
of KLM (IIRC) operating on its normal airline schedule. Had it ignored
the schedule, I think it might have won. So, the two position props on
the DH88 seem a little odd in context. No matter how the systems were
designed, it was one beautiful airplane. I recall seeing one, I assume
a replica, in southern California several years ago, may have been at
Riverside.

All the best,
Rick

[Longworth]

Aluckyguess wrote:
> Lets put your freshly painted cardinal on the field next to a Cirrus any
> Cirrus I might add and start asking people what they think looks better. I
> bet the Cardinal doesn't get one vote.

Aluckyguess,
What is your wager? Hey, I already got two votes from Dave and
Matt eventhough my plane is still in the paint shop ;-)

Hai Longworth

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Aluckyguess wrote:
>
> > Lets put your freshly painted cardinal on the field next to a Cirrus any
> > Cirrus I might add and start asking people what they think looks better.
I
> > bet the Cardinal doesn't get one vote.
> > "Longworth" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >>jmho,
> >> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. IMHO, the Cirrus can't hold a
> >>candle to the Cardinal when it comes to good look. Our Cardinal will
> >>the best looking plane on any field after its paint job ;-)
> >>
> >> Hai Longworth, a proud Cardinal owner.
>
> I bet it does. It would certainly get mine. The Cirrus is pretty plain
> vanilla looking. I find the curve of the tail partricularly ugly.
>
> Matt

Not only that it's.....well.....plastic, yuck!

[Michael 182]

"xerj" > wrote in message
...
> For me, it's the King Air.
>
> Other opinions?
>

Beech Staggerwing, closely followed by Cessna 195

[[email protected]]

>>>>Four engine: DeHaviland Heron.<<<<

One of my favorites as it looks like a 3/4 scale DC-6. Now if it just
had round engines... Always had a soft spot for Beech 18s and Twin
Bonanzas too.

[Montblack]

("Matt Whiting" wrote)
> Yes, compared to a Wilga.


http://www.pzl-okecie.com.pl/wilga.htm
Wilga

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=322
Wilga

This thread, and the ugly thread, have been driving me bonkers. Nobody posts
links.


Montblack

[City Dweller]

Diamond Star.

http://www.atpflightschool.com/images-new/da40/da40flying_large.jpg

Beats the Cirrus, not to mention any spam can, hands down.

-- City Dweller

"xerj" > wrote in message
...
> For me, it's the King Air.
>
> Other opinions?
>

[Roger]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:51:58 GMT, "xerj" > wrote:

>For me, it's the King Air.
>
>Other opinions?

Lancair 320/360. They even hung one over the entrance of the
Smithsonian when they did a show on form and function.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>

[[email protected]]

Me three.

Although I have to give the Switft a tie with the Beech Staggerwing.

Swift = best looking prop single monoplane
Staggerwing = best looking prop single biplane

[Matt Whiting]

Montblack wrote:

> ("Matt Whiting" wrote)
>
>> Yes, compared to a Wilga.
>
>
>
> http://www.pzl-okecie.com.pl/wilga.htm
> Wilga
>
> http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=322
> Wilga
>
> This thread, and the ugly thread, have been driving me bonkers. Nobody
> posts
> links.

I didn't think it was that hard to type "Wilga" into the Google search
box. Sorry to cause you so much extra work and mental stress.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

City Dweller wrote:

> Diamond Star.
>
> http://www.atpflightschool.com/images-new/da40/da40flying_large.jpg
>
> Beats the Cirrus, not to mention any spam can, hands down.

No, the wasp waste designs are ugly. I'd rather have a Cirrus, that a
Diamond Star from a purely aesthetic perspective, however, I'd rather
have a Falco than either of them.

MAtt

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> City Dweller wrote:
>
>> Diamond Star.
>>
>> http://www.atpflightschool.com/images-new/da40/da40flying_large.jpg
>>
>> Beats the Cirrus, not to mention any spam can, hands down.
>
>
> No, the wasp waste designs are ugly. I'd rather have a Cirrus, that a
> Diamond Star from a purely aesthetic perspective, however, I'd rather
> have a Falco than either of them.

Oops, meant waist, although those designs are also somewhat of a waste. :-)

Matt

[Montblack]

("Matt Whiting" wrote)
>> This thread, and the ugly thread, have been driving me bonkers. Nobody
>> posts links.

> I didn't think it was that hard to type "Wilga" into the Google search
> box. Sorry to cause you so such extra work and mental stress.


For one or two posts - not a problem. For many, many, many posts, each one
requiring a trip to Google ...and then a trip *through* Google - yes, more
of a problem.

Also, if a person takes the time to research and post a link, then 100's of
lurkers won't have to ...(x) how many plane references in the two threads?

Be nice to the lurkers. :-)

BTW, my vote - 1946 Ercoupe 415 C
http://www.ercoupe.net/M1/PhotoAlbum.html
(Click N2569H in the blue links on the left)


Montblack
(Our own Greg B's N93332 is also on the list)

[cjcampbell]

Dan Luke wrote:
> Vintage: Beech Staggerwing, the G-model.
> http://www.popularaviation.com/PhotoGallery/2773.jpg

Good taste. My pick also.

[[email protected]]

Mike R. said

>>>>Haven't you seen a Piaggio P180? The King Air is ugly and so slow that the
radome should be in the rear so the airplane can avoid being run down
by
thunderstorms. <<<<

You must be joking. The Piaggio is so ugly it scares away
thunderstorms. : ) Take a beached whale-looking fuse, then stick the
main wing on the back with the engines pointing the wrong way and tack
on a canard up front as an afterthought. Ugh. Its only redeeming factor
is its speed. I'm not sure if this is a case of form following function
or vice versa...

[[email protected]]

Longworth > wrote:

> Aluckyguess wrote:
> > Lets put your freshly painted cardinal on the field next to a Cirrus any
> > Cirrus I might add and start asking people what they think looks better. I
> > bet the Cardinal doesn't get one vote.

I vote for the Cardinal! It just look GOOD!

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 234 Young Eagles!

[Mike Rapoport]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Mike R. said
>
>>>>>Haven't you seen a Piaggio P180? The King Air is ugly and so slow that
>>>>>the
> radome should be in the rear so the airplane can avoid being run down
> by
> thunderstorms. <<<<
>
> You must be joking. The Piaggio is so ugly it scares away
> thunderstorms. : ) Take a beached whale-looking fuse, then stick the
> main wing on the back with the engines pointing the wrong way and tack
> on a canard up front as an afterthought. Ugh. Its only redeeming factor
> is its speed. I'm not sure if this is a case of form following function
> or vice versa..

I guess that you don't like the way Ferraris look either.

Mike
MU-2

[[email protected]]

>>>>I guess that you don't like the way Ferraris look either<<<<

What does that have to do with the Piaggio, Mike??

I like the older Ferraris like the 328, 288 GTO, 512BBi, and the 550
Maranello. The newer cars like the Scaglietti don't do much for me

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...

>
> I guess that you don't like the way Ferraris look either.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

Speaking of Ferraris. The 308 was my dream car for years but the other day a
575 (I think) pulled up beside me at the gas pump and while up close it is a
great looking car I noticed when I drove off that from a distance it looks
like any number of Japanese sport coupes.

If I spend that much money on a car I don't want anybody from any distance
thinking it is just another car from Japan.

That said, I laugh and laugh (to myself) every time somebody thinks my Honda
S2000 is a Porsche Boxster.

[Mike Rapoport]

It has everything to do with it. The Piaggio is to airplanes what Ferrari
is to automobiles, a combination of form and function with some Italian
pizzaz thrown it. The Piaggio will go 100kts faster on the same fuel burn
as a King Air 200 and has a larger cabin.


Mike
MU-2


> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>>I guess that you don't like the way Ferraris look either<<<<
>
> What does that have to do with the Piaggio, Mike??
>
> I like the older Ferraris like the 328, 288 GTO, 512BBi, and the 550
> Maranello. The newer cars like the Scaglietti don't do much for me
>

[Montblack]

("Mike Rapoport" wrote)
[snip]
> The Piaggio will go 100kts faster on the same fuel burn as a King Air 200
> and has a larger cabin.


....and sounds much cooler when it screams overhead, too.

We had a Piaggio at ANE (Anoka County-Blaine, MN) for a few months last
year.


Montblack

[[email protected]]

>>>>The Piaggio will go 100kts faster on the same fuel burn
as a King Air 200 and has a larger cabin. <<<<

The P180 I sat in last year seemed a tad snug. Certainly no larger than
a B200's "squared oval" cross-section cabin IMO. So it's fast and a
great XC machine, no argument there, I just think it's butt-ugly

[Mike Rapoport]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>>The Piaggio will go 100kts faster on the same fuel burn
> as a King Air 200 and has a larger cabin. <<<<
>
> The P180 I sat in last year seemed a tad snug. Certainly no larger than
> a B200's "squared oval" cross-section cabin IMO. So it's fast and a
> great XC machine, no argument there, I just think it's butt-ugly
>

The Piaggio cabin is *hugely* larger than the B200. It is 18" wider and
about (depending on where you measure) 14" taller. The King Air isn't even
remotely close. The B200 fusilage will fit inside the Piaggio's cabin.

As they say in Italy, you don't argue taste, so I accept that you don' t
like the looks. As far as any other comparison goes, the P180 crushes the
King Air.

Mike
MU-2

[[email protected]]

>>>>As far as any other comparison goes, the P180 crushes the
King Air. <<<<

Agreed, except for the BE200's 1000lb higher MTOW. I'm not sure how
much of that is useful load though.

[Mike Rapoport]

Useful load is comparable but the Piaggio is so much more fuel efficient
that it can carry about twice the payload on 1500nm flights and get there an
hour earlier too. The Piaggio with its four lifting surfaces (the fusilage
also provides lift) incredibly tight tolerance surface finish and low drag
shape is simply an amazing airplane. It is light years ahead of the King
Air.

Mike
MU-2

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>>>>>As far as any other comparison goes, the P180 crushes the
> King Air. <<<<
>
> Agreed, except for the BE200's 1000lb higher MTOW. I'm not sure how
> much of that is useful load though.
>

[Longworth]

wrote:

>
> I vote for the Cardinal! It just look GOOD!
>
> Best regards,

Jer,

Thank you for your vote ;-) I hope to have a chance to show off my
Cardinal to you in person in the near future. We stopped at Fort
Collins airport in our trip to Denver late last August to see if we
could schedule a mountain flying session but you were not around. We
will try to contact you ahead of time if we plan another NY-CO trip.

Best regards,

Hai Longworth

[jbaloun]

> The Piaggio with its four lifting surfaces (the fusilage
> also provides lift) incredibly tight tolerance surface finish and low drag
> shape is simply an amazing airplane. It is light years ahead of the King
> Air.

>From the perspective of an aircraft structural design engineer, the
King Air appears to be the result of generations of add-ons. Most
fuselage stations look different from each other. Note the different
windows and skin panels. It appears that rather than spend a few
dollars to clean up the design they just kept adding on as the airframe
models got larger. Even the outboard wing looks like it is added on to
a center wing. Scabed together compared to the clean Piaggio. Can
anyone verify if this how the Beechcraft developed?

When I was 13 years old I thought Jim Bede's BD-5 looked great. In
hindsight he was selling a cute design that was hard to fly bordering
on unsafe. But then Kitplanes are a whole another area from GA.

The variety of aircraft over the past 100 years is amazing. Quite a
survival of the fittest - evolution going on. For every plane in
service, others did not get past the prototype stage. For each
prototype, many more were tested in the wind tunnel and detailed on
paper. The 1930s to 1940s were an explosion of aircraft design. I love
it.

James

[[email protected]]

James,

>>King Air appears to be the result of generations of add-ons. Most
fuselage stations look different from each other.<<

You broke the code. The King Air evolved from the Twin Bonanza and
then the Queen Air.

It's a lovely flying airplane, so it's beautiful in that respect, but
it's slow as molasses for a turboprop.

I always wondered why Beech had allowed such poor aerodynamics on the
Duke (the thing is drag incarnate); then realized that had they cleaned
it up, it would have been substantially faster than the King Air, which
would not have done their turbine marketing any good at all.

All the best,
Rick

[[email protected]]

Hai,

Sorry I wasn't there... I'm SURE I was out flying. Please do email or
call ahead for scheduling and I'll be SURE to have time for you when
you come thru.

If at all possible, I highly recommend the mountain flying course put
on by Colorado Pilots Association... Usually in Denver, May and
August of each year. I even teach the ground school. :-)

I'll look forward to flying with you in 2006!

I'm at 3V5, Fort Collins Downtown Airport.
Note that FNL, Fort Collins - Loveland Airport is nearby.
Of course, we consider ourselves THE "Fort Collins Airport" :-)

> wrote:
> > I vote for the Cardinal! It just looks GOOD!
> > Best regards,
> Jer,

> Thank you for your vote ;-) I hope to have a chance to show off my
> Cardinal to you in person in the near future. We stopped at Fort
> Collins airport in our trip to Denver late last August to see if we
> could schedule a mountain flying session but you were not around. We
> will try to contact you ahead of time if we plan another NY-CO trip.

> Hai Longworth

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 234 Young Eagles!

[Darrel Toepfer]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Matt Whiting" wrote)
>
>> Yes, compared to a Wilga.
>
> http://www.pzl-okecie.com.pl/wilga.htm
> Wilga
>
> http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=322
> Wilga
>
> This thread, and the ugly thread, have been driving me bonkers. Nobody
> posts links.

Agreed on the Wilga, also to the ugly list:
Any of the Aerocats http://www.creativeflight.com
Barr 6 http://www.barraircraft.com (Looks like a pregnant Skylane)
There are numerous ugly ultralights...

In the beauty catagory:
I would take a Four Winds over a Cardinal http://www.fourwindsaircraft.com
A 6 place version of this http://www.mini-imp.com
or better yet this http://www.sgaviation.com

I'd also add most of the new generation canards...

[Matt Whiting]

Darrel Toepfer wrote:

> Montblack wrote:
>
>> ("Matt Whiting" wrote)
>>
>>> Yes, compared to a Wilga.
>>
>>
>> http://www.pzl-okecie.com.pl/wilga.htm
>> Wilga
>>
>> http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=322
>> Wilga
>>
>> This thread, and the ugly thread, have been driving me bonkers. Nobody
>> posts links.
>
>
> Agreed on the Wilga, also to the ugly list:
> Any of the Aerocats http://www.creativeflight.com
> Barr 6 http://www.barraircraft.com (Looks like a pregnant Skylane)
> There are numerous ugly ultralights...
>
> In the beauty catagory:
> I would take a Four Winds over a Cardinal http://www.fourwindsaircraft.com

Nah, the Four Winds has too low of a "beltline" and the tail looks
oversized. I much prefer the Stallion.

Matt

[Darrel Toepfer]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Darrel Toepfer wrote:

>> Agreed on the Wilga, also to the ugly list:
>> Any of the Aerocats http://www.creativeflight.com
>> Barr 6 http://www.barraircraft.com (Looks like a pregnant Skylane)
>> There are numerous ugly ultralights...
>>
>> In the beauty catagory:
>> I would take a Four Winds over a Cardinal
>> http://www.fourwindsaircraft.com
>
> Nah, the Four Winds has too low of a "beltline" and the tail looks
> oversized. I much prefer the Stallion.

I remember when it was featured in the mag, still not many flying,
especially with the Barr 6...

I wanted to add but forgot, of course if I owned any of the "ugly"ies,
they'd be the most beautiful thing... ;-)

Phunnie how ownership changes ones point of veiw...

[John Gaquin]

"Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in message
...
>I vote for the Cessna 195,

Does it have to be GA? I've always thought the DC3 one of the most
attractive planes ever built.

[super90]

The Piaggio is soooo good looking no corporation would be caught dead flying one. King Air's are, on the otherhand, used everywhere. The same reason Beech killed the Starship; no one bought the darned thing because no CEO wanted to be seen in it, regardless of how great it was on paper.


Best looking "GA" aircraft (plural)....

A polished out 195 or Swift
Spartan Executive
Beech 18
DC-3
Staggerwing Beech
C-185
Lancair PropJet
TBM700
PC-12 !! (looks manly, whereas the Piaggio looks, well, NOT)


Just my humble opinion on "good looking"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

For the other side of this thread....

A Shorts SC 7 was at our local airport this weekend. The thing is uglier in
person than photos can convey.

The same plane's photo was already posted ....

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=N50NS&distinct_entry=true


"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I vote for the Cessna 195,
>
> Does it have to be GA? I've always thought the DC3 one of the most
> attractive planes ever built.
>

[[email protected]]

>>>>I always wondered why Beech had allowed such poor aerodynamics on the
Duke (the thing is drag incarnate)<<<<

Doesn't the Duke cruise around 220-230kt? Isn't that about avg for
pressurized turbo'd piston twins?

[[email protected]]

You're correct on the cruise speed of the Duke, however it makes that
speed on very large engines and poor aerodynamics. The larger Cessna
421 goes as fast on less power and the Aerostar 601P is nearly 30 knots
faster on less power.

All the best,
Rick


wrote:
> >>>>I always wondered why Beech had allowed such poor aerodynamics on the
> Duke (the thing is drag incarnate)<<<<
>
> Doesn't the Duke cruise around 220-230kt? Isn't that about avg for
> pressurized turbo'd piston twins?