Ugliest plane of all time

[Seth Masia]

How about the Transavia Airtruck?

[Casey Wilson]

"Seth Masia" > wrote in message
...
> How about the Transavia Airtruck?


I'm stuck between the F-4 Phantom and the Russian AN-3

[vincent p. norris]

The Percival Prospector.

vince norris

[Aluckyguess]

Cessna Cardinal.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
vincent p. norris > wrote:

> The Percival Prospector.
>
> vince norris


Airtruck (Australian ag plane seen in "Mad Max")

[Mike W.]

I gotta say Cirrus...

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
> Cessna Cardinal.
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Seth Masia" > wrote in message
...
> How about the Transavia Airtruck?

Whatever it is it no doubt was designed and built by the Brits. They have a
lock on both ends of the spectrum.

[Aluckyguess]

"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
>I gotta say Cirrus...
HAHAHAH
I wish I owned one of them.
>
> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Cessna Cardinal.
>>
>>
>
>

[Matt Whiting]

Mike W. wrote:

> I gotta say Cirrus...
>
> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Cessna Cardinal.
>>
>>
>
>
>

I can't say the Cirrus is the ugliest of all, but it certainly isn't
pretty. I think the ugliest is the Wilga.

Matt

[Seth Masia]

Australian crop duster.
http://www.studenten.net/customasp/axl/image/foto/21-7-2005-11-8-transavia_pl-12_airtruck_(002)_take-off.jpg


"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Seth Masia" > wrote in message
> ...
>> How about the Transavia Airtruck?
>
> Whatever it is it no doubt was designed and built by the Brits. They have
> a
> lock on both ends of the spectrum.
>
>

[Peter R.]

Seth Masia > wrote:

> Australian crop duster.
> http://www.studenten.net/customasp/axl/image/foto/21-7-2005-11-8-transavia_pl-12_airtruck_(002)_take-off.jpg

Thanks for that. Living in the States, I always wondered if the aircraft
in "Mad Max 3" was as a real aircraft.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Longworth]

Seth,
The ugliest planes are the neglected ones sitting out in the field
with bare metal spots, bent prop and flat tires. To me, all planes are
beautiful when they can fly.

Hai Longworth

[Stubby]

Seth Masia wrote:
> How about the Transavia Airtruck?
>
>
Grumman Goose

[[email protected]]

Whatever it is the Germans probably flew it in WW2. My vote is for the
Junkers Ju88.

The Luftwaffe had a penchant for ugly airplanes, with few exceptions
IMHO.

[George Patterson]

My vote goes to the Westland P12. Back in the early stages of WWII, when the
British were still afraid of invasion, they designed this as a ground attack
aircraft. They took a Westland Lysander (already not beautiful) and cut off the
rear fuselage and empennage. They then grafted on a second wing in place of the
tail, mounted low with vertical stabilizers on the ends. Looked sort of like the
tail of a B-24 Liberator. Then they mounted a large turret with two cannon on
top and to the rear of this second wing.

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/flying/farner_hf_colibri.htm#p12

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.

[Seth Masia]

Good one, George. Sometimes these ugly ducklings look like they'd be fun to
fly: really maneurverable at low altitudes thanks to short-coupling and big
control surfaces, which look so ungainly.

Here's a real horror, even by French standards: Amiot 143, a 1931 bomber:
http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/farmer/120/amiot.html

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:h586f.8$dW6.2@trndny09...
> My vote goes to the Westland P12. Back in the early stages of WWII, when
> the British were still afraid of invasion, they designed this as a ground
> attack aircraft. They took a Westland Lysander (already not beautiful) and
> cut off the rear fuselage and empennage. They then grafted on a second
> wing in place of the tail, mounted low with vertical stabilizers on the
> ends. Looked sort of like the tail of a B-24 Liberator. Then they mounted
> a large turret with two cannon on top and to the rear of this second wing.
>
> http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/flying/farner_hf_colibri.htm#p12
>
> 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.

[Marco Leon]

Wow, that's ugly. Wasn't that on the cover a book about strange planes?

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:h586f.8$dW6.2@trndny09...
> My vote goes to the Westland P12. Back in the early stages of WWII, when
the
> British were still afraid of invasion, they designed this as a ground
attack
> aircraft. They took a Westland Lysander (already not beautiful) and cut
off the
> rear fuselage and empennage. They then grafted on a second wing in place
of the
> tail, mounted low with vertical stabilizers on the ends. Looked sort of
like the
> tail of a B-24 Liberator. Then they mounted a large turret with two cannon
on
> top and to the rear of this second wing.
>
> http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/flying/farner_hf_colibri.htm#p12
>
> 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.



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[George Patterson]

Marco Leon wrote:
> Wow, that's ugly. Wasn't that on the cover a book about strange planes?

Yep. "The World's Strangest Aircraft", by Michael Taylor.

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.

[Marco Leon]

I'm always surpised at how so many people think the F-4 Phantom is an ugly
plane. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The start of winglets
and the elevators' aggressive angling always struck me very asthetically
"cool."

Marco Leon

"Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fXX5f.7859$t12.5114@trnddc03...
>
> "Seth Masia" > wrote in message
> ...
> > How about the Transavia Airtruck?
>
>
> I'm stuck between the F-4 Phantom and the Russian AN-3
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Maule Driver]

Even it's mother couldn't....

UGLEE!

George Patterson wrote:
> My vote goes to the Westland P12.

[[email protected]]

Seth,

There are so very many truly ugly airplanes in the running that the
Airtruck, which is honest ugly, might well get edged out: The Tarrant
Tabor - six-engined triplane with four engines between the lower wings
and two between the upper wings; Nieuport triplane of WWI - top wing
set back over the pilot; Caproni Ca 42, hideous triplane bomber of WWI
with max speed of 78 mph; Pemberton-Billing Nighthawk - WWI
Zepplin-terrifer (had a Zepp been over England in the daytime the thing
would have frightened the crew to death or paralyzed them with
laughter) with 2-100 hp engines driving the props, one 5 hp engine
driving a generator for a searchlight, 4 wings and 3 gunners - pilot
sat well aft where he probably couldn't see a thing; Caproni then
outdid himself with the bizarre looking Ca 60, 8-engines, three sets of
triplane wings on top of a long boat hulled fuselage that looked like a
stretched railroad passenger car, supposed to carry 100 pax, never did;
Horatio Phillips' multiplanes - all of them, as ugly as you can imagine
with from 20 to 110 wings, yes wings - each with only about a 4-6 inch
chord, conventional gear, with all wheels the same size, rail fuselage
and tail that looked like a kite turned on its edge and a stabilator
added; John Multiplane just after WWI, 7 wings, one 400 hp Liberty
engine and a boxkite tail, at least 20 feet tall and about 40 long,
looked as if you got too close to it while parked, it would collapse on
you; Barling Bomber of the '20s, biplane with ailerons between the
wings and four engines (same guy who built the Tarrant Tabor); Dornier
Do-X, slab wing, 12 engines above it, looked as if assembled by a bunch
of drunks with spare airplane parts - never was able to climb above
2,000 feet MSL, flew from central Europe to New York City via South
America on a trip in which it averaged, get this, 1.6 mph, yep, that's
right, because it was parked so long and so often trying to fix it;
Flying Flea, original version, makes the ugliest ultralight look
wonderful; Me-323 Gigant, high wing, 6 engines, centipede landing gear,
and a fat nose that looked like a confused face; Shorts 330 twin engine
box that flies far, far better than it looks; F-107-upgrade of the
F-100 that outperformed everything but looked strange with the air
intake above the fuselage and probably lost the procurement competition
to the F-105 because of its appearance; about half of the airplanes
that flew or attempted to fly before 1912, some would frighten the most
jaded pilot; any ornithopter; Grumman Mohawk - speed, power,
maneuverability in a truly ugly package; any multi-engine British
bomber built prior to 1940 except the Wellington. What was the old
saying?...when uglier airplanes are built, Grumman will build them,
which held true until Shorts ran away with the competition.

All the best,
Rick

[george]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Seth Masia" > wrote in message
> ...
> > How about the Transavia Airtruck?
>
> Whatever it is it no doubt was designed and built by the Brits. They have a
> lock on both ends of the spectrum.
True its ugly but it was an exceptional topdresser in its time..
the Wilga is ugly

[Mike W.]

Me either, just poking back at aluckyguess and defending the Cardinal.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Mike W. wrote:
>
> > I gotta say Cirrus...
> >
> > "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Cessna Cardinal.
> >>
> I can't say the Cirrus is the ugliest of all, but it certainly isn't
> pretty. I think the ugliest is the Wilga.
>
> Matt

[Mike W.]

don't know what a wilga is, but it even sounds ugly.
"george" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> > "Seth Masia" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > How about the Transavia Airtruck?
> >
> > Whatever it is it no doubt was designed and built by the Brits. They
have a
> > lock on both ends of the spectrum.
> True its ugly but it was an exceptional topdresser in its time..
> the Wilga is ugly
>

[Mike W.]

Agreed, like someone's lost dream.

"Longworth" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Seth,
> The ugliest planes are the neglected ones sitting out in the field
> with bare metal spots, bent prop and flat tires. To me, all planes are
> beautiful when they can fly.
>
> Hai Longworth
>

[City Dweller]

Among those I have actually seen up close, my vote goes to Skyvan:

http://www.freefalladventures.com/images/skyvan.jpg

I even jumped out of it once tied to a skydiving instructor's belly (not a
pretty one either).

-- City Dweller


"Seth Masia" > wrote in message
...
> How about the Transavia Airtruck?
>

[Morgans]

"Seth Masia" > wrote in message
...
> Australian crop duster.
>
http://www.studenten.net/customasp/axl/image/foto/21-7-2005-11-8-transavia_pl-12_airtruck_(002)_take-off.jpg

Dang, I had forgotten about that one! I second your motion!
--
Jim in NC

[george]

Mike W. wrote:
> don't know what a wilga is, but it even sounds ugly.

ttp://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/wilga.html

[Seth Masia]

This is a great list, and I could kill an evening just looking these things
up. I've never heard of Pemberton-Billing, but wasn't there a dead-slow
four-winged Supermarine Nighthawk?

I sort of like the brutal look of the Dornier X -- it looks like an airplane
made of reinforced concrete, and you have to admire the fact that it got off
the water at all.

Seth

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Seth,
>
> There are so very many truly ugly airplanes in the running that the
> Airtruck, which is honest ugly, might well get edged out: The Tarrant
> Tabor - six-engined triplane with four engines between the lower wings
> and two between the upper wings; Nieuport triplane of WWI - top wing
> set back over the pilot; Caproni Ca 42, hideous triplane bomber of WWI
> with max speed of 78 mph; Pemberton-Billing Nighthawk - WWI
> Zepplin-terrifer (had a Zepp been over England in the daytime the thing
> would have frightened the crew to death or paralyzed them with
> laughter) with 2-100 hp engines driving the props, one 5 hp engine
> driving a generator for a searchlight, 4 wings and 3 gunners - pilot
> sat well aft where he probably couldn't see a thing; Caproni then
> outdid himself with the bizarre looking Ca 60, 8-engines, three sets of
> triplane wings on top of a long boat hulled fuselage that looked like a
> stretched railroad passenger car, supposed to carry 100 pax, never did;
> Horatio Phillips' multiplanes - all of them, as ugly as you can imagine
> with from 20 to 110 wings, yes wings - each with only about a 4-6 inch
> chord, conventional gear, with all wheels the same size, rail fuselage
> and tail that looked like a kite turned on its edge and a stabilator
> added; John Multiplane just after WWI, 7 wings, one 400 hp Liberty
> engine and a boxkite tail, at least 20 feet tall and about 40 long,
> looked as if you got too close to it while parked, it would collapse on
> you; Barling Bomber of the '20s, biplane with ailerons between the
> wings and four engines (same guy who built the Tarrant Tabor); Dornier
> Do-X, slab wing, 12 engines above it, looked as if assembled by a bunch
> of drunks with spare airplane parts - never was able to climb above
> 2,000 feet MSL, flew from central Europe to New York City via South
> America on a trip in which it averaged, get this, 1.6 mph, yep, that's
> right, because it was parked so long and so often trying to fix it;
> Flying Flea, original version, makes the ugliest ultralight look
> wonderful; Me-323 Gigant, high wing, 6 engines, centipede landing gear,
> and a fat nose that looked like a confused face; Shorts 330 twin engine
> box that flies far, far better than it looks; F-107-upgrade of the
> F-100 that outperformed everything but looked strange with the air
> intake above the fuselage and probably lost the procurement competition
> to the F-105 because of its appearance; about half of the airplanes
> that flew or attempted to fly before 1912, some would frighten the most
> jaded pilot; any ornithopter; Grumman Mohawk - speed, power,
> maneuverability in a truly ugly package; any multi-engine British
> bomber built prior to 1940 except the Wellington. What was the old
> saying?...when uglier airplanes are built, Grumman will build them,
> which held true until Shorts ran away with the competition.
>
> All the best,
> Rick
>

[Stefan]

To me, the ugliest plane ever built is the Cessna 172, closely followed
by the Piper PA 28.

Stefan

[Flyingmonk]

My vote would've been the Auzzie Agtruck until you introduced us to the
Westland P12 George. I second your vote.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

[[email protected]]

Stefan,

If you think the 172 is ugly, take a look at the copycats that were
built, such as the Aero Commander Lark.

Cessna's ugliest, in my opinion, was the Model 160. Fortunately, it
was never marketed.

All the best,
Rick

[vincent p. norris]

>> The Percival Prospector.
>>
>> vince norris
>>
> Airtruck (Australian ag plane seen in "Mad Max")

I didn't see "Mad Max" but I found the Airtruck on the net and I guess
you win. That looks like a Prospector on Steroids.

vince norris

[Seth Masia]

I get it now. Noel Pemberton Billing (that's one fellow, not three) was the
founder of Supermarine. Never knew that. Bio is at
http://www.plimsoll.org/Galleries/Biographies/NoelPembertonBilling/default.asp
but it doesn't tell you that he won a L500 bet by earning his pilot's
license in a single morning; that as a naval officer he helped to organize
one of the first bombing raids in 1914; that he sold his interest in
Supermarine in 1916 upon being elected to Parliament so as not to have a
conflict of interest; and that after the war he was simply a nut case.


"Seth Masia" > wrote in message
...
> This is a great list, and I could kill an evening just looking these
> things up. I've never heard of Pemberton-Billing, but wasn't there a
> dead-slow four-winged Supermarine Nighthawk?
>
> I sort of like the brutal look of the Dornier X -- it looks like an
> airplane made of reinforced concrete, and you have to admire the fact that
> it got off the water at all.
>
> Seth
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Seth,
>>
>> There are so very many truly ugly airplanes in the running that the
>> Airtruck, which is honest ugly, might well get edged out: The Tarrant
>> Tabor - six-engined triplane with four engines between the lower wings
>> and two between the upper wings; Nieuport triplane of WWI - top wing
>> set back over the pilot; Caproni Ca 42, hideous triplane bomber of WWI
>> with max speed of 78 mph; Pemberton-Billing Nighthawk - WWI
>> Zepplin-terrifer (had a Zepp been over England in the daytime the thing
>> would have frightened the crew to death or paralyzed them with
>> laughter) with 2-100 hp engines driving the props, one 5 hp engine
>> driving a generator for a searchlight, 4 wings and 3 gunners - pilot
>> sat well aft where he probably couldn't see a thing; Caproni then
>> outdid himself with the bizarre looking Ca 60, 8-engines, three sets of
>> triplane wings on top of a long boat hulled fuselage that looked like a
>> stretched railroad passenger car, supposed to carry 100 pax, never did;
>> Horatio Phillips' multiplanes - all of them, as ugly as you can imagine
>> with from 20 to 110 wings, yes wings - each with only about a 4-6 inch
>> chord, conventional gear, with all wheels the same size, rail fuselage
>> and tail that looked like a kite turned on its edge and a stabilator
>> added; John Multiplane just after WWI, 7 wings, one 400 hp Liberty
>> engine and a boxkite tail, at least 20 feet tall and about 40 long,
>> looked as if you got too close to it while parked, it would collapse on
>> you; Barling Bomber of the '20s, biplane with ailerons between the
>> wings and four engines (same guy who built the Tarrant Tabor); Dornier
>> Do-X, slab wing, 12 engines above it, looked as if assembled by a bunch
>> of drunks with spare airplane parts - never was able to climb above
>> 2,000 feet MSL, flew from central Europe to New York City via South
>> America on a trip in which it averaged, get this, 1.6 mph, yep, that's
>> right, because it was parked so long and so often trying to fix it;
>> Flying Flea, original version, makes the ugliest ultralight look
>> wonderful; Me-323 Gigant, high wing, 6 engines, centipede landing gear,
>> and a fat nose that looked like a confused face; Shorts 330 twin engine
>> box that flies far, far better than it looks; F-107-upgrade of the
>> F-100 that outperformed everything but looked strange with the air
>> intake above the fuselage and probably lost the procurement competition
>> to the F-105 because of its appearance; about half of the airplanes
>> that flew or attempted to fly before 1912, some would frighten the most
>> jaded pilot; any ornithopter; Grumman Mohawk - speed, power,
>> maneuverability in a truly ugly package; any multi-engine British
>> bomber built prior to 1940 except the Wellington. What was the old
>> saying?...when uglier airplanes are built, Grumman will build them,
>> which held true until Shorts ran away with the competition.
>>
>> All the best,
>> Rick
>>
>
>

[Friedrich Ostertag]

wrote:

> Whatever it is the Germans probably flew it in WW2. My vote is for the
> Junkers Ju88.
>
> The Luftwaffe had a penchant for ugly airplanes, with few exceptions
> IMHO.
>

I suggest the Blohm & Voss P194

http://www.luft46.com/bv/bvp19401.html

Ain't that looking weird?

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

[george]

George Patterson wrote:
> My vote goes to the Westland P12. Back in the early stages of WWII, when the
> British were still afraid of invasion, they designed this as a ground attack
> aircraft. They took a Westland Lysander (already not beautiful) and cut off the
> rear fuselage and empennage. They then grafted on a second wing in place of the
> tail, mounted low with vertical stabilizers on the ends. Looked sort of like the
> tail of a B-24 Liberator. Then they mounted a large turret with two cannon on
> top and to the rear of this second wing.
>
> http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/flying/farner_hf_colibri.htm#p12
>

They -really- are wierd George :-)

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Seth Masia" > said:
>How about the Transavia Airtruck?

Christmas Bullet. Only flew twice, killed the pilot both times.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.

[[email protected]]

I'd have to agree on the ME363 Gigant. That thing started life as a
cargo glider - then they decided to make an airplane out of it. Gotta
give 'em credit - it did actually fly.

The Phillips Multiplane is probably the thing that looked like a flying
venetian blind - and fell apart when they tried to fly it. A close
second.

David Johnson

[[email protected]]

BTW - The Dornier DO-X was actually kind of attractive, in it's own
way. To
me it looks as though it was built in a shipyard. It was constrained by
the
engine technology of the day. Might have been practical if they had
been able to hang a few turboprops on it. Dornier did exactly that not
long ago with one of their WWII era flying boats that they brought up
to modern standards.

David Johnson

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>been able to hang a few turboprops on it. Dornier did exactly that not
>long ago with one of their WWII era flying boats that they brought up
>to modern standards.

YEah, it was at our airport a few weeks ago:
http://xcski.com/gallery/safety_pilot/DSCN0322
http://xcski.com/gallery/safety_pilot/DSCN0326


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Every computer crashes, because every OS sucks"
- Three Dead Trolls In A Baggie, "Every OS Sucks" http://www.deadtroll.com/

[Morgans]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, said:
> >been able to hang a few turboprops on it. Dornier did exactly that not
> >long ago with one of their WWII era flying boats that they brought up
> >to modern standards.
>
> YEah, it was at our airport a few weeks ago:
> http://xcski.com/gallery/safety_pilot/DSCN0322
> http://xcski.com/gallery/safety_pilot/DSCN0326

I especially liked the little sextant navigation dome in the tail, between
the twin rudders.

It is barely visible in the far left of the first picture.
--
Jim in NC

[Seth Masia]

Hey, Paul --

That's one ugly little airplane, but to be fair I think we should limit this
competition to planes that were actually produced, or at least that managed
a safe landing.

Under the latter category I nominate the Vought XF5U:

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/flapjack.htm

Seth

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Seth Masia" > said:
>>How about the Transavia Airtruck?
>
> Christmas Bullet. Only flew twice, killed the pilot both times.
>
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.

[Seth Masia]

I had to look up more info on the XF5U, and it's fascinating. It used the
rotating propwash to cancel out tip vortices, and thus was able to cruise at
over 400 knots while landing at under 40 knots: the more engine power
available, the wider the range. With big turboprops this thing could hover
like a helicopter and cruise near 500mph. Navy canceled the program in 1945
apparently because they wanted to build big carriers for jets, and were
afraid the XF5U would lead to the little Harrier-style jumper carriers the
Brits use today.

Wouldn't it be cool to have a 300-hp GA version of this that could loiter or
land at 30 knots and cruise at 250?


"Seth Masia" > wrote in message
...
> Hey, Paul --
>
> That's one ugly little airplane, but to be fair I think we should limit
> this competition to planes that were actually produced, or at least that
> managed a safe landing.
>
> Under the latter category I nominate the Vought XF5U:
>
> http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/flapjack.htm
>
> Seth
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In a previous article, "Seth Masia" > said:
>>>How about the Transavia Airtruck?
>>
>> Christmas Bullet. Only flew twice, killed the pilot both times.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
>> Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.
>
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Morgans" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>> YEah, it was at our airport a few weeks ago:
>> http://xcski.com/gallery/safety_pilot/DSCN0322
>> http://xcski.com/gallery/safety_pilot/DSCN0326
>
>I especially liked the little sextant navigation dome in the tail, between
>the twin rudders.
>
>It is barely visible in the far left of the first picture.

Click "next" (>>) on that first picture, you'll see it better. In the
original incarnation of that plane, that was the tail gunner spot. Click
"next" again and you'll see there is a much bigger dome just behind the
wings for the navigator.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Microsoft - Where quality is job 1.0.1

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:

> To me, the ugliest plane ever built is the Cessna 172, closely followed
> by the Piper PA 28.

Time to get new glasses then.

Matt

[[email protected]]

>>>> I suggest the Blohm & Voss P194 <<<<

Funny, I was thinking of just that plane, but couldn't remember the
name - what was B & V thinking?

[Friedrich Ostertag]

wrote:

>>>>>I suggest the Blohm & Voss P194 <<<<
>
>
> Funny, I was thinking of just that plane, but couldn't remember the
> name - what was B & V thinking?

according to Internet source I mentioned they were hoping to combine
single engine efficiency and economy with a better view and better
shooting abilities for the pilot. Appearently first designs flew quite
well, while later, higher powered but heavier units showed problems with
turns and rolls.

Still, makes you blink and look again, doesn't it?

I particularly like the statement by Blohm & Voss, that, as the distance
between the pilot and the center of gravity was only 145 cm, the
aircraft should not be called an assymetric design, but more correctly
"a not fully symmetrical aeroplane".

regards,

Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

[Morgans]

"Friedrich Ostertag" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> >>>>>I suggest the Blohm & Voss P194 <<<<
> >
> >
> > Funny, I was thinking of just that plane, but couldn't remember the
> > name - what was B & V thinking?
>
> according to Internet source I mentioned they were hoping to combine
> single engine efficiency and economy with a better view and better
> shooting abilities for the pilot. Appearently first designs flew quite
> well, while later, higher powered but heavier units showed problems with
> turns and rolls.
>
> Still, makes you blink and look again, doesn't it?
>
> I particularly like the statement by Blohm & Voss, that, as the distance
> between the pilot and the center of gravity was only 145 cm, the
> aircraft should not be called an assymetric design, but more correctly
> "a not fully symmetrical aeroplane".
>
> regards,

The reference I looked at said that there "was" to be a jet engine in the
pod, with the prop in the fuselage. Interesting.
--
Jim in NC

[George Patterson]

Friedrich Ostertag wrote:

> Still, makes you blink and look again, doesn't it?

Yep. Just like Rutan's "Boomerang."

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.

[Orval Fairbairn]

Addendum:

Another nominee for "ugliest Plane of all time":

Anything that "Skylune" has flown in.

[George Patterson]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> Addendum:
>
> Another nominee for "ugliest Plane of all time":
>
> Anything that "Skylune" has flown in.


But only when he was in it.

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.

[John Gaquin]

>
>
> I'm stuck between the F-4 Phantom .....

Clearly a man of little taste, living on another planet.

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm always surpised at how so many people think the F-4 Phantom is an ugly
> plane.

Me, too.

"Brutish", perhaps -- but not "ugly"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Stubby]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>I'm always surpised at how so many people think the F-4 Phantom is an ugly
>>plane.
>
>
> Me, too.
>
> "Brutish", perhaps -- but not "ugly"...
I used to work with a retired BG who fought in F-16s, F-4s and B-52s.
He said he loved the "dirty old F-4".

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-10-21, Seth Masia > wrote:
> How about the Transavia Airtruck?

The British have made probably the best looking aircraft of all time - things
like the Spitfire.

But they have also, without a doubt, made the ugliest aircraft of all
time as well - the Fairey Gannet. It is so ugly, it transcends ugliness.
When they added the AEW stuff it made an ugly aircraft even uglier
(especially with the rear cockpit, it gives the plane a sort of look of
being a bizarre cross between a camel and a pregnant whale)

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/gannet/gallery1.html

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Montblack]

("Dylan Smith" wrote)
> But they have also, without a doubt, made the ugliest aircraft of all
> time as well - the Fairey Gannet. It is so ugly, it transcends ugliness.
> When they added the AEW stuff it made an ugly aircraft even uglier
> (especially with the rear cockpit, it gives the plane a sort of look of
> being a bizarre cross between a camel and a pregnant whale)
>
> http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/gannet/gallery1.html


<http://www.midwaysailor2.com/amjet/gannet.html>
This one, XT752 mentioned in the (below) story, was owned by Polar Aviation
Museum at ANE (Anoka County-Blaine, MN). It was loud!! I was over at the
airport the day they were getting it ready for the ferry flight back to the
UK. It didn't leave when it was scheduled - delays. Then one day it was
gone, so I missed its departure.

<http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/gannet/survivorspics3.html#XT752>
"XT752 was one of three Gannets kept in excellent condition by the FAA, and
was sold to the Polar Aviation Museum in the US. On arrival there the
aircraft was reassembled, restored to airworthiness and displayed on the
airshow circuit, regularly stopping crowds who had no idea what this strange
machine was! Sadly the museum has closed its doors to visitors and the
aircraft was put up for sale shortly afterwards - but the silver lining to
this cloud was that XT752 was planning to come back to the UK - as a flier!
An attempt to fly it back to the UK met with problems, getting only as far
as Goose Bay in Canada with the accompanying engineer believing that an
engine replacement would be necessary. The owner has had an in-depth
engineering assessment of the aircraft carried out - this found several
serious defects apparently not found by the previous engineer could have
caused the loss of the aircraft. These have now been rectified and another
assessment of the engine is underway to see if it really does need
replacing. Watch this space for more news! Information current as of
23/07/2005."

<http://ipmstoronto.com/articles/aircraft/gannet/Index.htm>
More pics of the old Polar Museum's Gannet.

<http://web.ukonline.co.uk/fairey.gannet/owners%20pics/moba.html>
Polar Museum Gannet looked like the one in this pic

Loud and big!
http://www.warbirdalley.com/gannet.htm
"The Armstrong-Siddeley Double Mamba coupled turboprop engine boasted two
independent power sections driving separate propellers. After both sections
were used in the crucial take-off phase, one could be shut down to extend
range and patrol time. Additionally, the engine could refuel from its
aircraft carriers' own diesel fuel bunker, eliminating special aviation gas
tanks on board."


Montblack

[Ed Sullivan]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:16:38 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>("Dylan Smith" wrote)
>> But they have also, without a doubt, made the ugliest aircraft of all
>> time as well - the Fairey Gannet. It is so ugly, it transcends ugliness.
>> When they added the AEW stuff it made an ugly aircraft even uglier
>> (especially with the rear cockpit, it gives the plane a sort of look of
>> being a bizarre cross between a camel and a pregnant whale)
>>
>> http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/gannet/gallery1.html
>
>
><http://www.midwaysailor2.com/amjet/gannet.html>
>This one, XT752 mentioned in the (below) story, was owned by Polar Aviation
>Museum at ANE (Anoka County-Blaine, MN). It was loud!! I was over at the
>airport the day they were getting it ready for the ferry flight back to the
>UK. It didn't leave when it was scheduled - delays. Then one day it was
>gone, so I missed its departure.
>
><http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/gannet/survivorspics3.html#XT752>
>"XT752 was one of three Gannets kept in excellent condition by the FAA, and
>was sold to the Polar Aviation Museum in the US. On arrival there the
>aircraft was reassembled, restored to airworthiness and displayed on the
>airshow circuit, regularly stopping crowds who had no idea what this strange
>machine was! Sadly the museum has closed its doors to visitors and the
>aircraft was put up for sale shortly afterwards - but the silver lining to
>this cloud was that XT752 was planning to come back to the UK - as a flier!
>An attempt to fly it back to the UK met with problems, getting only as far
>as Goose Bay in Canada with the accompanying engineer believing that an
I would like to submit the Shackleton...uuuugly