World's Ugliest Plane?

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

Wall Street Journal today ran an article on the Boeing Large Cargo Freighter,
the "Dreamlifter." It is one ugly plane. A CFI and student in a Skyhawk were
darn near killed in November when they flew through the monster's wake
turbulence. They were flipped over and lost 1000 feet of altitude and pulled
out just 150 above the water. This thing has 65,000 cubic feet of cargo
capacity -- triple that of a 747. It will fly Dreamliner nose sections from
Wichita to Seattle for final assembly.

I still have not taken a picture of it. Heck, I've only been to Seattle once
since getting home. Definitely on my list of things to do.

[[email protected]]

> A CFI and student in a Skyhawk were
> darn near killed in November when they flew through the monster's wake
> turbulence. They were flipped over and lost 1000 feet of altitude and pulled
> out just 150 above the water.

I'm venturing to say the same would have happened had they flown
through a normal 747s wake turbulence.

[Kev]

C J Campbell wrote:
> Wall Street Journal today ran an article on the Boeing Large Cargo Freighter,
> the "Dreamlifter." It is one ugly plane. [...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_Large_Cargo_Freighter

Gives new meaning to taking it from behind...

Woof.

[gatt]

"Kev" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
>> Wall Street Journal today ran an article on the Boeing Large Cargo
>> Freighter,
>> the "Dreamlifter." It is one ugly plane. [...]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_Large_Cargo_Freighter
>
> Gives new meaning to taking it from behind...

I dunno, you guys. The Beluga sure isn't much of a looker and the Super
Guppy in the photo linked there looks like it's about to explode blow
popcorn all over the airfield. It looks like a blimp with wings on it, or
something from an Alien movie.

-c

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 16:15:07 -0800, gatt wrote
(in article >):

>
> "Kev" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>> Wall Street Journal today ran an article on the Boeing Large Cargo
>>> Freighter,
>>> the "Dreamlifter." It is one ugly plane. [...]
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_Large_Cargo_Freighter
>>
>> Gives new meaning to taking it from behind...
>
> I dunno, you guys. The Beluga sure isn't much of a looker and the Super
> Guppy in the photo linked there looks like it's about to explode blow
> popcorn all over the airfield. It looks like a blimp with wings on it, or
> something from an Alien movie.

Indeed. The competition for world's ugliest plane is stiff. The Wilga comes
to mind...

Still, the Large Cargo Freighter is a contender, is it not? Especially with
those two huge rear door arms sticking out of just one side of the fuselage.

I hear when it was introduced somebody emailed a picture of it with an Oscar
Meyer Wienermobile paint job to the engineers. I would love a copy of that.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I'm venturing to say the same would have happened had they flown
> through a normal 747s wake turbulence.

Particularly since the fuselage is not the primary source of wake
turbulence, and this aircraft has essentially the same lift surfaces
as a normal 747.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Matt Whiting]

C J Campbell wrote:
> Wall Street Journal today ran an article on the Boeing Large Cargo Freighter,
> the "Dreamlifter." It is one ugly plane. A CFI and student in a Skyhawk were
> darn near killed in November when they flew through the monster's wake
> turbulence. They were flipped over and lost 1000 feet of altitude and pulled
> out just 150 above the water. This thing has 65,000 cubic feet of cargo
> capacity -- triple that of a 747. It will fly Dreamliner nose sections from
> Wichita to Seattle for final assembly.

Why did they fly through its wake?

Matt

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 16:26:38 -0800, C J Campbell
> wrote:

>Still, the Large Cargo Freighter is a contender, is it not? Especially with
>those two huge rear door arms sticking out of just one side of the fuselage.
>
>I hear when it was introduced somebody emailed a picture of it with an Oscar
>Meyer Wienermobile paint job to the engineers. I would love a copy of that.

http://www.eaa26.org/nov06.pdf

Page 5....

Ron Wanttaja

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
C J Campbell > wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 16:15:07 -0800, gatt wrote
> (in article >):
>
> >
> > "Kev" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >>
> >> C J Campbell wrote:
> >>> Wall Street Journal today ran an article on the Boeing Large Cargo
> >>> Freighter,
> >>> the "Dreamlifter." It is one ugly plane. [...]
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_Large_Cargo_Freighter
> >>
> >> Gives new meaning to taking it from behind...
> >
> > I dunno, you guys. The Beluga sure isn't much of a looker and the Super
> > Guppy in the photo linked there looks like it's about to explode blow
> > popcorn all over the airfield. It looks like a blimp with wings on it, or
> > something from an Alien movie.
>
> Indeed. The competition for world's ugliest plane is stiff. The Wilga comes
> to mind...
>
> Still, the Large Cargo Freighter is a contender, is it not? Especially with
> those two huge rear door arms sticking out of just one side of the fuselage.
>
> I hear when it was introduced somebody emailed a picture of it with an Oscar
> Meyer Wienermobile paint job to the engineers. I would love a copy of that.

Tr the Avia Airtruk on for size! It was the plane used in "Mad Max".

[John Halpenny]

C J Campbell wrote:



> Indeed. The competition for world's ugliest plane is stiff. The Wilga comes
> to mind...
>
> Still, the Large Cargo Freighter is a contender, is it not? Especially with
> those two huge rear door arms sticking out of just one side of the fuselage.
>
>
That's pretty ugly for a big plane. For exceptionally ugly, this is an
Australian copy of a New Zealand design, and I saw one of these being
restored in New Zealand - it is a "topdresser".

http://www.aamb.com.au/AIRTRUK.HTM

John Halpenny

[Danny Deger]

I am a purest. There is no such thing as an ugly airplane.

Danny Deger

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 18:11:51 -0800, John Halpenny wrote
(in article . com>):

> http://www.aamb.com.au/AIRTRUK.HTM

ROFL. Reminds me of those plastic models they used to sell back in the '60s
of a jet fighter plane with a gigantic fuselage and little bat wings that
flapped. Ugly.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:50:15 -0800, Matt Whiting wrote
(in article >):

> C J Campbell wrote:
>> Wall Street Journal today ran an article on the Boeing Large Cargo
>> Freighter,
>> the "Dreamlifter." It is one ugly plane. A CFI and student in a Skyhawk
>> were
>> darn near killed in November when they flew through the monster's wake
>> turbulence. They were flipped over and lost 1000 feet of altitude and
>> pulled
>> out just 150 above the water. This thing has 65,000 cubic feet of cargo
>> capacity -- triple that of a 747. It will fly Dreamliner nose sections from
>> Wichita to Seattle for final assembly.
>
> Why did they fly through its wake?
>
> Matt

Who knows? Maybe they were vectored by the tower. They pulled that stunt on
me once when I was a student pilot returning from a solo cross country. I
learned about wake turbulence from that. Lucky I wasn't killed.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Danny Deger" > wrote:

> I am a purest. There is no such thing as an ugly airplane.
>
> Danny Deger

Perhaps -- but there are, and have been, some that made a pretty good
attempt at it!

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Richard Riley > wrote:

> On 8 Jan 2007 18:11:51 -0800, "John Halpenny" >
> wrote:
>
> >That's pretty ugly for a big plane. For exceptionally ugly, this is an
> >Australian copy of a New Zealand design, and I saw one of these being
> >restored in New Zealand - it is a "topdresser".
> >
> >http://www.aamb.com.au/AIRTRUK.HTM
>
> I'll see your Airtruk, and raise you an M-15 Belphegor
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yclzkc

Boy -- this is a really tough crowd! I still think that the Airtruk
wins, although the very idea of a turbofan-powered aerial applicator
boggles the mind!

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 21:34:30 -0800, Richard Riley wrote
(in article >):

> http://tinyurl.com/yclzkc

Ugh. And I thought the Trislander was ugly.

[Bucky]

yikes, I can't believe the tail completely unhinges about 2/3 to 3/4 of
the way back.

[Anno v. Heimburg]

My favorite entry in the "ugliest plane" competition is still the
jet-engined biplane PZL-Mielec M-15 "Belphegor".

Flattering picture: http://tinyurl.com/yxpjmh

Anno

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Orval Fairbairn > said:
>Boy -- this is a really tough crowd! I still think that the Airtruk
>wins, although the very idea of a turbofan-powered aerial applicator
>boggles the mind!

I read a long time ago that this plane was turbofan-powered because
kerosene was a lot easier to come by in Poland than avgas.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"I don't mind your criticizing that way. It shows you are only just THOSE
kind person!" - sales@<domain deleted> takes constructive criticism well.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Kev wrote:
>
> Gives new meaning to taking it from behind...
>


Now THAT'S funny!

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> Indeed. The competition for world's ugliest plane is stiff. The Wilga comes
> to mind...

The "hardtop" Navion has some votes.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Bucky wrote:
> yikes, I can't believe the tail completely unhinges about 2/3 to 3/4 of
> the way back.


Airflow keeps it in place. <G>

It's able to make one hell of a left turn!

[BobHoover]

Danny Deger wrote:
> I am a purest. There is no such thing as an ugly airplane.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure there is. Lookit the An-2.

www.vectorsite.net/avan2.html

But there's a difference between ugly and grotesque. An ugly woman may
be a wonderful person in every way. An-2 is kinda like that. (Once
you get her going, she'll always give you a good ride :-)

-R.S.Hoover

[tjd]

How did the thread get to 20+ messages without anyone even mentioning
the Shorts Skyvan? My only theory is that it so obviously destroys
every other plane in terms of ugliness that it's not even worth talking
about it?

[Anno v. Heimburg]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> I read a long time ago that this plane was turbofan-powered because
> kerosene was a lot easier to come by in Poland than avgas.

Wouldn't a conventional turboprop design also have fit that bill? I
heard/read somewhere that it's because when the Poles wanted to design a
new agricultural plane, they ran afoul of the Soviet insistence on using a
jet engine in a new plane (the logic being "new plane design" = "jet
engine", not fitness for the particular purpose).

Anno.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Anno v. Heimburg" > said:
>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> I read a long time ago that this plane was turbofan-powered because
>> kerosene was a lot easier to come by in Poland than avgas.
>
>Wouldn't a conventional turboprop design also have fit that bill? I
>heard/read somewhere that it's because when the Poles wanted to design a
>new agricultural plane, they ran afoul of the Soviet insistence on using a
>jet engine in a new plane (the logic being "new plane design" = "jet
>engine", not fitness for the particular purpose).

That would only make sense if you had some evidence that the Soviets were
averse to propellor planes during that period. But their front-line
strategic bomber was a turboprop, and so were some of their airliners.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"Orcs killed: none. Disappointing. Stubble update: I look rugged and
manly. Yes! Keep wanting to drop-kick Gimli. Holding myself back. Still
not King." - the very secret diary of Aragorn son of Arathron

[Anno v. Heimburg]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> That would only make sense if you had some evidence that the Soviets were
> averse to propellor planes during that period. But their front-line
> strategic bomber was a turboprop, and so were some of their airliners.

You're right, of course. I guess we'll have to find the designers and ask
them ;-)

My gut feeling is that it's an elaborate practical joke by the designers to
see how far they would get in the system.

[Montblack]

Ugly Planes:

http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/farmer/120/
Here's a link from a quick Google search


Montblack

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

BobHoover wrote:
> Danny Deger wrote:
>> I am a purest. There is no such thing as an ugly airplane.
>>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sure there is. Lookit the An-2.
>
> www.vectorsite.net/avan2.html

I walked through one of those at an airshow. The inside is as ugly as
the outside!

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Montblack" > said:
>Ugly Planes:
>
>http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/farmer/120/
>Here's a link from a quick Google search

I can't see that Blohm und Voss Bv 141 asymettrical plane on that list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%2B_Voss_BV_141

`
Although it's hard to tell with those tiny thumbnails. I also don't see
the Christmas Bullet, of which two were built, both killed their test
pilots on their first flight.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0038.shtml


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"It is my prayer that other Americans will fully realize that to condone the
whittling away of the rights of any one minority group is to pave the way for
us all to lose the guarantees of the Constitution" - Harold L. Ickes

[Andrey Serbinenko]

It's surprising that no-one has actually yet mentioned Boeing's X-32:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32


Andrey


Montblack > wrote:
> Ugly Planes:
>
> http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/farmer/120/
> Here's a link from a quick Google search
>
>
> Montblack
>
>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Andrey Serbinenko > wrote:

> It's surprising that no-one has actually yet mentioned Boeing's X-32:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32

Definitely only a runner-up. IMHO, the Airtruk wins, even against the
stiff competition of some of the British and French bombers of the late
1920s and 1930s.