World's Ugliest Plane?

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

Ugly Planes:

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


Montblack

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...ry/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

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

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?