Question for the group in Hawker

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

On 22/02/2014 04:26, Jess Lurkin. wrote:
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

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

I think you're doing the French a great disservice. The UK has indeed
produced aircraft that are less than elegant, sometimes as a result of
the specifications, but IMO the prizes for individual ugliness has to go
to the land of Blériot. The Farman Jabiru and the Amiot 140 series
spring to mind.

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

http://s636.photobucket.com/user/Lig...photo.jpg.html

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

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

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

Anyone know of a Hawker with a gag-factor?


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

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

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