Ugliest plane of all time

"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

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/usplane...t/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.

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/usplane...t/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.

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

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

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?

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

"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

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.

Addendum:

Another nominee for "ugliest Plane of all time":

Anything that "Skylune" has flown in.