Blackburn Cubaroo pics [3/9] - Blackburn t-4 Cubaroo.jpg (1/1)

*

Miloch wrote in
:




I am always amazed that the country that
made the beautiful Spitfire could also make
planes as ugly and this and the Blackburn II

In article , Mitchell Holman
says...

Miloch wrote in
:




I am always amazed that the country that
made the beautiful Spitfire could also make
planes as ugly and this and the Blackburn II


With a name like Mitchell, it's understandable you'd be partial to the Spitfire!

But ya!...I've always wondered if it's a matter of budget and being practical or
one of aeronautical design skills.

It almost seems like lack of streamlining is part of British aeronautical DNA.


*

Miloch wrote in
:

In article , Mitchell
Holman says...

Miloch wrote in
:




I am always amazed that the country that
made the beautiful Spitfire could also make
planes as ugly and this and the Blackburn II


With a name like Mitchell, it's understandable you'd be partial to the
Spitfire!


And the B-25........





But ya!...I've always wondered if it's a matter of budget and being
practical or one of aeronautical design skills.

It almost seems like lack of streamlining is part of British
aeronautical DNA.


*

In article , Mitchell Holman
says...

Miloch wrote in
:

In article , Mitchell
Holman says...

Miloch wrote in
:




I am always amazed that the country that
made the beautiful Spitfire could also make
planes as ugly and this and the Blackburn II


With a name like Mitchell, it's understandable you'd be partial to the
Spitfire!


And the B-25........

My father flew them in the 50s and early 60s just to get in his flight time for
flight pay...he hated them! Said they were too noisy and left his ears ringing
long afterwards. As a 10,000 hour pilot, he had hearing loss all his life due
to flying....

https://hearinghealthmatters.org/hea...-loss-part-ii/

....."In terms of the noise generated by the airplane itself, Little (2018)
indicates that the noise exposure question is more complex than it first
appears. In his description of the noise in these planes he suggests that the
aircraft noise to which a crewman was exposed would depend their distance from
the engine noise. He indicates that the noisiest places would have been those
that were the closest to the tips of the propeller blades. (The B-25 might have
had the loudest cockpit of any American bomber, because the tips of the spinning
propellers were only about a foot from the pilots canopy.)

On the B-17 and the B-24, the crewmen who were the closest to the propeller tips
would have been the pilot, copilot, flight-engineer/top-turret gunner, and, on
the B-24, the radio operator. By contrast, I suspect that the tail-gunners
would have been exposed to the least noise, simply because they were the
farthest from the tips of the propeller blades.








But ya!...I've always wondered if it's a matter of budget and being
practical or one of aeronautical design skills.

It almost seems like lack of streamlining is part of British
aeronautical DNA.


*

Miloch wrote in
:

In article , Mitchell
Holman says...

Miloch wrote in
:

In article , Mitchell
Holman says...

Miloch wrote in
:




I am always amazed that the country that
made the beautiful Spitfire could also make
planes as ugly and this and the Blackburn II


With a name like Mitchell, it's understandable you'd be partial to
the Spitfire!


And the B-25........

My father flew them in the 50s and early 60s just to get in his flight
time for flight pay...he hated them! Said they were too noisy and
left his ears ringing long afterwards. As a 10,000 hour pilot, he had
hearing loss all his life due to flying....



What struck me about sitting in a B-25
cockpit was how incredibly cramped it was.
The pilots were literally shoulder to
shoulder. Even a VW has more room than a
Mitchell. It is like the designers took
a A-20 frame (single pilot cockpit) and
just slapped another set of controls in it.

Truth be told I don't think a copilot
was necessary, even Lancasters were flown
with a single pilot. Ditto for the other
medium bombers of the day, like the Ju-88
and the He-111


https://hearinghealthmatters.org/hea...8/wwii-bomber-
crews-and-hearing-loss-part-ii/

...."In terms of the noise generated by the airplane itself, Little
(2018) indicates that the noise exposure question is more complex than
it first appears. In his description of the noise in these planes he
suggests that the aircraft noise to which a crewman was exposed would
depend their distance from the engine noise. He indicates that the
noisiest places would have been those that were the closest to the
tips of the propeller blades. (The B-25 might have had the loudest
cockpit of any American bomber, because the tips of the spinning
propellers were only about a foot from the pilots canopy.)

On the B-17 and the B-24, the crewmen who were the closest to the
propeller tips would have been the pilot, copilot,
flight-engineer/top-turret gunner, and, on the B-24, the radio
operator. By contrast, I suspect that the tail-gunners would have been
exposed to the least noise, simply because they were the farthest from
the tips of the propeller blades.








But ya!...I've always wondered if it's a matter of budget and being
practical or one of aeronautical design skills.

It almost seems like lack of streamlining is part of British
aeronautical DNA.


*

Miloch wrote:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

I am always amazed that the country that
made the beautiful Spitfire could also make
planes as ugly and this and the Blackburn II

Many countries have made ugly aircraft, not least the U.S.

I've always wondered if it's a matter of budget and being practical or
one of aeronautical design skills.
It almost seems like lack of streamlining is part of British aeronautical DNA.

For designers of military aircraft the look of the thing is unimportant.
Military aeroplanes are designed to do a job, not to look pretty. Form
follows function.

And your needle is stuck.

John Nomen wrote in
news:bfi1lfpc5h6idbjn1s5tec2ghb2ajj7mq9@astraweb:

Miloch wrote:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

I am always amazed that the country that
made the beautiful Spitfire could also make
planes as ugly and this and the Blackburn II

Many countries have made ugly aircraft, not least the U.S.

I've always wondered if it's a matter of budget and being practical
or one of aeronautical design skills.
It almost seems like lack of streamlining is part of British
aeronautical DNA.

For designers of military aircraft the look of the thing is
unimportant. Military aeroplanes are designed to do a job, not to look
pretty. Form follows function.


I prefer planes designed by people, not computers.