How about worst looking airliner?

Of the current crop, I'd say the Beech 1900D. Nose wheel RIGHT at the nose,
the cockpit looks like it's from another plane, as does the passenger door,
all those appendages around the tail...

Andy

In article , "Andrew Burke"
wrote:

Of the current crop, I'd say the Beech 1900D. Nose wheel RIGHT at the
nose,
the cockpit looks like it's from another plane, as does the passenger
door,
all those appendages around the tail...

nah, that 4 engine high wing RJ that almost looks like
a mini C-5.

--
Bob Noel

Andrew Burke wrote:
Of the current crop, I'd say the Beech 1900D. Nose wheel RIGHT at the nose,
the cockpit looks like it's from another plane, as does the passenger door,
all those appendages around the tail...

Do we count cargo? If so, then the Super-Guppy...

"Andrew Burke" wrote in message
...
Of the current crop, I'd say the Beech 1900D. Nose wheel RIGHT at the
nose,
the cockpit looks like it's from another plane, as does the passenger
door,
all those appendages around the tail...

Ah, it's not all that bad. The real ugly ones in my opinion are the
BAC-146 (kind
of cool looking, sort of like a miniture C5, but not pretty) or the DASH-X
line.

The Fairchild/Swearingen Metro is a really elegant plane, but is one of the
more
uncomfortable things I've ever flow in.

For the big boys, the DC-10/MD-11 Engine #2 really looked like a wart
compared
to the L-1011 configuration. The 737 is rather unelegant either with it's
squashed
engine nacells on the older variants or the out of scale bypass fans on the
newer one.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , "Andrew Burke"
wrote:

Of the current crop, I'd say the Beech 1900D. Nose wheel RIGHT at the
nose,
the cockpit looks like it's from another plane, as does the passenger
door,
all those appendages around the tail...

nah, that 4 engine high wing RJ that almost looks like
a mini C-5.

BAe 146 ... great minds think alike.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

For the big boys, the DC-10/MD-11 Engine #2 really looked like a wart
compared to the L-1011 configuration.


The rear engine on the DC-10 looked like an afterthought. Of course, if
they had made it look "right", like Lockheed did, it couldn't have become
the KC-10.

"Ron Natalie" wrote:
The 737 is rather unelegant either with it's squashed engine nacells

I think they look kind of cool.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

For the big boys, the DC-10/MD-11 Engine #2 really looked like a wart
compared to the L-1011 configuration.


The rear engine on the DC-10 looked like an afterthought. Of course, if
they had made it look "right", like Lockheed did, it couldn't have become
the KC-10.

I'm not sure that would have been the case. The 727 similar S-ducted
center
engine and still has room for rear airstairs.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

I'm not sure that would have been the case. The 727 similar S-ducted
center engine and still has room for rear airstairs.


It wasn't a matter of not having room for the boom operator, it was the
effect on the receiving aircraft.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...


For the big boys, the DC-10/MD-11 Engine #2 really looked like a wart
compared to the L-1011 configuration.



The rear engine on the DC-10 looked like an afterthought. Of course, if
they had made it look "right", like Lockheed did, it couldn't have become
the KC-10.


The L-1011 may have looked "right", but I imagine the arrangement on
the DC 10 was
more efficient. Didn't have to go bending the airflow this way and that
just to get it to the
engine.

Rich Lemert