Ugly Aircraft Contest

[73JPS]

oh'common guys based on the looks Beech*1900 is for dwarfs ..wheras in *1900D you can really walk in the cabin,right So nothing ugly on the bigger one, from point of usability. But those *Mad Max* trilogy ultra-light planes look like ugly toys -for sure

 

Just like a German to find beauty in ugliness, just because it's practical   !  And That's a King Air 200, G-Man, not a 1900C. IMO, the 1900C is almost as ugly as the D:

 

 

I do agree, though, that Mad Max plane is UGH -LI- ER, but I should still get points for the 1900D. Right, John? John? ...

[ramjet]

Oh, I'm the man.

 

[Günter]

Michael, this Jet-type *Bomber bug* was allready posted -and it is fore sure ugly

..but all those prop/Turbo-prop & Learjet type business-planes simply cant look ugly.

 

Streamliner & slim shapes ..and long proportions -those are one of the basic elements for fast flights ..so there is no chance with posting business-planes to win. 

 

Watch out for example for the *agricultur-workhorses* made of tin-cans ..with build-in airbrakes within the body structure ..  LOL 

...PZLim ...or what ever it was called (nickname over here in east German culture was 'Dromedar'  [camelus dromedarius]  for obvious reasons)

Edited February 4, 2013 by Günter

[ramjet]

Michael, this Jet-type *Bomber bug* was allready posted -and it is fore sure ugly

Bummer! I must have missed it before.

Maybe I'm not the man then.

Rats.

[Günter]

with those UL-planes there above, me thinks we should turn around -or create an differend topic

*find the smartest most beautyfull UL-plane* 

 

...as there is a interesting world out there, full with planes you would not believe that you can build them actually in a shed

(what in the end the main principle allready is for those, to build your own aircraft with DIY  ..is it -right ?!)

[molemot]

 

Oh, I'm the man.

 

  AHA! the parasitic fighter designed to go in the bomb bay of a B36 and provide defence against the hoardes of Russian Mig 15s in the event of the 1950s Cold War going nuclear.....it came out on a sort of trapeze, and could be recovered in the same way...supposedly....

Even got an ugly name...."Goblin"...

Edited February 4, 2013 by molemot

[Bibs]

 

[Günter]

Bibs   .. I think what most times make a airplane 'ugly' is if it does have misproportions.

This one there is of course modern and 'space age' related with his stealth effect, but it still looks well -does it ?!

 

just like a typical multiy-axis fighter plane ..

[Bibs]

This is the Iran's joke of an aircraft, you know that, right?

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/02/irans-stealth-fighter-is-probably-an-elaborate-fraud/272930/

[jimmybondi]

 ---  Feed --- The --- Trolls ---

[molemot]

So it's really a plywood mock-up, then? Just like the Boeing SST....(!)....and that cost more than Concorde. (RIP the Queen of the Skies)

[Bibs]

Plastic. No bolts or rivets.

[molemot]

Plastic would be difficult....plywood, glue, panel pins, bit of filler and tosh some paint on!!

[Bibs]

You'll have to argue with the aviationist about that...

 

http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/04/iran-plane-cannot-fly/

[Günter]

Bibs, I don't care about its avionics in the type of a 4.5V battery with christmas-lights and a birthday card beeper for accustic effects, or if it is made of plywood and styrofoam ..as even some Lotus there in the time not long ago are done this way

 

..so no one, especially not a person like Nguyen should name me 'a troll'

 

..what I point out is that from the photo you posted the proportions look normal -nothing else

 

The toppic is at least 'ugly aircraft' ..not 'rubbish aircraft'  !!

 

On the point of plywood:

-wasn't there serious NASA money invested to recreate one of those WW2 Nazi-planes made of plywood, to find out that mostly the cabin entrance/cabin hood and front view of the jet intakes caused problems there, but the result was that the other sections of the plane are smaller on the detector than in reality, so the size of the object was actually reduced on the radar ??

Edited February 9, 2013 by Günter

[Vulcan Grey]

It was Northrop Grumman engineers who rebuilt the Horton 229

 

http://natgeotv.com/uk/hitlers-stealth-fighter

 

[Günter]

there is even one point more that comes in mind for me

..this one is meant as a fake, but it does not change the physical facts you have allways to deal with, if you for example build a fighter plane twice its size:

the g*-force does not only attac the pilot, it also acts against the structure of the plane -so to carry the wing load and g*forces created by a heavy double size plane of this kind -you would have to invest into serious structure developments ..right ?!

 

So if someone who has never done such things plans to build planes, no one in the industry could take it for real I guess ..if it would be a two seater 'heavy jet bomber' type.

 

Especially if you mention that future war & crisis actions are handled mostly via computation aid and with drones, so there is of course a need to have small, more 'agile' planes now ..to be as manouverable as those unmaned drones, fighter planes who could handle g*-force cornering on a higher level than traditional fighter planes. 

So I would not wonder if on the air-shows and trade fares for military now more and more newly created small fighter planes are on display, also from the big players ..possibly with variable application for pilot use & unmanned 'computer controled' version. Even most multy axis tactical figher planes in use nowadays could not even be handled by a pilot alone, just for complexity of manouvering and the physical evects of small wing areas and movable flaps all around

[Vulcan Grey]

Here's an ugly plane (one way ticket too)

 

[Günter]

Travis, it is fascinating that serious engineers from a big company are so interested in 'old technology' ..isn't it ! 

 

no matter if it could ever do what it was intended for, just the fact that someone in this company thought it is worth to recreate the whole body of the plane is what let's me wonder

the Oka ..right ?     Japanes version of Nazi flying bomb

there even is some 'beauty' in the Horton, if you not see its function as a war plane -just see this tail, doesn't it look like from a Bat  .. I mean it is not only a 'wing type' plane without central body, it also looks like  'natural design' in some aspects ??

[Vulcan Grey]

Yeah, it's a thermojet powered Model 22 Ohka.

[Bibs]

[redshift]

They should have called that "The Mekon"....

[comem47]

 

It's clear to me who the designers of that aircraft were.      (BTW: they were all women actors who portrayed the Talosians)

 

Edited December 10, 2013 by comem47

[Iconic Ride]

Super-pedantic observation:  Is the negative for that shot "flipped?" I've never seen boarding stairs located on the [aircraft's] right side.

 

Of course, the plane has been heavily modified, but it does make me wonder why the boarding door ended up on the "wrong" side.

 

(and yes, I am aware that many aircraft, maybe even most, have doors on both sides...but without starboard side built-in stairs)

[Iconic Ride]

Couldn't stand the suspense, so I did a short search. Lo and behold, the Stratocruiser's boarding door is on the right side! Learn somthin' every day.