Ugliest airplane?
- Thread starter riggerrob
- Start date
Driftless
Donor
That bad-boy looks like something from "Things to Come" Raymond Massey should be at the controls there....
More DB-10 pictures (just because)
Glyndwr01
Banned
The Zveno project was developed by the Soviet Union in the 1930s and was used in some theatres during World War II. The project used the Tupolev TB-1 or TB-3 heavy bomber to carry fighter planes. The fighters could either be launched while attached to the bomber or dock while airborne and then refuel from the mother ship:
I can't get over how in that last picture the sensors protruding from the nose make the ekranoplan look like it's wearing glasses.
Glyndwr01
Banned
The McDonnell XF-85 Goblin program of the late 1940s was supposed to give the B-36 Peacemaker bomber a fighter plane that could fit into the bomb bay. The fighter had to be quite small and the wings were designed to fold up so that the plane could fit inside the bomber. The program was eventually cancelled. There were problems getting the plane back inside the bomber and its performance during tests showed it to be a poor match for the enemy planes it would likely be up against:
IMHO, the DB10 is less stupid than it looks as that is a genuine 'lifting body'. Allows a lot of volume and a lot of strength, plus placid handling at low speeds. IIRC, it was remarkably tolerant of 'heavy landings' that would break a 'normal' plane of that era. Didn't DeGaulle use one while 'In Exile' during the war ?? There used to be a sprawling website claiming all sorts of safety benefits for the design which, sadly, segued into foil-beanie conspiracy theory about how the design was suppressed by the Usual Suspects of Big Aviation...
It's kind of strange that if you want to find the most advanced Russian Weapons of war today you need look into abandoned fields and rotting wharf's. It's like seeing a Nimitz parked along the old Baltimore Wharf's before they gentrified the harbor.
I mean wasn't there ever any attempts to sell this thing?
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this monstrosity yet, the PZL M-15 Belphegor. It also happens to be one of the loudest airplanes ever built.
Just the fact that someone thought a jet powered biplane crop duster would be a good idea means that the good drugs were not just overindulged in, in the West during this era.
Just the fact that someone thought a jet powered biplane crop duster would be a good idea means that the good drugs were not just overindulged in, in the West during this era.
Last edited:
thorr97
Banned
Meh.
Define "ugly."
So far, what's been posted are designs which utilized the best technology available to meet their required specifications. Almost all of the ones posted did so just fine. Of those that didn't, most were let down by other factors than their physical appearance. Among these, powerplant inadequacy being the chief failures.
The Belphegor was an excellent attempt at getting jet turbine engine efficiency and reliability into the crop dusting and light transport role.
The aerial aircraft carrier concept is still a valid one today. Back in the 30s, the concept of performing it with airships and small scout fighter planes was entirely valid. The airships had outstanding range capability and adding aerial scouting to them meant they could patrol vast areas of ocean like no aircraft of ocean ship could. One or two of those systems patrolling of of Pearl, for instance, could've made all the difference on that December day.
The "parasite fighter" concept using the Goblin was even more advanced. In the days prior to aerial refueling it was deemed the best solution for bombers being able to deal with enemy interceptors. The Goblin was let down by the relatively primitive jet engine tech of the day and the poor design of its trapeze assembly. Note the success of the FICON - Fighter In CONvair - pairing just a few years after it.
The Soviet Zveno concept was a way to get that fighter coverage at ranges longer than the fighters could reach. It was also the only such system to be deployed in combat - and it was a success when it was used.
The BV-141, for all the noise made about its asymmetric layout, was an elegant engineering solution to getting outstanding visibility in a single engine layout. The plane looked odd but flew just fine.
The Antonov-A40 was an attempt at solving a problem we still have yet to adequately answer - getting tanks onto the battlefield by air. The tech of the day was not up to it. And even today, it only works with the largest and most fragile of heavy transports. The A40 was intended to put the tanks right into the frontlines.
The Coleoptere was an attempt to get around the likelihood that the Soviets would crater all the NATO runways if WWIII broke out. The plane, as odd as it looked, actually flew and worked reasonably well. It had more potential than its competing designs in the US. And only the advent of the Harrier really put an end to its further development.
So far, about the only one on this list which is truly ugly is that Blackburn Blackburn. Not only is its aesthetics all wrong, the thing was lousy at its intend role. So, it didn't even have the "form follows function" excuse to hide behind.
Define "ugly."
So far, what's been posted are designs which utilized the best technology available to meet their required specifications. Almost all of the ones posted did so just fine. Of those that didn't, most were let down by other factors than their physical appearance. Among these, powerplant inadequacy being the chief failures.
The Belphegor was an excellent attempt at getting jet turbine engine efficiency and reliability into the crop dusting and light transport role.
The aerial aircraft carrier concept is still a valid one today. Back in the 30s, the concept of performing it with airships and small scout fighter planes was entirely valid. The airships had outstanding range capability and adding aerial scouting to them meant they could patrol vast areas of ocean like no aircraft of ocean ship could. One or two of those systems patrolling of of Pearl, for instance, could've made all the difference on that December day.
The "parasite fighter" concept using the Goblin was even more advanced. In the days prior to aerial refueling it was deemed the best solution for bombers being able to deal with enemy interceptors. The Goblin was let down by the relatively primitive jet engine tech of the day and the poor design of its trapeze assembly. Note the success of the FICON - Fighter In CONvair - pairing just a few years after it.
The Soviet Zveno concept was a way to get that fighter coverage at ranges longer than the fighters could reach. It was also the only such system to be deployed in combat - and it was a success when it was used.
The BV-141, for all the noise made about its asymmetric layout, was an elegant engineering solution to getting outstanding visibility in a single engine layout. The plane looked odd but flew just fine.
The Antonov-A40 was an attempt at solving a problem we still have yet to adequately answer - getting tanks onto the battlefield by air. The tech of the day was not up to it. And even today, it only works with the largest and most fragile of heavy transports. The A40 was intended to put the tanks right into the frontlines.
The Coleoptere was an attempt to get around the likelihood that the Soviets would crater all the NATO runways if WWIII broke out. The plane, as odd as it looked, actually flew and worked reasonably well. It had more potential than its competing designs in the US. And only the advent of the Harrier really put an end to its further development.
So far, about the only one on this list which is truly ugly is that Blackburn Blackburn. Not only is its aesthetics all wrong, the thing was lousy at its intend role. So, it didn't even have the "form follows function" excuse to hide behind.
And to think that the whole insane idea actually worked, in that it not only avoided crashing, but actually successfully took out the targets it attacked.
The Blackburn Botha suffered from increased weight due to a change in the specification by the Air Ministry during the design stage. Blackburn wanted to alter the design and fit more powerful engines. Unfortunately Bristol's could not supply sufficient Taurus engines for all the aircraft being designed around it. The Bristol Beufort and the Fairy Albacore had priority. So the Botha got two Perseus engines and was under powered and a death trap when one engine failed. Ugly is in the eye of the beholder bad design decisions Kill aircrew!
It wasn't really intended so much to be a plane as a elaborate go fuck yourself to the Soviets.
Yes. This is an actual aircraft.
Do you fill the cages with pigeons to take off?
OK, having greatly liked thorr97's post above, and learning the lesson that one should know more about the reasons and record of an apparently wacky layout, I have to ask:
Yes. This is an actual aircraft.
Who made this, when, and why? Did it work at all? It is hard to imagine it working well but then again people were guffawing at the Vought "Flapjack" and I know that design did work, and offered some impressive new capabilities too. (Also, when the decision was made to scrap the test article, it proved to be remarkably tough to crush too--a definite asset in a fighter or attack plane going into harm's way)!
So anyway this piece of obvious lunacy--miserable failure across the board or was there any method in the madness of the designer?
I suppose the zillions of cross-slats are tiny little airfoils; certainly the idea of airfoils stacked like venetian blinds was tried by others, but this takes it up to 11. I don't see any provision for any kind of controls, on any axis. Presumably if it could get enough lift to take off--and certainly a back of envelope calculation that doesn't take turbulence into account might suggest it could, and at a low speed too--I'd guess the drag would be pretty tremendous, that and lack of control would doom it.
So--clearly not the best idea, but did it work at all?
Anyone got any links? This is the first time I've ever seen this thing!
This is the Blackburn R.1 Blackburn. It's ugly compared to other airplanes of the era.
"Fleet spotter-reconnaissance biplane, accommodating a pilot in an open cockpit in front of the upper wing leading edge, a wireless operator/gunner and a navigator/observer. The latter crew members were provided with a cabin inside the deep fuselage and only needed to venture out into the open for observation or to use the rear-mounted Lewis machine-gun. Thirty production Blackburn Is, with 335kW Napier Lion IIB engines, were built. The type first entered service on board HMS Eagle in 1923." (from this site: http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/black_blackburn.php)
It is ugly, but it was built according to specs. Requirements from the Royal Navy made it look that "ugly". Land based fighters had other requirements wich gave more often sleek lines, and a more beautifull apperance.
"Fleet spotter-reconnaissance biplane, accommodating a pilot in an open cockpit in front of the upper wing leading edge, a wireless operator/gunner and a navigator/observer. The latter crew members were provided with a cabin inside the deep fuselage and only needed to venture out into the open for observation or to use the rear-mounted Lewis machine-gun. Thirty production Blackburn Is, with 335kW Napier Lion IIB engines, were built. The type first entered service on board HMS Eagle in 1923." (from this site: http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/black_blackburn.php)
It is ugly, but it was built according to specs. Requirements from the Royal Navy made it look that "ugly". Land based fighters had other requirements wich gave more often sleek lines, and a more beautifull apperance.