Ugliest airplane?

[soundnfury]

Who made this, when, and why?

I'm not 100% sure, but it looks kinda like one of the Phillips Multiplanes…

 

[mudhead]

The Polish PZL30 is another ugly duckling. It also has the added distinction of having the airframe made of different materials, and the fuselage being covered by aluminum, canvas, and plywood in different spots. View attachment 304035

It looks like it was inflated, rather than assembled.

 

[KACKO]

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. View attachment 304213

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.

I did few days ago in other thread.

 

[RanulfC]

Shevek23 wrote:

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:

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!

Looks like one of the Phillips "Multiplane" designs:
http://gizmodo.com/5927718/15-early-airplanes-with-more-wings-than-a-bucket-of-fried-chicken/
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0232.shtml


"Multiplane" or multi-wing aircraft were a specific attempt to get a lot of lift with (supposedly) less drag and later on during WWI actually saw use in various "triplane" designs which increased manueverabitly to some extent.

More:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplane_(aeronautics)
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/Aircraft/Phillips-Multiplane.html
http://io9.gizmodo.com/these-bizarre-multi-winged-planes-are-historys-most-a-1484799626

Randy

 

[James Ricker]

It looks like it was inflated, rather than assembled.

The PZL30 was such a terrible aircraft when Poland was being overrun by the German army the Polish air force didn't take them into combat. The Luftwaffe also knew as they didn't bother to attack them on the ground.

 

[KACKO]

The PZL30 was such a terrible aircraft when Poland was being overrun by the German army the Polish air force didn't take them into combat. The Luftwaffe also knew as they didn't bother to attack them on the ground.

Few were destroyed on ground. Luftwaffe interestingly used them as training aircrafts. But well they were ugly.

 

[KACKO]

Soviet Iliushin Il-20 was ugly too.

 

[zert]

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)

View attachment 304522



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.

It may be to specs, but it is still very ugly.

 

[Martinus Paduei]

Someone has opened a can of AWESOME and poured it all over these airplanes! LOL

 

[Luminous]

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?

Thing is, the ekranoplan was a design based on ground effect lift. The only reason the thing flies is because lift is much higher when an aircraft is very near a surface below. It needs a very level area to even fly.

The ideal location is the Caspian sea due to the relatively steady waters and the lack of large waves. There just aren't enough places that need such an aircraft at all, especially as nowhere is as ideal. It's basically a super seaplane designed specifically for one sea, so potential customers are few. When your operating altitude is measured in dozens of feet, even rough water (or a rogue wave) spells doom.

 

[Driftless]

Thing is, the ekranoplan was a design based on ground effect lift. The only reason the thing flies is because lift is much higher when an aircraft is very near a surface below. It needs a very level area to even fly.

The ideal location is the Caspian sea due to the relatively steady waters and the lack of large waves. There just aren't enough places that need such an aircraft at all, especially as nowhere is as ideal. It's basically a super seaplane designed specifically for one sea, so potential customers are few. When your operating altitude is measured in dozens of feet, even rough water (or a rogue wave) spells doom.

Basically, it's kinda like they were built to support visits to Iran; for military or commercial purposes, depending on the political weather....

 

[Luminous]

Basically, it's kinda like they were built to support visits to Iran; for military or commercial purposes, depending on the political weather....

That's exactly what they were built for. Rapid heavy lift military deployment from the heart of the USSR to any location on the Caspian Sea.

Well, and as a platform for launching nuclear cruise missiles.

 

[Caspian]

BV P.170 Fast Bomber

This is not an airplane. It's a podracer.

 

[SRT]

K7 heavy bomber The most amazing airplane in History.....

Built in Russia during the 1930s, it flew 11 times before crashing and killing 15 people.

The designer, Konstantin Kalinin, wanted to build two more planes but the project was scrapped. Later, Stalin had Kalinin executed. Evidently, it was not good to fail on an expensive project under Stalin.

It's got propellers on the back of the wings, too. You can count 12 engines facing front. The size would be equivalent to the Empire State Building on its side, with cannons. And you think the 747 was big... not only a bunch of engines but check out the cannons the thing was carrying.

In the 1930s the Russian army was obsessed by the idea of creating huge planes. At that time they proposed to having as many propellers as possible to help carrying those huge flying fortresses into the air, jet propulsion has not been invented yet.

Not many photos were saved from those times because of the high secrecy levels of such projects and because a lot of time has already passed. Still, on the attached photos you can see one such plane - a heavy bomber K-7.

I thought those pictures looked computer generated and too crisp for something from the 1930's, and I was right.

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/russian-K7-heavy-bomber.shtml

This is a hoax. Which you pretty much copy pasted -- seems like not maliciously/intentionally?

This is what the real K-7 looked like (much smaller) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Kalinin_K-7_01.jpg

 

[Luminous]

I thought those pictures looked computer generated and too crisp for something from the 1930's, and I was right.

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/russian-K7-heavy-bomber.shtml

This is a hoax. Which you pretty much copy pasted -- seems like not maliciously/intentionally?

This is what the real K-7 looked like (much smaller) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Kalinin_K-7_01.jpg

I think the third image on that page sums it up.

The cannons are kinda a dead giveaway that it's false.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

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:

This is like a James Bond thing right here.....Unique Idea though.

 

[James Ricker]

I think the third image on that page sums it up.

The cannons are kinda a dead giveaway that it's false.

Comrade Stalin says that it is a real Soviet flying battleship,now you don't want to contradict Comrade Stalin do you?

 

[pdf27]

This is like a James Bond thing right here.....Unique Idea though.

From memory the problem was that jet engines of the time still had a habit of shedding compressor or turbine blades every now and again - and the pilot sat right on top of the engine. This apparently led to a certain amount of dissent from aircrew...

 

[ennobee]

Junkers G.38 looked pretty good, all things considered

All in all no Junkers aircraft would ever win a price for 'most beautiful entry', well, except the A50 trainer may be, but most of them worked remarkably well a d took their ugly looks in stride until enthusiast's became fond of their appearance. 'So ugly you just have to love it' kind of way.... I think after the war all those Junkers engineers ended up working for Volkswagen. That would explain a lot....

 

[riggerrob]

Amiot 143 was the disasterous result of not telling sub-contractors about the overall plan.
Front windows were "scabbed on" in a hurry, by a sub-contractor who never saw the blueprints.
Ha
Ha
Amazing how all the designers of Brunelli-style airplanes managed to clutter leading edges with engine nacelles, cockpits, gun turrets, radiators, etc. to ruin the basic concept of a sort-of flying-wing.