Challenge: name an airplane uglier than the Lloyd Luftkreuzer

Driftless

Donor
Clement Ader's Avion III of 1897. Yes it did (briefly) fly.

800px-Avion_III_Art_et_Metiers.jpg

Ader needed a lightweight and more powerful power plant. He got a couple of his creations off the ground for short hops, but no real duration, nor did he have a real directional control method (that maybe would get attention if he could get the plane off the ground for some distance).
 
That ugly monster could fly at over 500mph and hover like a helicopter landing on the deck of a moving destroyer sized warship. A Destroyer with its own fighter cover! Now that's an escort.

And was supposedly so tough that to demolish it they needed to use a wrecking ball.
 

McPherson

Banned
Have you ever seen a pancake fly through the air?

Allow me to present the Vought V-173 prototype and the Vought XF5U fighter...

View attachment 512297

View attachment 512296

View attachment 512298

She had severe power transfer case and PTO issues from her buried in wing mounted engines to the final drives at the propellers at the outer shaft cases. Part of that issue was the one engine out both screws still powered required build in the transfer cases which was found to cause harmonic oscillation in the shaft drives. IOW she was a flying deathtrap and impractical.
 
Last edited:

Ramontxo

Donor
She had severe power transfer case and PTO issues from her buried in wing mounted engines to the final drives at the propellers at the outer shaft cases. Part of that issue was the one engine out both screws still powered required build in the transfer cases which was found to cause harmonic oscillation in the shaft drives. IOW she was a flying deathtrap and impractical.

Would have it fly without the transfer requirement? The Canberra was apparently also quite difficult to fly on one motor but it served for years. On the other hand it wasn't a carrier plane.
 
Would have it fly without the transfer requirement? The Canberra was apparently also quite difficult to fly on one motor but it served for years. On the other hand it wasn't a carrier plane.

Yes, but the Pancake is more like a Chinook lying on its side. There is no way it could fly on only one rotor.
 

McPherson

Banned
Would have it fly without the transfer requirement? The Canberra was apparently also quite difficult to fly on one motor but it served for years. On the other hand it wasn't a carrier plane.

Piasecki_HRP-1_%22Flying_Banana%22_%283681949278%29.jpg


It is possible that the vibration problems could have been solved (^^^).

Piasecki_HRP-1G_US_Coast_Guard_in_flight.jpg


Butt ugly apply to flying fruit, too?
 

McPherson

Banned
Not always:
USN_Piasecki_Helistat_1985.jpg




Mazda rx7
3 years ago
In 1980, they should have known that helicopter vibrations transmit through rigid frames. Since each helicopter has it's own unique vibration, there was no way that frame-work could deal with such vibrations. They would have been more successful with shrouded fans like on the Bell X-22 only bigger and or more of them.

Which proves that you should not trust lash-ups put together by amateurs. (^^^). One could almost predict unbalanced force vector loading at the four corners of that contraption. One unbalanced engine away from disaster. Am I correct to assume it took four pilots to fly that abomination?
 
Top