Challenge: name an airplane uglier than the Lloyd Luftkreuzer

Why you don't design an aircraft using parts of other aircraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_P-75_Eagle
(photos mercifully removed)
That got designated as XP-75... so does that mean it should be the F-15 Eagle II?

Every French bomber and transport aircraft designed in the 1930s was terrifyingly ugly. Several of the worst offenders have already been mentioned. Many of them have a greenhouse tacked on underneath the nose, perhaps so the crew can grow shallots and Cabernet-Sauvignon grapes while not fighting les Boches. I really do wonder why, though. You'd expect France to design beautiful aircraft, but what they produced in the 1930s was usually both ugly and ineffective.
 
Every French bomber and transport aircraft designed in the 1930s was terrifyingly ugly. Several of the worst offenders have already been mentioned. Many of them have a greenhouse tacked on underneath the nose, perhaps so the crew can grow shallots and Cabernet-Sauvignon grapes while not fighting les Boches. I really do wonder why, though. You'd expect France to design beautiful aircraft, but what they produced in the 1930s was usually both ugly and ineffective.
Many of the designs had multiple roles, including tactical reconnaissance for the Army, hence the greenhouses on the belly. In the 20's and early 30's, the Army had a strong voice in French military aircraft purpose and design. That doesn't explain the otherwise boxy look though... ;) Several of the French military planes from the late 30's were quite handsome by contrast.
 
Last edited:
Heretic the Warthog is the greatest airplane ever. It’s the Volvo of combat airplanes, all function and it’s glorious for it. All American history served only one purpose; to create the Warthog, it’s a war god flying among the lesser mortals.
My comment on the Warthog is that I'm not sure that even if you sent 21st century aviation designers back in time that you could create something that fit the design requirements better. Sometimes I think the sum total of the requirements were,
1) Put a gun capable of killing tanks in the air
2) Give the plane the greatest probability of getting its pilot home even if it gets hit my every possible piece of groundfire imaginable.

Or phrased differently. If you put a good enough engine on it, you can get a tank to fly.
 


Short version of it. This version of UGLY was so fowl (Not a misspelling.) that it was decided to put it out of our coilective miseries. IOW, the underpowered Proteus engines had an appetite for self-digesting gear boxes and spewing out parts and somebody at Saunders Roe forgot to use anti-corrosion paint on the fuselage, especially the part of it that was supposed to float submerged in SEAWATER.

Need I point out that turbo-props, don't work too well on a diet of broken gear pieces ingested into them or that salt water and turbo-props hate each other?

And somebody had the nerve to name it "Princess"?
 
Found the winner:
D0881786-596E-4F71-8E71-AB2CDA94CE3F.jpeg

F836C3AE-8E6F-4EA8-B769-E8F029760A4B.jpeg

The Westland Wendover (or Lysander Turret Fighter in some sources) for your consideration.

Wonder what it would have been like with the proposed anti-invasion 20mm cannon fit as well?
 
If you want a truly ugly flying boat in a number of way you can't find a worse one than the Saro Lerwick. It looked wrong in the air, wrong on the water and was terrible in both environments.

1579705759570.png
 
...and somebody at Saunders Roe forgot to use anti-corrosion paint on the fuselage, especially the part of it that was supposed to float submerged in SEAWATER.
Not quite true, it was their time in storage that caused the corrosion issues. They were laid up for 10 years and at some point during that time the corrosion set in.
 
"
I hate to think how many Paras broke their jaw dropping through it, something known as ringing the bell.
"

Why the RAF installed belly hatches in Bristol Beverleys is a complete mystery to every other army??????

That whole "ringing the bell" tradition started during early World War 2, with hastily converted Whitley Bombers. When Churchill ordered the rapid establishment of a parachute force, the British aircraft industry could not produce enough transports, so they converted obsolete bombers.
First they tried gutting the tail turret on a Whitley and had paratroopers do pull-offs with slightly modified pilot emergency parachutes. After too many refusals, George Quilter develop the X type static-line parachute and they removed the belly turret from Whitleys. Dropping out the belly proved far easier, but the turret ring was too small for heavily-laden paratroopers, so any less-than-perfect exit saw them whacking their heads on the turret ring! Ouch!
aka. ringing-the-bell.
This led to the Sorbothane helmet which was little more than a ring of sponge rubber wrapped in cloth. That padding soon developed into the liner for the Para-Helmet that remained in service until 1980.
The other problem was capacity, limiting Whitleys to 6 or 8 paratroopers.
Britain never developed enough transport airplanes to carry enough paratroopers for D-Day, so most Brit and Canadian paratroopers jumped out of C-47 Dakotas on D-Day and Arnhem. They were glad to receive Curtiss C-46 Commandos before jumping across the Rhine River because C-46 could carry more jumpers and with two streams exiting both side doors, could empty the plane in fewer seconds.
Early SAS had it easier with the side doors on Bristol Bombays. In the long run, side doors proved easier because you can stand on your hind legs - like a gentleman - and simply walk out the door. Standing vertically is doubly important when jumping with a rucksack, rifle and snowshoes that weigh almost as much as the paratrooper.
Rear cargo ramps are the easiest to jump, but you can still unload double side doors quicker. Amazingly, Russian paratroopers jump from all four doors on IL-76 jet transports, even the personnel doors ahead of the engines! Fortunately they drop away so steeply that there is little risk of fowling a jet engine..
 
"
Not quite true, it was their time in storage that caused the corrosion issues. They were laid up for 10 years and at some point during that time the corrosion set in.
"

Similar to the second-hand submarines that the Brits sold to the Royal Canadian Navy?
Sarcasm!
 
Having your head in line with and behind the wing makes it not too bad in flight, apparently.
No worse ground visibility than many types.

Comper Swift "VH-UVC taxi by Errol Cavit, on Flickr
"

Most radial-engined tail-draggers hav terrible forward visibility on the ground.
A couple years ago, a Grumman TBM Avenger taxied over top of an RV kitplane at Oshkosh. The TBM's propeller sliced the kitplane into scrap metal, killing both inhabitants. The TBM pilot never saw the tiny two-seater kitplane!
 
""

Similar to the second-hand submarines that the Brits sold to the Royal Canadian Navy?
Sarcasm!
Anti-corrosion paint, properly applied, "should" have defeated corrosion despite immersion; if the planes were dry stored. ANY exposure to salt water, will defeat any anti-corrosion application that is botched.

The Upholders are off topic. Cannot comment at all on failure to weatherproof and cocoon the stored subs. Only aircraft for this topic, I'm afraid.
 
"

Most radial-engined tail-draggers hav terrible forward visibility on the ground.
A couple years ago, a Grumman TBM Avenger taxied over top of an RV kitplane at Oshkosh. The TBM's propeller sliced the kitplane into scrap metal, killing both inhabitants. The TBM pilot never saw the tiny two-seater kitplane!
What the Murphy happened to the ground guide? You aren't supposed to taxi without one. Was anyone charged?
 
Found the winner:
View attachment 518121
View attachment 518122
The Westland Wendover (or Lysander Turret Fighter in some sources) for your consideration.

Wonder what it would have been like with the proposed anti-invasion 20mm cannon fit as well?
It looks like it would be just as happy going backwards as forwards. I wonder how effective it would have been. Depends on its resiliency to small arms fire I would suppose.
A too late response to the 1940 invasion scare. This bad boy first flew late July 1941. Apparently it was manuverable, but the project dwindled anyway
 
The Upholders are off topic. Cannot comment at all on failure to weatherproof and cocoon the stored subs. Only aircraft for this topic, I'm afraid.
Well, if the A-10 can get a tank to fly, what would it take for the Upholders to fly? (and would it be any uglier than some of the other planes on this thread?)
 
A too late response to the 1940 invasion scare. This bad boy first flew late July 1941. Apparently it was manuverable, but the project dwindled anyway
Sorry, the 20mm cannons were the anti-invasion reference. There were plans to fit them to the wheel mounts that usually held the .303 Brownings. I meant later on in the War as some form of ground attack variant, turret combined with cannons.

In 1940 at least one standard Lysander was tested with a pair of 20 mm cannon mounted on the undercarriage, replacing the stub wings; the intention was to use the aircraft for ground attack missions against the threatened German invasion of Britain.
 
Top