That wasn't it. There wasn't enough overcomplicated, expensive to make and difficult to maintain engineering in it.
Challenge: name an airplane uglier than the Lloyd Luftkreuzer
- Thread starter riggerrob
- Start date
Considering it was just an engine with two stubby wings and a tail, with poor handling and cockpit design, I can't say I blame you.
Wasn't that true of all those American pylon racing aircraft? From what I can tell they were all death traps that should never have received a Certificate of Airworthiness.
Holy lipstick on a pig Batman!
That Shorts Skyvan was so much prettier when she was painted all Pink.
The Austrian-based Pink Skyvan was my favourite jump-plane during the 1980s. You could stand on your hind legs - like a gentleman - as you stepped out. So dignified
I can think of less expensive ways to commit suicide than to fly a Gee Bee racer.
In the 1980s, my friend Tod spent a semester of college studying in England. One of his classes was on NATO, and he relayed a story that in one session his professor stated, "The A-10 is the only plane that can shoot down a bridge." A classmate asked, "Do you mean with a rocket or missile?", and the professor replied, "No. SHOOT DOWN!"
🤣
Regards,
McPherson
Banned
Beautiful(^^^)? Not really.
There is ugly skin deep and there is UGLY deep inside. Planes like this one, with their high speed for private planes, and unusual tail control are called "doctor killers". Why? The doctor, who buys it, does not realize that these faster than pedestrian methodical thought planes are meant for professional pilots who have been rigorously trained to think into the future about where their plane heads and who plan NOW for what to expect and what to do if it all goes wrong when it gets there. They stay mentally ahead of the plane's planned trajectory. Most people don't think that way. Most people can't think that way. Those few who do, are "pilots".
Planes faster or far more complex to handle than the people who think they can fly them are capable... these are pilot killers not because of the plane, but because the man was not told "no" when he tried to buy and fly it. These planes when sold commercially to Doctor Ego Tua Big are therefore UGLY deep inside to objective bystanders because of the almost near certain future human tragedy implied.
The Gee Bee was an early extreme example of even professionally trained pilots not being mentally right to fly it. Hence, we have aviation legends like Jimmy Doolittle, who "could" fly it.
Last edited:
Boy yeah. But even average pilots can handle high performance sophisticated airplanes if they are trained properly and they fly often so as to stay current. I.E. fly frequently. You get somebody who climbs into something like a Beechcraft Bonanza after a two month absence and then flies into lousy weather. And then they get into trouble.
Another famous example are home builders. They spend all their money and free time building a scaled downed replica of a P-51 or some other hot plane. They don't fly regularly to stay current and sharp. And then they start flying their homebuilt which for sure doesn't handle like a nice docile Cessna 150.
But the planes are beautiful. That's the danger of the attraction.
So all homebuilders should be required to build scaled down A-10 Warthog. Problem solved.
Ahhh, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The A-10 has the beauty of efficiency. As for me I appreciate the stark and effective beauty of good design. Like the Short Skyvan previously shown. Or perhaps my favourite airplane, the C-130. A straight forward but wonderful airplane largely unchanged from its original design. The ultimate flying truck.
Last edited: