red750 Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 In my first picture quiz thread, Willedoo suggested we could do a forum on ugly aircraft. Here is the first one. This is not a quiz, as I have no idea what on earth it is. Maybe someone will know. Looks like a Tiger Moth cowling and prop in a tube. .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAA Student Pilot Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Wuthoot loogin up the net it's an Italian thing something like Caproni. Guido (Towoomba) built a flying 2/3 scale flying one from memory powered by a Rotax. Did fly but not now, I think it's still in Towoomba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted December 9, 2012 Author Share Posted December 9, 2012 You're right again, SP. It's the Stipa Caproni Flying Barrel. Here is a video of the machine taking off. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Wuthoot loogin up the net it's an Italian thing something like Caproni. Guido (Towoomba) built a flying 2/3 scale flying one from memory powered by a Rotax. Did fly but not now, I think it's still in Towoomba. Tracked it down from that clue to a 1932 Caproni Stipa. An X plane, looks like an early attempt at a ducted fan, not very successful apparently. Has a Gypsy 3 engine. [ATTACH=full]1456[/ATTACH] Pity there wasn't more photos of this one, it's a Romanian I.A.R. CV-11 Fighter. Only one prototype made, I think. Not really ugly, but not pretty either. [ATTACH=full]1457[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1458[/ATTACH] Cheers, Willie. [ATTACH]18297[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 The Sukhoi T-4 prototype is probably in the category of 'only ugly part of the time', with the nose lowered for take off/landing. The canards are mostly what makes it look sillier than the Concorde or Tu-144 in the same configuration. [ATTACH=full]1459[/ATTACH] Reminds me of some sort of dog, like Pluto. [ATTACH=full]1460[/ATTACH] Looks a bit better with the nose up. [ATTACH=full]1461[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1462[/ATTACH] Cheers, Willie. [ATTACH]18298[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael Coates Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Look at the side profile above.... the only cockpit view from the front is up! Its like an arrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAA Student Pilot Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Sort of like Thunderbird 8, the one Virgil gets to do Mach 7 in :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siznaudin Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Here's my all-time favourite, the Blackburn Blackburn (pardon my speech impediment, or was it just an echo!) [ATTACH=full]1463[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]18299[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Here's my all-time favourite, the Blackburn Blackburn (pardon my speech impediment, or was it just an echo!)[ATTACH=full]1463[/ATTACH] Wow that is so ugly that It wouldnt need wings.The earth would repel it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Here's my all-time favourite, the Blackburn Blackburn It makes you wonder if bad looking aeroplanes were accepted as the norm back then, or if people really fell about laughing when something like this showed up at their airport. Cheers, Willie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darren Masters Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I always think these Guppys have taken the prize for being the most ugly aircraft around: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siznaudin Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 They may be built-to-a-purpose, but in the back of my mind on looking at one is often the word hydrocephalus - and a bad case thereof! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I always think these Guppys have taken the prize for being the most ugly aircraft around: It's successor looks a bit like a submarine with wings. [ATTACH=full]1467[/ATTACH] Cheers, Willie. [ATTACH]18302[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted December 11, 2012 Author Share Posted December 11, 2012 I think this one fits the criteria - the Sud-Est SE 100. A fighter, believe it or not! Circa 1939. [ATTACH=full]1471[/ATTACH] "Some of these mutts flew just fine. Others barely made it into the air. But aviation would be the poorer if it didn't have engineers willing to take such risks." [ATTACH]18303[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted December 11, 2012 Author Share Posted December 11, 2012 Closer to home, the New Zealand built Bennett PL-11 Airtruk with radial engine has an appearance only a mother could love. Practical, but not pretty. [ATTACH=full]1473[/ATTACH] . [ATTACH]18305[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Here's a couple of post war fighters that probably looked reasonable for their time. Compared with modern designs they look a bit boof-headed. The first is the 1949 Sukhoi Su-15 ( "Aircraft P", first use of the Su-15 designation, not to be confused with the later delta winged Su-15). A good example of radomes and antennas detracting from the overall look of an aircraft. It's an unusual design, a twin fitted with engines in tandem. The Klimov RD-45 was an early clone of the Rolls Royce Nene, and being a centrifugal compressor engine, the diameter was too large for them to be mounted side by side in a design of this size. The forward engine exhausts at the mid lower fuselage and the aft engine at the tail cone. Air supply to the aft engine is ducted on the starboard side of the fuselage, with fuel cells offset on the port side. [ATTACH=full]1476[/ATTACH] The second one is the Yak-23. It might be a bit unfair to include it in an ugly thread as it's looks might have been considered a bit sporty in it's day. Powered by a Klimov RD-500, a Rolls Royce Derwent copy. High thrust/weight ratio, apparently giving good acceleration and climb rate, also very maneuverable. It had poor directional stability at Mach 0.8+. Looking at it, it's easy to imagine adverse yaw occuring.[ATTACH=full]1477[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1478[/ATTACH] Cheers, Willie. [ATTACH]18306[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darren Masters Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I'd fly that YAK-23!!! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Another potential contender from the U.K. [ATTACH=full]1485[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1486[/ATTACH] Cheers, Willie. [ATTACH]18309[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siznaudin Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 And it's a Pobjoy powered ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 The Flying Flea: [ATTACH=full]1487[/ATTACH] . [ATTACH]18310[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siznaudin Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Pou du Ciel ... here's another fine French aesthetic product. [ATTACH=full]1488[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]18311[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 Appropriate rego -PYFT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Forgot to mention, G-AFRP is a Shapley Kittiwake. Don't know much about it, but it looks like two were made.The first was supposed to be an open cockpit with a different engine according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapley_Kittiwake Seeing some of these photos really brings to mind how far design has advanced to the present day. Cheers, Willie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siznaudin Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Shapely, eh...? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 It seems like the prototypes commonly suffer in the ugly stakes, due to the amount of experimentation involved. These two Sukhoi prototypes look quite normal for the period (mid 50's) except for the addition of the radomes and antennas. They're both prototypes of the Su-9/Su-11 family of delta wing tactical fighter/interceptors. The T-3 had a fire control radar with separate search and target tracking antennas. [ATTACH=full]1492[/ATTACH] Font view showing the search antenna's metal radome and air data boom attached to the top intake lip. The lower one is the tracking antenna inside the intake, attached to the splitter. As a result, intake efficiency and pressure recovery was fairly poor. [ATTACH=full]1493[/ATTACH] This evolved into the PT-7 prototype where the tracking antenna was shifted to the lower lip and enclosed in a conical radome.These were dropped for the production models which had a variable geometry shock cone inlet. [ATTACH=full]1494[/ATTACH] Cheers, Willie. [ATTACH]18312[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now