I loved to read about the Thunderscreech
I also liked the Giants and even the Blackburn Kangaroos- surely the ugliest plane ever built.
How about the Transavia PL-12 Airtruk?
There’s a derelict Grumman crop duster (I think) I see on the way to work. No engine, no rudder. I think it’s uglier than a Giant or a Kangaroo. (And airplanes were still early in their development then.)
I knew Johnny LA would respond- and I mean that in the nicest way.
I am sure Richard Pearse will post as well.
Ha!, I see your Airtruk and I rise a Mielec M-15, an agricultural aircraft, biplane and… jet powered. :dubious:
With things like the Thunderscreech you just have to wonder what the engineers were thinking." We have these new jet fighters, I have an idea, lets put a propeller on it! Great Idea! Brilliant"!
What they were thinking sis that these turbojets are not very good engines for low-speed flight. Which they weren’t. And low speed flight is necessary. There has got to be a better way. the turboprop is that better way.
It was only after the turbojets got a lot more powerful &, with the invention of the turbofan, a lot more efficient that turboprops where utterly outclassed.
As well, once the military discovered “practical” supersonic flight, they insisted all fighter-type aircraft have it, even if they only carried enough fuel to fly that speed for a couple of minutes. So real quickly the turboprop fighters were just too uncool tobe used. So those programs were cancelled.
Bottom-line: they were a reasonable attempt by professionals to extend the problematic powerplant envelopes of the day.
That plane looks like it was designed by three people. One guy designed the bottom half, another guy designed the top half, and a third guy designed the tail. It is also very clear that these three men never ever even once talked to each other or communicated in any way until they got to the final assembly of the aircraft.
“Oh, you did the wing? I did that too.”
“Is the tail supposed to attach to the bottom part or the top part?”
“I dunno, let’s flip a coin.”
flip
“Top part.”
Actually, now that I think about it, there must have been a fourth guy as well who just did the engine.
“Eh, I don’t even know what kind of plane it is. I’ll give them a nice big jet engine. That should be powerful enough no matter what kind of plane it is.”
I can beat that.
Is this a monoplane with two wings, or a biplane with one?
2 examples of WW1 lunacy, the Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.9 and the SPAD A.2.
Both attempted to improve the air gunners field of fire by placing them in *front *of the propeller.
Oy vey! :eek:
And I thought theDH.2 was sort of lacking in the safety department.
It’s pretty bad to be in the nose of a plane if it crashes, but having a big, heavy, hot rotating engine with all sort of nasty metal bits sticking out grind you down into the ground would really ruin anyone’s day.
Come to think of it, the only thing that would make it worse is if the aircraft designer shows up and personally pisses in your crater.
Isn’t that Quickie related to that banned biplane racer? It looks a lot like it. The Sorceress.
God, what a gorgeous plane.
The M-15 is pretty hard to top - it looks like the love-child of a 1960s helicopter and a 1930s biplane airliner.
Some classics from the archives:
Blohm und Voss BV 141 - who says aeroplanes have to be symmetrical?
Gee Bee R-1 - who says the cockpit has to be at the front?
Caproni Ca.60 Noviplano - originally built as a houseboat. Apparently, it did fly once!
My favorite: The Westland P.12, basically a Lysander with a Lancaster tail, to be used over the German Operation Sea Lion invasion beaches. The rest of the site is a fine waste of time for the readers of this thread.
Yeah, that’s a Grumman Agcat (sticking with the “cat” nomenclature that Grumman had been using for a while, e.g., F-14 Tomcat.) I quite like the look of them. I used to know someone that had one with a couple of seats in the front where the hopper would normally go, he used it for joyrides. For a more unusual looking Agcat, try one of the turbine conversions. With a turbine being significantly lighter than the original radial engine, the nose had to be extended to keep the centre of gravity in the right place.
Another interesting conversion is the Thruxton Jackaroo, a Tiger Moth converted into a four seater with an enclosed cabin.
It seems that if you can think of an aeroplane, someone has either tried to convert it to a turboprop (Cessna 206 turboprop) or stick floats (DC3) on it.
Some interesting aircraft come about as designers try to get the most out of an old design. The Goodyear F2G Super Corsair was based on the Chance Vought F4U Corsair. Although 428 of the aircraft were ordered, in the end only 10 were built due to design flaws. A more mundane example is the Dash 8 400, when compared to a baby Dash 8 you can see that Bombardier have stretched and twisted the design to the point of parody (just design a new aeroplane guys, you might even be able to make it look pretty!)
Another interesting conversion is the North American T6 Texan converted to a replica Mitsubishi Zero. The Texan and Zero are superficially similar and I believe most, if not all, of these conversions were done to provide Zeros for the film Tora! Tora! Tora! as authentic Zeros are rare.
These aren’t ugly like some of the others, I can’t think of any ugly ones off the top of my head.
The Twin Ercoupe and Twin Cub can be seen here.
I really like the twin-Bonanza.
There’s a good reason it looks so much like a Baron. 
Politically-incorrect historical saying: “If it’s beautiful and flies well, it’s American. If it’s beautiful and doesn’t fly well, it’s British. If it’s ugly and flies well, it’s French. If it’s ugly and doesn’t fly well, it’s Russian”.