Ugly Airplanes

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • pink.jpg
    pink.jpg
    253.6 KB · Views: 689
Now the Shorts doesn't start out as the prettiest plane.....
 
dmccormack said:
It doesn't matter what it looks like on the outside once your inside.

:rolleyes:

I'd even fly one of these! :yesnod:

6%2023%20Aeronca%20C-3%20NC15729%20right%20side%20in%20flight%20l.jpg
Click to expand...

This looks like the grumpy old man from the Muppets. I think it would be perfect for me. In fact I think it's rather attractive.:D
 
This one exists to scare submarines:

do-28_1.jpg
 
Try this one on for size...
 

Attachments

  • DSC01688.JPG
    DSC01688.JPG
    219 KB · Views: 94
How about this? Looking at the fabric, among other things, I wouldn't fly it either...

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Ugly duckling.jpg
    Ugly duckling.jpg
    96.5 KB · Views: 199
weilke said:
This one exists to scare submarines:

do-28_1.jpg
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll bite, what is it? It looks like a tailwheel Twin Otter with piston engines in the wrong location.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Ok, I'll bite, what is it? It looks like a tailwheel Twin Otter with piston engines in the wrong location.
Click to expand...

It's a Dornier Do-28 'skyservant'. In this picture in german navy livery and with microwave radar equipment to detect oil-spills.
 
Everskyward said:
How about this? Looking at the fabric, among other things, I wouldn't fly it either...

attachment.php
Click to expand...

Now that there, an Antonov AN-2 Colt, I would love to fly once the defects are fixed up. They are huge airplanes, and I hear they are a handful for the single pilot. 1000 hp, cruises 120 mph, stalls at around 28, awesome STOL capability. Only thing ugly would be the fuel bill. After all, it IS a taildragger...
I once parked a Taylorcraft next to one, and the AN-2's aileron was about as big as the T-Cart's wing.

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
Now that there, an Antonov AN-2 Colt, I would love to fly once the defects are fixed up. They are huge airplanes, and I hear they are a handful for the single pilot. 1000 hp, cruises 120 mph, stalls at around 28, awesome STOL capability. Only thing ugly would be the fuel bill. After all, it IS a taildragger...
I once parked a Taylorcraft next to one, and the AN-2's aileron was about as big as the T-Cart's wing.

Dan
Click to expand...

Is that the airplane used in this video?

 
Dan Thomas said:
Now that there, an Antonov AN-2 Colt, I would love to fly once the defects are fixed up. They are huge airplanes, and I hear they are a handful for the single pilot. 1000 hp, cruises 120 mph, stalls at around 28, awesome STOL capability. Only thing ugly would be the fuel bill. After all, it IS a taildragger...
Click to expand...

There is a nicely refurbished one with a 10 person interior floating around on the market. All you need is a good friend with a fuel-truck who tends to misplace his keys.
 
weilke said:
There is a nicely refurbished one with a 10 person interior floating around on the market. All you need is a good friend with a fuel-truck who tends to misplace his keys.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately they're not very useful in the US. FAA limits them to the "Experimental - Exhibition" category. This is described in this article, which also has a good report on flying the beast:
Unfortunately as well for owners of Antonov An-2s brought into the U.S. since 1993 (earlier ones were exempt), the new interpretation of the rules specified a brand-new category within the experimental exhibition classification, called "category IV." It covers a very strange assortment of bedfellows: Lockheed C-130s, Ilyushin IL-76s (a 375,000-pound C-141 lookalike), Antonov An-24s (a 48-passenger turboprop twin), all Cessnas with un-STCed auto-engine installations... and Antonov An-2s. The rules specified that these airplanes, if registered experimental exhibition, could operate within a 300-nm radius of their chosen base but could not land anywhere within that area. They had to return to home plate.
​
 
Pilawt said:
Unfortunately they're not very useful in the US. FAA limits them to the "Experimental - Exhibition" category. This is described in this article, which also has a good report on flying the beast
Click to expand...

That probably explains the fact that it hasn't sold :smile:
 
No thread on ugly aircraft can be complete without the Airtruk :

61101.jpg
 
Dan Thomas said:
Now that there, an Antonov AN-2 Colt, I would love to fly once the defects are fixed up. They are huge airplanes, and I hear they are a handful for the single pilot. 1000 hp, cruises 120 mph, stalls at around 28, awesome STOL capability. Only thing ugly would be the fuel bill. After all, it IS a taildragger...
I once parked a Taylorcraft next to one, and the AN-2's aileron was about as big as the T-Cart's wing.

Dan
Click to expand...

Here's some of those Antonovs

022520081232251872.jpg
 
Antonovs

There were a couple of derelict Antonovs just off the golf course on Grenada in 1986. I'm assuming that they were part of some Cuban foreign aid program. I'm guessing that they were landed there to spread out the vulnerable assete so that they would be less likely to be targeted in the 1983 invasion. (Gee I speculate a lot, don't I?)

They don't show up on current satellite photos, but I seem to remember that they were off of the NW corner in a clearing that has a couple of shanty-type houses on it now.
________
Faw Besturn
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
I'm sure Henning can explain it more colorfully than I can, but my understanding of it is they wanted to be able to have vehicle access between the tailbooms to the chemical hopper in the rear of the fuselage.
Click to expand...


That sure is placing one requirement all out of whack to all other possible requirements... :eek:
 
I've always considered the Shorts cargo aircraft and the Beech 1900 among the ugliest aircraft. I guess there is something to be said in certain cases for sacrificing beauty for utility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top