Ugly Planes

Graueradler

Graueradler

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
2,021
Location
Russellville, AR
Display Name
Display name:
Graueradler
The "Ugly Paint Begone" thread made me think how about an "Ugly Plane" thread.

I used to think that there was no such thing as an ugly plane but I have changed my mind.

The first plane that I thought qualified was a Navy Crusader (F8) in take-off or landing configuration (wing cocked up). With the wing down, it looks great.

Then I saw a Zenith 750. Before that, I always thought that any design that had great function was inherently beautiful (I'm an engineer). But, alas! another lesson learned.

Last week, an original Piper Apache (1956 pug nose, 2 side window)
showed up at KRUE. Additionally, the paint, except for the modified tail, seemed to be original. That is as much of it as was still left. Much of it is bare where the paint has just worn off. The form is inherently ugly and the condition makes it worse. I'll post some pictures soon.
 
Graueradler said:
The "Ugly Paint Begone" thread made me think how about an "Ugly Plane" thread.

I used to think that there was no such thing as an ugly plane but I have changed my mind.

The first plane that I thought qualified was a Navy Crusader (F8) in take-off or landing configuration (wing cocked up). With the wing down, it looks great.

Then I saw a Zenith 750. Before that, I always thought that any design that had great function was inherently beautiful (I'm an engineer). But, alas! another lesson learned.

Last week, an original Piper Apache (1956 pug nose, 2 side window)
showed up at KRUE. Additionally, the paint, except for the modified tail, seemed to be original. That is as much of it as was still left. Much of it is bare where the paint has just worn off. The form is inherently ugly and the condition makes it worse. I'll post some pictures soon.
Click to expand...

The 701, 750, 801 line of Zenith planes are ugly.:yikes::yikes::yikes:

But, so am I so I built one. :nonod::(:rolleyes:

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com
 
pip-apache160.jpg


I absolutely LOVE this plane. I hope to own one some day. I can't explain, I just love it.

Zenith-STOL-CH-701.jpg


That is pretty ungainly.
 
There are no ugly planes, only ugly people.
 
Ugly airplane thread? BTDT.

And I have yet to see anyone beat these:

attachment.php

61101.jpg

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


A few years ago, there was a crash that showed up in the NTSB database of an aircraft called the "Dickenson Bathtub." Always wondered what on earth THAT would have looked like.
 
This is an ugly plane, but I think I might want to build one. Maybe without the whacky 90's paint scheme

640-2.jpg
 
How 'bout the Larson D-1?
 

Attachments

  • Larson D-1 copy.jpg
    Larson D-1 copy.jpg
    13.8 KB · Views: 40
flyingcheesehead said:
Ugly airplane thread? BTDT.

And I have yet to see anyone beat these:
6%2023%20Aeronca%20C-3%20NC15729%20right%20side%20in%20flight%20l.jpg


A few years ago, there was a crash that showed up in the NTSB database of an aircraft called the "Dickenson Bathtub." Always wondered what on earth THAT would have looked like.
Click to expand...

The Aeronca C-3 was the precursor to all the Light GA aircraft we know and love today. The designer solved many problems and changed the definition of "private aircraft."
 
dmccormack said:
The Aeronca C-3 was the precursor to all the Light GA aircraft we know and love today. The designer solved many problems and changed the definition of "private aircraft."
Click to expand...

Great... But he also changed the definition of "ugly" and that's what we're talking about. ;)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
No, I'm used to things actually looking aerodynamic. That big fat nose screams "inefficiency" to me. I don't like inefficiency.
Click to expand...


You'd be surprised. One thing to notice, that streamlined nose covers the gear bungies (I'm pretty sure it had bungies) which are way more drag. Besides, why worry about efficiency when you have flying wires all over the place. I think it's ugly for purely aesthetic reasons.:D
 
Dave, I showed your post to Fat Albert (PA23-150)... He says he wants to see you out on the ramp behind the terminal building...

denny-o
 
Steingar, Fat Albert says he would love to take you up for a flight...

denny-o
 
You don't pull on Superman's cape,
You don't spit into the wind,
You don't pull the mask off the ol'Lone Ranger
And you don't bash Aeroncas while Dan's on the board.
:D

Full apologies to the estate of Jim Croce.
 
flyersfan31 said:
You don't pull on Superman's cape,
You don't spit into the wind,
You don't pull the mask off the ol'Lone Ranger
And you don't bash Aeroncas while Dan's on the board.
Click to expand...

Especially the ugly... Er, "aesthetically challenged" ones.
 
Skylane81E said:
Ugly? Maybe but I'd rock one
Click to expand...

It does look like something you'd see on "Jay Jay the Jet Plane."

No offense intended, Dan!:D

I stand by my earlier comment - there are no ugly planes, only ugly people.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Ugly airplane thread? BTDT.

A few years ago, there was a crash that showed up in the NTSB database of an aircraft called the "Dickenson Bathtub." Always wondered what on earth THAT would have looked like.
Click to expand...

Probably a replica of the Dormoy Bathtub.
Brodhead%20337%20%28Small%29.jpg
 
N801BH said:
Maybe the ability to buy a pair of testicles the size of bowling balls ??:nonod::nonod:
Click to expand...


:dunno: Do a weight and balance, if everything looks ok there and looks properly constructed, time to put on a life jacket and a helmet and hit the throttle. It'll either fly or it won't. Bowling ball sized testicles not required.
 
Henning said:
:dunno: Do a weight and balance, if everything looks ok there and looks properly constructed, time to put on a life jacket and a helmet and hit the throttle. It'll either fly or it won't. Bowling ball sized testicles not required.
Click to expand...

Yup. Looks like it's got all the required parts. Those nice fat high lift wings ought to work. It might not be the fastest thing out there, but it looks like it'll fly. It's only marginally better looking than the Supermarine Walrus. I'll even bet that the guy was inspired by that design.
 

Attachments

  • Walrus.jpg
    Walrus.jpg
    39.1 KB · Views: 10
N801BH said:
Making a water landing with those tires hanging down could prove problematic.. If you trust the retract mechinism to hold them up.... If not you will get this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6e3n1RYvsI
Click to expand...


That plane is either at Osh or Lakeland, I forget where it was that I saw it. IIRC the gear was a simple over center linkage, nothing really to worry about. The design is safer than half the stuff Chris Heinz ever designed....:eek::D:rofl:
 
Henning said:
The design is safer than half the stuff Chris Heinz ever designed....:eek::D:rofl:
Click to expand...

That comment sir might have you banned from flying my toy.:wink2::confused::idea::yes::no:.

Altho the 601 series has/had some fatal flaws in it...

Ben.
 
Steve said:
The flying bass boat was pretty ungainly

projectlog_00024_00900_main.jpg
Click to expand...

Fix that thing up with a still and you have yourself the ultimate BillyBob flyin/fishin/fermentin machine!
 
N801BH said:
Surely that thing doesn't fly ??? Does it ? :dunno::dunno::dunno:..
Click to expand...

That picture looks like it was taken at the Airventure seaplane base.

I saw that plane fly when it arrived at Sun n' Fun many years ago just after being completed. The builder brought tie-downs and an anchor.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top