Ugly planes that fly beautifully
Posted by hat_eater@reddit | WeirdWings | View on Reddit | 78 comments
It's an old adage that "for an aircraft to fly well, it must be beautiful". It's also untrue as the Westland-Hill Pterodactyls proved. Any other examples?
iamalsobrad@reddit
The Blackburn Buccaneer was apparently next to impossible to crash at low level. Pilots say that it would sit on it's own bow-wave almost like a hovercraft.
hat_eater@reddit (OP)
I was made like that, deal with it.
Stunt_Merchant@reddit
Ha ha ha in ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Kotukunui@reddit
How dare you, sir!
The Bucc is not ugly. It is a muscular paragon of purposeful beauty.
Thunderboltscoot@reddit
I mean the a-10 to an extant. Not high performance but did exactly what was asked to do without being pretty.
ziggyskyhigh@reddit
Curious if any of the A-10 commenters are more than armchair warriors. Would like to hear from the pilots or someone with first hand experience.
Stunt_Merchant@reddit
I've lost respect for the opinion of someone I once held in high regard because they started bullshitting about the A-10. I lost it when he stated that the A-10's role is better fulfilled by the B-1 and B-52, because "all it has is that plinky little cannon" and apparently no other armament.
Harpies_Bro@reddit
I mean, kinda? AFAIK right now is basically a propaganda machine, big scary gun to scare the shit out of whatever underdeveloped country the US is fighting this time
Thunderboltscoot@reddit
It was designed to do the skyraider’s role it didnin vietnam. It was perfect for that
AverageAircraftFan@reddit
It was not perfect for that in the slightest. It lacks practically all modern equipment, has a shit payload, and terrible handling characteristics. There is no more use for any sort of vehicle like the Skyraider or Warthog. Just like there is no more use for seaplanes (OS2U Kingfisher), observation planes (O-series, U-2, etc), and more
ziggyskyhigh@reddit
Really? Are you sure about this? If so, how?
Thunderboltscoot@reddit
Yes again, but for what it was designed for(bad idea or not) it fulfilled its design purpose
Wolffe_In_The_Dark@reddit
The A-10 has pretty shit flight performance, honestly.
It's slower than a Cessna and handles like a fat baby on ice, and while its payload capacity is prodigious, you're never going to be max-loading it, because against a near-peer it's suicide (as is deploying an A-10 in the first place), and against insurgents, it's comical overkill.
Harpies_Bro@reddit
Like, there’s a reason the US is looking at replacing it with a crop duster with a shitload of weapon racks and modern electronics
Ragnarok_Stravius@reddit
Afaik, that's only for the USSocom.
Wolffe_In_The_Dark@reddit
I still stan the OV-1 Mohawk.
It does all the things we're using the A-10 for—namely COIN operations against below-peer opponents with minimal air defense—while having two crew, decent payload and loitering capacities, and is affordable.
It is also very easy to maintain and can also take off from dirt runways, which were selling points of the A-10 (its ability to live up to those claims are "absolutely not" and "questionable", respectively).
Thunderboltscoot@reddit
True, it was meant to fight the role done by the skyraider in veitnam. In that light it was perfect.
Wolffe_In_The_Dark@reddit
Not really? It was obsolete before it even entered service.
The 30mm cannon was incapable of effectively defeating a formation of outdated M41 Walker Bulldog test targets in beyond ideal conditions, it's extremely vulnerable to ground fire that would never even be a threat to other CAS and ground attack aircraft, it's slow and not very maneuverable, and pilot workload and visibility are atrocious.
For close air support, a helicopter does everything an A-10 does, but better.
For ground attack, the contemporary F-111 and later F-15E both do that job better as well.
For affordability, ease of maintenance, and the ability to take off from dirt runways, a turboprop like the Super Tucano or Mohawk would be vastly superior.
Thunderboltscoot@reddit
Yes that is what i said, for the role asked of it. Which quickly disappeared
Wolffe_In_The_Dark@reddit
Which was killing Soviet tanks crossing the Fulda Gap. A role it objectively could not fulfill, seeing as it failed to do much against armor twenty years out of date.
Again, during perfect—i.e. wildly unrealistic—test conditions, the pilot was given as much time as he wanted to line up the best possible gun run against static M41s in a neat formation. Out of roughly two dozen tanks, seven were hit, and only two were determined to be mission-killed.
It was outdated before it even entered service, as I said. It didn't do anything "perfectly."
MonsieurCatsby@reddit
I'm going from memory here but in the Fulda Gap scenario US planners expected A-10 to have a lifespan of a few days. Not individual aircraft, all of them were expected to be lost within under a week. Considering its performance against static targets the thing was basically a rather crap suicide weapon
xrelaht@reddit
Which Cessna? The A-10's cruising speed is more than double that of a 172, and the fastest Cessna can hit almost 1000 kph so that's not saying much.
hat_eater@reddit (OP)
It's pretty to me, but I agree that it's not a standard beauty.
SlickDillywick@reddit
Agreed, it’s beautiful in its oddity. And you know the soldiers that it provided cover for think its the prettiest girl at the ball
Train_nut@reddit
Not the British ones
Thunderboltscoot@reddit
It’s pretty because it’s iconic and unique, but butt ugly really
FZ_Milkshake@reddit
F-4 Phantom, very very fast and decently maneuverable for it's time. Pretty alright in the vertical, but also in general at the time of Vietnam, the second most maneuverable modern fighter in the USAF after the F-106. Turn rate looks bad when compared to modern 4th gen fighters, but in the late50s, early 60s it was pretty average.
MonsieurCatsby@reddit
Fairey Gannet. Not exactly capable of any miraculous flight performance but (barring a few quirks) when airborne it was apparently a gentle and responsive aircraft to fly
pootismn@reddit
That one doesn’t count. It’s beautiful. (Not being ironic)
ghrrrrowl@reddit
Is that you Charles Fairey?
wlpaul4@reddit
Its beauty lies in its unapologeticly ungainly appearance. And I absolutely love it.
RaybeartADunEidann@reddit
Actually it is so ugly, it is beautiful again. One of my favorites.
MonsieurCatsby@reddit
I like weird things so it's also right up my alley
hat_eater@reddit (OP)
Right! Bréguet Alizé would probably qualify too, it wouldn't have lasted 40 years in service if it was a pig to fly.
AnyGeologist2960@reddit
It’s shear unattractiveness repels it from the ground. That’s the only reason it can take to the skies.
Flight_19_Navigator@reddit
Transavia PL-12 Airtruk
https://planeandpilotmag.com/this-incredible-plane-transavia-pl-12-airtruk/
Kotukunui@reddit
A friend of mine had the opportunity to operate one for a while and he said it was a wonderful aircraft to fly. While the fertilizer hopper was empty, you could fling it around quite enthusiastically. He also said it was soooo easy to land. You just flew it into the ground to land it and its amazingly flexy undercarriage would just soak it up and make you feel like a master-aviator.
Arctic_Chilean@reddit
S-3 Viking. Short, stubby, kind of ungainly as a shrunken down jetliner type aesthetic, but I keep hearing pilots talk about how it handled surprisingly well and was deceptively agile for a jet of its size and configuration. It's diving performance was also remarked as being quite impressive, a good thing to have to dive down on unsuspecting submarines.
wlpaul4@reddit
I heard a story once that you could launch a Viking without a full 30kts across the deck. No idea if it’s true or not though.
FluffusMaximus@reddit
You don’t need 30 knots for an FA-18. What you heard is you can launch and recover pier-side, which they’ve done, in San Diego.
wlpaul4@reddit
English Electric Lighting.
IllegalStateExcept@reddit
Paraglider. They look kinda silly the first time you see them, but you can fly hundreds of miles in a day using no fuel. Also, it fits in a backpack.
enigmaunbound@reddit
Unused to fly hang gliders. Stiffies had better flight characteristics. Floppies could hop on a jet and check baggage with their wings. So jealous.
IllegalStateExcept@reddit
Yeah, being able to take my paraglider wherever I go is a huge advantage. I also love being able to hike with it and cruise off a mountain. Still, I'd love to try hang gliding some day.
enigmaunbound@reddit
You would hate ratchet strapping PVC frames to your vehicle and begging friends to hang around rural Alabama in the summer while you have fun.
IllegalStateExcept@reddit
My local hill is hike up only. So while hang gliders are technically allowed, I have never seen someone do it. That being said, it doesn't look too bad when I go to the various hills around that have roads. But I guess the retrieve is the hard part? Paraglider pilots here do a mix of ride sharing and uber to get back so not needing a roof rack is pretty nice.
enigmaunbound@reddit
It's hilarious though when you come down in some farms field. Uhhh high. Could you please lower your shotgun? Cool. My buddies will be by in a while. Mind if I chill here with my fancy tent? Most are usually cool with it and a crazy dude in a tent dropping into their field is a minor celebrity event. Just don't spook the cows.
IllegalStateExcept@reddit
Haha yeah, I always feel a little awkward. But people in my area are usually stoked to hear about paragliding when I land. There is one dude though .. likes to chase pilots with a shotgun. Fortunately, everyone knows to avoid his little fiefdom.
enigmaunbound@reddit
You would love the glide slope and control authority. We had a pilot in my club cruise 118 miles in an afternoon.
Kevlaars@reddit
Schweitzer 2-33.
Raguleader@reddit
I believe this is about the Avro Lancaster.
One-Swordfish60@reddit
Pretty much anything from Blohm and Voss.
The_Oracle_65@reddit
The BV-138 is one of favourite WeirdWings aircraft. 3 Junkers Jumo diesel engines too.
AhzeeDahak@reddit
The Mignet HM14 Flying Flea.
Incredibly docile. Cheap and easy to build. Looks like it was designed whilst drunk on a bet.
AverageAircraftFan@reddit
“The airplane flew surprisingly well, was more stable and handled far better than most would expect.” Captain Glen Edwards on the Northrop N-9M
Mattloch42@reddit
...and how well did flying wings and their handling treat Captain Edwards?
AverageAircraftFan@reddit
Well, he did complain about the YB-49, no the N-9M
xrelaht@reddit
Flying wings are never ugly.
Mattloch42@reddit
From Ben Rich's book, the Have Blue/F-117 was able to have whatever handling characteristics they wanted, since it was being controlled in all 3 dimensions by computers. After the initial problems it ended up being a real "pilot's plane" since they literally got to decide how it should handle.
DISCLAIMER: many people find the F-117 to be an "ugly" plane. I think it looks amazing and cool, but I wouldn't call it beautiful by any stretch of the imagination.
enigmaunbound@reddit
Antonov An 2
It doesn't actually have a stall speed.
"If the engine quits in instrument conditions or at night, the pilot should pull the control column full aft and keep the wings level. The leading-edge slats will snap out at about 64 km/h (40 mph) and when the airplane slows to a forward speed of about 40 km/h (25 mph), the airplane will sink at about a parachute descent rate until the aircraft hits the ground."[1]
ScissorNightRam@reddit
It’s not that ugly to me, just looks like a big old biplane
GlockAF@reddit
Ah, but only IF: not too heavily loaded, and the density altitude isn’t too high
admiral_sinkenkwiken@reddit
It can stall, just like any airfoil, what it lacks is the elevator authority at slow speeds to be able to push it into a stall.
An-2’s are extremely sensitive to aft CofG however.
righthandofdog@reddit
Found a video. Looks like it would be happy to dip a wing and crash, but nose into the wind and no cross gusts and this thing just plane doesn't want to come down.
https://youtu.be/qTbm5ZzZQy8?si=2Hmr2mAx2j4KrsGc
bemenaker@reddit
That is pretty cool
ScissorNightRam@reddit
Short Skyvan.
Looks like a tapered brick, but is said to be a friendly thing to fly. Like a good-natured, dependable, forgiving donkey.
DisregardLogan@reddit
Not my opinion, but a lot of people dislike Cessnas.
hat_eater@reddit (OP)
I must admit that I've never considered them from this angle, I mean the 152/172/182. They're like potatoes.
pachycephalofan@reddit
the pterodactyl looks beautiful
hat_eater@reddit (OP)
Which one? Not the Mark V I hope? As for the others - the lines, yes, but they are marred by all the bits and bobs affixed to them.
datbino@reddit
Ov10 bronco
enigmaunbound@reddit
A while back there were several for sale as a lot. They were donated to Indiana and they. Sold off. My wife wasn't on board with me having my own air force.
angelsandbuttwaves@reddit
The OV-10 Bronco is far from an ugly aircraft IMO
Different? Yes. But not ugly.
datbino@reddit
We think it’s beautiful- but it’s objectively ugly by almost any measure. I love it though
Dangerous-Salad-bowl@reddit
PZL M-15 Belphegor
hat_eater@reddit (OP)
I don't think it was a pleasure to fly, rather the opposite (in Polish):
Modifications made after the structural strength was too found too low increased weight. The wing loading rose significantly, and with them the stall speed, takeoff and landing roll. So they added efficient flaps, without which it was nearly impossible to take off with any load. The only deadly accident happened when a pilot in the Soviet Union forgot to extend the flaps before takeoff and crashed. The engine mounted above the cockpit broke out and crushed it.
An all-around clusterfuck.
jlobes@reddit
XF-32
hat_eater@reddit (OP)
Well, it does look like someone put a decent plane on a coal chute.