Ugliest fighter/bomber

I think this one makes the list, though not fighter or bomber.


Shorts Skyvan


[edit on 17-8-2004 by XPhiles]

When I was young and knew very little about aircraft, like Westpoint (just joking) I used to think that the Short Skyvan was called that because it was short and looked like a van, ah the innocence of youth

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I dont even know what this plane is but it must be one of the ugliest ever

Well now you DO know, and it took some finding!

Most aircraft from the 50's were pretty ugly, but my pick is the Goblin parasite fighter. Ugh.

Goblin Fighter

Originally posted by waynos
You want ugly?

I give you the Leduc 022, laughingly described as a Mach 2 Interceptor

LOOOL ... what is that a flying engine???

Where does the pilot even sit??

[edit on 17-8-2004 by RealisticPatriot]

Im gonna go with a more contemporary choice and put down the Vought A-7




The Corsair was one ugly mess of a plane both in looks and performance.

Originally posted by waynos


Well now you DO know, and it took some finding!

Thanks for the info waynos I dont know how you managed to find it but good job.

You get my way above vote for the month

Warthog image gallery:
www.globalsecurity.org...

You better check older MiGs. (well, 15, 17 and 19 look pretty much same)



Also look at MiG-21:


Well, check all.. especially early Sukhois and Yakolevs
www.globalsecurity.org...

If you liked that Beriev, then check An-72


Swedish Draken looks also fun:







Aircraft nicknames are also worth of reading:
www.csd.uwo.ca...

[edit on 17-8-2004 by E_T]

Originally posted by RealisticPatriot
LOOOL ... what is that a flying engine???

Where does the pilot even sit??

- That my friend, however funny it now looks, is a pretty advanced piece of kit for it's time.

The idea dates from 1929.

It's a ramjet.

The war intervened before tests could be begun and by the time Leduc got to try things out properly what had been very futuristic and advanced was recognised as a dead end going nowhere.

The French cancelled funding in 1957.

BTW the pilot sat in the 'centrebody'.

My choice for absurd and ugly goes to Rockwell's XFV 12A



- pig ugly, grossly complex and over budget to the tune of millions.

How not to out-Harrier the Harrier or let national pride get in the way of just swallowing your pride and ordering Harriers!

Next would have to be the worst plane ever to disgrace the fine Grumman name the XF10F



- ugly, by all accounts horrible to fly, totally unimpressive flying characteristics and no end of trouble from start to merciful finish.

....and lastly for those who think I am incapable of criticising european aircraft project I give you the ugliest aircraft of the lot, the worst ever IMO, for a nation renouned for style these French airoplanes take the biscuit!

Farman's transports and the bomber developments; (barely) flying sheds no less.......




The staggeringly horrible Farman F 121



the Farman 220 bomber. Slow, underpowered gross.



The grotesquely ugly F4X










[edit on 18-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Anyone got any idea what happened to my images?

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Anyone got any idea what happened to my images?

You have to put them in images tags like this

[ img ] url goes here [ /img ]

Without the spaces though.

Thanks a lot guys......the differences between various HTML protocols, eh?

Sorry guys I didn't realise that someone else had posted what the Nazi plane was (Komet) , thats what I get for clicking reply before reading the rest of the thread.

Originally posted by E_T
Warthog image gallery:
You better check older MiGs. (well, 15, 17 and 19 look pretty much same)

- Hey, no way E_T. Are you blind?

The early Mig 19's looked very sweet!

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Hey, no way E_T. Are you blind?

Their fuselage is same kind ugly as hell flying tube/pipe design.

Originally posted by E_T
Their fuselage is same kind ugly as hell flying tube/pipe design.

- No way this is the looker of that 'family', in any case it isn't a simple 'pipe/tube' body like the other single jets this is a twin jet, totally cool.....





[edit on 18-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

I agree, I think the MiG 15, 17, 19 and 21 all look fine, simplicity is not ugliness.

However the Russians have heard of this thread and are making a special effort just for us.

I love the design of the X-32.

As for the A-10 - form over design in my opinion. Anyone have any working links tot he flight manual for the A-10a? www.a10.org (can't remember exact URL) had the manual once upon a time, but at the time I was only interested in teh design not the specs so I only got a wireframe CAD of the systems.
Edited - Spelling

[edit on 23-8-2004 by Ezekial]

DON'T BE DISSING THE OLDER MIGS!! The migs 15 through 19 were very beautiful planes. Same with the Corsair II. The Corsair II did what it was designed to do. It was never designed to be a supersonic interceptor. Thanks to waynos for identifying the Northrop YC-125!!! You surely must have done some digging.