[HN Gopher] The Ugliest Airplane: An Appreciation of the Transav...
___________________________________________________________________
The Ugliest Airplane: An Appreciation of the Transavia AirTruk
Author : areoform
Score : 124 points
Date : 2024-01-09 17:31 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.smithsonianmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.smithsonianmag.com)
| OldGuyInTheClub wrote:
| I think it has friendly competition from the Carvair:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_Traders_Carvair
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJcXJG9LRhI
| ceejayoz wrote:
| And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipa-Caproni.
|
| Airbus Beluga, perhaps, as well?
| araes wrote:
| Thanks, worked in aerospace for years, and that's still one
| of the neatest plane designs I've seen in a long time. How
| many ducted tube airplanes do you ever see?
| b3orn wrote:
| Was watching Goldfinger a few weeks ago and had to think of
| this plane when I saw the title. The Fiat Multipla of
| airplanes.
| gluecode wrote:
| Don't forget the Handley Page Victor:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor
| OldGuyInTheClub wrote:
| I think the Victor still looks futuristic, menacing, and
| strangely beautiful. A Buck Rogers fantasy brought to life.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The head-on view is particularly badass. https://en.wikipedia
| .org/wiki/File:Handley_Page_HP-80_Victor...
| nocoiner wrote:
| I agree. It's ungainly for sure, but I wouldn't call it ugly.
|
| Besides, if I were going to pick a British warplane
| originating from that era as the ugliest, I'd have to go with
| the Nimrod.
| cf100clunk wrote:
| I agree about the distasteful look of the Nimrod. As for
| the Victor: ''Thunderbirds are go!''
| dwd wrote:
| AEW3 variant I would agree, the original was a sleek
| conversion the dH Comet. Pretty nice design for a plane
| that first flew in the 40s!
|
| The Victor was also a sleek futuristic design and the every
| bit as impressive as the Vulcan.
|
| Never a fan of the Gloster Javalin; something was always
| off in the proportions as well as just looking chunky.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| One of the most beautiful planes ever built IMHO (in how
| futuristic it still looks) :)
| anigbrowl wrote:
| What are you talking about, that's one of the most beautiful
| planes ever built.
| junon wrote:
| This is beautiful, it's very futuristic looking.
| AugieDB wrote:
| Looks like something Launchpad McQuack would fly. Actually, it
| kind of looks like Launchpad....
| ramesh31 wrote:
| Eye the beholder I guess. The beauty of airplanes is that they
| fly the way they look, and this thing gives off serious AN-2
| vibes. Makes perfect sense for Australia, where there's a huge
| need for cheap air trucks with STOL capability in the outback.
| Biplanes are still a good choice for that to this day, based on
| all the old Antonovs still in service.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| I've seen worse. In particular I recently watched a (long!) video
| about French interwar bombers. Some of them sure had...
| interesting designs. Also on topic for HN, the video talks about
| the politics, conflict, and general folly involved in their
| specification. https://youtu.be/gWzmNw5Mu_w?si=81QvU0L7_vlv7Hcn
|
| I gotta say, the plane in the article above is pretty cute by
| comparison.
| sampli wrote:
| McDonnell XF-85 Goblin
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin
| Solvency wrote:
| Not ugly. Cute. Looks like a Pixar movie plane.
| xoxxala wrote:
| It's a chibi jet. Definitely cute.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I'll see your AirTruk and raise you a Super Guppy.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Spacelines_Super_Guppy
| einpoklum wrote:
| This has evolved into the Airbus Beluga and BelugaXL:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_BelugaXL
|
| double the payload of a SuperGuppy, and 4 meters higher; but
| I'm not sure about the exact cargo bay dimensions.
| racked wrote:
| Looks like something out of Alien
| davely wrote:
| As a plane nerd my entire life, I have to say that in my humble
| opinion, there is no such thing as an ugly airplane.
|
| And then I clicked through the link. Oh, wow.
| rowyourboat wrote:
| My top spot for ugliest airplane remains occupied by the PZL M-15
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_M-15_Belphegor
|
| A turbine-engined biplane for crop dusting.
| romwell wrote:
| Came to this thread to mention Belphagor.
|
| Saw the beast in person in Krakow. Was inspired enough to
| dedicate a poem to it: O the forgotten craft
| of yore! To darkest arts I turn once more. With
| new and oldest runes combined, I'll birth the only of
| its kind: Four-winged beast from depth of hell
| By breath of fire be propel'd! The cyclops eye, rise in
| my field! With venom be your biceps filled!
| From skies you'll pour death and gore-- I summon thee,
| o BELPHEGOR! ...Thus quoth der Polen:
|
| Nevermore .
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Or most inter war french bombers. God, they were ugly.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAB_AB-20#/media/File:A.B.20.p...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farman_F.220
| shermantanktop wrote:
| GeeBee Model R:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granville_Gee_Bee_Model_R_Supe...
|
| For when the pilot wants to be within two feet of the rudder, and
| as far away from the monster engine as possible in a 17 foot
| plane.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| The Gee Bee isn't ugly, its cartoonish.
| einpoklum wrote:
| His hangar poodle is named FoPaw ! Puntastic.
| greedo wrote:
| Of Mad Max fame...
| SigmundA wrote:
| First thing I thought of
| wojciii wrote:
| I was also wondering if the was the plane from Mad Max 2.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Sometimes I wonder how aethetics and social norms curtail
| technology adoption and productivity.
|
| For consumers, it's obvious that tech needs to be socially
| acceptable - in fact it's an expected part of the adoption cycle.
| For fun (ok, I'm revealing myself), and to exercise my creativity
| and outside-the-box thinking, sometimes I try to come up with
| norm-violating, harmless, and clearly more productive technology
| people could adopt. (I don't mean provactive norm-violating, like
| something dangerous or overtly sexual, just geeky or otherwise.)
| Simple ones are walking around town with an umbrella hat, a
| headlamp, a camelback, etc.
|
| But to the point of this discussion, for business / military I
| wonder how much ugliness plays a factor. If a 5% more effective
| fighter plane was clashing shades of horrible colors (for camo)
| and had a laughably ugly form, would it be used? What if the
| pilot mounted/dismounted in a ridiculous position, maybe upside
| down? Otherwise, people are dying and wars are being lost for
| aesthetics. What about 20% more effective? Where is the line? And
| what about the space program: how much extra risk is taken for
| dignity under current social norms?
| cf100clunk wrote:
| Industrial designers can create amazing prototypes, but when a
| product is shipped it becomes subject to some very cruel market
| forces. The Nokia N-gage had huge potential, but was quickly
| lambasted as the ''taco phone'' due to layout decisions that
| broke common mobile phone paradigms.
|
| > had a laughably ugly form, would it be used?
|
| The Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk is the perfect example. Love it or
| hate it, the aesthetics of that aircraft are far from
| ''normal''.
| bell-cot wrote:
| For an airplane designed for _farmers_ , I'll guess that "ugly
| but functional" is fine. Beauty wasn't a serious consideration
| for their other agricultural equipment, or barns, or silos, or
| ...
| Someone wrote:
| ...the Citroen 2CV.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citroen_2CV#Pre-production:
|
| _"In 1934, family-owned Michelin, as the largest creditor,
| took over the bankrupt Citroen company. The new management
| commissioned a market survey, conducted by Jacques Duclos.
| France at that time had a large rural population which could
| not yet afford cars; Citroen used the survey results to
| prepare a design brief for a low-priced, rugged "umbrella on
| four wheels" that would enable four people to transport 50 kg
| (110 lb) of farm goods to market at 50 km/h (30 mph), if
| necessary across muddy, unpaved roads. In fuel economy, the
| car would use no more than 3 L/100 km (95 mpg-imp; 80 mpg-
| US). One design parameter required that customers be able to
| transport eggs across a freshly ploughed field without
| breakage."_
| bell-cot wrote:
| I like the look of it. But I also like the look of the
| AirTruk, so ...
| themaninthedark wrote:
| She thinks my tractor's sexy
| N19PEDL2 wrote:
| In my opinion, aesthetics is an important factor when a product
| has to appeal to the general public: people want to use
| products that look good and can be shown to other people
| without embarrassment.
|
| On the other hand, if the product is aimed at a specific sector
| (e.g., military or space), the choice is dictated only by
| criteria such as adherence to requirements and cost. In this
| case, those who choose and select products are usually
| accountable for their choices, and aesthetics is not an
| objective criterion that can be used to justify the choice.
| Gare wrote:
| Well, SpaceX kinda runs contrary to that. And who's to say
| they're wrong? Sexy rockets bring interest and make engineers
| proud.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Usually with a weird design, the problem is that weird often
| means uncommon, limited-supplier parts, which are more of a
| cost driver than just looking weird.
|
| It is cheap and easy to go down the well-trodden path.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > On the other hand, if the product is aimed at a specific
| sector (e.g., military or space), the choice is dictated only
| by criteria such as adherence to requirements and cost.
|
| I think that's the ideal, but greatly underestimates the
| human factor in practice. People are biased by aesthetics.
| And also nobody wants to be a laughing-stock, presenting the
| comical option to the team, management, board, etc. For
| government, nobody wants to have themselves all over the
| media and social media next to the absurdly comical thing
| they are presenting.
| CWuestefeld wrote:
| This seems parallel to the discussion of how NBA players shoot
| foul shots. From what I've read, experiments show that basket
| percentage is measurably higher if you shoot with the underhand
| "granny shot", compared to the conventional way of shooting.
|
| Why, then, don't we see players shooting this way? You'd think
| that the coaches would tell players to do this to help the
| team, and that they'd want to, to boost their own stats. But it
| seems like doing so seems un-cool enough that it conflicts with
| other priorities about building their individual "brands".
|
| _edit: learn to spell "basket"_
| kleton wrote:
| Possibly the additional time investment required to master
| two different throws vs learning a specialized throw for foul
| shots.
| vanderZwan wrote:
| > _experiments show that basked percentage is measurably
| higher if you shoot with the underhand "granny shot"_
|
| There is also the Dutch sport "korfbal" (which literally
| translates to basketball, funny enough) where the baskets are
| higher, smaller and have no board, and you are not allowed to
| shoot if blocked anyway. Everyone shoots with two hands, and
| the equivalent of the lay-up is even sort-of done
| underhandedly.
|
| Speaking of social norms and not wanting to look "uncool",
| korfbal is often talked about as a very dorky sport, even
| though it is fairly popular in the Netherlands. Most commonly
| by men who insist real men play football (soccer for the
| Americans). Speaking as a man who really enjoyed korfbal
| growing up, I suspect this is mainly because it's a unisex
| team-sport.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korfball
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUtJB5jBOis
| nemo44x wrote:
| Most guys that golf shouldn't use a driver and should carry a
| 7-wood instead. But they hit driver because not hitting
| driver (even though they get measurably worse results than if
| they hit anything else) is worse than hitting it into the
| woods in the eyes of many. Pride matters!
| Baeocystin wrote:
| Not knowing much about golf, what's the difference between
| the two?
| nemo44x wrote:
| A driver is the club you use when you want to get the
| most distance (in theory) when you tee off. It has the
| least amount of loft (10 desgree is common) on the club
| and has the longest shaft (35" is common) so you can
| swing it fast and the ball should go far. However, it's
| precisely because of these features that it's difficult
| to hit for many players. So they end up hitting their tee
| shot crooked or make poor contact (they don't hit the
| ball in the middle of the club) and lose considerable
| distance and accuracy.
|
| Other clubs, like a 3 wood (14 degrees) or a 5 wood (18
| degrees) or a 7 wood (22 degrees) sacrifice distance but
| you are more likely to make good contact off the tee
| (because of a shorter shaft and more loft on the face)
| which results in a ball that's more likely to be in a
| playable spot, but not as far down the hole as a
| perfectly hit driver. But they give you more tolerance
| for a not perfectly well struck ball. They are more
| "forgiving".
|
| Think of golf clubs this way - each one a golfer may
| carry is a tool designed to give the player an advantage
| when doing a certain thing. Some clubs are designed to
| put a lot of spin on the ball and go a shorter distance
| because that would be ideal for that kind of shot the
| club is made for. The driver is a tool designed to hit
| the ball as far as you can. But if you can't utilize the
| tool and benefit from the advantages it gives you, it's
| not so useful.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Rick Barry, who played decades ago, shot fouls underhand, but
| that's the only person I know of.
|
| Professional sports are entertainment. If on-court
| productivity conflicts with entertainment, the latter is the
| priority.
| cf100clunk wrote:
| The Curious Case Of Wilt Chamberlain's Free Throws:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8fn1IaTMQM
| mc32 wrote:
| I had to look it up, apparently Wilt Chamberlain shot
| underhanded one year and gave up because he said he looked
| like a sissy doing it. The Shaq said he'd rather shoo 0% than
| use the granny shot... so there is some norm governing what
| shot you use.
|
| Shaq might not be humble, but he's got a great attitude, once
| asked how is game was, he said, he was retired and hadn't
| shot a ball in years. That's awesome. Many players can't let
| go.
| RajT88 wrote:
| > But it seems like doing so seems un-cool enough that it
| conflicts with other priorities
|
| For example: Viewers and butts in seats.
|
| These are arguably higher priorities than winning games and
| are ostensibly correlated, but not the same thing.
| no_wizard wrote:
| Reminds me of how the Pontiac Aztek did very poorly in
| reviews and sales, but became very popular on the used car
| market because of _Breaking Bad_ [0] in the early to mid
| 2010s.
|
| [0]: https://www.inverse.com/article/6092-kids-are-buying-up-
| pont...
| winphone1974 wrote:
| This is not a great example. It's based on essentially one
| player, Rick Barry, who shot underhand at a high percentage.
| There are no bad underhand foul shooters, which I find
| suspicious, Yet I can cherry pick very tall, very good foul
| shooters like Kevin Durant. Larry Bird and Jeff hornacek
| never struck me as particularly concerned with looking cool
| either.
| breischl wrote:
| > clashing shades of horrible colors (for camo)
|
| They tried something similar for ships and a few planes. I
| think it wasn't very effective as camouflage though, and was
| more intended to confuse the distance & direction of travel.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage
|
| > had a laughably ugly form
|
| The B-52 was called the "Big Ugly Fat F". The A-10 was called
| the "Warthog". Both considered ugly but effective.
|
| That said, there probably is some effect, it's just hard to
| measure.
| winnit wrote:
| I once visited an army surplus store which stocked a kind of
| string vest which looked like a fish-net but with thicker
| cords. The proprietor claimed it was developed by the Swedish
| military for its effectiveness in hot weather but didn't become
| popular because of pushback from soldiers who didn't want to
| wear it because it looked kind of gimpy.
| zizee wrote:
| People have suggested that the X32 was not chosen by the air
| force (instead of the chosen F22) because of ugliness.
|
| Note: I don't know if this is true or not, and I don't know the
| performance capabilities of each aircraft.
|
| https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/meet-2-stealth-fighte...
| throwup238 wrote:
| The X32 lost to the X35 (which became F35), not the F22
| Raptor.
|
| The X32 performed worse in range/payload capacity, Boeing had
| lots of difficulties developing STOVL on the platform, the
| delta wing design was less efficient, and Lockheed was still
| riding high on its success with the F22 program (which no one
| has really bothered competing with decades later) so it's
| unlikely that aesthetics were the deciding factor.
| bloopernova wrote:
| Slight nitpick:
|
| The X32 competed with the now-F35.
|
| The YF23 lost to the F22.
|
| I still think the YF23 is utterly gorgeous and I wish it had
| been put into service.
|
| EDIT: beaten to the comment by 3 minutes. Oh my poor pedantic
| soul.
| iamthirsty wrote:
| > I still think the YF23 is utterly gorgeous and I wish it
| had been put into service.
|
| It is, but so is the F-22 and because it was a one or the
| other choice, I personally like the direction they went.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| We bought $30 Million worth of camouflage for military
| contractors in Afghanistan because some Afghan defense minister
| thought the pattern looked cool, despite providing no
| camouflage capabilities in that environment.
|
| https://www.foxnews.com/politics/watchdog-pentagon-may-have-...
| morkalork wrote:
| The initial prototypes for the F117 were famously not well
| recieved for how ugly and un-aerodynamic looking they were.
| grotorea wrote:
| I can't remember the specific sources but at least for the
| military the things that violate social normals and aren't done
| do happen, although it's usually something more political than
| aesthetics. But then that runs the risk of having that military
| force outcompeted and defeated.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > Sometimes I wonder how aethetics and social norms curtail
| technology adoption and productivity.
|
| I don't know about that but aesthetics isn't just something
| humans pay attention to. Many females in the animal kingdom
| prefer to mate with the males we, humans, also find the most
| beautiful.
|
| For example birds of paradise: females picks the males we
| humans find to be the most harmonious.
|
| Why do most find the plane in TFA fucking ugly? I don't know
| but I do certainly also find it ugly.
|
| But what I do know is I don't want to be imposed ugly in my
| life and I don't want to impose ugly on others.
|
| I'm siding with the birds of paradise on that one...
| rwky wrote:
| >Simple ones are walking around town with an umbrella hat, a
| headlamp, a camelback, etc.
|
| I've done the camelback a few times, seems perfectly normal to
| me ;)
| lmm wrote:
| > But to the point of this discussion, for business / military
| I wonder how much ugliness plays a factor. If a 5% more
| effective fighter plane was clashing shades of horrible colors
| (for camo) and had a laughably ugly form, would it be used?
| What if the pilot mounted/dismounted in a ridiculous position,
| maybe upside down? Otherwise, people are dying and wars are
| being lost for aesthetics. What about 20% more effective? Where
| is the line?
|
| Military transport planes have rear-facing seats, which are
| known to be safer. The only reason airlines don't do the same
| is that passengers wouldn't be happy.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > rear-facing seats, which are known to be safer
|
| There's some constraints on that. A full passenger jet isn't
| the same thing as a military transport plane. For example,
| things coming loose which would hit seatbacks now hit people.
|
| It's also important, IMO, to note that "passengers wouldn't
| be happy" is a slight underestimate. The number of people
| barfing from motion sickness would go up pretty dramatically,
| for one. Even the people not barfing aren't going to like
| that.
|
| And then of course there's the problem of frequency.
| Passenger plane crashes are rare enough now that squeezing
| out the last little bit of safety by causing serious
| discomfort and other headaches is probably not a good trade-
| off.
| winphone1974 wrote:
| The warthog is a pretty ugly plane IMO, yet well loved and
| highly productive, so function seems to have won.
| cf100clunk wrote:
| The Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender (pejoritavely nicknamed the
| Ass-Ender) was so laden with quick fixes to its aerodynamic
| quirks that it looked terribly offensive to me:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss-Wright_XP-55_Ascender
|
| It was a precursor to engine-in-fuselage jet aircraft design, but
| it sure was not a ''clean'' aircraft. The Vultee XP-54 and
| Northrop XP-56 prototypes of the same era (referenced in the
| Wikipedia article) are equally bizarre-looking.
| verandaguy wrote:
| I'd bet money that this was used as an inspiration for the
| planes from Crimson Skies. Some of the most iconic ones from
| that game were all WW2/art-deco-styled canard designs with
| pusher props.
|
| Honestly, it's kind of a look.
| cf100clunk wrote:
| I think you are right about the influence. It seems the
| Ascender showed up in Combat Flight Simulator 3:
|
| https://combat-flight-
| simulator-3.fandom.com/wiki/Curtiss_P-...
| gtroja wrote:
| I thought the same thing! (love de pc game, the
| "BattleStations, BattleStations, all crews to BattleStations"
| never leaves my mind)
| Josteniok wrote:
| I really never liked the Boeing X-32
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32). That big square
| intake and tiny wings just looks ridiculous.
| SushiHippie wrote:
| Wait until they see the AD Scout
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AD_Scout
| snakeyjake wrote:
| Even better than the article are all of the fantastically ugly
| airplanes everyone is linking to!
| hex4def6 wrote:
| I'll throw my hat in the ring:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_AD-1
| heyflyguy wrote:
| Anything designed by Burt Rutan is worth stopping to take a
| look at
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| Was this actually designed by Burt Rutan, though? His factory
| "provided the detailed design and load analysis" according to
| Wikipedia, but that statement doesn't have a citation. It
| could have been Robert T. Jones who designed it, or maybe it
| was designed by committee by NASA.
| OldGuyInTheClub wrote:
| Mustard's latest video is on this.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_dNt4UEVZQ
| thereddaikon wrote:
| IMO the ugliest aircraft is the Blackburn Blackburn
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Blackburn
|
| Ridiculous name, even more ridiculous looks.
| cubefox wrote:
| The narrow cabin looks like Disney:
|
| https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/mt/culture_test/planesbann...
| joshstrange wrote:
| > But the airplane never became popular--although it became
| briefly famous when a heavily made-up example starred in 1985's
| Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome
|
| Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk-vHw-mstI
| quercusa wrote:
| If you are in these comments, you need to plan a trip to the USAF
| Museum in Dayton, Ohio. It's amazing.
| lkramer wrote:
| If you're in the UK the best equivalent I know of is Duxford:
| https://www.iwm.org.uk/visits/iwm-duxford
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| There was a truly excellent museum at Newquay Airport called
| the Cornwall Aviation Heritage Centre. It had a number of
| rare British aircraft - just to name a few:
|
| - a Vickers Super VC10 airliner in flying condition[1], one
| of only 22 built and one of the even fewer number that
| underwent a successful conversion to military in-flight
| refuelling service
|
| - a BAC 1-11 airliner, the last in flying condition, I
| believe
|
| - a English Electric Lightning supersonic interceptor
|
| In 2022, the museum's lease was terminated by the Cornwall
| County Council with eight months' notice. When the museum
| found a private donor and proposed to move all the aircraft
| to a nearby site (which belonged to a local businessman who
| wanted to support the effort), that same Council cancelled
| one of their meetings. The meeting was supposed to have been
| to arrange temporary storage for the exhibits during
| construction of the new museum site. This gave the museum one
| week to move or destroy the aircraft. Some of the airframes
| were returned to the armed forces (who have historic
| collections of their own, for instance at Yeovilton).
|
| The Super VC10 was disassembled; a few metres of the plane's
| front section were moved to the RAF base at St. Athan. The
| BAC 1-11 had a similar end, with the forward fuselage moved
| to one day be turned into a cafe in Southampton to support a
| local aviation museum.
|
| [1]: When I visited the museum, I was asked not to touch any
| of the VC10's engine controls, because, as the volunteer
| explained at the time, it still had some fuel in the tanks!
| Groxx wrote:
| Wow! That _instantly_ hit the "wtf is that, that's _weird!_ "
| buttons for me.
|
| I'm somewhere between "it's amazing how something can be
| universally ugly" and "that's really cool, I wonder if anyone's
| making more of them". An interesting feeling.
| pugworthy wrote:
| I'm sorry, but I think it's pretty neat and cute! Ugly is in the
| eye of the beholder.
|
| I would however put it in the, "Are you sure this isn't
| Photoshopped?" category of planes.
| onewheeltom wrote:
| Probably safer than a 737 Max
| nerdponx wrote:
| Is it just me or is that thing actually kind of cute?
| GuB-42 wrote:
| To add to the list of (subjectively) ugly airplanes. Here is the
| French Pou-du-ciel (literally: louse of the sky) [1]
|
| Besides its unusual shape, it is also what would be called "open
| source" today. The blueprints are freely available [2]. It is a
| popular home-built airplane, even today, 90 years later. It has
| created quite a community has seen several improvements over the
| years. It is now one of the safest and easiest light airplanes.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mignet_Pou-du-Ciel
|
| [2] http://avions.mignet.free.fr/spdlr.php
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-09 23:00 UTC)