[HN Gopher] The Ugliest Airplane: An Appreciation
___________________________________________________________________
The Ugliest Airplane: An Appreciation
Author : randycupertino
Score : 111 points
Date : 2026-03-18 16:52 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.smithsonianmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.smithsonianmag.com)
| ziofill wrote:
| It looks kinda cute if you ask me
| m463 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transavia_PL-12_Airtruk
|
| aussie plane makes me think of the aussie flyer in the road
| warrior. (not even the same, but spiritually)
| pimlottc wrote:
| This is mentioned in the article:
|
| > 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.
| m463 wrote:
| I was referring to the copter pilot in the road warrior, same
| scrappy tininess.
|
| beyond thunderdome was the next in the series.
| pimlottc wrote:
| Ah, I was getting my bodged-up post-apocalyptic Aussie
| aerial transports mixed up
| chasil wrote:
| "He started with a large, steel, barrel-shaped tank and began
| adding."
|
| I thought everybody used aluminum?
| macintux wrote:
| That was a prototype.
|
| Update: I guess the final design also used steel.
|
| > The pilot is above both the engine and the load, and is
| surrounded by a steel tube truss for maximum safety.
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| It was designed to carry to operate from very rough "airstrips"
| which is a very optimistic term for "a paddock that the farmer
| hopefully mowed recently and if you're lucky, they also removed
| most of the bigger stones".
|
| I also imagine in the postwar WW2 antipodes, steel was a lot
| easier and cheaper to access, as well as work.
| stackghost wrote:
| Steel alloys have better fatigue properties than aluminum. Many
| of us in aerospace would happily use a corrosion-resistant
| steel if not for the weight.
| pfdietz wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_limit
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| ...can I still get one?
| mastax wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_M-15_Belphegor
|
| The M-15 is still uglier. Also intended as a cropduster, though
| unlike the AirTruk it was really bad at that job in every way.
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| I'll raise you the Blackburn B-54 [0] and the Fairey Gannet
| [1].
|
| 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_B-54
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Gannet
| fwipsy wrote:
| The fairy gannet looks like two smaller airplanes clipping
| into each other. It looks like an AI from ten years ago
| generated an image of an airplane. It looks like they hired
| engineers who got their degrees in Kerbal Space Program and
| then paid them by the hour. "Even if it's broke, it doesn't
| have enough features yet."
|
| The Belphegor is still uglier though.
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| Now that I googled more pictures of it, I agree, the one in
| Wikipedia is obviously it's most flattering angle, looks
| almost... Rutanesque.
|
| This photo though, I see what you mean.
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/z3envi/the_pzl_m
| 1...
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Gannet_AEW.3
|
| The AEW version looks ok
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| Yeah they improved it on the AEW, looks far less bubonic.
| taylorius wrote:
| And I shall raise you the Stipa Caproni
|
| https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/05/13/the-strange-
| barrel...
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| I think this one is winning the inverse beauty contest.
|
| It looks like it really wants to scoop up a large amount of
| plankton mid-cruise.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| See also the Caproni Transaero, which isn't totally ugly
| but is messy in a "maybe more wings is better? some pushing
| engines at the back?" kind of way.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.60
| cf100clunk wrote:
| > pushing engines at the back
|
| Weird aircraft with a pusher engine? Curtiss-Wright XP-55
| Ascender, right this way:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss-
| Wright_XP-55_Ascender
|
| (and check out the list of similar aircraft)
| jodrellblank wrote:
| Fairey who also came up with the Rotodyne, a cool part-plane,
| part-helipcoter, part-autogyro:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Rotodyne
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkJOm1V77Xg - video by
| 'Mustard'
| somat wrote:
| here is a great video documentary on the m-15
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlyO9cJ8hiQ (Alexander the ok:
| PZL Mielec M-15: One of the Aircraft of All Time)
| dylan604 wrote:
| That image made me smile. Yeah, it would be bad at being a
| plane with poles attached to it like that. I'll see myself out
| now
| spankibalt wrote:
| You are off your rocker dude; the Belphegor is weird, but
| certainly not ugly. You want certified ugly? You'll find it
| under the synonym DFW T.28 _Floh_.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DFW_Floh
| postepowanieadm wrote:
| Looks like a sun fish.
| chuckadams wrote:
| I dunno about ugly, I'd call it a "Chibi Biplane".
| RealityVoid wrote:
| I have a lot of fondness for the AN-2 that this airplane aimed
| to replace.
|
| That is, as well, an ugly plane, but once I parachuted out of
| one a couple of times, it grew on me.
| postepowanieadm wrote:
| I don't know, it's kinda slick looking - if you ignore the
| pylons.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| I was half expecting to see the SNECMA C-450 'Coleoptere' in
| the article, with its office-tea-trolley wheels:
|
| https://altitudepost.com/the-plane-without-wings-what-happen...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleopter
| userbinator wrote:
| Did anyone else think the first photo was AI-generated at first,
| due to how unusual it looked?
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| I was lucky enough as a young child to see one of these working a
| high country farm - it was operating off a sloped runway and I
| was convinced it was going to crash as it landed uphill, then
| convinced it was going to crash after it took off after reloading
| due to how slowly it climbed - I can't find a definitive number,
| but I vaguely recall it had a take off speed that lurked around
| 50kt...
|
| On the subject of top-dressers... ...I was privileged to see a
| turboprop equipped Fletcher FU-24 in action a couple of weeks
| ago, those pilots are very darn good at flying very low in hill
| country. Very loud and notable engine sound.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher_FU-24
| hawtads wrote:
| 50 knots rotation is perfectly fine for a plane that size. A
| Cessna Skyhawk is certified to rotate at 55 knots fully loaded
| (and since the stall speed is around 40knots, for specialty
| take-offs like soft fields it's much lower, 50knots is more
| than enough).
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| The part where it's carrying about a metric ton of phosphate
| while still being able to take off at that speed is really
| blows my mind.
| hawtads wrote:
| Well, hope they reinforced the wings, that's a massive weak
| point for dusters.
| pfdietz wrote:
| This plane appears to be a (the?) leading crop duster
| today. It carries over 4 tons of payload.
|
| https://airtractor.com/aircraft/at-802a/
| pfdietz wrote:
| Steve Death does sound like a Mad Max name.
| charles_f wrote:
| > airtruk
|
| You got to love that even its name is utilitarian.
|
| This is such a cool story. Airplanes seem such a complex,
| standardized, full of red tape and elitist thing that such
| stories of hackers starting to pull random beams together and you
| get a thing that flies are pretty inspiring... And yet it also
| sound quite well thought. As usual, there is more than meets the
| eye
| dylan604 wrote:
| > Airplanes seem such a complex, standardized, full of red tape
| and elitist thing that such stories of hackers starting to pull
| random beams together and you get a thing that flies are pretty
| inspiring...
|
| As a kid, I was introduced to the concept of ultralight[0]
| aircraft when me and a couple of friends stumbled upon a wreck
| of one in a field. Our parents realized it had to have come
| from the local place a few miles away. If your aircraft
| qualifies as ultralight, you do not need a license to fly it. A
| family friend of my parents had one that he'd roll out to the
| street, attach the wings, and take off, and then land back on
| the street, remove the wings, and roll it back into his garage.
|
| These things were essentially go-karts with wings.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aviation
| fer wrote:
| The red tape and standarization is only proportional to the
| liability, making things fly isn't all that hard.
|
| One thing my son has always been obsessed with was planes. We
| started with paper planes, mainly the classic squarey one I
| learnt in school that has good balance of speed/airtime and
| tolerance to launching speeds and angles.
|
| But he got bored and wanted more. We got deep in the rabbit
| hole of purely paper folding planes (and rockets), with regular
| visits to Ojimak[0] for more ambitious projects (they're 3D,
| glued, yet actually flying paper models).
|
| Our latest endeavours involve keeping large Amazon delivery
| boxes to later take measurements, calculate weight balance, and
| creating airfoils by stacking several layers of cardboard in a
| tapered way to make gliders to throw outside (over 1m
| wingspan!).
|
| In one of our walks we saw a man trying to put order in his
| garage; it was literally overflowing with home made RC planes,
| some were copies of standard designs, some quite unorthodox and
| some just plain head-scratching weird. We talked for a bit, he
| didn't even have technical background, and I was sold.
| Obviously it gets more expensive in terms of time and money,
| but I can't wait for my son to be old enough to dedicate time
| together in this direction.
|
| [0] https://ojimak01.ehoh.net/hanger.html
| brainlessdev wrote:
| As a kid in the 90s I discovered indoor free flight(1). It's
| a hobby where you build flying machines with balsa wood and
| carburator paper, and you power them with elastic bands using
| an old clock mechanism. Then people compete to see which
| airplane flights for the longest time, some flying for over
| 30 minutes!
|
| This was magical to me. My "mentor" was able to build tiny
| butterfly-like contraptions with four flapping wings, and
| many other flying machines of different kinds.
|
| Maybe this is interesting to your family as well!
|
| (1) https://indoorfreeflight.com/
| fer wrote:
| Oh thanks! We've made small gliders and those butterflies
| with rubber bands, but I never thought that mode of
| operation went that far. It makes sense to use something
| that requires higher torque like clock mechanism to limit
| the speed of the blades/wings, the basic builds don't fly
| that well or for long precisely because the faster you spin
| (more twists) the less effective the angle of attack is,
| with gliders you need a somewhat precise alignment in terms
| of twists+launching speed in order for them to fly just ok!
| stackghost wrote:
| I actually think the Super Guppy[0] is the ugliest, hotly
| contested by the Optica[1]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Spacelines_Super_Guppy
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgley_Optica
| perilunar wrote:
| The Guppy is very ugly, but I think the Optica is quite nice --
| the large duct is a bit ugly, but the rest of it has good lines
| spockz wrote:
| I also like the Optica! It somehow has a lot of space vibes
| from Freelancer and FireFly. Shame of the large toy like duct
| indeed. But I suspect it works!
| Sharlin wrote:
| The cockpit projects from the ducted fan?! That's certainly a
| design.
| taspeotis wrote:
| (2021)
| thumbsup-_- wrote:
| I like it
| recursivecaveat wrote:
| From all the examples in the comments, I'm learning that the most
| reliable way to make an extremely ugly aircraft is a stubby look
| where the body is tall and the rear half seems to just end early.
| projektfu wrote:
| If you invert what people's expectations are for aircraft,
| you'll get a lot of detractors.
|
| Some like the Long-EZ, some see a face only a mother could
| love.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Long-EZ
| burnt-resistor wrote:
| 9 fatalities in 88 incidents from 1967-2010 of 138 built
| 1966-1993.
|
| It's possible some are still intact and maybe a couple are still
| flyable. The only recent evidence any maybe still intact is a
| 2017 photo of ZK-CVB on static museum display at MOTAT NZ.
|
| https://aviation-safety.net/asndb/type/PL12
|
| https://www.airhistory.net/photo/896371/ZK-CVB
| WalterBright wrote:
| > agricultural airplanes don't make money when they are on the
| ground
|
| Neither do any other airplane types. Airliners, for example, are
| designed to minimize the need for maintenance and the fastest
| turnaround, because an airliner loses money at a prodigious rate
| when it sits on the ground.
| WalterBright wrote:
| We doan need no steenkin' fuselage!
| mrDmrTmrJ wrote:
| Best part is no part
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-21 23:01 UTC)