PDA

View Full Version : Ugliest WW2 fighter



b2spirita
07-14-2008, 12:26 PM
No doubt this has been done before, but heres my entry for ugliest fighter, the Miles Mb35/39.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Miles_M.39b.jpg


Aimed at being a naval fighter, this was a scaled down version of the same companys bomber prototype, and was constucted in just 6 weeks. It must have been seriously underpowered, even for a test aircraft, with one 130hp engine.


Whats your ugliest fighter. Not just spit ir mustang bashing, but truly irredemably ugly?

CUJO_1970
07-14-2008, 01:26 PM
No redeeming aesthetic value to the Morane Saulnier at all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/AARG/images/ms406-2.jpg

Xiolablu3
07-14-2008, 01:32 PM
Ugliest mainstream fighter is the Corsair IMO.

There are all sorts of wierd and wonderful obscure types which are worse however http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The TB3 is pretty ugly.

SOme of the British protoype WW2 fighters are really ugly looking planes. SOmeone had a webpage with a lot of British prototypes and there were some real ugly ducklings in there.

Blom und Voss made some awful looking planes too.

Urufu_Shinjiro
07-14-2008, 01:32 PM
http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/n_o_d/images/airplanes/goblin.jpg

http://www.mightymac.org/zoosac13.jpg

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/McDonnell-F85/dwg.jpg

anarchy52
07-14-2008, 01:42 PM
Grumman Wildcat,
probably many Japanese fighters were lost because their pilots felt the need to look the other way.
http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/faawildcatsba_6.jpg
For prototypes, Curtiss Ascender is a very good candidate for teh ugliest:

http://www.aviationpics.de/prev/curtiss-wright%20xp-55%20ascender%20prototype%20%7Busa%7D.jpg

M2morris
07-14-2008, 01:45 PM
I was gonna try to enter the competition with a photo of a Helldiver, but you win, hands-down with tha one spirita, that is one-ugly plane.
Gawwd, ick, ptu! eww, oh. Blahh.

berg417448
07-14-2008, 01:46 PM
Blackburn Roc.

http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html%20pages/BLA...20B-25%20ROC%20I.htm (http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html%20pages/BLACKBURN%20B-25%20ROC%20I.htm)

idonno
07-14-2008, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Ugliest mainstream fighter is the Corsair IMO.

HOLY COW!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I know you said "IMO", but man, the Corsair is definatley in the running for most beutiful fighter ever!

Nothing personal, but I've got to believe that you are in a very small minority with that opinion. ~S~

Xiolablu3
07-14-2008, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
Blackburn Roc.

http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html%20pages/BLA...20B-25%20ROC%20I.htm (http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html%20pages/BLACKBURN%20B-25%20ROC%20I.htm)


Thats my winner so far, truly awful...

M2morris
07-14-2008, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by idonno:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Ugliest mainstream fighter is the Corsair IMO.

HOLY COW!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I know you said "IMO", but man, the Corsair is definatley in the running for most beutiful fighter ever!

Nothing personal, but I've got to believe that you are in a very small minority with that opinion. ~S~ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Corsair is my favorite plane, but I do consider it half ugly:
Beautiful from the front view, but ugly from the side view.

na85
07-14-2008, 02:01 PM
Henschel 129:

Maybe not THE ugliest, but certainly quite ugly. This one, though, is the good kind of ugly. Just ugly enough that it looks cool.

http://www.europa1939.com/luftwaffe/apoyo/hs129_1.jpg

luftluuver
07-14-2008, 02:06 PM
The early 109s were not beautiful but anything coming out of France takes the prize.

R_Target
07-14-2008, 02:40 PM
Ta-152 is grotesque. Just about anything by Blackburn or Fairey is mind-bogglingly ugly.

Mr_Zooly
07-14-2008, 02:58 PM
beauty is in the eye of the beholder guys.
BTW Shinjiro, WW2 fighter and not sure the goblin (although it is fugly) applies.
I do admit that the......never mind eh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

TinyTim
07-14-2008, 03:03 PM
Not exactly a fighter, but ugliness makes up for that!

Breda Ba65:

http://www.italie1935-45.com/RA/photoscopes/photoscopebreda65/intro.jpg

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/8089/camopreguerra1jl7.jpg

StellarRat
07-14-2008, 03:17 PM
The ME 109 is pretty ugly. I think the Spit is the best looking plane.

Jaws2002
07-14-2008, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by StellarRat:
The ME 109 is pretty ugly. I think the Spit is the best looking plane.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/whatever.gif

DIRTY-MAC
07-14-2008, 03:56 PM
http://aerofiles.com/fisher-p75.jpg

HayateAce
07-14-2008, 04:46 PM
"OVERT YOUR EYES, IT'S THE DORKA!"

This thing looks like a cheesy piece of stretched Microsoft Klipart.
http://www.tullisart.com/images/Black12.jpg

b2spirita
07-14-2008, 04:51 PM
That p75 isnt too bad....

This on the other hand......Republic XP-47h
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Republic_XP-47H.jpg

DIRTY-MAC
07-14-2008, 04:55 PM
Not uglier than this the Porka 38
http://www.kelleycows.com/images/p38.jpg

ICDP
07-14-2008, 05:45 PM
The Spitfire.

Ba5tard5word
07-14-2008, 06:42 PM
oh wait this is fighters, crud, I was going to do the Whitley bomber

http://www.uboat.net/allies/aircraft/photos/whitley2.jpg

zardozid
07-14-2008, 07:34 PM
Its an interesting question...what makes an ugly fighter, and by contrast what is a beautiful fighter?

To understand what I find ugly in a fighter, you must understand how I see beauty in a WW2 aeroplane.

First their are the lines, shapes and curves found in nature...and more specifically shapes that suggest the female form. Lets face it...their are some WW2 fighters that's shape subconsciously remind us of the female body...

Next...their are some shapes & forms that can be found in the composition of some fighter aircraft that remind us of vicious animals like wolfs, sharks and eagles. These fighters are felt to be beautiful because they "look the business"...They feel naturally DANGEROUS, like monsters!

Along a similar line of thinking is a fighter that looks like it was technically designed to be an effective fighting instruments of war...they are beautiful because they look like they where scientifically designed by industry to kill humans...

And last but not least their are some airplanes that look beautiful because they just look like they should "fly fast"...subconsciously they just look & feel fast...

Some fighters can be a combination of any or all of the above classifications...

I have to give this some thought...but my ugliest fighter should look as if it where awkward and slow in flight...it should seem clumsy to fight with...and should appear as if it where designed by a scientist who was "barking up the wrong tree" & perhaps "barking mad" (LOL)...

Perhaps this aircraft...
http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/fot/fot276.jpg

Or this...
http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/polikarpov.jpg
Or this...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Macchi_MC-200_920901-F-1234P-073.jpg/800px-Macchi_MC-200_920901-F-1234P-073.jpg

I don't know if I can pick just one...I must think about this (LOL)...

GBrutus
07-14-2008, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The early 109s were not beautiful but anything coming out of France takes the prize.

+1

HayateAce
07-14-2008, 11:38 PM
http://www.kelleycows.com/images/p38.jpg [/QUOTE]

Thanks B_M, I'd been looking for that photo of the Go-Buggy. Man, what a beautiful aerocraft.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

msalama
07-15-2008, 03:15 AM
B0LLOX I SAY! They're all pretty. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Mercanario
07-15-2008, 05:22 AM
Any enemy fighter on your six is just, plain, UGLY.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
while the most beautiful is the one in your gunsight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Aaron_GT
07-15-2008, 06:11 AM
Aimed at being a naval fighter, this was a scaled down version of the same companys bomber prototype, and was constucted in just 6 weeks. It must have been seriously underpowered, even for a test aircraft, with one 130hp engine.

Er... there are two engines in the picture - two sets of exhausts, etc.

It wasn't aimed at being a naval fighter, AFAIK, but a test bed for the libellula (Dragonfly) con cept and the bomber. Miles did tender some libellula fighter designs though.

Westland tendered some equally wacky delanne concepts (fighters and bombers), with the Lysander with the tail turret being the only one that got build, AFAIK).

That Westland plane must have ranked as one of the ugliest, whilst the Whirly was at the other end of the spectrum!

RegRag1977
07-15-2008, 06:30 AM
To me, radiators are inelegant warts...

Mercanario
07-15-2008, 07:06 AM
the aircraft i fly the most is the I-16, but its definately a S.L.U.F. if there ever is one.

DuxCorvan
07-15-2008, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
Blackburn Roc.

http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html%20pages/BLA...20B-25%20ROC%20I.htm (http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html%20pages/BLACKBURN%20B-25%20ROC%20I.htm)

Thats my winner so far, truly awful... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

But, as said above, in general 'ugly aircraft making', most French stuff from those years -except maybe Dewoitine creatures- was utter awful. Bombers were specially awkward-looking: they looked like tin wardrobes with glass-houses, naked engines and giant wheels all around.

TinyTim
07-15-2008, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
But, as said above, in general 'ugly aircraft making', most French stuff from those years -except maybe Dewoitine creatures- was utter awful. Bombers were specially awkward-looking: they looked like tin wardrobes with glass-houses, naked engines and giant wheels all around.

U describin an already then ancient Amiot 143?

http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/farmer/120/am_143.jpg

http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/farmer/120/amiot.jpg

Urufu_Shinjiro
07-15-2008, 02:06 PM
Holy Moly! That is ugly!

DuxCorvan
07-15-2008, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
But, as said above, in general 'ugly aircraft making', most French stuff from those years -except maybe Dewoitine creatures- was utter awful. Bombers were specially awkward-looking: they looked like tin wardrobes with glass-houses, naked engines and giant wheels all around.

U describin an already then ancient Amiot 143?

http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/farmer/120/am_143.jpg

http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/farmer/120/amiot.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mostly, but Farman F.220 series and Potez 540 series are nor so far...

b2spirita
07-15-2008, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Aimed at being a naval fighter, this was a scaled down version of the same companys bomber prototype, and was constucted in just 6 weeks. It must have been seriously underpowered, even for a test aircraft, with one 130hp engine.

Er... there are two engines in the picture - two sets of exhausts, etc.

It wasn't aimed at being a naval fighter, AFAIK, but a test bed for the libellula (Dragonfly) con cept and the bomber. Miles did tender some libellula fighter designs though.

Westland tendered some equally wacky delanne concepts (fighters and bombers), with the Lysander with the tail turret being the only one that got build, AFAIK).

That Westland plane must have ranked as one of the ugliest, whilst the Whirly was at the other end of the spectrum! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah the pics of the bomber varian but the basic shape is similar, ecepting the engines. With regard to the aim of it, from wiki (im not that bothered about it that im going to do any more research)

'The Miles M.39 was a proposal by Miles to meet Air Minsitry specification B.11/41 for a fast bomber. Miles had already schemed an idea for an aircraft with exceptional forward visibility in the light of losses of carrier-based aircraft during landing. The M.35 was designed and built as a private venture and after proving the idea's validity Miles suggested it as the basis for a naval fighte Miles suggested it as the basis for a naval fighter. Miles felt the idea had a lot of merit and put forward a larger design the M.39 to the Ministry of Aircraft Production.

Edit: I fully agree about the whirly tho, lovely looking plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

joeap
07-16-2008, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:


U describin an already then ancient Amiot 143?

* images removed from mercy*


...from the wiki article.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiot_143)


Upon the start of the Battle of France, the Amiot 143M was used in night attacks on German lines of communications. The most significant action involving the Amiot 143M was a daring daylight raid on German bridgeheads near Sedan took place on May 14, 1940. A force of thirteen planes from GBs I/34, II/34, and II/38 led by Commandant de Laubier encountered German Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters en route. Twelve bombers were destroyed.

Some one still had to fly them...

harryklein66
07-16-2008, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TinyTim:
...from the wiki article.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiot_143)

[QUOTE]Upon the start of the Battle of France, the Amiot 143M was used in night attacks on German lines of communications. The most significant action involving the Amiot 143M was a daring daylight raid on German bridgeheads near Sedan took place on May 14, 1940. A force of <span class="ev_code_RED">20</span> planes from GBs I/34, II/34, <span class="ev_code_RED">I/38</span>, and II/38 led by Commandant de Laubier encountered German Messerschmitt Bf 109 and <span class="ev_code_RED">110</span> fighters en route. <span class="ev_code_RED">2</span> bombers were destroyed.

joeap
07-16-2008, 05:42 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

SeaFireLIV
07-16-2008, 05:45 AM
It`s funny, this talk of `ugly` and `beautiful` in a war context. Normally, in war, ugly is the order of the day. You want to be ugly to galvanise yourself into a mean mode, to scare your enemy and to psychologically win the battle before it even starts. This has and still is the prevailing mentality for war.

Warriors of old often had ugly masks, shields, armour. Tanks and military land vehicles are hardly beautiful, same with battle ships...

Only aircraft tend to be referred a `beautiful`. I guess this must be due to the fact that they need smoother surfaces to fly more effectively.

Of course, the Apache Helicopter has it right, one mean machine and as ugly as sin, like a raging dragon!

squareusr
07-16-2008, 01:49 PM
Only aircraft tend to be referred a `beautiful`. I guess this must be due to the fact that they need smoother surfaces to fly more effectively.

A pilot's life depends on the reliability of his plane even if he never makes contact with the enemy. Therefore, building combat airplanes for uglyness would have a much worse effect on your own soldiers' morale than on that of the enemy. The most desirable effect that the styling of your combat aircraft could have would be fear through envy, not fear though uglyness.

It might be different with ground attack aircraft, whose strongest effect is to create fear amongst those down in the mud. Considering how the looks of typical ground attack planes compare to the looks of fighters one has to congratulate the engineers for mastering psychology as well as technology.

ps: when i hear "ugly fighter" the Hurricane comes to mind first, not because it is extraordinarily ugly itself, but because my mind automatically compares it to a Spit...

na85
07-16-2008, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by squareusr:
...but because my mind automatically compares it to a Spit...

Spits are ugly.

MB_Avro_UK
07-16-2008, 02:28 PM
Hi all,

This aircraft overdosed on ugly pills...bottles of them..the Fairey Barracuda as flown off RN carriers.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v82/MB_Avro/fairey20barracuda.jpg

Imagine this scene. RN Fleet Air Arm pilot in his local pub being chatted up by a floozy. She flutters her eye lashes and asks him in a coy voice, "What plane do you fly?". He says with a sense of dread,"The Fairey Barracuda...".

Floozy drifts away in search of an Amiot 143 pilot.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Uufflakke
07-16-2008, 03:08 PM
And what to think of this ugly bird?

A Blohm und Voss Ha 141

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh195/Uufflakke/BlohmundVossHa141.jpg

DIRTY-MAC
07-16-2008, 03:09 PM
I agree
the barracuda takes the price, its really ugly

Multimetal
07-16-2008, 10:31 PM
As great of a plane as it is, the Beaufighter is pretty homely. That nose tucked behind the engines just looks stunted somehow, although I guess you could say the Me 210 and especially the 410 are its slightly better looking cousins! Also the Hs 129 looks like it has a duck bill.

woofiedog
07-16-2008, 11:26 PM
For a bomber the Vicker's Wildebeest has a place on the list of Ugly.

http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/pictures/jpg/vickers%20vildebeest.jpg

100 Squadron RAF.

On the 5th, 100 Squadron officially took up residence at Seletar, Singapore, where they were to stay for nearly eight years, until the Japanese invasion forces arrived in Thailand in December 1941. As the Japanese pushed south, through the lands now known as Cambodia, so the Allied forces were pushed further south also, but 100 Squadron, along with the other resident squadrons of the area including 36 Squadron, bravely fought to counter the enemy advance. The end was near however, and came on January the 26th, 1942. In the early afternoon of that day, ten 100 Squadron Wildebeests took off for an attack on enemy shipping at Endau, on the eastern side of the penninsula. Despite scoring several direct hits, 100 Squadron suffered terribly, losing six of its planes. However, despite this mauling, a last ditch effort was made later on that day to bring the enemy to a stand. Nine Wildebeest, from both 100 and 36 Squadrons, took off from Singapore. They were met in the air by a number of Japanese Zero aircraft, for whom they were clearly no match. Five Wildebeest failed to return, and 100 Squadron were wiped out.