The Ugliest Airplane: An Appreciation
115 points
17 days ago
| 16 comments
| smithsonianmag.com
| HN
EdwardDiego
14 days ago
[-]
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

reply
pseudohadamard
13 days ago
[-]
I remember seeing AirTruks operating as a kid too, they'd drive the ground truck in between the tail booms and fill it up with fertilizer through a canvas funnel. And some of the airstrips they operated out of were truly hair-raising, more ski jumps carved out of the side of a hill with a D4 than anything else.

For ugly aircraft, look up French pre-WWII military aircraft, things like the Amiot 143 (yes, that's a real aircraft, not an AI hallucination) or almost anything that Farman made, "let's put wings on an aviary!". I think the 143's main defense was that Bf110 pilots would be so distracted either boggling or laughing they'd forget to fire at it.

reply
hawtads
14 days ago
[-]
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).
reply
EdwardDiego
14 days ago
[-]
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.
reply
pfdietz
14 days ago
[-]
This plane appears to be a (the?) leading crop duster today. It carries over 4 tons of payload.

https://airtractor.com/aircraft/at-802a/

reply
wolvoleo
13 days ago
[-]
Yes but that's got a powerful turboprop.
reply
hawtads
14 days ago
[-]
Well, hope they reinforced the wings, that's a massive weak point for dusters.
reply
mastax
14 days ago
[-]
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.

reply
spankibalt
14 days ago
[-]
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

reply
chuckadams
14 days ago
[-]
I dunno about ugly, I'd call it a "Chibi Biplane".
reply
postepowanieadm
14 days ago
[-]
Looks like a sun fish.
reply
somat
14 days ago
[-]
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)

reply
RealityVoid
14 days ago
[-]
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.

reply
EdwardDiego
14 days ago
[-]
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

reply
taylorius
14 days ago
[-]
reply
EdwardDiego
14 days ago
[-]
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.

reply
jodrellblank
14 days ago
[-]
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

reply
cf100clunk
14 days ago
[-]
> 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)

reply
EdwardDiego
12 days ago
[-]
I had a bloody die-cast toy of that as a kid for some reason, I thought it was just a fake plane they'd invented to justify a toy!
reply
jodrellblank
14 days ago
[-]
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'

reply
fwipsy
14 days ago
[-]
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.

reply
EdwardDiego
14 days ago
[-]
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_m1...

reply
NegativeLatency
14 days ago
[-]
reply
pinewurst
13 days ago
[-]
reply
EdwardDiego
12 days ago
[-]
Yeah, bless the Nimrod AEW, WORST RHINOPLASTY EVER.
reply
EdwardDiego
14 days ago
[-]
Yeah they improved it on the AEW, looks far less bubonic.
reply
jodrellblank
14 days ago
[-]
I was half expecting to see the SNECMA C-450 'Coléoptère' in the article, with its office-tea-trolley wheels:

https://altitudepost.com/the-plane-without-wings-what-happen...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleopter

reply
postepowanieadm
14 days ago
[-]
I don't know, it's kinda slick looking - if you ignore the pylons.
reply
dylan604
14 days ago
[-]
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
reply
charles_f
14 days ago
[-]
> 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

reply
dylan604
14 days ago
[-]
> 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

reply
fer
14 days ago
[-]
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

reply
brainlessdev
14 days ago
[-]
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/

reply
fer
14 days ago
[-]
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!
reply
stackghost
14 days ago
[-]
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

reply
perilunar
14 days ago
[-]
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
reply
spockz
14 days ago
[-]
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!
reply
Sharlin
14 days ago
[-]
The cockpit projects from the ducted fan?! That’s certainly a design.
reply
recursivecaveat
14 days ago
[-]
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.
reply
projektfu
14 days ago
[-]
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

reply
burnt-resistor
14 days ago
[-]
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

reply
pfdietz
14 days ago
[-]
Steve Death does sound like a Mad Max name.
reply
ziofill
14 days ago
[-]
It looks kinda cute if you ask me
reply
WalterBright
14 days ago
[-]
> 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.

reply
m463
14 days ago
[-]
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)

reply
pimlottc
14 days ago
[-]
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.

reply
m463
14 days ago
[-]
I was referring to the copter pilot in the road warrior, same scrappy tininess.

beyond thunderdome was the next in the series.

reply
pimlottc
14 days ago
[-]
Ah, I was getting my bodged-up post-apocalyptic Aussie aerial transports mixed up
reply
chasil
14 days ago
[-]
"He started with a large, steel, barrel-shaped tank and began adding."

I thought everybody used aluminum?

reply
EdwardDiego
14 days ago
[-]
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.

reply
stackghost
14 days ago
[-]
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.
reply
pfdietz
14 days ago
[-]
reply
macintux
14 days ago
[-]
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.

reply
userbinator
14 days ago
[-]
Did anyone else think the first photo was AI-generated at first, due to how unusual it looked?
reply
JumpCrisscross
14 days ago
[-]
…can I still get one?
reply
WalterBright
14 days ago
[-]
We doan need no steenkin' fuselage!
reply
mrDmrTmrJ
14 days ago
[-]
Best part is no part
reply
thumbsup-_-
14 days ago
[-]
I like it
reply
taspeotis
14 days ago
[-]
(2021)
reply