The Ugliest Airplane: An Appreciation (smithsonianmag.com)

by randycupertino 59 comments 115 points
Read article View on HN

59 comments

[−] EdwardDiego 56d 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

[−] pseudohadamard 55d 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.

[−] hawtads 56d 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).
[−] EdwardDiego 56d 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.
[−] pfdietz 56d 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/

[−] wolvoleo 55d ago
Yes but that's got a powerful turboprop.
[−] hawtads 56d ago
Well, hope they reinforced the wings, that's a massive weak point for dusters.
[−] mastax 56d 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.

[−] spankibalt 56d 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

[−] chuckadams 56d ago
I dunno about ugly, I'd call it a "Chibi Biplane".
[−] postepowanieadm 56d ago
Looks like a sun fish.
[−] somat 56d 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)

[−] RealityVoid 56d 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.

[−] EdwardDiego 56d 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

[−] taylorius 56d ago
[−] EdwardDiego 56d 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.

[−] jodrellblank 56d 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

[−] cf100clunk 56d 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)

[−] EdwardDiego 54d 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!
[−] jodrellblank 56d 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'

[−] fwipsy 56d 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.

[−] EdwardDiego 56d 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...

[−] NegativeLatency 56d ago
[−] jodrellblank 56d 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

[−] postepowanieadm 56d ago
I don't know, it's kinda slick looking - if you ignore the pylons.
[−] dylan604 56d 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
[−] charles_f 56d 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

[−] stackghost 56d 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

[−] recursivecaveat 56d 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.
[−] burnt-resistor 56d 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

[−] pfdietz 56d ago
Steve Death does sound like a Mad Max name.
[−] ziofill 56d ago
It looks kinda cute if you ask me
[−] WalterBright 56d 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.

[−] m463 56d 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)

[−] chasil 56d ago
"He started with a large, steel, barrel-shaped tank and began adding."

I thought everybody used aluminum?

[−] userbinator 56d ago
Did anyone else think the first photo was AI-generated at first, due to how unusual it looked?
[−] JumpCrisscross 56d ago
…can I still get one?
[−] WalterBright 56d ago
We doan need no steenkin' fuselage!
[−] thumbsup-_- 56d ago
I like it
[−] taspeotis 56d ago
(2021)
[−] atrealadam 54d ago
[dead]