Ugliest Bomber of WWII (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message


SargeantTex -> Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 6:17:24 AM)

what is your choic for ugliest bomber of WWII
Mine is Handley Page Hampden.




AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 6:20:41 AM)

Eleanor Roosevelt.

[8D]




Coach Z -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 7:22:01 AM)

[:-] Low Blow AU Tiger!!




AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 7:47:32 AM)

EDIT:
Unnecessary and off-topic post inspired by one too many adult beverages.

[sm=party-smiley-012.gif]




wdolson -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 1:53:49 PM)

The Fokker T.IV

http://www.aviastar.org/air/holland/fokker_t-4.php




Coach Z -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 2:48:40 PM)

AU Tiger
While a low blow, I didn't say it wasn't true. [:D]




Joe D. -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 2:49:57 PM)

Has to be the Consolidated B-24 Liberator; it was referred to as the "packing box the B-17 came in."

It was as hard to handle in the air as it was ugly.




Joe D. -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 2:56:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

Eleanor Roosevelt ...


Are you thinking of the old SNL skit titled "What if Eleanor Rosevelt could fly?"; she ends up leading bombing raids over Germany.

Oddly enough, a similar SNL sketch was about what would have happened if Superman grew up in Nazi Germany.




m10bob -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 3:00:09 PM)

French Farman F 222

[image]local://upfiles/7909/62B1259CADB34FEC9FF04CA3F24DD8BD.jpg[/image]




KDonovan -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 4:17:32 PM)

Dornier Do17

[image]local://upfiles/18184/E9B989518844473399B12F95393FD73C.jpg[/image]




Ian R -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 4:53:11 PM)

Martin B-10

[image]local://upfiles/846/7E9396919B77450FA924FA6BE8D0AB08.jpg[/image]




MineSweeper -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 4:58:55 PM)

French Bloch 200


[image]local://upfiles/22347/ADFCF5BF274549078907B3EFFBDE8F12.jpg[/image]




Historiker -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 5:59:50 PM)

PZL 23

[image]local://upfiles/25688/4DE8B52722D944A991634198E5C9870D.jpg[/image]




Apollo11 -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 6:19:45 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

Dornier Do17

[image]local://upfiles/18184/E9B989518844473399B12F95393FD73C.jpg[/image]


What's wrong with Do-17 (aka "Flying pencil")? [X(]


Leo "Apollo11"




String -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 6:20:36 PM)



Can't beat the Amiot 143

[image]local://upfiles/10324/C8EE2C772AE547D7BAC974F838C08460.jpg[/image]




MineSweeper -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 6:24:44 PM)

Yeah, cool looking plane....but I like the 217 better...[8D]


[image]local://upfiles/22347/E4338882B19D4B11918EAC8CBD681091.jpg[/image]




niceguy2005 -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 8:22:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

Dornier Do17

[image]local://upfiles/18184/E9B989518844473399B12F95393FD73C.jpg[/image]


What's wrong with Do-17 (aka "Flying pencil")? [X(]


Leo "Apollo11"

Effective yes, pretty...no [:-]





niceguy2005 -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 8:24:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: String



Can't beat the Amiot 143

[image]local://upfiles/10324/C8EE2C772AE547D7BAC974F838C08460.jpg[/image]

Yup that's ugly. [:D] I'd be embarrassed to fly it.




niceguy2005 -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 8:27:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Has to be the Consolidated B-24 Liberator; it was referred to as the "packing box the B-17 came in."

It was as hard to handle in the air as it was ugly.

What's wrong with the b-24? I'd consider as sleek, or more so than the fortress. Harder to fly maybe, but definitely a sharper looking AC.




Sonny II -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 9:28:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

Eleanor Roosevelt ...


Are you thinking of the old SNL skit titled "What if Eleanor Rosevelt could fly?"; she ends up leading bombing raids over Germany.

Oddly enough, a similar SNL sketch was about what would have happened if Superman grew up in Nazi Germany.


What if Napoleon had a B-52 at the battle of Waterloo?




Dili -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/17/2007 11:36:28 PM)

One of the French already posted it, Amiot 143 if i have to choose http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww2/a143.html.
That Do-17 seems abit compressed in lenght. Do 217 above is not the bomber but the night fighter.

A page that shows a couple more French Horrors.

http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/




Mac67 -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/18/2007 12:04:20 AM)

Tupolev TB-3. It must have been damn cold in those open cockpits.



[image]local://upfiles/20097/D39A582F554F4C7A8BF38C9CB0456851.jpg[/image]




wdolson -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/18/2007 12:29:51 AM)

The French had some of the worst aesthetics when it came to bomber design.  Most just look wrong.

While the Do-17Z was not the most effective bomber in the Luftwaffe (mostly due to its limited bomb load), it has a graceful look to it.  Some of the early Do-17s had liquid cooled engines with odd radiator arangements that made them look very weird.

By the early part of World War II, the Germans had perfected a technique of combining the radiator and engine in one package which was both efficient and better looking than previous installations.  Some planes like the Stuka and Me-109 continued to have a radiator that was a separate shape from the engine, but multi engine bombers with liquid cooled engines had the two combined, such as with the Junkers powered Ju-88s and the Fw-190D (and Ta-152H).  That arrangement is more pleasing to the eye than the ungainly bulges on some planes.

Throughout the 1930s in many countries, bmbers and fighters were leap frogging one another in speed.  When the Blenheim was introduced, it was faster than any fighter in the RAF, but by the dawn of World War II, it was obsolescent.  The British kept using them because they didn't have anything better.

If you look at most bombers produced in the 1920s, most were just as ugly and ungainly as some of those French bombers.  Aerodynamic sleekness hadn't caught on yet.  As speed became more important, making the airframe clean (low drag) also became important and aesthetics improved as a side effect.  The French and Italians (as well as a number of minr powers) trailed the rest of the pack in aircraft design and thus their air forces were still operating planes beaten with the ugly stick when the war began.

The British, Germans, Japanese, and to a large degree Americans had all been on the aerodynamic design kick for a bit at the beginning of the war.  In the US, this was fueled by the civilian market more than the military one.  Douglas and Boeing's rivalry had advanced airliner development dramatically in the decade of the 30s.  In 1929, the state of the art was the Boeing Model 80, which was a fabric covered biplane.  In only a couple of years the world had the Boeing Model 247 followed shortly after by the Douglas DC-2 and the infamous DC-3.  Even more advanced airliners were introduced in the late 1930s.

Bill




Richrd -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/18/2007 12:43:47 AM)

When Mrs Roosevelt was young, she was a drop dead stunning babe.




Apollo11 -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/18/2007 1:17:56 AM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

quote:

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

Dornier Do17

[image]local://upfiles/18184/E9B989518844473399B12F95393FD73C.jpg[/image]


What's wrong with Do-17 (aka "Flying pencil")? [X(]

Effective yes, pretty...no [:-]



Well... I always thought that Do-17 is very nice and aestetically and aerodynamically pleasing...


Dornier Do-17S:

[image]http://www.umt.fme.vutbr.cz/~ruja/modely/podklady/Dornier/Do-17S/Do-17S.jpg[/image]


Dornier Do-217N:

[image]http://www.umt.fme.vutbr.cz/~ruja/modely/podklady/Dornier/Do-217N/Do-217N.jpg[/image]


Dornier 17M/P (1:48 model - Bulgarian cammo scheme):

[image]http://www.swannysmodels.com/images/Do17/done1.jpg[/image]

[image]http://www.swannysmodels.com/images/Do17/done2.jpg[/image]

[image]http://www.swannysmodels.com/images/Do17/done3.jpg[/image]


Leo "Apollo11"




Joe D. -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/18/2007 1:25:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny II

What if Napoleon had a B-52 at the battle of Waterloo?


It probably would have bombed the wrong town; the actual battle was at Mt. St. Jean.




Joe D. -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/18/2007 1:40:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

What's wrong with the b-24? I'd consider as sleek, or more so than the fortress. Harder to fly maybe, but definitely a sharper looking AC.


Sleek as a brick, and it flew like one too; although the B-24 did everything it was designed for -- greater payload, range, etc. -- its "consolidated" construction in five separate factories by four different companies was simply a case of too many cooks.

Further, it was "built more for immediacey, not durability"; in '44, one Lib was built in less than an hour.




niceguy2005 -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/18/2007 2:29:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

quote:

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

Dornier Do17

[image]local://upfiles/18184/E9B989518844473399B12F95393FD73C.jpg[/image]


What's wrong with Do-17 (aka "Flying pencil")? [X(]

Effective yes, pretty...no [:-]



Well... I always thought that Do-17 is very nice and aestetically and aerodynamically pleasing...



I know it's called the flying pencil, but I can't say on this forum what I think it looks like. Personally, I think some German engineer was over compensating for something. [:D]




niceguy2005 -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/18/2007 2:33:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

What's wrong with the b-24? I'd consider as sleek, or more so than the fortress. Harder to fly maybe, but definitely a sharper looking AC.


Sleek as a brick, and it flew like one too; although the B-24 did everything it was designed for -- greater payload, range, etc. -- its "consolidated" construction in five separate factories by four different companies was simply a case of too many cooks.

Further, it was "built more for immediacey, not durability"; in '44, one Lib was built in less than an hour.

I wouldn't debate that the B-24 was more of a sledge hammer and handled like one too...but the question is what is the ugliest bomber and on looks I think the 24 beats out the 17....let me phrase that better, on looks I think the 24 looks better than the 17.




patrickl -> RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII (11/18/2007 2:33:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mac67

Tupolev TB-3. It must have been damn cold in those open cockpits.



[image]local://upfiles/20097/D39A582F554F4C7A8BF38C9CB0456851.jpg[/image]



Yep, got this in RHS.[:D]




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.78125