The Ugliest Airplane: An Appreciation(smithsonianmag.com)

73 points by randycupertino 3 days ago | 39 comments

  • EdwardDiego 7 hours 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

    [-]
    • hawtads 4 hours 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 1 hour 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.
  • mastax 7 hours 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.

    [-]
  • charles_f 7 hours 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

    [-]
    • fer 6 minutes 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

    • dylan604 6 hours 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

  • recursivecaveat 6 hours 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.
  • pfdietz 7 hours ago
    Steve Death does sound like a Mad Max name.
  • m463 8 hours 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)

    [-]
    • pimlottc 8 hours 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.

      [-]
      • m463 6 hours ago
        I was referring to the copter pilot in the road warrior, same scrappy tininess.

        beyond thunderdome was the next in the series.

  • userbinator 7 hours ago
    Did anyone else think the first photo was AI-generated at first, due to how unusual it looked?
  • chasil 8 hours ago
    "He started with a large, steel, barrel-shaped tank and began adding."

    I thought everybody used aluminum?

    [-]
    • EdwardDiego 7 hours 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.

    • macintux 7 hours 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.

    • stackghost 6 hours 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.
  • burnt-resistor 3 hours 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

  • ziofill 8 hours ago
    It looks kinda cute if you ask me
  • thumbsup-_- 6 hours ago
    I like it
  • stackghost 6 hours 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

    [-]
    • perilunar 6 hours 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
      [-]
      • spockz 2 hours 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!
    • Sharlin 3 hours ago
      The cockpit projects from the ducted fan?! That’s certainly a design.
  • JumpCrisscross 8 hours ago
    …can I still get one?
  • taspeotis 6 hours ago
    (2021)