What's your ugliest plane of the WWII era?

[Baltasar]

One of my 'favourites': The French 'Amiot 143'




The cell underneath the cockpit looks like the cell underneath a WWI Zeppelin, giving the whole thing a maneuverbility and airodynamics like a brick.

[Mark in Cleveland, Tn.]

Yeah, that is one "fuggly'' plane give me a couple days, i will have 1 or 2 to join your list

[Karl]

even awesomer:


Farman F-222/1
http://www.aviafrance.com/aviafrance1.p ... =&MOTCLEF=

[Tim Smith]

Those French bombers combined 1930's performance with classic 1920's aesthetic styling. And they were shot down in the 1940's.

[TISO]

l'avtobus (Amiot 143) was pretty in an ugly kind of way but my nomination would be Bloch MB-200:


or LWS-6/PZL-30 Zubr:



Well there are some planes that work on anti-gravity principle i.e. they are so ugly that earth doesn't want to do anything with them

[Tim Smith]

They look ugly to us, but if you showed those designs to a ex-World War One bomber pilot, in the early 1930's, he'd say "Wow, they look amazing!"

Back in World War One, bombers were all biplanes. And the French Air Force in the 1930's was commanded by pilots from World War One.

[Kingdom of Montenegro]

even awesomer:


Farman F-222/1
http://www.aviafrance.com/aviafrance1.p ... =&MOTCLEF=

Never saw this one before!

[Dan W.]

The PBY Catalina was probably the ugliest U.S. plane of the era. It was an excellent scouting plane (and still exists as one today) around the Aleutian Islands and the Pacific but if spotted by Zero's it was defenseless (especially early in 1942) and had to fly into heavy cloud cover or get splashed.

[Sewer King]

Let's get bigger and uglier! How about Japan's Mitsubishi Ki-20 heavy bomber?


{by way of Peter H, "Japan at War" forum section)

Based on the German Junkers G.38 airliner and powered by four Jumo engines. Reportedly this plane was considered for raids against the Americans in the Philippines.

=============================

The Mitsubishi Ki-2 (LOUISE) was another one from this period of unsightly warplanes around the world. A few Ki-2s are here in the background of this Ki-20 photo.

Though technically from prewar rather than World War II, my favorite ugly warplanes include the American Curtiss A-12 Shrike, a few of which were on the ground at Pearl Harbor on December 7.

I think that a worldwide design trend toward planes like these came from the transition from fixed landing gear to retractable, from wooden to all-metal construction, from biplane to monoplane, the limits of engine power, and maybe even the limits of bomber development in a period still reeling from the Great Depression in many ways.

Supposedly the French intended an "ugly" aesthetic for their warships in the pre-dreadnought era, with short squat superstructures and long-barreled guns, that was called "fierce face" design for war.

As for the Amiot 143, air author William Green also noted this trend in 1930s French bombers, He jokingly called it something like "crimes against aerodynamics" and a "surfeit of birdcage-like turrets with enough glazing to satisfy any self-respecting greenhouse." No offense meant to our French friends here, for there is of course (and Green also notes) the beautiful Amiot 350 series for contrast.

-- Alan

[Karl]

for balance some German crap:


Blohm und Voss BV40
http://media.photobucket.com/image/bloh ... _bv-40.jpg

[Karl]

Soviet Union had its moments...


Tupolev TB-3
http://media.photobucket.com/image/tupo ... levTB3.jpg

[phylo_roadking]

"Birdcage" turrets weren't a design trend unique to the French, by no means!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Overstrand

Several nations went through this early phase of powered-turret design and experimentation before going to smaller/slimmer...as the British did after the Overstand....

What happened with the French, however, was that the French government was late starting to spend money on rearmament and uprating of existing designs; basically they clung onto early and mid-decade aircraft and designs for several years longer than they should have...and ALSO lost several years in using government orders to "grow" the plethora of relatively small French aircraft companies. In effect, therefore - they didn't kickstart the French aviation industry AWAY from those early turret abortions soon enough.

This panic-accelerated process caught the French out in other ways; it meant that development of modern designs was telescoped into too short a time for the model-by-model development of new technologies we can see in other nations. Thus you had aircraft like the Dewitine D.520 with its overly-long gestation and prototype period, and delayed entry into service....because of problems encountered in jumping to the latest of techniques and technologies without an intervening gradual skills' acquisition in the drawing rooms and toolroom From Wiki -

Design of the D.520 started in November 1936 at the private design firm led by Émile Dewoitine. Trying to address problems in earlier designs, he created a fighter using only the latest techniques and engines. The new design was to be able to reach 520 km/h (320 mph) and became known as the "520". Only months later, the firm was conglomerated into one of a number of design-and-manufacturing pools, in this case SNCAM. Still known as the D.520, work on the design continued at the new company.

The prototype D.520 flew on 2 October 1938, powered by the new 660 kW (890 hp) Hispano-Suiza 12Y-21 liquid-cooled engine. The aircraft managed to reach only 480 km/h (300 mph) in flight tests, slower than expected. Most of the problem seemed to come from greater than expected drag from the underwing radiators, so these were merged into a single radiator under the fuselage. After minor damage in a landing accident, the engine was changed to a newer -29 and included exhaust ejectors for added thrust, along with a variable pitch propeller. These changes were enough to allow the aircraft to reach its design speed.

The prototype was followed in 1939 with two airframes with a new sliding canopy and a larger tail unit. These were armed with a 20 mm cannon firing through the propeller spinner (a feature also found on many German and Russian designs) and two 7.5 mm (.295 in) machine guns in small pods under the wing. The third also included a small tailwheel instead of the original skid. Flight tests went fairly well and a contract for 200 production machines to be powered by the newer -31 engine (later replaced by the -45) was issued in March 1939. A contract for an additional 600 aircraft was issued in June reduced to 510 in July.

With the outbreak of war, a new contract brought the total to 1,280, with the production rate to be 200 machines per month from May 1940. The Aéronautique navale then ordered 120. Another Armée de l'air order in April 1940 brought the total to 2,250 and increased quotas to 350 a month.

The first production D.520 flew in November, powered by the 620 kW (830 hp) 12Y-31 and armed with two 7.5 mm (.295 in) machine guns in housings underneath the wings. It had a curved, one-piece windshield and a sliding canopy. The rest of the production machines were delivered with the 690 kW (930 hp) 12Y-45 engine with a new supercharger and a Ratier three-blade propeller (a few had the -49 of 680 kW/910 hp). They were armed with a 20 mm cannon firing through the propeller hub and four MAC 1934 7.5 mm (.295 in) machine guns in the wings. The curved, one-piece windshield from the prototypes was replaced with one containing an optically-flat panel.

As the first batch of machines rolled off the production lines, they failed acceptance tests due to insufficient top speed and troublesome cooling. Redesigned compressor intakes, a modified cooling circuit and propulsive exhaust pipes proved to be effective remedies for these shortcomings, but as early examples had to be retrofitted with these improvements, the type was not declared combat-worthy until April.

[Baltasar]

Now for something Italian, the Savoia-Marchetti SM.78, which looked pretty much like the SM62 in this picture, but had more power and more weight. Needless to say, it didn't serve too long into WWII.

[phylo_roadking]

Well, it's not exactly ugly - actually quite stylish in an early '30s way! But like most of the 1930s RA, once Mussolini bought himself an airforce, he couldn't afford to update designs and developments as often as he should

[Karl]

It's like the Catalina shape (and frankly Dan, I don't see what's wrong with it).