It looks a bit interesting, but it's got nothing on the sexualness of the Antonov An-225. It's a very manly looking plane.
Airbus to build plane that's even uglier than the A380
The A380 may be able to haul hundreds of people across oceans and continents in considerable comfort, but aerosexuals* find it hard to love on aesthetic grounds. And now Airbus has signalled it intends to make even uglier planes next year. You'll need to be a very dedicated aviation enthusiast to see the new ugly birds, …
COMMENTS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Saturday 21st May 2016 19:07 GMT oldcoder
Re: The A380 is not ugly!
Liked the Air Force museum at Dayton...
I took my wife by to see some fantastic aircraft, and got her positioned at the B36 single tire feature (the tire was on its side).
She asked me where the tire was - and I said "Behind you". Still didn't see the tire... Until she saw the placard well around to her right.
She had thought the tire was a curved wall, and the almost 7' width of the tire prevented her from seeing it... She was all of 5' 1.
Too bad it is counted as a minor display, but it is the largest tire ever made for an aircraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker)
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Saturday 21st May 2016 10:19 GMT Graham Triggs
Re: The A380 is not ugly!
I agree that the A380 isn't "ugly". In reality, everything follows the lines of most planes today. It just looks unfeasibly large.
Other than the sheer size, the one thing that really stands out is the positioning and size of the cockpit windows - which looks so out of proportion in comparison to other planes.
It's a little odd, but mostly I'm just impressed by it's sheer size. I'm far more excited about seeing one, than any other plane. And if anything, it's made the 747 look ugly - because really, that always was a rather ugly plane, but you forgave it for it's sheer size compared to everything else.
Although the best way to see an A380 is when it is just starting it's final approach over London - is it a normal plane that is scarily close, or a very big plane that is still far away?
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 20th May 2016 17:28 GMT bazza
Re: Ugly, beautyful or purposeful.
"FFS, best looking plane ever is clearly the DH Mosquito. Are you all blind?"
Yes, thank you, that. Definitely the DH Mosquito.
Closely followed by Concorde, Spitfire, A12/SR71, EE Lightning. And inexplicably the Sunderland Flying Boat does things for me too.
Though nothing shows true mastery of air quite so explicitly as an F117. Making something that clearly shouldn't fly fly was really impressive, especially for the comparatively tiny amount of money they spent doing it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 20th May 2016 09:09 GMT K
I'm torn between..
I do love the XB-70, looks like somebody stole the blue print from Thunderbirds..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie
I'm doing a US road trip with the missus later this year, and I'm trying to find some excuse to stop over in Ohio to see it lol..
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 27th May 2016 00:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: "Thrust over aerodynamics prize has to go to the f-104..."
104s are gorgeous. Regarding their aerodynamics, my pop was a test pilot at Lockheed during the F-104 program and told me that none of the pilots ever referred to is as a "missile with a man in it". He did hear it described as having "the glide ratio of an anvil strapped to a manhole cover", though, and did not have fond memories of the only time he flew it as a glider, flamed out and refusing to restart.
Living near Seattle, I see Boeing's beluga-like modified 747 on occasion. I don't doubt that a similarly modified A380 will be at least as ugly.
-
Monday 6th March 2017 18:12 GMT Gary Bickford
Re: "Oh, and F4 Phantom FTW for modern."
F-104 Starfighter - I recall that the only "airplane" with a worse glide ratio was the Space Shuttle. Was it 1:3? I recall that they used starfighters with wheels down as escorts on early landings of the shuttle. It was the only plane that could fly both fast enough and badly enough to stay with it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Saturday 21st May 2016 20:03 GMT Alan Brown
Re: XB-70
"Blimey! How do you "drop" bombs at Mach 3+ ?"
You can't. They hit the slipstream and get forced back into the bomb bay.
SR71s were originally designed as bombers and redesignated to observation planes when this phenomenon was discovered. By that point ICBMs had made supersonic strike bombers unnecessary so no R&D was put into solving the problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#SR-71
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-