The Ugliest Airplane: An Appreciation of the Transavia AirTruk | Hacker News Reader

The Ugliest Airplane: An Appreciation of the Transavia AirTruk

smithsonianmag.com

172 pointsareoform126 comments

Sometimes I wonder how aethetics and social norms curtail technology adoption and productivity.

For consumers, it's obvious that tech needs to be socially acceptable - in fact it's an expected part of the adoption cycle. For fun (ok, I'm revealing myself), and to exercise my creativity and outside-the-box thinking, sometimes I try to come up with norm-violating, harmless, and clearly more productive technology people could adopt. (I don't mean provactive norm-violating, like something dangerous or overtly sexual, just geeky or otherwise.) Simple ones are walking around town with an umbrella hat, a headlamp, a camelback, etc.

But to the point of this discussion, for business / military I wonder how much ugliness plays a factor. If a 5% more effective fighter plane was clashing shades of horrible colors (for camo) and had a laughably ugly form, would it be used? What if the pilot mounted/dismounted in a ridiculous position, maybe upside down? Otherwise, people are dying and wars are being lost for aesthetics. What about 20% more effective? Where is the line? And what about the space program: how much extra risk is taken for dignity under current social norms?

Industrial designers can create amazing prototypes, but when a product is shipped it becomes subject to some very cruel market forces. The Nokia N-gage had huge potential, but was quickly lambasted as the ''taco phone'' due to layout decisions that broke common mobile phone paradigms.

> had a laughably ugly form, would it be used?

The Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk is the perfect example. Love it or hate it, the aesthetics of that aircraft are far from ''normal''.

The taco phone also had the rediculous design flaw of forcing you to turn off the phone and remove the battery to replace a game cartridge.

The name is also stupid.

For an airplane designed for farmers, I'll guess that "ugly but functional" is fine. Beauty wasn't a serious consideration for their other agricultural equipment, or barns, or silos, or ...

…the Citroen 2CV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citroën_2CV#Pre-production:

“In 1934, family-owned Michelin, as the largest creditor, took over the bankrupt Citroën company. The new management commissioned a market survey, conducted by Jacques Duclos. France at that time had a large rural population which could not yet afford cars; Citroën used the survey results to prepare a design brief for a low-priced, rugged "umbrella on four wheels" that would enable four people to transport 50 kg (110 lb) of farm goods to market at 50 km/h (30 mph), if necessary across muddy, unpaved roads. In fuel economy, the car would use no more than 3 L/100 km (95 mpg‑imp; 80 mpg‑US). One design parameter required that customers be able to transport eggs across a freshly ploughed field without breakage.”

I like the look of it. But I also like the look of the AirTruk, so ...

She thinks my tractor's sexy

In my opinion, aesthetics is an important factor when a product has to appeal to the general public: people want to use products that look good and can be shown to other people without embarrassment.

On the other hand, if the product is aimed at a specific sector (e.g., military or space), the choice is dictated only by criteria such as adherence to requirements and cost. In this case, those who choose and select products are usually accountable for their choices, and aesthetics is not an objective criterion that can be used to justify the choice.

Well, SpaceX kinda runs contrary to that. And who's to say they're wrong? Sexy rockets bring interest and make engineers proud.

They also lead to decisions made not on merit but on hype, and on cults of personality.

Usually with a weird design, the problem is that weird often means uncommon, limited-supplier parts, which are more of a cost driver than just looking weird.

It is cheap and easy to go down the well-trodden path.

> On the other hand, if the product is aimed at a specific sector (e.g., military or space), the choice is dictated only by criteria such as adherence to requirements and cost.

I think that's the ideal, but greatly underestimates the human factor in practice. People are biased by aesthetics. And also nobody wants to be a laughing-stock, presenting the comical option to the team, management, board, etc. For government, nobody wants to have themselves all over the media and social media next to the absurdly comical thing they are presenting.

This seems parallel to the discussion of how NBA players shoot foul shots. From what I've read, experiments show that basket percentage is measurably higher if you shoot with the underhand "granny shot", compared to the conventional way of shooting.

Why, then, don't we see players shooting this way? You'd think that the coaches would tell players to do this to help the team, and that they'd want to, to boost their own stats. But it seems like doing so seems un-cool enough that it conflicts with other priorities about building their individual "brands".

edit: learn to spell "basket"

Possibly the additional time investment required to master two different throws vs learning a specialized throw for foul shots.

> experiments show that basked percentage is measurably higher if you shoot with the underhand "granny shot"

There is also the Dutch sport "korfbal" (which literally translates to basketball, funny enough) where the baskets are higher, smaller and have no board, and you are not allowed to shoot if blocked anyway. Everyone shoots with two hands, and the equivalent of the lay-up is even sort-of done underhandedly.

Speaking of social norms and not wanting to look "uncool", korfbal is often talked about as a very dorky sport, even though it is fairly popular in the Netherlands. Most commonly by men who insist real men play football (soccer for the Americans). Speaking as a man who really enjoyed korfbal growing up, I suspect this is mainly because it's a unisex team-sport.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korfball

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUtJB5jBOis

Most guys that golf shouldn't use a driver and should carry a 7-wood instead. But they hit driver because not hitting driver (even though they get measurably worse results than if they hit anything else) is worse than hitting it into the woods in the eyes of many. Pride matters!

Not knowing much about golf, what's the difference between the two?

A driver is the club you use when you want to get the most distance (in theory) when you tee off. It has the least amount of loft (10 desgree is common) on the club and has the longest shaft (35" is common) so you can swing it fast and the ball should go far. However, it's precisely because of these features that it's difficult to hit for many players. So they end up hitting their tee shot crooked or make poor contact (they don't hit the ball in the middle of the club) and lose considerable distance and accuracy.

Other clubs, like a 3 wood (14 degrees) or a 5 wood (18 degrees) or a 7 wood (22 degrees) sacrifice distance but you are more likely to make good contact off the tee (because of a shorter shaft and more loft on the face) which results in a ball that's more likely to be in a playable spot, but not as far down the hole as a perfectly hit driver. But they give you more tolerance for a not perfectly well struck ball. They are more "forgiving".

Think of golf clubs this way - each one a golfer may carry is a tool designed to give the player an advantage when doing a certain thing. Some clubs are designed to put a lot of spin on the ball and go a shorter distance because that would be ideal for that kind of shot the club is made for. The driver is a tool designed to hit the ball as far as you can. But if you can't utilize the tool and benefit from the advantages it gives you, it's not so useful.

> more likely to make good contact off the tee (because of ... more loft on the face)

How does loft help make good contact?

The less hard you hit the ball, the more loft you need to maximize your distance (because of air resistance). So more loft helps both because the shorter shaft of a wood vs a driver (which makes it easier to make good contact) limits how hard you can hit the ball, and also because amateur golfers can't hit it as hard as a pro would (and if you try to hit it as hard as possible, you're more likely to make poor contact).

I guess I should say that poor contact isn't penalized as harshly. Also the club is easier to control due to it having a shorter shaft and the loft makes it easier to launch the ball.

When I learned to play (late, in my early 30's) I eventually gave up on the driver and used a 3-wood instead, for exactly this reason. I got more effective distance because I could hit the ball quite straight with the 3-wood. Probably wouldn't have occurred to me to do this if I had been learning in my teens or early 20's.

I think as a golfer becomes more intelligent of how to play golf and of their own abilities they end up using the driver less and less, unless they're a very good golfer. But generally I never use them on par-5's unless I think I can reach in 2. If that isn't possible then why bother hitting the driver? I'll take a 3-wood or a 5-wood and then play my second shot with a similar club or long iron. Yeah, a perfect drive could put my second shot closer and be the difference between a gap wedge and a pitching wedge approach, but overall I'd say I probably am more likely to get in trouble with the driver.

On long par-4's I find it mandatory to hit and on shorter par-4's with larger landing zones or no real hazard in play I'll take it out. But otherwise I'm happy to hit 3-wood off the tee or a long iron.

Of course, becoming excellent with a driver gives a lot of advantages. And although the= old adage is "drive for show putt for dough" is true - getting off the tee and in play is still the most important part of the game, especially for mid/high handicap amateurs.

Rick Barry, who played decades ago, shot fouls underhand, but that's the only person I know of.

Professional sports are entertainment. If on-court productivity conflicts with entertainment, the latter is the priority.

The Curious Case Of Wilt Chamberlain's Free Throws:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8fn1IaTMQM

I had to look it up, apparently Wilt Chamberlain shot underhanded one year and gave up because he said he looked like a sissy doing it. The Shaq said he'd rather shoo 0% than use the granny shot... so there is some norm governing what shot you use.

Shaq might not be humble, but he's got a great attitude, once asked how is game was, he said, he was retired and hadn't shot a ball in years. That's awesome. Many players can't let go.

> But it seems like doing so seems un-cool enough that it conflicts with other priorities

For example: Viewers and butts in seats.

These are arguably higher priorities than winning games and are ostensibly correlated, but not the same thing.

Reminds me of how the Pontiac Aztek did very poorly in reviews and sales, but became very popular on the used car market because of Breaking Bad[0] in the early to mid 2010s.

[0]: https://www.inverse.com/article/6092-kids-are-buying-up-pont...

This is not a great example. It's based on essentially one player, Rick Barry, who shot underhand at a high percentage. There are no bad underhand foul shooters, which I find suspicious, Yet I can cherry pick very tall, very good foul shooters like Kevin Durant. Larry Bird and Jeff hornacek never struck me as particularly concerned with looking cool either.

> From what I've read, experiments show that basket percentage is measurably higher if you shoot with the underhand "granny shot", compared to the conventional way of shooting.

Probably only true for poor free throw shooters. The muscle memory required for shooting at all requires an inordinate amount of daily practice. Requiring a very different muscle action for free throws is not going to work very well.

The point of the "granny shot" is simply to have the big guys put a big arc on the shot. Huge guys like Wilt or Shaq often are releasing directly at the basket instead of putting a big arc on the shot. They don't do that on regular shots (at least Wilt didn't).

Why Wilt never just did "fadeaway jumpers" from the free throw line is beyond me--everybody who is decent at free throw shooting uses whatever shooting mechanism they're good at normally.

However, it does take daily practice, and it takes years. For me, it took my entire high school career to go from a 50% free throw shooter as a freshman to a 98% free throw shooter senior year. Every basketball practice (playground, school, gym, wherever and whatever) always ended with 100 free throws--the point was to be able to do them even when you were on the point of exhaustion.

Of course, Wilt is a whole lot bigger and forgot more basketball than I ever learned. Would it have been worth it to Wilt to spend the time everyday to practice free throws vs something else? Shrug.

Maybe it's unfair on HN, but I'm a bit skeptical about some of these claims:

> The muscle memory required for shooting at all requires an inordinate amount of daily practice.

Do you mean, at a professional level? Lots of people shoot the ball without daily practice. I know people who have picked up a ball and shot decently after many years of not playing at all.

> everybody who is decent at free throw shooting uses whatever shooting mechanism they're good at normally.

From what I know, coaches teach a specific free throw shooting technique, including what is done before and between free throws.

And finally I want to say: Steph, it's really cool that you like BSD and contribute to HN (a hometown forum!). But stop exaggerating.

NBA Free Throw % All-Time Leaders:

* Career: Stephen Curry: 90.9%

(Or is it José?)

* Single season: 1. José Calderón 98.05% (2008-09), 2.Calvin Murphy .95.81% (1980-81), 3. Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf 95.6% (1993-94)

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ft_pct_career.h...

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ft_pct_season.h...

> From what I know, coaches teach a specific free throw shooting technique, including what is done before and between free throws.

Maybe that's your experience. But I have never seen that. However, all the coaches I have interacted with have emphasized be totally consistent. Same ritual every single free throw.

Perhaps this is true in college as I have no experience with that? However, in high school the amount of strength varies so much between players that you can't possibly teach the same biomechanics to every single child.

> Single season: 1. José Calderón 98.05% (2008-09), 2.Calvin Murphy .95.81% (1980-81), 3. Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf 95.6% (1993-94)

You can quote what you wish. However, what I said is true. I was a small center in high school (only a couple inches above 6 foot). If my free throws weren't amazing, I was going to get punished horribly and take all manner of grief from people much, much bigger than me. Foul shots were my lifeblood--I practiced them accordingly.

Do remember that those guys play a LOT more games than we ever played in high school (larger statistical sample size). If we played 24 games in a season, that was a lot--20 was more typical. Any of those NBA players probably have multiple 20 game streaks where they didn't miss a free throw (about 10% (.9^20) chance for Steph--better than 66% for José (.98^20)).

Steph, as you near retirement, if you remember 98% then I'm down with that. Did Draymond introduce you to BSD? Seems like his kind of thing.

Edit: I know about how tall you are, but I didn't know you played center in high school. At that level, why not, I suppose?

Edit2: Sorry if I sound like a jerk, dismissing the FT shooting debate. Aruging that the best NBA free throw shooters ever - comparing yourself to effing Steph Curry! - might have done it over 20 games is not persuasive to me, any more than arguing that Timothy Gowers could prove some mathematics, so why couldn't you do it in high school? Your strategy for being a small center is a good story and smart approach, though.

This reminds me of the introduction of the V-style [0] in ski jumping: it was originally deemed inappropriate by the judges, who scored it lower, but it provided so much more distance that today it's the most widely used technique.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_jumping_techniques#V-style

It's still wild to me that ski-jumping is a jury sport. Seems to me that it'd be simplest to just... measure distance? But I guess distance is one of the least important things to the score.

> clashing shades of horrible colors (for camo)

They tried something similar for ships and a few planes. I think it wasn't very effective as camouflage though, and was more intended to confuse the distance & direction of travel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage

> had a laughably ugly form

The B-52 was called the "Big Ugly Fat F". The A-10 was called the "Warthog". Both considered ugly but effective.

That said, there probably is some effect, it's just hard to measure.

the x-32, the plane that was competing with the f-35 (neé x-35) in the joint strike fighter program looked _weird_; it looks like a pelican opening its mouth. I remember watching a documentary about the JSF where someone said that its looks definitely played a role in it not getting picked.

I once visited an army surplus store which stocked a kind of string vest which looked like a fish-net but with thicker cords. The proprietor claimed it was developed by the Swedish military for its effectiveness in hot weather but didn’t become popular because of pushback from soldiers who didn’t want to wear it because it looked kind of gimpy.

People have suggested that the X32 was not chosen by the air force (instead of the chosen F22) because of ugliness.

Note: I don't know if this is true or not, and I don't know the performance capabilities of each aircraft.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/meet-2-stealth-fighte...

The X32 lost to the X35 (which became F35), not the F22 Raptor.

The X32 performed worse in range/payload capacity, Boeing had lots of difficulties developing STOVL on the platform, the delta wing design was less efficient, and Lockheed was still riding high on its success with the F22 program (which no one has really bothered competing with decades later) so it's unlikely that aesthetics were the deciding factor.

Slight nitpick:

The X32 competed with the now-F35.

The YF23 lost to the F22.

I still think the YF23 is utterly gorgeous and I wish it had been put into service.

EDIT: beaten to the comment by 3 minutes. Oh my poor pedantic soul.

> I still think the YF23 is utterly gorgeous and I wish it had been put into service.

It is, but so is the F-22 and because it was a one or the other choice, I personally like the direction they went.

We bought $30 Million worth of camouflage for military contractors in Afghanistan because some Afghan defense minister thought the pattern looked cool, despite providing no camouflage capabilities in that environment.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/watchdog-pentagon-may-have-...

The initial prototypes for the F117 were famously not well recieved for how ugly and un-aerodynamic looking they were.

I can't remember the specific sources but at least for the military the things that violate social normals and aren't done do happen, although it's usually something more political than aesthetics. But then that runs the risk of having that military force outcompeted and defeated.

> Sometimes I wonder how aethetics and social norms curtail technology adoption and productivity.

I don't know about that but aesthetics isn't just something humans pay attention to. Many females in the animal kingdom prefer to mate with the males we, humans, also find the most beautiful.

For example birds of paradise: females picks the males we humans find to be the most harmonious.

Why do most find the plane in TFA fucking ugly? I don't know but I do certainly also find it ugly.

But what I do know is I don't want to be imposed ugly in my life and I don't want to impose ugly on others.

I'm siding with the birds of paradise on that one...

>Simple ones are walking around town with an umbrella hat, a headlamp, a camelback, etc.

I've done the camelback a few times, seems perfectly normal to me ;)

All day, every day?

Only during summer.

> But to the point of this discussion, for business / military I wonder how much ugliness plays a factor. If a 5% more effective fighter plane was clashing shades of horrible colors (for camo) and had a laughably ugly form, would it be used? What if the pilot mounted/dismounted in a ridiculous position, maybe upside down? Otherwise, people are dying and wars are being lost for aesthetics. What about 20% more effective? Where is the line?

Military transport planes have rear-facing seats, which are known to be safer. The only reason airlines don't do the same is that passengers wouldn't be happy.

> rear-facing seats, which are known to be safer

There's some constraints on that. A full passenger jet isn't the same thing as a military transport plane. For example, things coming loose which would hit seatbacks now hit people.

It's also important, IMO, to note that "passengers wouldn't be happy" is a slight underestimate. The number of people barfing from motion sickness would go up pretty dramatically, for one. Even the people not barfing aren't going to like that.

And then of course there's the problem of frequency. Passenger plane crashes are rare enough now that squeezing out the last little bit of safety by causing serious discomfort and other headaches is probably not a good trade-off.

> things coming loose which would hit seatbacks now hit people.

That assumes rapid deceleration. I can certainly imagine that happening in many undesireable situations, major and minor, but how often is there rapid acceleration, minor (e.g., turbulance) or major (e.g. in an uncontrolled dive - if that ever really happens, and if survival is possible regardless)?

> things coming loose which would hit seatbacks now hit people.

> Even the people not barfing aren't going to like that.

I'd like a seat in the rear, please.

> That assumes rapid deceleration.

Sure, but my understanding is that the only time a rear facing seat has an advantage is when decelerating rapidly. The seat back can support your body better than a lap belt.

Good point.

The warthog is a pretty ugly plane IMO, yet well loved and highly productive, so function seems to have won.

Nah, not ugly, beastly ... it's a great look.

The modern military has little cash to spare on looking good. Where it's critically important, the impact is measured: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27215881/

The modern US military has $800+ billion to spend.

The US Government is a well-armed insurance company. Most of the money goes to healthcare and retirement benefits. As a fraction of national GDP, the US isn't in the top 10.

That's actually a little cute plane.

What about these ones?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Spacelines_Super_Guppy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-72

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Whitworth_AW.660_A...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_SC.7_Skyvan

I love the super guppy. mentour now has an awesome video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seLORhTRck0

the atl-98 carvair on the other hand ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_Traders_Carvair

The Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender (pejoritavely nicknamed the Ass-Ender) was so laden with quick fixes to its aerodynamic quirks that it looked terribly offensive to me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss-Wright_XP-55_Ascender

It was a precursor to engine-in-fuselage jet aircraft design, but it sure was not a ''clean'' aircraft. The Vultee XP-54 and Northrop XP-56 prototypes of the same era (referenced in the Wikipedia article) are equally bizarre-looking.

I'd bet money that this was used as an inspiration for the planes from Crimson Skies. Some of the most iconic ones from that game were all WW2/art-deco-styled canard designs with pusher props.

Honestly, it's kind of a look.

I think you are right about the influence. It seems the Ascender showed up in Combat Flight Simulator 3:

https://combat-flight-simulator-3.fandom.com/wiki/Curtiss_P-...

I thought the same thing! (love de pc game, the "BattleStations, BattleStations, all crews to BattleStations" never leaves my mind)

That plane design looks pretty awesome to me. Remove the propeller and it wouldn't look out of place zipping through space, shooting down TIE fighters.

GeeBee Model R: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granville_Gee_Bee_Model_R_Supe...

For when the pilot wants to be within two feet of the rudder, and as far away from the monster engine as possible in a 17 foot plane.

The Gee Bee isn't ugly, its cartoonish.

My top spot for ugliest airplane remains occupied by the PZL M-15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_M-15_Belphegor

A turbine-engined biplane for crop dusting.

Came to this thread to mention Belphagor.

Saw the beast in person in Kraków. Was inspired enough to dedicate a poem to it:

    O the forgotten craft of yore!
    To darkest arts I turn once more.
    With new and oldest runes combined,
    I'll birth the only of its kind:

    Four-winged beast from depth of hell
    By breath of fire be propel'd!
    The cyclops eye, rise in my field!
    With venom be your biceps filled!

    From skies you'll pour death and gore—
    I summon thee, o BELPHEGOR!

    ...Thus quoth der Polen:

Nevermore .

Or most inter war french bombers. God, they were ugly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAB_AB-20#/media/File:A.B.20.p...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farman_F.220

It's like the old joke about how you ID aircraft from the 50s to the 70s:

- If it's ugly, it's British.

- If it's weird, it's French.

- If it's ugly AND weird, it's Russian.

That might explain why the TSR-2 was cancelled - too beautiful!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2

To add to the list of (subjectively) ugly airplanes. Here is the French Pou-du-ciel (literally: louse of the sky) [1]

Besides its unusual shape, it is also what would be called "open source" today. The blueprints are freely available [2]. It is a popular home-built airplane, even today, 90 years later. It has created quite a community has seen several improvements over the years. It is now one of the safest and easiest light airplanes.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mignet_Pou-du-Ciel

[2] http://avions.mignet.free.fr/spdlr.php

I think it has friendly competition from the Carvair:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_Traders_Carvair

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJcXJG9LRhI

And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipa-Caproni.

Airbus Beluga, perhaps, as well?

Thanks, worked in aerospace for years, and that's still one of the neatest plane designs I've seen in a long time. How many ducted tube airplanes do you ever see?

France had some innovative concepts along these lines. Youtuber Mustard takes a look at the Coleoptere. Not a ducted fan but it has a duct in lieu of a wing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unz6mfjS4ws

> Airbus Beluga, perhaps, as well?

The Beluga is neat. The Boeing Dreamlifter on the other hand...

Was watching Goldfinger a few weeks ago and had to think of this plane when I saw the title. The Fiat Multipla of airplanes.

Even better than the article are all of the fantastically ugly airplanes everyone is linking to!

Don't forget the Handley Page Victor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor

I think the Victor still looks futuristic, menacing, and strangely beautiful. A Buck Rogers fantasy brought to life.

The head-on view is particularly badass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Handley_Page_HP-80_Victor...

I agree. It’s ungainly for sure, but I wouldn’t call it ugly.

Besides, if I were going to pick a British warplane originating from that era as the ugliest, I’d have to go with the Nimrod.

I agree about the distasteful look of the Nimrod. As for the Victor: ''Thunderbirds are go!''

AEW3 variant I would agree, the original was a sleek conversion the dH Comet. Pretty nice design for a plane that first flew in the 40s!

The Victor was also a sleek futuristic design and the every bit as impressive as the Vulcan.

Never a fan of the Gloster Javalin; something was always off in the proportions as well as just looking chunky.

One of the most beautiful planes ever built IMHO (in how futuristic it still looks) :)

What are you talking about, that's one of the most beautiful planes ever built.

This is beautiful, it's very futuristic looking.

> 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

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk-vHw-mstI

McDonnell XF-85 Goblin

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin

Not ugly. Cute. Looks like a Pixar movie plane.

It's a chibi jet. Definitely cute.

It’s uglier in person

I'll see your AirTruk and raise you a Super Guppy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Spacelines_Super_Guppy

This has evolved into the Airbus Beluga and BelugaXL:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_BelugaXL

double the payload of a SuperGuppy, and 4 meters higher; but I'm not sure about the exact cargo bay dimensions.

Looks like something out of Alien

As a plane nerd my entire life, I have to say that in my humble opinion, there is no such thing as an ugly airplane.

And then I clicked through the link. Oh, wow.

On the flip side New Zealand did create a gorgeously functional top dresser with the PAC Cresco STOL turboprop series.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_Cresco

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_MO5Wfomks

It's a rock solid workhorse capable of millions of line kilometres drafting at low ground clearances with short hill top take off and landings.

Even flies well upside down under bridges.

I had no idea that a commercial aircraft was manufactured in NZ. Thanks!

Eye the beholder I guess. The beauty of airplanes is that they fly the way they look, and this thing gives off serious AN-2 vibes. Makes perfect sense for Australia, where there's a huge need for cheap air trucks with STOL capability in the outback. Biplanes are still a good choice for that to this day, based on all the old Antonovs still in service.

Looks like something Launchpad McQuack would fly. Actually, it kind of looks like Launchpad....

I really never liked the Boeing X-32 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32). That big square intake and tiny wings just looks ridiculous.

IMO the ugliest aircraft is the Blackburn Blackburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Blackburn

Ridiculous name, even more ridiculous looks.

I think the Caproni Ca.60 was uglier:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.60

> The Caproni Ca.60 Transaereo, often referred to as the Noviplano (nine-wing) or Capronissimo, was the prototype of a large nine-wing flying boat intended to become a 100-passenger transatlantic airliner.[N 2] It featured eight engines and three sets of triple wings.

... in other words, it looked like a river barge with a big superstructure of wings stuck to the top.

I'm sorry, but I think it's pretty neat and cute! Ugly is in the eye of the beholder.

I would however put it in the, "Are you sure this isn't Photoshopped?" category of planes.

I'll throw my hat in the ring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_AD-1

Anything designed by Burt Rutan is worth stopping to take a look at

Was this actually designed by Burt Rutan, though? His factory "provided the detailed design and load analysis" according to Wikipedia, but that statement doesn't have a citation. It could have been Robert T. Jones who designed it, or maybe it was designed by committee by NASA.

Mustard's latest video is on this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_dNt4UEVZQ

I've seen worse. In particular I recently watched a (long!) video about French interwar bombers. Some of them sure had... interesting designs. Also on topic for HN, the video talks about the politics, conflict, and general folly involved in their specification. https://youtu.be/gWzmNw5Mu_w?si=81QvU0L7_vlv7Hcn

I gotta say, the plane in the article above is pretty cute by comparison.

Wow! That instantly hit the "wtf is that, that's weird!" buttons for me.

I'm somewhere between "it's amazing how something can be universally ugly" and "that's really cool, I wonder if anyone's making more of them". An interesting feeling.

The narrow cabin looks like Disney:

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/mt/culture_test/planesbann...

Of Mad Max fame...

First thing I thought of

I was also wondering if the was the plane from Mad Max 2.

Wait until they see the AD Scout

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AD_Scout

If you are in these comments, you need to plan a trip to the USAF Museum in Dayton, Ohio. It's amazing.

If you're in the UK the best equivalent I know of is Duxford: https://www.iwm.org.uk/visits/iwm-duxford

There was a truly excellent museum at Newquay Airport called the Cornwall Aviation Heritage Centre. It had a number of rare British aircraft - just to name a few:

- a Vickers Super VC10 airliner in flying condition[1], one of only 22 built and one of the even fewer number that underwent a successful conversion to military in-flight refuelling service

- a BAC 1-11 airliner, the last in flying condition, I believe

- a English Electric Lightning supersonic interceptor

In 2022, the museum's lease was terminated by the Cornwall County Council with eight months' notice. When the museum found a private donor and proposed to move all the aircraft to a nearby site (which belonged to a local businessman who wanted to support the effort), that same Council cancelled one of their meetings. The meeting was supposed to have been to arrange temporary storage for the exhibits during construction of the new museum site. This gave the museum one week to move or destroy the aircraft. Some of the airframes were returned to the armed forces (who have historic collections of their own, for instance at Yeovilton).

The Super VC10 was disassembled; a few metres of the plane's front section were moved to the RAF base at St. Athan. The BAC 1-11 had a similar end, with the forward fuselage moved to one day be turned into a café in Southampton to support a local aviation museum.

[1]: When I visited the museum, I was asked not to touch any of the VC10's engine controls, because, as the volunteer explained at the time, it still had some fuel in the tanks!

Probably safer than a 737 Max

Ok but that's the cutest airplane I've ever seen

His hangar poodle is named FoPaw ! Puntastic.

while there is a lot of ugly planes in the threads, this airtruk is indeed the ugliest

Is it just me or is that thing actually kind of cute?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com