Matrix Games Forums

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/

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

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

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

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

Dornier Do17

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:




Dornier Do-217N:




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








Leo "Apollo11"

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.

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.

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Apollo11



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]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

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.

ORIGINAL: Mac67

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

Yep, got this in RHS.[:D]

ORIGINAL: patrickl

ORIGINAL: Mac67

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

Yep, got this in RHS.[:D]

antiquated as all get out. I mean how can you not afford to at least enclose the cockpit. [8|]. However, IMHO, still not as ugly as some of the French bombers. I'm a little surprised the Italians don't have one in the list, or that no one has suggested the B-18

ORIGINAL: Mac67

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

Mary Mother of God that is ugly! I think the factory workers should have refused to build it.

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

ORIGINAL: Mac67

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

Mary Mother of God that is ugly! I think the factory workers should have refused to build it.

I'm sure Uncle Joe would have been understanding.

I thought the question was .....
"What if SPATACUS had had a Piper Cub?"

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

ORIGINAL: Mac67

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

Mary Mother of God that is ugly! I think the factory workers should have refused to build it.

It carried up to 4000kg+ of bombs though, and that was back in 1932.. when the B-17 wasn't even on the drawing boards.

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Apollo11



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:




Dornier Do-217N:




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








Leo "Apollo11"

Those other models are definetly pleasing to the eye and sharp.....but those first generation Do-17's w/ that "Cranium" of a cockpit, looks ridicolous

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

...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.

I've seen a B-17G up close at our local airport; its huge wings give it enormous lift as it just seems to float off the runway, and their (almost) eliptical shape is reminicent of the Spitfire.

In short, the B-17 looks like an airplane, while the B-24 -- the "workhorse" of all bombers -- was built to specs w/o any consideration of what an aircraft is supposed to look like; the Lib is totally functional, but w/o any aerodynamic esthetics. In fact, the B-24's rectangular design reminds me of the Desert Storm stealth fighter; and it flies like one too.

Pilots didn't call the Lib the "packing box" for the B-17 for nothing.

Don't have a picture handy, but shouldn't the slab-sided, drooped-chinned, British Whitley get a mention

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Don't have a picture handy, but shouldn't the slab-sided, drooped-chinned, British Whitley get a mention

Whitley

Why noone mentioned italian SM-79 and SM-81?