Page 3 of 8
RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:29 pm
by Dixie
I'm not sure if I'd call it ugly per se, but the Stirling was an ungainly looking machine at best.
RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:56 pm
by m10bob
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 suspect the workmen had to "sneak up on it" to build it.
BTW, the Soviet paratoopers laid on the top of the wing and held onto handles. Once ready to drop, they let go and rolled back over those broad wings and fell off the plane!
RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:04 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Historiker
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Don't have a picture handy, but shouldn't the slab-sided, drooped-chinned, British Whitley get a mention
Whitley
THANK YOU SIR. I think this certainly deserves an "honorable mention" in the contest.
RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:54 pm
by Big B
ORIGINAL: PetrOs
Why no one mentioned italian SM-79 and SM-81?
I actually thought the SM 79 was kind of cool looking - in a funky sort of way...

RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:57 pm
by niceguy2005
ORIGINAL: m10bob
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 suspect the workmen had to "sneak up on it" to build it.
BTW, the Soviet paratoopers laid on the top of the wing and held onto handles. Once ready to drop, they let go and rolled back over those broad wings and fell off the plane!
Well naturally, how else would one jump out (or in this case off) such a work of beauty. [:'(]...I've heard stories, though never had it confirmed that some of the USSR paratroops didn't actually have parachutes, but rather bails of hay strapped to their backs
RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:03 pm
by rtrapasso
ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
ORIGINAL: m10bob
ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
Mary Mother of God that is ugly! I think the factory workers should have refused to build it.
I suspect the workmen had to "sneak up on it" to build it.
BTW, the Soviet paratoopers laid on the top of the wing and held onto handles. Once ready to drop, they let go and rolled back over those broad wings and fell off the plane!
Well naturally, how else would one jump out (or in this case off) such a work of beauty. [:'(]...I've heard stories, though never had it confirmed that some of the USSR paratroops didn't actually have parachutes, but rather bails of hay strapped to their backs
Yeah - we discussed this on the THREAD - they bundled the paratroopers up in bales of hay and dumped them out at low altitude into deep snow... operational survival was said to be around 50%, however, details are scanty, and i don't have the book my old wargamer buddy read me the quote from. We (Threadians) tried to get MYTHBUSTERS to look at it, but they never replied (afaik).
RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:26 pm
by rtrapasso
ORIGINAL: m10bob
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 suspect the workmen had to "sneak up on it" to build it.
BTW, the Soviet paratoopers laid on the top of the wing and held onto handles. Once ready to drop, they let go and rolled back over those broad wings and fell off the plane!
This was discussed a few months ago on the fount of all knowledge (the THREAD) - this plane is stanger than it looks! There were gunners located in the inboard engine nacelles, and at one point the plane was powered by diesel engines (!!?!). The one big raid by this version on German positions featured a 60% loss rate, almost all due to engine failures, although "friendly fighters" shot down one (apparently as an aesthestic protest).
RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:37 pm
by Boozecamp
It is hard to beat those interwar French box bombers. Aside from them, I find the Heinkel 177 to be a very unattractive plane.
RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:24 am
by Dili
I kick everyone that says my signature is ugly!!! [:@][;)]
RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:35 am
by DuckofTindalos
If we're going to list the Hampden as an ugly plane, then the Ki-48 and the Baltimore/Maryland must go too. Here's another two:

RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:35 am
by DuckofTindalos
And:

RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:09 am
by Jevhaddah_Slitherine
[font="arial,sans-serif"][size="-1"]
Blom und
Voss Bv141
Not a Bomber but very strange all the same [:)]
I have had a model of this lying in the cupboard for several years now, I must get round to building it one day [:)]
Cheers
Jev
[/size][/font]
RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:05 am
by JeffroK
The Vickers Wellesley, designed by Sir Barnes Wallis (At least in part)
I think your pic has been shortened a bit, the plane was a bit sleeker
The Bombay was a Bomber/Transport and saw action in the Western Desert as a bomber and for a few years as a Transport
RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:04 pm
by hawker
B-25 "Mitchell" is ugliest
RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:09 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: hawker
B-25 "Mitchell" is ugliest
You gotta be kidding..., the B-25 is gorgeous. Especially the "gun-ship" models...
RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:00 pm
by DuckofTindalos
ORIGINAL: hawker
B-25 "Mitchell" is ugliest
Aha... Riiiight...[8|]
RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:42 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: hawker
B-25 "Mitchell" is ugliest
Aha... Riiiight...[8|]
Maybe he meant the ugliest when viewed from the "recieving end"?
RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 2:12 pm
by rtrapasso
ORIGINAL: JeffK
The Vickers Wellesley, designed by Sir Barnes Wallis (At least in part)
...and assisted by his faithful companion, Grommet!
RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:39 pm
by BrucePowers
ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
ORIGINAL: Joe D.
Has to be the Consolidated B-24 Liberator; it was referred to as the "packing box the B-17 came in."
It was as hard to handle in the air as it was ugly.
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.
The B-17 was a much prettier airplane in my opinion. Sturdier too.
RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:42 pm
by crsutton
ORIGINAL: Richrd
When Mrs Roosevelt was young, she was a drop dead stunning babe.
Were you dating her? [:D]