Prettiest plane of WWII

[Corsarius]

Okay campers, here's one to test your minds, and your searching skills:

Based upon my rather sarcastic comment to another poster here, I would like to put up a 'prettiest aircraft' thread. Terms of posting...

1) You must specify the aircraft, designation, model (if applicable), and reason why you find it the prettiest.

2) Include a link to a website or photograph to illustrate your choice to everyone here. Use the resource of TGPlanes whenever possible!

[Paolo Tagliaferri]

No reasons ... just the image [8D]

http://www.tgplanes.com/plimg/fw190d-1.jpg

[Corsarius]

I know you'll all say I'm mad, but I've always had a thing for the He 177 greif. I always thought it looked sleek and deadly (and not just to it's crews!), aerodynamic with flush gun turrets, and a wicked-looking tail turret. The engines that were so troublesome look podded and powerful, and the idea that such a large plane would be capable of dive bombing, while ludicrous, is kind-of cool at the same time. That it became a fairly interesting multirole aircraft (enormous weapons for antitank, airborne guided missile carrier for antiground and anti-shipping) just makes it look groovy.

Here's a pretty nice picture:
http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW/He177-2.jpg

[GregP]

Prettiest plane?

I nominate the Regainne 2005. Classic streamlining and art deco rudder. To top it off, the aircraft fkew absolutely wonderfully.

If you don't like the 2005, I nominate the McDonnell XP-67. Again, streamlined beyond any other twin-engine aircraft, and had another art deco rudder and fin.

I'm not sure how to post a picture, but I have several if someone would tell me.

[Paolo Tagliaferri]

To post images, you have to put them on a free webspace site you can take. Then you can link them in here by placing the url of the foto in the tags for images.

[GregP]

OK, what's a good free webspace site taglia?

[Corsarius]

uh, you could find an image, and do as Taglia did, which is [ img]w ww.blah blah blah.jpg[/img] or do as I did (and save loading time for those of us with dial up!) and just post the link. I'm sure there are nice pics of the reggiane 2005 somewhere online already.

[Paolo Tagliaferri]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

OK, what's a good free webspace site taglia?

Take a look here:http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/Hosting/Free/Directories/?tc=1

[Ricky]

For sheer grace, elegance and deadliness, look no further than the sleek, refined lines of the Me262.

No contest
[^]

[simon]

Prettiest plane, for me I'd say the any of the Merlin Spitfires (MkI, MkII, MkV) with the 8 gun "A" layout, and the normal rather than "LF" configuration, oh, and not with that ugly Vokes filter for desert work.

Reasons? Nice clean lines, not spoilt by Griffin bulges, cannon magazines, or clipped wing tips, not boxy like the Bf109 and didn't have the corrugated fuselage of the Hurricane.

Runners up, hmmmm.... Well I've always liked the look of the Bf110, don't know why, I just think it looks a good aircraft, but also the Douglas DC-3, C-47, Dakota, whatever-else-it's-been-called, again good, clean, unspoilt lines.

[Victor]

The prettiest airplane for me is the IAR-81C... what else did you expect from me? :D I like its shapes very much...
http://www.arr.go.ro/iar80.htm

A runner-up would be the Hs-129B, painted with shark teeth.

[Corsarius]

Hmm... IAR 80... a very nice plane, for something that was originally derived from the PZL P24 it turned out very pretty indeed. I, for one, always really liked the shape of the cockpit canopy. It just makes it look very sleek, as if it had racing lines. Not 100% successful in the fighter or (as the IAR.81) fighter-bomber roles, but they did pretty well for what they were.

Definitely a wonderful indigenous choice for you, Victor!

As for the Hs-129B, I like it from certain angles, but the gunsight makes it look awkward and unpleasant, as if it were an afterthought. Other than that, the plane is ugly, but it is a sleek kind of ugly. I often wondered what would the eastern front have been like should the luftwaffe had more of these. I understand that they had a fearsome device, somewhat the opposite of that added to some Me-262 and Me-163s, where there were downward firing rockets that launched when the plane flew over a large concentration of metal (say... a T-38, or IS-2)

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by simon

also the Douglas DC-3, C-47, Dakota, whatever-else-it's-been-called

The C-47 was the military variant, otherwise know as the 'dak, gooney-bird, dakota, skytrain, etc etc etc'. This aircraft was distinguished by the large freight door on the port side. DC-3 was the civilian version.

I always find it odd that so many combatants used the C-47/DC-3. The americans used it, the British and allies used it, the Japanese used and manufactured it, the Russians manufactured a variant of it with their own engines... it's almost as if it were the plane that seems to have been used by everyone (except the Germans and Italians) throughout the war, in simeultaneous theatres!

[simon]

I'd read that some were equipped with downward firing recoilless rifles attached to a magnetic sensor for triggering them, like Corsarius said a kind of reverse in principle of the SG500 tried on the Me163.

The Hs129 always reminds me of a sort of precursor of the A-10 in many ways, not just an effective anti-tank plane but also has that sort of "ugly-yet-somehow-not-ugly" look to it. Considering that only around 700 were built (As far as I understand), it certainly achieved quite a bit for the small numbers employed.

I like the IAR plane as well (As an aside, Victor's site has given me enough information and the prompting to knock up wargames stats for the IAR-80, and hopefully as soon as I can knock up a couple of decent conversions I'll give it a go against a few contemporaries!), but in purely aesthetic terms I think the fuselage tapers towards the tail a bit too much.

Just like to give another of my all time favourites a mention here as well, the Heinkel He219. I love the snub nosed appearance with the cockpit right up on the nose, the smooth sleek lines and contouring of the fuselage around the weapons bays, and as much as this isn't an appearance thing, it has a greater punch in terms of guns than any other WWII fighter.

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by simon

The Hs129 always reminds me of a sort of precursor of the A-10 in many ways, not just an effective anti-tank plane but also has that sort of "ugly-yet-somehow-not-ugly" look to it.

That is so wierd. When I made my earlier post I, too, was going to compare the Hs129 with the A-10, or even moreso with the SU-25, which it superficially resembles. For some reason it seems more of a dedicated 'sturmovik' than the Il-2.

I draw parallell with the A-10 in that it is heavily armoured with a massive gun for anti-tank work, it has twin-engine survivability, and can operate with one engine out to get home... It's one of those planes that I think filled a very important niche, and it's also one that, kitted out with appropriate antimissile protection, that I feel would even be able to operate over battlefields today. In many ways it lives on in the argentinian FMA IA 58 Pucara.

Addendum:
Hs-129: Number Produced: 841 B-Series (879 total)
Armament: Hs 129B-2 Series:
Two 13mm MG 131 Machine Guns in nose.
Two 20mm MG 151/20 cannon in nose.
Various weapons were fitted inclusding 37mm BK 3.7 and 75mm BK 7.5. An interesting weapon was a battery of six 75mm smoothbore recoiless rifles that fired downawrds and to the rear. This system was fired by an automatic magnetic trigger that fired when the aircraft flew over metal objects. This system was reported to be quite successful.

Source: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/hs129.html

[simon]

Great minds and all that, eh Corsarius? ;)

The Hs129B didn't just carry the Bk 7,5 but also carried the earlier Pak 40 75mm gun (Shorter barrel, I think), and earlier around the time of Zitadelle, the 30mm Mk101 (Not to be confused with the Mk108 and Mk103). Out of interest and just picking up on what I assume is an error in your info, a cannon or gun is either smoothbore or a rifle, but by definition cannot be both.

The term "Rifle" comes from the groves in the bore of the barrel which spin the projectile, increasing the accuracy. Smoothbore guns don't have this and are less accurate, although they are slightly cheaper and slightly quicker to manufacture, and in the case of weapons like shotguns (A typical smoothbore), rifling would actually detract from the weapon rather than benefit it.

Anyway, I find it interesting on the subject of planes that could still function in a modern battlefield environment, that the USAF considered the Il10 an obsolete anachronism at the time of Korea, yet still used the AD1 Skyraider some twenty years later in Vietnam, another aircraft that narrowly missed being a WWII plane...

[GregP]

Hey Voctor,

Nice post about the IAR-80 / 81. However ... post a pic of the IAR-81B. I have all the data for the IAR-80, 80A, 80B, 80C, 81, 81A, 81B, and 81C ... but no picture of the IAR-80B!

Go figure, huh.

The Hs 129 to me is not a beauty but DOES look functional. Comparing it to the A-10 or the SU-25 is appropriate. Neither one is a beauty unless you are being assaulted by tanks and need some air support. Then, they are BEAUTIFUL.

Earlier, I said the Regianne 2005 or the McDonnell XP-67 "Bat" were beautiful. I still think so. However, the Beech A-38 Grizzly is also a pretty aircraft and would have gone into production if the engines selected to pwoer it were not needed for the B-29 program.

The Heinkel He-119 was also a pretty aircraft. Ditto the Hughes XF-11 and the Mitsubishi Ki-46 III with the recon nose, the Myasishev DVB-102.

The PZL P-50 looks to me like a Spatan Executive that was turned into a fighter. I'd like to see one in a polished Aluminum finish ... assuming it was metal, that is. How about the Hawker Sea Fury?

Don't overlook the Republic XF-12 Recon plane. Just beautiful!

If you can't tell by the lsit, all these aricraft (except the Hs 129B) were strealmined and slick-looking. Some were powered by radials and some by inlines, but they all look beautiful to an old airplane lover like me. What the heck, throw in the Fiat G.55, the Douglas A-26, the DeHavilland Hornet / Sea Hornet, and maybe a bare-metal finish Curtiss-Wright CW-21. The CW-21 would make a wonderful present-day personal hot rod to flit about in, wouldn't it? Anmd the R-1820 isn't too bad on gas when compared with the bigger displacement engines of the others.

Last (maybe) how about the Ambrosini SAI 107 or 207 (one with armament, one without)?

What can I say? I like airplanes!

[simon]

I agree with most of what you say, with a couple of exceptions. The CW-21 Demon I dislike because it has even more pronounced tapering of the fuselage than the IAR-80, it looks like a characature of a plane!

Personally I dislike both the Italian inline engined fighters, I think the Mc.205V and the G.55 lack the style and smooth lines on the Bf019F/G/K, Spitfire or Mustang, their engines look like they're on upside down!!! Of course this is entirely personal, and it is entirely in the eye of the beholder, but...

Can't find the He119, but I can find the He100 and the He112, mind one I have always liked is the He162 as well, for all its failings a nice looking plane.

[GregP]

The beauty of the CW-21 IS in the eye of the beholder. The CW-21 led to the CW-22, which is a two-seater derivative.

I just happened to see a real live one in McMinville, OR at the Evergreen Museum. The finish is in poloshed Aluminum and it is beautiful. Makes you want to jump in, crak it up, and commit aviation in it.

Each to his own, I suppose.

To me, the German Messerschmitt Bf-109 isn't nearly as nice looking as the Regianne Re 2005 but, then again, it IS a personal opinion.

Thank heavens they all don't look alike. For a photo of the He-119, try: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/heinkel/he119.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dheinkel%2Bhe%2B119%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D% 26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG%26as_qdr%3Dall

The nose was clear so they didn't bother with a cockpit bulge.

Strealmined in an Art Deco sort of fashion.

[simon]

Got a "404 Error" there, but I guess you like your engines the wrong way? ;). For the record, I do like the Demon really, I just think the FW190A series do the same thing looks wise, but better.

[Corsarius]

Doesn't work for me, either. Maybe you mean the Uhu fighter?

[Victor]

Greg, there is no picture of the IAR-81B simply because there was no such airplane.:)

[Ricky]

Hey, how about the Mitsubishi recon plane, named 'Dinah' by the Allies
(I can't remember the Japanese designation - sorry)

For simple, effective, clean lines, and gracefulness, very nice indeed.

Personally, I prefer the Mk. 1 with bulged cockpits, not the Mk. 2, which had the cockpit streamlined into the fuselage. It lost the clean , simple & pure look.

[simon]

I think it was the Mitsubishi Ki46-III-Kai you're referring to, I think that's the one that was called the Dinah, and I think it was the III-Kai configuration that was used as a night-fighter (That was the main reason for the cockpit alterations, to provide a solid nose for the armament), the others were unarmed recon planes that in their heyday were supposedly virtually impossible to intercept.

I use "I think" here deliberately because I'm far from certain, stand by for corrections once I check in my books![:I]

[Corsarius]

He means the uber-streamlined ones that had no step on their cockpit, and definitely are one of the prettiest planes of the war, along with the sleek lines they had VERY close-cowled engines and large spinners which added to their grace.

Aust War Memorial states that this type of 'dinah' aircraft was very difficult to intercept by tropicalised Spitfire V types that were defending Darwin.

[simon]

Yep you're right of course! A slight misunderstanding on my part of what Ricky meant, by "Bulged cockpit"...

Once more I learn the folly of posting without checking my books...:D

[tenmmike]

http://www2.cc22.ne.jp/~harada/D_9.jpg or ill take a ta-152 or a me-262 or a 'stang

[simon]

Interestingly you're the first to even give the Mustang a mention.

Personally I don't think there's much to chose looks wise between the Fw190D and the Ta152 and appart from the fact the latter is slightly bigger, I'd be hard pushed to tell the two appart!

Definitely agree about the Me262, I do like it looks wise.

The Mustang though... well I always think that radiator housing makes it look pregnant, or perhaps more fairly, a bit like me having spent the best part of the last decade over-indulging in the old amber nectar. Actually that's probably a good analogy, the Mustang is a bit like me, good looks, just a bit too rounded! :D

[GregP]

Good point, Simon. The Skyraider was a real workhorse and, with one engine, hauled more bomb load than a B-17 did.

Think of the effect on WWII of the entire bomb force were Skyraiders that could bomb as effectively or more so than B-17's and could turn around and strafe ground targets or act as "slow" fighters all the way home!

Another "could have been ..." that simply wasn't.

[robert]

Best looking:

1. Supermarine Spitfire (especially the Mk.IX w/ original rounded fin and rudder; rounded, not clipped, wings; and faired, not bubble, canopy). Ranks with the Beatles’ Revolver, David Lean's Brief Encounter, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Hound of the Baskervilles, Monty Python’s Flying Circus, Nigel Mansell’s pass of Ayrton Senna in Hungary in 1989, and Catherine Zeta-Jones as one of Britain’s greatest artistic achievements of the 20th Century.

2. Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien

3. Macchi C.202

4. Beech C-43 (Model 17) Staggerwing

5. Messerschmitt Me 262B - one of the few times a two-seater has been better looking than its single-seat counterpart

Honorable mention: Lockheed C-69 Constellation - OK, it was designed as an airliner, and only a few were delivered to the USAAF before the war ended, but how can I ignore the most beautiful prop airliner ever built?

Worst looking;

1. Amiot 143. France has produced much of great beauty – the paintings of Monet and Renoir, the music of Satie and Ravel, actresses Juliette Binoche and Romane Bohringer...so why were the French twin-engined aircraft of the 1930s as ugly as humanly possible? My theory – all of the reverse karma from France’s great art was transferred to these aircraft. It’s a yin/yang thing...

2. Farman F.222 - see above

3. Potez 540 - oh, all right, it wasn’t actually used on operations in WW2, and I don’t want this list be entirely made up of French twins, so...

3. L.W.S.4 Zubr

4. Fairey Barracuda

5. Fisher XP-75 Eagle – gets in even though it wasn’t used on operations because it’s such a Frankenstein’s monster of parts taken from other aircraft that it has to be in there somewhere!

Honorable mention – Curtiss XSB2C-2 Helldiver. I never thought much of the Helldiver anyway, but put it on floats and it really gets ugly!

[CAPILATUS]

From my position
among fighters:
Yak-3 and Corsair F4U-4C can't shoose one.

Jet ones: Me262


Strike aircrafts:
Mosquito

Bombers:
B-17

Dive bombers:
Pe-2

Simply can't shoose only one...
They are the best looking in my opinion.
I think understand me, Corsarius, why. ;)

[Romantic Technofreak]

Fine that you already mentioned the Mitsubishi Ki-46. For me WWII´s prettiest one, with both cockpit forms. Take a look at this link: http://www.wwiitech.net/main/japan/aircraft/ki-46/
(Sorry, I am too stupid to post pictures). The dolphin form of the fuselage makes it fast and beautiful (Regards to the B-17), and the sight of the well-rounded radial engines with the big spinners is just impressing.
I would even add it to the "best bomber" topic in the fast bomber contest, as rival to the Mosquito, although it was never used as a bomber (as much as I know). In a picture from a book I have seen that it has pretty much unused space between the front and rear cockpit, enough to put a 500 kg bomb into it, or an additional fuel tank for long-distance duties. And with better motors (German BMW 801?) it should have made 685 km/h (one source says it actually did, on a trial altitude flight to China), impossibly being intercepted.
The Ki-46 had everything a 2-engined fast airplane should have, if it would have been developed with more care furthermore. It is hard to understand why the Japanese tried to invent the same airplane over and over and over again (no need to remind me on rivalty between army and navy and different connections to the aircraft manufacturers), take only the number of different single and double engined fighter models they produced.

[GregP]

I agree. The Ki-46, especially in the reconaissance form with the faired windscreen, was a beautiful aircraft, and deserves at least a mention in this forum.

Good call!

I often wonder why it was not developed as a bomber or heavy fighter myself, and can only conclude that the basic structure was not stressed for the role. Otherwise, it lloks like a winner as a night fighter, light offensive bomber, and a great candidate for arming with MANY machine guns and using it as a straffing paltform during the Pacific's many amphibious landings.

[GregP]

Romantic Technofreak,
I notice you metion the Japanese trying to invent the same airplane over and over, and I agree to an extent.

What about the Russians?

It seems to me they kept trying to invent the same airplane, too.

Arhangelsky AR-2 and SBB-1, Ermolayev ER-2, MiG-5 and DIS, Petlyakov Pe-2, Pe-3, Polikarpov VIT-1 and Vit-2, Sukhoi UTB-2, Tairov TA-3, Tuploev ANT-40, -58, SBB, Tu-2, Tu-10, Tak-2 and Yak-4, and the Yermolayev YER-2 and Yer-4.

There MUST be others, but they all look to be strong, twin-engined heavy fighters / light bombers, mostly with twin fins and the same genral layout that sems, to me at least, as though the Soviets were even better than the Japanese at inventing the same aircraft again and again.

[Romantic Technofreak]

Another streamlined beauty, here in Romanian colours (Greetings to Victor):
http://www.studenten.net/customasp/axl/picture.asp?cat_id=10&ple_id=379&page=0&pte_id=7681

[GregP]

Great picture Romantic Technofreak! Thanks!

[GregP]

OK, here are a couple of candidates:

1) Republic XR-12: http://www.air-and-space.com/Republic%20XF-12.htm

2) McDonnell XP-87: http://www.russian.ee/~star/air/usa/mcdonnell_xp-67.html

I think the XF-12 (later named XR-12 when the "F" for "Foto" or photorecon went to "R" for Reconaissance)is a beautiful airplane. It could go 450 mph at high altitude and would have been almost impossible to catch for piston fighters.

The Hughes XF-11: http://avia.russian.ee/air/usa/hughes_xf-11.html

was ALSO vrey fast. They actually tried a mission over the U.S.A. once. The entire Air Force was alerted and many F-80's and F-86's were scrambled to find and shoot it down.

Only one F-86 actually FOUND the XF-11 in flight and repeated passes resulted in the extreme wingtip being shown in ONE gun camera frame! All the rest of the frames showed empty air as the XF-11 simply rolled away from the encounter faster than the F-86 could.

[Victor]

quote:Originally posted by Romantic Technofreak

Another streamlined beauty, here in Romanian colours (Greetings to Victor):
http://www.studenten.net/customasp/axl/picture.asp?cat_id=10&ple_id=379&page=0&pte_id=7681


Interestingly how the photo is exactly the same as the one here:
http://www.worldwar2.ro/arr/he112b.htm
Except that the source isn't mentioned. :D

[Romantic Technofreak]

Yes Greg, you made a very fine choose. Sorry that those planes stayed prototypes. The piston engine aera went over too early.

"What looks good flies well"!

[Romantic Technofreak]

And one for Grendel:
http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Finland/images/P_myrsky.jpg

If you like, we could start an Axis-wide DB 605 contest. Competitors are:

1. Messerschmitt Bf 109K
2. Reggiane Re. 2005
3. VL Pyörremyrsky
4. Kawasaki Ki-61 (come on, have some fantasy, neglect bad technic and let the Japanese produce well-running DB 605 engines)
5. If you have still more fantasy, for Romania equip a He 112 with a DB 605!

[GregP]

Good choices, ROmantic Technofreak.

I have not seen the VL before, unless it is a Pyorremyrsky ... can't tell ... Looks like a Pyorremyrsky ...

I also like the Macchi 2002 and 2005 as well as the Fiat G.55. Strange to think the Reggiane Re.2005 was a descendent of the Seversky P-35, but it was!

Strange as may seem, I also like the Yakovlev Yak-3 series for the lines, as well as the Iakrus S-49A (looked like a kissing cousin to the Yak-3, but really had no relationship to it).

For pure good looks, the Dewoitine D.520 is in there, too along with the Swedish FFVS J 22.

If we're talking "what-ifs," how about the Payen Pa.112C1?

Last at this time, but not least, what about the Heinkel He 100?

Probably the best fighter they never built ... along with the Martin Baker MB-5 and teh Australian Ca-15.

[GregP]

Duhhhh ... check the link: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/pyorremyrsky.html

I think it IS a Pyorremyrsky. Don't YOU?

How many different DB 605-powered fighters did Finland MAKE anyway? Probably just this one, especially given the marking on the fuselage.

Just MY opinion, but chime in here ...

[GregP]

How about the Bisnowat SK-2? http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/fot/fot083.jpg

Looks like the smallest airframe that could be designed around the largest engine available. Even the cockpit had to be moved backward so the CG would balance.

Not the most elegant of fighters, but interesting.

[DazDaMan]

Hi all

First post on this forum, so be gentle!

I'm rather biased with my answer - the prettiest plane of WW2 is, without doubt, the Spitfire! I mean, just LOOK at it! Merlin engine, Griffon engine, clipped wings, normal wings, bubble canopy or razorback. Just perfection.

[simon]

I'm not generally as keen on the engine housing bulges of the Griffins, nor the clipped wing. I guess I'm a purist at heart, I prefer the Merlins, normal rather than HF wing, and 8 gun layout for appearance! Good choice though... :D

[DazDaMan]

I forgot to add tails - normal, broad-chord (Griffon), pointy (Merlin).

A MkXVI with a bubble canopy, rounded wingtips and pointy tail - ooooohhh!! ;)

[simon]

Erm... Calm down Daz!

[GregP]

Welcome! Spits are beautiful. What we are commenting on here is the sheer number of asthetically pleasing WWII fighters.

If you check above, there are MANY suggestions, and most are pretty good looking aircraft.

Naturally, most people in the USA choose a US fighter. Ditto the British, Germans, Italians, Russians, French, Finns, etc.

I am from the USA and like so many that it is hard to choose. My earlier posts enumerate some of the choices. Though I LIKE the P-51D and H, and they are very good fighters, I am not one of those is convinced they were the BEST. The very term demands some explanation. Best at what? No single aircraft was best at everything, no matter which one it was since all ariplanes are a compromise in design. Like was said earlier, "The Mustang couldn't do what a Spitfire could do, but it could do what it did over Berlin."

So, if you're a Spitfire lover, that's wonderful. Me too.

I like at least one fighter from all the combatants and, in some cases, more than one. Hope you do, too. Now, nominate at least four other aircraft that you think "look right" so we can see how your opinions run. :)

[Romantic Technofreak]

For everybody who is repelled from the atrocities of French bomber designs, take a look at this Mademoiselle for console and joy:

http://avions.legendaires.free.fr/vg33.php

For me the most beautiful, and best (concerning its drag characteristic), fighter of 1940!

[GregP]

Nice choice! The Arsenal VG series (VG-30, 33, 36, and 39) were very good looking aircraft. I believe the fastest one of the series was the VG-39 at 625 kph, but they were all pretty.

To me, the Italian Caproni Vizzola F-4 and F-6 looked similar, but the Arsenals were a bit cleaner of line.

[Corsarius]

now THAT's a nice looking plane. Nearly as sleek as the spit! It sure has beautiful lines.

On the other hand, I'm no real fan of the Caproni designs. I think, especially from above/below, that they look a bit 'stretched out', like the wings are too long and narrow. Strange, really, because generally I feel that the Italians produced some of the most attractive aircraft of the war.

[Calhoun]

Prettiest airplane of WWII?

Has to be the Dewoitine 520. The thing looks like it's going 400 mph just sitting on the ground.

[Corsarius]

I'd have to say that I'm a sucker for paint jobs, and the Italians sure produced some good-looking planes with some GREAT looking paint jobs. Try this MC.200 on for size!

http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/maccmc200.html

[Lightning]

Hi All,

I was looking through old topics and came upon this one. It was last posted-to before I joined this select little group.

I just have to go on record with my choice. Let's see now. Which one will I choose? I've got it! ------ The P-38J/L series!

Regards,
Lightning

[Red Admiral]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v12/red_admiral/steve.jpg

The Bugatti 100 because its so futuristic.

[Trexx]

I've never heard of the "Bugatti 100" until I stumbled upon it here and another nearby thread. I am stunned. So much so that I forwarded the big web site about it to many of my airplane friends. No one has seen nor heard of it, ever. It is amazing. It is was real, no?
It's very cool to discover amazing things like that!

[Trexx]

These are in the harem only because they're 'pretty'!

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/897605/Type_99_Val_2.jpgType 99 Aichi A3 "Val"
Those lines! ...count the elipses! Spatted legs are HOT!

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/897605/Oscar_Ki-43_4.jpg Ki-43 "Oscar"
Definitely an Ivory girl! CLEAN!

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/897605/Lavochkin-9.jpgLavochkin 9 "Lag-9"
This one's a smoothie too!

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/897605/fiat_CR32.jpg Fiat CR-32
This one's a sesquiplane with spats. The finest biplane to hoist a gun.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/897605/p-38.jpg P-38 "Lightning"
So fine, it blows my mind!

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/897605/Gloster_meteor.jpg Gloster Meteor
Whoa, baby!

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/897605/Messerschmitt_262.jpg Messerschmitt 262 "Schwalbe'
Hot, hot, hot!!!

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/897605/P-75_Eagle.jpg P-75 Eagle?
Hey! How'd that ugly bee-auch get in here??????????
She's here to clean the comode, and then leave...

[Kutscha]

Trexx, take a little trip to Oshgosh. Fantastic museum they have there.

[PMN1]

The Mosquito - no picture needed.....

:D

[Wuzak]

My favourite is the Spitfire MkVIII.

Those beautiful elliptical wings (any better picture of a WW2 airplane than a Spitfire silhouetted against the sky in plan view?), tidied up details (retractable tail wheel, symmetrical radiator housings), and the pointed tail.

The Mosquito, too, is an attractive design. Just not, to my eyes, as beautiful as the Spitfire.

That Bugatti is an awesome design. Very elegant, much like Bugatti's cars of the '20s and '30s, especially their GP designs.

And the McDonnell XP-67. One of my favourite designs of all time. Not what I would call pretty, but still attractive, futuristic.

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by Red Admiral

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v12/red_admiral/steve.jpg
The Bugatti 100 because its so futuristic.


http://www.tdmsoftware.com/majewski/rcstuff/bugatti_EAA.jpg

I think I'm in love....

Me-163 Komet? What's a Komet?

[Red Admiral]

The Bugatti 100 has been restored and is currently exhibited at Oshkosh. There are 2 sites on the web, The Bugatti Aircraft Assc. and a link to a French page from that site. Speed would have been 500mph+. Armament for the military version would be 1x37mm and 4x7.5mm

[ChrisMcD]

Gents,

Having gone through this entire thread I am amazed no-body has proposed the Hornet

http://www.designermax.com/timeless2.html

http://www.military.cz/british/air/war/fighter/hornet/hornet_en.htm

As they used to as Aaaah...... DeHavilland

[Pete57]

The Lockheed P-80A in overall Pearl Grey finish

www.ascho.wpafb.af.mil/START/PG19-B.HTM

[Lightning]

Hi Pete57,

I agree with you on the P-80 being a beautiful plane. It has always been a favorite of mine-as far as jet fighters go. I always preferred it with tip-tanks. Without them, something seems to be missing.

Your thoughts?

Regards,
Lightning

[Trexx]

Was the Hornet used in World War Two? I thought it was an after war airplane...

I know the P-80 Shooting Star was not used in combat in World War Two...

C'mon GUYS! I'm cyber spanking you now!
I held off fielding many airplanes that weren't used in the Great War.

[Wuzak]

Correct Trexx. The Hornet became operational in 1946.

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by Trexx
C'mon GUYS! I'm cyber spanking you now!
I held off fielding many airplanes that weren't used in the Great War.


Yes, so did I. I mean, I thought of some Great War aircraft, but I didn't think them appropriate. I mean, the classic lines of the Fokker DR.1 are some of the most recognisable of any era, and the Fokker DVII is considered to be one of the best aircraft of the conflict, the only aircraft to be mentioned by name in the treaty of Versailles. Otherwise I like the sturdy lines of the S.E5a, and even the Vickers Gunbus has a certain 'look' to it. The Brandenburg 'star strutters' are wierd, but quite good looking, but for me the best looking of the Great War aircraft was the Junkers monoplanes, such as the J9 (sometimes known as the D1).

That's me on Great War aircraft.... Feeling cyber-spanked yet?

[Pete57]

Hi Lightning,

I think the P-80 is a sight to behold both with or without drop tanks.
I have to agree with you, though, that it is much prettier with them :D

Trexx,
So far as the WW2 combat record of the Shooting Star is concerned, please see my February 2004 post on this forum regarding Project Extraversion.
http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=56&SearchTerms=Extraversion

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

quote:Originally posted by Trexx
C'mon GUYS! I'm cyber spanking you now!
I held off fielding many airplanes that weren't used in the Great War.


Yes, so did I. I mean, I thought of some Great War aircraft, but I didn't think them appropriate. I mean, the classic lines of the Fokker DR.1 are some of the most recognisable of any era, and the Fokker DVII is considered to be one of the best aircraft of the conflict, the only aircraft to be mentioned by name in the treaty of Versailles. Otherwise I like the sturdy lines of the S.E5a, and even the Vickers Gunbus has a certain 'look' to it. The Brandenburg 'star strutters' are wierd, but quite good looking, but for me the best looking of the Great War aircraft was the Junkers monoplanes, such as the J9 (sometimes known as the D1).

That's me on Great War aircraft.... Feeling cyber-spanked yet?


Ohh, Duh. I was using the Russian term there. I thought they called World War Two the 'Great War'. Maybe I'm really wrong again...

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

quote:Originally posted by Trexx
C'mon GUYS! I'm cyber spanking you now!
I held off fielding many airplanes that weren't used in the Great War.


Yes, so did I. I mean, I thought of some Great War aircraft, but I didn't think them appropriate. I mean, the classic lines of the Fokker DR.1 are some of the most recognisable of any era, and the Fokker DVII is considered to be one of the best aircraft of the conflict, the only aircraft to be mentioned by name in the treaty of Versailles. Otherwise I like the sturdy lines of the S.E5a, and even the Vickers Gunbus has a certain 'look' to it. The Brandenburg 'star strutters' are wierd, but quite good looking, but for me the best looking of the Great War aircraft was the Junkers monoplanes, such as the J9 (sometimes known as the D1).

That's me on Great War aircraft.... Feeling cyber-spanked yet?


Ohh, Duh. I was using the Russian term there. I thought they called World War Two the 'Great War'. Maybe I'm really wrong again...

[Wuzak]

Wasn't WW2 the Great Patriotic War for the Russians?

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

Ohh, Duh. I was using the Russian term there. I thought they called World War Two the 'Great War'. Maybe I'm really wrong again...


Never mind. It was actually rather fun looking in my books for a quick perusal of WWI aircraft, and to be honest I really DO like all those aircraft!

[Lightning]

Hi Trexx,

The Russians referred to WWII as the "Great 'Patriotic' War." The "Great War" will always be WWI.

Regards,
Lightning

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

Ohh, Duh. I was using the Russian term there. I thought they called World War Two the 'Great War'. Maybe I'm really wrong again...


Never mind. It was actually rather fun looking in my books for a quick perusal of WWI aircraft, and to be honest I really DO like all those aircraft!


Me too. I've got some great books on World War One and even some with pre-Oriville and Wilbur Wright machines as well.

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi Trexx,

The Russians referred to WWII as the "Great 'Patriotic' War." The "Great War" will always be WWI.

Regards,
Lightning

Thanks fot that...