Your Most Disliked

[Notta Brit]

What Aircraft do you dislike the most? Write them down, you won't tick me off. Put as many as you like. WARNING! If you put an Me-163 you'll tick off Corairius.;) Dislike away!

The ones I dislike are:
1: Heinkel He-51
2: PZL P.23
3: A5M2 Claude
4: Bloch MB-152
5: Macchi Mc-200
6: Fokker D-21
7: Arado Ar-68
8: Yokosuka MXY-7
9: Martin Baltimore

[robert]

Actually, I don't hate any aircraft, but if I dislike one, it would have to be this one...

1. Lockheed P-38 Lightning

[Notta Brit]

I have alot more.

10: Curtiss P-40 Warhawk
11: Messerschmitt Bf-110
12: Anything French Exept Potez 63 Series
13: Tupolev Tb-3
14: Avro Lancaster
15: Focke Wulf Ta Models

[Ricky]

You hate the Lancaser, and late-war Focke-Wulf aircraft??

[Notta Brit]

It's just me.[B)]

[Notta Brit]

16: Fiat CR-32
17: A6M2 Seaplanes
18: Mitsubishi J2M Raiden
19: Cant Z.1007 Alcione
20: Fairey Battle
21: DFS 230
22: Bachem Ba-349 Natter

Make it dislike instead of hate.[B)]

[Ricky]

Fair enough - I was just surprised at the choice.
[:I]

[simon]

Again I'll try to limit myself to ten:

1) Douglas TBD Devastator (for all my defence of it, it's one of those aircraft that I just couldn't bring myself to like).
2) Vought Vindicator (As with the Devastator, I just don't like it)
3) Ju290 (Overall a good plane but all the gun and radar equipment on the anti-shipping versions makes it look a mess)
4) Ju87B (Sorry all, but this to me is just one of the ugliest aircraft ever)
5) & 6) Fiat G.50 and Maachi MC.200 (For the same reasons, to me these outrank the Stuka in the ugly stakes)
7) Whitley (Mediocre performance, and it just looks terrible)
8) Polikarpov I-16 Rata (Takes looking stubby to an excessive extreme)
9) Brewster Buffalo (A truly dismal plane)
10) A bit of a catch all here, but almost anything French designed pre-1939.

[Notta Brit]

23: Junkers Ju-86
24: Another Buffalo
25: Polikarpov I-15
26: Polikarpov 153
27: Messerschmitt Me-328
28: Blohm und Voss BV-40
29: North American P-51B
30: Nakajima Ki-27 Nate

[simon]

On reflection I'll withdraw the Stuka from my list, it's one of those types that is so ugly it actually has a certain charm about it. :D

Notta brit, how about reasons why you like or dislike certain aircaft? Even if it's just that you don't like the look of it that's fine, it's just that it makes threads like these a lot more readable than just seeing endless lists. :)

[GregP]

1. BV-141: Just ugly, no other reason.
2. Brewster Buffalo: So many reasons; so little time!
3. Avro Manchester: A failure that turned out well when it spawned one of WWII's great bombers, the Lancaster.
4. P-26 Peashooter: Might fly OK, but looks like the north end of a southbound jackass.
5. Late Japanese biplanes of all sorts: Ugly beyond description. Thank heavens they invented the Zero or we'd have been repulsed simply by the sheer ugliness of their aitcraft.
6. Humpbacked Fiat G.50: just ugly. No other reason.
7. Handley Page Hampden: Whoever designed this thing probably invented the Yugo, too.
8.Almost any Moriane-Saulnier airplane: The French mostly have a flair for esthetic design. The designers at MS must be extreme exceptions to this otherwise general rule.
9. Loire-Nieuport LN.411: Can you say UGLY. This thing IS. In spades.
10. Potez 75: Damn! That's homely. I'd rather drive a Yugo than fly in that thing. If you crashed, Saint Peter wouldn't let you in the gates of Heaven just for showing such bad taste.
11. Fokker D.XXIII: Just one look is all it took.
12. L.W.S.Zubr: In a class all by itself as a disaster of an aircraft. Makes the Potez 75 look positively delightful. This baby is so ugly, you'd have to tie a roast beef to it to get a dog to come close to it. And he'd be a STUPID dog.

[Notta Brit]

Gotcha.

31: Curtiss Hawk 75. Makes the Natter or Ohka charming to fly.
32: Fiat CR-42. Any plane that makes a PZL P-11 look good really stinks.

[Romantic Technofreak]

As mirror argument to choose an underestimated plane in the "Your most liked" thread, in this thread here I choose one that is still overestimated . It is the Ju 87 Stuka.

http://iquebec.ifrance.com/2iemeguerre/avions/images/junker_ju-87_stuka.jpg

Not that I say the weaknesses of the Stuka are unknown or unmetioned. I also don´t want to say the Stuka does not deserve its rumour, I only want to express that the difference between rumour and performance is the most remarkable if you consider the Stuka.

The dive-bombing concept was one of the major German blunders of WWII, with Ernst Udet being mainly responsible for it. Thinking that dive bombing is cheaper than horizontal bombing because it is more accurate caused a lot of wrong decisions, not only the extensive use of the Ju 87 until near the end of the war, it also was the reason to make the diveable Ju 88 the main German bomber, although it was not appropriate for many tasks, and it was the basic reason for the wrong construction of the Heinkel He 177 as "diveable" bomber, for this it had to be built with engines in only two nacelles.
Dive bombing was successful as long as no appropriate counter measures were accomplished, but with the war proceeding more and more accurate light AA fire made the Stukas nearly useless. And since the failure of the Stukas in the Battle of Britain their vulnerability against enemy fighters was obvious. They got a little backup by Hs 129 tank hunters and FW 190 F-series fighter-bombers, but were never well replaced.
Of course, the Stuka suffered the same fate like any other single-engined WWII bomber except the armoured IL-2 and the American carrier-based ones, so it is in good company. Myself, I had preferred a Do 335 - style armoured tandem engine attacker with 2 x 37mm guns.

[Notta Brit]

Yes. Most of its successes were against The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Early USSR, etc.

[Notta Brit]

Though I have the stuka on the liked...[?]

[Crusader]

P-51 Mustang -tired of hearing about it, and I always liked the F4U better anyway. :D

[andyo2000]

I realize this an opinion-oriented topic, but in the spirit of knowledgeable discussion: Crusader, why the P-51?

Yes, people talk about it all the time. There are many reasons for this, not least of which is that it revolutionized Allied bombing in the ETO. Losses were cut dramatically. Another reason is that it was a generally superior long-range fighter, much better than the P-38.

[simon]

"Another reason is that it was a generally superior long-range fighter, much better than the P-38."

Which also has its fans here, and who wont like you saying that... :D

[Crusader]

quote:Originally posted by andyo2000

I realize this an opinion-oriented topic, but in the spirit of knowledgeable discussion: Crusader, why the P-51?

Yes, people talk about it all the time. There are many reasons for this, not least of which is that it revolutionized Allied bombing in the ETO. Losses were cut dramatically. Another reason is that it was a generally superior long-range fighter, much better than the P-38.


Those things I understand, but the Mustang seems to get spoken of by people as if it were the plane that single handedly won the war. The P-51 was a great plane, don’t get me wrong, but an opinion was asked for, and one was given. Being as my father was a Marine aviator, I studied the Marine aircraft more while I was young, and just fell in love with the ruggedness and versatility of the F4U. I have gotten to the point where I cringe watching WW II documentaries on TV that devote most time to the P-51, whilst ignoring the other US fighters of the war. Also, the documentaries I have seen on the F4U only mention it’s combat in WW II, ignoring the Korean War, Sinai service and the Soccer War. Combine that with the fact I prefer radial engine fighters (and bombers-Douglas AD), throw in the aircraft carriers, which I love, and the P-51 just losses appeal to me. I respect it for what it is, but it ranks much lower in my book than most folks, preference-wise.

[Crusader]

quote:Originally posted by simon

"Another reason is that it was a generally superior long-range fighter, much better than the P-38."

Which also has its fans here, and who wont like you saying that... :D

And weren't the highest scoring USAAF aces flying P-38s?:D

[Notta Brit]

Here are a few notable Pilots:

In The Pacific:
Richard Bong(P-38), 40 victories
Thomas McGuire(P-38), 38 victories
Pappy Boyington(F4U), 28 victories
Joe Foss(F4F), 26 victories
Joe Bauer(F4F), 11 victories
Butch O'Hare(F4F), 7 victories
Jimmy Thatch(F4F), 7 victories

In Europe:
Douglas Bader(Spitfire), 20 victories
Ginger Lacey(Hurricane), 28 victories
"Sailor" Malan(Spitfire), 27 victories
Don Blakeslee(P-51), 14.5 victories
Robert Johnson(P-47), 28 victories
Gabby Gabreski(P-47), 28 victories

Tha's just allied pilots.

[andyo2000]

I seem to have gotten myself into a pickle, but I'll try to get out...

When you say more aces were developed in P-38s, take into consideration which theater it was in. Japanese planes were inferior in so many ways to ours, while German aircraft were on par, even better at the start of the war. Japanese pilots were also green from about 1942 on.

What I meant by my original comment, however, was that the P-38 had mechanical problems long after its debut, while the P-51 was generally working well even in new designs.

[Crusader]

quote:Originally posted by andyo2000

I seem to have gotten myself into a pickle, but I'll try to get out...

When you say more aces were developed in P-38s, take into consideration which theater it was in. Japanese planes were inferior in so many ways to ours, while German aircraft were on par, even better at the start of the war. Japanese pilots were also green from about 1942 on.

What I meant by my original comment, however, was that the P-38 had mechanical problems long after its debut, while the P-51 was generally working well even in new designs.


I was just ribbin' ya....hence the :D

[Notta Brit]

quote:Originally posted by andyo2000

When you say more aces were developed in P-38s, take into consideration which theater it was in. Japanese planes were inferior in so many ways to ours, while German aircraft were on par, even better at the start of the war. Japanese pilots were also green from about 1942 on.


The planes were faster than ours, but they took a sacrifice by making the planes out of palmwwod instead of steel. So while the Zeros were hit by one burst and went down, a 109 or 190 could be hit by 15 bursts and still be flying with ease. Plus in Japan there wasn't much steel that wasn't used on ships...

[Trexx]

'Hate' ...such a strong word. Some planes are ugly, I suppose. Maybe I could dislike certain ones for that reason.

I'll limit my choices to WWII era:

As listed

Bolton Paul Defiant
Gloster Whittle (first Brit jet)
Avro Wellington
Fairy Battle

P-75 Eagle (what were they thinking?)
B-32 Dominator

Junkers Ju-52
Feisler Storch

Uhh... The Japanese, French, Russians and the Italians haven't any noteable examples in my opinion...

-trexx

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Notta Brit

What Aircraft do you dislike the most? Write them down, you won't tick me off. Put as many as you like. WARNING! If you put an Me-163 you'll tick off Corairius.;) Dislike away!

The ones I dislike are:
...3: A5M2 Claude
...

Oh goodness. I cannot agree with that. Everything about this aircraft is beautiful. That marvelous and gracefully faired eliptical wing, tightly spatted landing gear, and elongated headrest incorporated into the fuesalage and continuing ultimately to the fin. And what a fin!
The whole aircraft is elegant, graceful and amazingly utilitarian. It's a kenetic sculpture as well as an outstanding, high performance military airplane. One of THE most elegant fighters ever conceived. (imo)

-trexx

[DoBravery]

P-39 In a crash landing, I picture myself sandwiched between the ground and the engine.

Ki-43 I think I'd stand a better chance of living as a Kamakazee. Atleast the Zero was faster and better armed.

Fairey Swordfish I give credit to their hisorical missions, but with a torpedo underneath operating in the rough N. Atlantic, they look like they may drop out of the sky at any moment.

The Corsair is a favorite of mine and the Wildcat is ok, but it annoys me that the F4F Wildcat and the F4U Corsair both start with "F4"
I just can't get over it.

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by DoBravery

...Ki-43 I think I'd stand a better chance of living as a Kamakazee...

The Japanese had very few doggy looking aircraft. In fact, most of their combat aircraft were exceptionally graceful. The Ki-43 is another fine example of graceful, clean, perfection. (imo)

[simon]

Avro Wellington

No such thing I'm afraid, it was either the VIckers-Armstrong Wellington or another Avro type.

The French didn't have any ugly planes?!? Seriously?!? :D

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by simon

Avro Wellington

No such thing I'm afraid, it was either the VIckers-Armstrong Wellington or another Avro type.

The French didn't have any ugly planes?!? Seriously?!? :D


Thanks for the correction.

Uhhh... the French had some things that they put wings on. But, they hardly qualify as "planes". Ha!
Admittedly, not many French airplanes are committed to my memory. I do recall viewing some atrocious looking early twin engined 'heavy' bombers built by Bloch (?)...

[Che_Guevara]

hey guys,

i dislike most of the Blohm and Voss planes [}:)]
like this, kind a ugly;



http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/blohm-voss/bv142.jpg
BV 142 V2/U1

http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/blohm-voss/bv141.jpg
BV 141 B

http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/blohm-voss/ha1396.jpg
BV 139

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Che_Guevara

hey guys,

i dislike most of the Blohm and Voss planes [}:)]
like this, kind a ugly;


Good call. Not too cuddly indeed.

[DoBravery]

quote:
The Japanese had very few doggy looking aircraft. In fact, most of their combat aircraft were exceptionally graceful. The Ki-43 is another fine example of graceful, clean, perfection. (imo)


I agree with you. I didn't list the Oscar based on looks. For a front-line fighter I think it was too under-powered, under-armed, and under-protected. Those are 3 big No-No's IMO. I know I'm not citing its service or development history and that there are much worse aircraft. It's just my favorite fighter plane to dislike.:)

[Ricky]

Based on looks, the BV 139 is actually quite graceful - except for those clunky great floats, and the ridiculously huge pylons that connect them to the plane.:(

[Trexx]

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/897605/P-75_Eagle.jpg

P-75_Eagle
This piece of sh*t flew as good as it looked. DISMALLY!

[Trexx]

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/897605/BlochMB-200.gif
The French Bloch MB-200.

Not as ugly as I remembered. I'll say it's actually dang cool looking...

[Ricky]

So how about the Farman F 222?

http://navalhistory.flixco.info/images/Thumbnails/PLANE%20Farman%20F%20222.jpg

[Che_Guevara]

the junkers G 38
very useful plane and with great abilitys to upload, however ugly like a pig hehe:)

http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/mig_exp/junkers-g38-1.jpg

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Che_Guevara

the junkers G 38
very useful plane and with great abilitys to upload, however ugly like a pig hehe:)


OINK! OINK!

...but check out those marvelous propellers!

That reminds me, in nearby Roseville California, there's an antique shop that has a wooden propeller (two blade) that came from the Akron airship. It's thirteen feet across! It was $2000 in 1998.

[amigojeff]

First I have to say that I like all piston engine propelled aircrafts.
As an architect,from the aesthetical aspect,I have to admit that I don't like some aircrafts,just their looking,nothing to do with performance and technical qualities.Here are my lists.
early French bombers.
Ju52.
Some British planes,like Roc,Lysander.
Italian SM85.
Soviet I-16,Yaks.
etc.

[andyo2000]

Ugly planes....

Does this count? The Polikarpov I-152
http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/images/i152_5.jpg

I know, purpose over beauty, but still. It's about 20 feet long, which makes it the plane all the other made fun of at the factory. [V]

[Trexx]

Gee Bee racer, Polikerpov I-15 and I-16 share extremely similar powerplants. Here in the U.S.A. it was the Wright 1820 I believe. The idea behind all the forementioned airplanes were to get the smallest possible airframe behind the most powerful engine of it's day.

[Ricky]

I must admit that I do really not dislike any of the planes used in WW2.
Some I find ugly (and some are very ugly), some are over-rated, but there are none I dislike.

With a possible exception:

http://www.spinneyhead.php-systems.com/photos/Aug2002/pod070802.jpg
Kugisho Okha (Cherry Blossom) Model 22

And only because the purpose of it is rather distasteful.

[Lightning]

Hi Ricky,

The Okha had another name: "Baka", which I believe in Japanese means "crazy".

I'm glad this plane never took part in the annual "Cherry Blossom Festival" in Washington D.C.

Regards,
Lightning

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi Ricky,

The Okha had another name: "Baka", which I believe in Japanese means "crazy".

I'm glad this plane never took part in the annual "Cherry Blossom Festival" in Washington D.C.

Regards,
Lightning


The anti ship missle grew a bit towards being a viable threat with that bad-boy.

[Corsarius]

I'm going to post pretty much the same as I posted last time this came up.. I still believe it 100%

http://www.fototime.com/6686CA290D65011/standard.jpg

You want ugly? YOU CAN'T HANDLE UGLY, I SAY!

Avert your eyes or be turned to stone by the visages sent forthwith!

Contestant #1! The Handley-Page Heyford!
Don't you adore the huge gap between the bottom wing and the fuselage, making it look like the designer forgot something? The enormous spatted wheels, the nightmare of struts and braces that passes for an undercarriage, but was probably bought second-hand of a piano salesman masquerading as a plumber?

This plane is State-Of-The-Art. The art, in this case, is probably pottery.

http://www.raf-upper-heyford.org/UH_AC_Handley-Page_Heyford.jpg

Contestant #2! The Farman F.120T, also known as the F.4x!
Such style, such sleek slab-sided lines, the innovative engine layout, the bat's-wing stretch of the trailing edge and ailerons,the out-of proportion too-large-yet-too-small rudder, ahh, you can FEEL that this baby is 1930s France. Especially becuase they apparently wanted to use these delightful nymphs of the sky as escort fighters! All they really needed was to put some spats on the beautiful spoked undercarriage and, voila! Another French Masterpeice!

France is renown for dash, verve, flair, beauty, grace, and all that je-nais-sais-pax.. Where was it in the 1920s and 1930s aircraft drawing-board rooms?

http://www.popularaviation.com/PhotoGallery/1152.jpg

Contestant #3! Boeing P-26 Peashooter!
I have always hated this aeroplane. For me, it's the perfect reason why Boeing should have stuck with bombers. The ring around the rotary engine looks strange, the spatted landing gear huge and unwieldy, the armament insufficient, the struts, braces, strings, and all other bits poking around everywhere look like it was constructed inside-out. Add to which EVERY colour scheme that it was painted in looked HIDEOUS, and the lack of a propeller spinner made it look as if someone had chopped it's nose off. I can't believe america expected their own pilots to fly these crates and call themselves 'the best in the world'. In Europe at the same time, civilian aircraft were flying faster, higher, with more weight, and were more manoeverable. Add to that they looked a lot nicer, too.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present you with the Boeing P-26, an example of how NOT to build a good-looking fighter.
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/images/p-26.jpg

[Falco]

Hi Romantic Technofreak.
Do you know which sentence was passed on StuKa pilots at the eastern front,if captured?Yes,death.Not forBf-109,not for FW-190,Not for Ju-88 or any other Luftwaffe plane,but only for Ju-87 StuKa pilots.Think about it.
Yes it's a very ugly plane,but some love it.Some may say one's girlfriend is ugly but that's nothing if he loves her.I love Ju-87 StuKa.You say "more famous than deserved"...for Ju-87!
I'm sorry that u can't read russian,and than buy some russian books.They are inexpensive and extremly detailed.Eastern sources about eastern front are more reliable than western ones,and vice-versa.In the psyche of a soviet military Ju-87 StuKa was something other than just an aircraft.Even today in all of eastern europe,synonyme for an axis plane of WW2 is... yes... StuKa.

[Che_Guevara]

yep,
Hans Ulrich Rudel showed us, what a single Ju-87 Stuka was able to destroy,
the imposant stats;
sinking the russian battleship "Marat", a cruiser and a destroyer
70 landing boats
519 russian tanks
800+ motorized vehicles
150+ Artillery -, Pak and anti-aircraft positions
9 air victories (7 fighters, 2 battle airplanes Il 2)
...and many shelters and bridges

btw and the end of the war he flew a Fw 190, however he get most of his kills with a Stuka

only to remember what a single Stuka was able to do in WW2

at the end of war, Pierre Clostermann said;
"How it harms, that he did not carry our uniform!"

[Corsarius]

Ummmmm... has anyone else clicked on Che's link in his sig?

This has GOT to be one of the funniest things I've ever heard!!;)[8D]:D

Sorry for debasing the thread. I now return you to your normal posting.

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

You hate the Lancaser, and late-war Focke-Wulf aircraft??

[Ricky]

Flattered though I am that you are quoting me ;), can I ask why?

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

Flattered though I am that you are quoting me ;), can I ask why?


Uhhh... rumpling, clumsily through the keyboard whilst attempting to log on, I reckon. Sorry about that. [^]

[WildeSau]

Not many ugly planes in WWII, but this might be one of them

Avro Rota

Shoot.... how do I post a picture here? help! help!

Wilde Sau

[Romantic Technofreak]

Contemporary autogyros often show 1930-style:

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/aircraft_images/main_images/rota.jpg

In earlier times, I considered them ugly too, but as time passed by, I have to admit that the bigger part of my electronic collection consists of 1930-style planes...[:0]

WildeSau, use the "mountain view postcard" icon (http://www.tgplanes.com/public/snitz/icon_editor_image.gif) to create the (img) and (/img) prefix/suffix (in angular brackets) and include the picture URL within them. Hotlink an existing picture or create a free picture account, e.g. using photobucket.com.

Regards, RT

[Corsair29]

Boy I've got to disagree with Crusader ( love the name BTW), although I never cared for the '51, the B/C and Apache's( A-36) were damn slick with the razor back. Same with the T-bolt's....

My list ?

P-75 Eagle
Junkers Ju-52
Douglas TBD Devastator
Ju87
Whitley


On some of the planes on other list that I do like:
Brewster Buffalo ( I have no reason, just do)
Mitsubishi J2M Raiden ( Maybe because of my love for the '47?)
Curtiss P-40 Warhawk ( up to the "C" model)
The Flying Flapjacks, V-173 and XF5U-1

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by WildeSau

Shoot.... how do I post a picture here? help! help!

WildeSau, you need a host. There are several but the one I use is http://www.villagephotos.com/members/imagetools.asp?id_=15055512

[SlickDriver]

I would have to say all French aircraft prior to 1939. They were some of the ugliest, ungainly aircraft ever built. Much like their warships.

Next would be most Soviet Aircraft. But especially the LaGG-1 and -3. Both were underpowered, poor manoeuvrability, climb rate. The Soviet pilots called the planes "guaranteed varnished coffin".

The Me.163 is right up there as one of the worst designs put into production.

[Montana]

Objection!

You're right: The first LaGG 3 had severe teething troubles and were underdeveloped, which together with poor wartime craftsmanship may have made up for a kind of "guaranteed varnished coffin"-reputation.

But later in the war, the LaGG 3-variants from LaGG Type 29 onwards (Mid-1942) became truly sound and potent fighters, capable to take on BF 109 F's and later, even G's under all circumstances.

Later La 5 and, La 7 were structurally, as well as aerodynamically very closely based on LaGG 3. In fact, early La 5 were nothing else than LaGG 3 with radial engines and were produced on the same production line as LaGG 3.

You wouldn't positively do this, if the basic design was a true "guaranteed varnished coffin" - would you...?

See also under "Wooden soviet Wonder" elsewhere in this forum - and understand... ;)

Cheers!

Montana

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by SlickDriver
The Me.163 is right up there as one of the worst designs put into production.


Right... That does it... You've been added to 'The List'.

You'll know I've gotten to you when you wake up dead with your head stuck in a bucket of T-Stoff.[xx(]

Oh, and by the way, welcome to the board!

[Corsair29]

to SlickDriver :

I rather liked the Dunkerque and Richelieu class BB's.

NOW the older ones - "shudder"

[simon]

Welcome on board both Corsair and Slickdriver.

Gotta ask though, why the poor TBD?

[Montana]

quote:Originally posted by Corsair29

Boy I've got to disagree with Crusader ( love the name BTW), although I never cared for the '51, the B/C and Apache's( A-36) were damn slick with the razor back. Same with the T-bolt's....

My list ?

P-75 Eagle
Junkers Ju-52
Douglas TBD Devastator
Ju87
Whitley


On some of the planes on other list that I do like:
Brewster Buffalo ( I have no reason, just do)
Mitsubishi J2M Raiden ( Maybe because of my love for the '47?)
Curtiss P-40 Warhawk ( up to the "C" model)
The Flying Flapjacks, V-173 and XF5U-1


Hmmm - This guy seems to be recoverable, at last... ;) I especially sign to the Brewster F2A and J2M Raiden as some of my favorites, too.

My favourite disliked? Curtiss SB2C Helldiver. A plane nobody really needed nor really asked for.

Ugly, clumsy, outdated in performance and construction before it even took off for it's initial flight.

http://images.google.de/images?hl=de&q=curtiss+sb2c+helldiver&btnG=Bilder-Suche&gbv=2

And it kicked my true love SBD Dauntless over board, too! SHAME! :(

Okay, the Brewster Buccaneer is another one of my "dis-favourites":

http://images.google.de/images?hl=de&q=Brewster+Buccaneer&btnG=Bilder-Suche&gbv=2

Although I think it looks quite good, and I have a distinct love for the stubby and, ill-fated Brewster-planes, the handling and performance of the Brewster Buccaneer were so bad - way beyond being even tolerable.

I feel very mixed emotions about the Douglas B 18 Bolo, too. Ugly as a dog - but fascinating in a way far beyond explanation:

http://images.google.de/images?svnum=10&hl=de&gbv=2&q=Douglas+B+18+Bolo&btnG=Suche

Cheers!

Montana (T:Dwin-engined...?)

[Corsair29]

Just didn't like the shape of the "greenhouse" and the way the torp was mounted.

[Montana]

quote:Originally posted by sniperidz


SIMON!

Please, fry this jackass.

Sizzle!

Montanamotor

[simon]

Don't worry Montana, I've deleted about 20 posts from our latest spammer so far. Hope you don't mind but I've editted his links from your post too. I will keep deleting his posts as I find them, ultimately though it's Taglia's call on banning members.

[conrad]

quote:Originally posted by Falco

Hi Romantic Technofreak.
Do you know which sentence was passed on StuKa pilots at the eastern front,if captured?Yes,death.Not forBf-109,not for FW-190,Not for Ju-88 or any other Luftwaffe plane,but only for Ju-87 StuKa pilots.Think about it.
Yes it's a very ugly plane,but some love it.Some may say one's girlfriend is ugly but that's nothing if he loves her.I love Ju-87 StuKa.You say "more famous than deserved"...for Ju-87!
I'm sorry that u can't read russian,and than buy some russian books.They are inexpensive and extremly detailed.Eastern sources about eastern front are more reliable than western ones,and vice-versa.In the psyche of a soviet military Ju-87 StuKa was something other than just an aircraft.Even today in all of eastern europe,synonyme for an axis plane of WW2 is... yes... StuKa.

A reat performanc but remember the Stuka was obsolete when the war began. It was very slow and needed local air superiority to operate. Later in the war it could only operate at night. The Germans were never able to develop a replacement.