By: Norm Goyer
I am a true believer in the adage, ” that if it looks right it will fly right”. Of course this makes no sense as there are many aircraft which look more like a Rube Goldberg design (okay youngsters, figure that one out) than a Kelly Johnson Skunkworks masterpiece. I am not even going to mention the plastic-flying-pickle-forks that Burt Rutan and company design, monstrosities, all of them. Of course, they perform flawlessly. Okay, I admit it, I love aircraft with pretty lines, I like symmetry, I like grace tapered wings and vertical stabilizers which make a statement. As all airplane lovers know, aircraft are a sum of their parts, everything has to harmonize, the lines of the cowl has to flow up and over the lines of the cabin or the canopy. Any detour along the path and you have an “Ugly Duckling.”
The Brewster Company beat Grumman to the market with their Buffalo, the plane was inferior and replaced with the far superior Grumman Wildcat F4F.
It’s always going to to be hard to beat the almost perfect lines of the North American “D” Model Mustang. The early versions weren’t bad, but the canopy lines of the “D” set the bar, and nobody has yet to top it. I do admit, that there were some very pretty biplanes between the wars such as the Curtiss P-6 Hawk in its “Owl” livery. The Grumman F3F had a pugnacious look that spelled out “rugged airplane”. The Beechcraft D-17 Staggerwing and the WACO post war cabin biplanes were both the epitome of biplane beauty. I have always thought that the Italians lost their flare for style after their masterpiece, the Macchi-Castoldi MC-72 Schneider Cup Racer. Russian aircraft tend to be dumpy, most looking like a peasants tending the potato crop. The same for the French, beautiful architecture, lovely ladies and ugly airplanes. But the height of ugliness was reached in the years preceding World War II, some of these planes even made it into battle.
North American’s first design was the O-47 observation aircraft. It was too complex to be used as a front line observation aircraft. Lightweight Grasshoppers did the job better.
The first airplane that North American built was certainly no Mustang, it was the belly dragging, O-47 three-crewman, observation aircraft that again, didn’t work for its intended job. Now get this, it was removed from its observation role by the K-Mart Blue Light Special, the L-4 Cub. The dirt cheap, easy to fly, land anywhere, fly low and slow, drafted Cubs outperformed the O-47 in all modes of operation. It was target tug and advanced trainer time for the O-47. At one time Planes of Fame located at Chino, California had a flyable O-47.
Boeing attempted to enter the post-war military market with its odd-shaped L-15. It was rejected as being too complex and expensive for a simple liaison aircraft.
Boeing wanted to get into the light plane market with its version of the L-4 Cub liaison aircraft. As usual Boeing overdesigned the odd configured L-15. It made a perfect observation aircraft with visibility down and to the rear with its raised tail boom, flew low and slow with its sophisticated wing devices. When the feds saw the plane, they immediately bought a whole bunch of L-21 Cubs (Super Cubs) and L-16s (Aeronca Champs). Why? they did the job just as well for far less money. Bye, Bye, Boeing.
The Skyrocket was not accepted due to excess visibility problems for carrier work. It was scrapped. Grumman replaced it with the F7F Tigercat, a far superior twin-engine fighter.
Aviation buffs love the lines of the Grumman F-8 Bearcat and the looks of the gorgeous twin-engine F-7 Tigercat. The not so pretty TBF Avenger was a truck designed to carry torpedoes, not to win beauty contests. Many are not familiar with the aircraft that inspired the Tigercat, the butt-ugly Grumman Skyrocket. I hope whoever designed this one got his walking papers. It not only wasn’t attractive, it didn’t work. An aircraft designed for carrier work has to have adequate visibility to both sides, not having the view blocked by two huge radial engines. The Skyrocket got canned and it was back to the drawing boards. Thankfully.
Before World War II, Grumman was enamored with biplanes, while the Navy wanted to explore single-engine monoplanes. Before Grumman could design and produce their stubby, but potent F4F Wildcat, the Brewster Aircraft company beat them with a similar design that was a turkey. The Brewster Buffalo should have been named the Brewster Target because that’s what it was. Nothing looked right on the “Barfolo” (thanks to niece Elizabeth who lives in Buffalo, NY). The landing gear looked like part of the Brooklyn Bridge and the whole airplane looks squashed fore and aft. Anyway, the Navy tried a few of them, immediately dumped them and sent them all to foreign countries. A few ended up at Pacific island outposts where they were all shot down or attacked at night by their pilots with fire axes.
The Messerschmitt Bf. 323 started out as a glider. Six engines were added for self power. It was a successful transport, but easily shot down by the most inept pilots.
I have been picking on American designers, but in my mind the prize for the ugliest plane of World War II era goes to Willie Messerschmitt’s Bf.323 six engine heavy transport. This huge airplane got off to a bad start and went downhill from there. It started life as a glider hauling troops and supplies to war zones, but Germany lacked a plane large enough to tow it so they started adding engines until it got off the ground on its own. The final configuration was six engines, enough wheels to build 10 Peterbilts, and then covered the whole airplane with fabric. In reality, the aircraft was a very good transport with its folding nose for easy loading and its huge size. If you look at modern transports, such as the C-17 and the C-130, you see many design elements of the Me. 323 from 1942.
In future columns, I will turn my other cheek and find some of the most beautiful designs of both World War II and the Thompson racing series. You know, I really believe that if a plane looks good it will fly even better. NG
If any readers have requests for special topics please let us know. Email us at theradar@acmp.com