The Ugliest Aircraft!!

[cspyro21]

Here are quite a few strange-looking aircraft (some would call them ugly but IMHO they all look cool 8-))

X-3

Blohm Und Voss BV 141

Kalinin K-7

[an-225]

The E-3C is the best out of all AWAC IMHO. No FLIR or radar on the sides. And...my favourite smoky engines! I hate those CFM ones. A good balance between a D and an A. The Tu-22M is one of my favourite planes too. I absolutely HATE the F-86 Bundt Cake. F-100 Super Bundt Cake...I can live with.








PS: I have pondered your Li-2 question. I will just say: It looks ugly to me.  ;D

[Jakemaster]

Tweek, this means war. You did not accept my peace offering (not listing the SEPECAT Jaguar). Just joking!  ;D

Reasons as follows for not liking aircraft that I listed:

Spitfire: To annoy Ozzy.
Vickers Valiant: Not streamlined.
P-80: Not streamlined.
F-86 Sabre: Not streamlined. Also has a hole in its nose. Why don't we just call it the F-86 Bundt Cake?
MiG-15/17/19/21: Same as F-86 Bundt Cake.
YB-52: Has a hideous bubble canopy. XB-52 is alright however.
B-47: See YB-52.
Lisunov Li-2: Piece of crap copy of the DC-3!!! There is only one DC-3. That is the DC-3.
Tornado F3: Streamlined. However its too streamlined. I prefer the bulky GR.4.
P-47: What...the...you are asking why this one is ugly? Lets rename the B-47 (jet) to B-47 II and this one to FB-47. The FB stands for flying bathtub.
F-15A/C: Well...its streamlined. The overall shape appeals to me. However the A & C are too small, so instead I opt for the E or ACTIVE.
F/A-18E Super Hornet: Eh, I hate those box intakes. I love the C's round ones.
F-100 Super Sabre: See F-86 Bundt Cake.
F-17: O...K...lots of things are wrong with this one. The shape is too radical compared to our present F-18's.
E-1 Tracer: Basically an E-2C Hawkeye. Which I like. However, the radar radome is WOAH! BIG!
E-3A Sentry: Eh, I like most current AWAC aircraft. However the flir and radar on the sides of the airframe spoil its looks and it doesn't look as streamlined as, say an E-3C Sentry.
MD-11: Its a tube with wings. 'Nuff said.
DC-10: This has a bit more character than the MD-11. It is not all automated. However it is still a tube with wings. KC-10 simply looks better because of the boom...and the Gunship Grey scheme.
737: Tube with wings. Wedgetail and C-40 are accepted due to radar equipment.
717: It is a lifeless, non-streamlined tube with wings.
767: Say good bye to the "airplanes with character" era.
777: See 767.
787: See 777 and 767.
Antonov Flying Tank: It is a tank that glides.
Tu-22A: Eh, I prefer the later version. The one with the name that escapes me. The Tu-22A just looks strange with two engines on the tail.

Well. There you go. The master list of reasons why these planes look ugly.

Heres my counters to yours/agreements

Spitfire: Ya, its okay looking, but ozzys face must be funny when someone insults it!
Vickers Valient: I think its okay, not ugly
P-80: Take it or leave it, not ugly, but it is streamlined, I don't know what you consider streamlined
F-86: The hole is for the engine....
Migs: Not ugly for the hole, but ugly for the general pudginess and the tails
YB-52: Its AWESOME!  I don't see how its ugly
B-47: Ya, little ugly
Li-2: Get your facts straight.  It isnt a copy, it is built under contract.  If you call it ugly you are calling the DC-3 ugly.  Only difference between the two is where they are made and the engines
P-47: What are you talking about?  Is this the same P-47 that I know?  Ya, it isnt the prettiest, but what does it have to do with a B-47
F-15:  I don't know the difference between the types...
F/A-18: TOTALLY AGREE!! STUPID BOXES
Super Sabre: Dude, seriously, you have some problems with holes..
F-17:? Do you mean F-117?
E-1 and E-3: Yes, raddomes can be ugly
MD, DC, KC: ALL ARE BASICALLY THE SAME!  ANd they arent tubes with wings, they are 3 holers.
737: You need consistency.  You talk about streamlined, well the newer 737s are pretty sleek.  Also, if you think the E-3 is ugly because of the FLIR on the side, how can you like the C-40 or the Wedgetail?
717: Ya, its pretty ugly
767 and 777: Not ugly at all, and they have character, you just have to look
787: Your biggest inconsistency yet.  This plane is the DEFINITION of streamlined...
Antonov: Never heard of it, but if it's half as ugly as the AN-225 it must be REALLY ugly
Tu-22:  I think you are right, the M (I think it is) is pretty cool, the earlier models are iffy

[expat]

Vickers Valiant, not streamlined? It has swept wings and not a bump or hump on it.

Matt

[Jakemaster]

[quote]
PS: I have pondered your Li-2 question. I will just say: It looks ugly to me.