Jack Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Was just replying a thread concerning the upcoming Fisher twin, and his Cutlass came up, apparantly being an "ugly" aircraft to some of us, so this triggered the title. Would it be interesting to start such a GB, what's your opinion? HTH Jack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johng Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and a lot of folks need glasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted January 16, 2008 Author Share Posted January 16, 2008 Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and a lot of folks need glasses. you're right again, but though i indeed wear glasses ( :angry: still have to get used to it) i would think it a nice effort to be able to produce some models albeit their being ugly don't you think?? J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssculptor Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Ugly is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Questions of beauty and ugliness are totally based on personal preferences. Personally, I prefer to use the term "interesting" to describe airplanes. Although I do have to stretch the term quite a bit with some of the double ugly planes of the 1930's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johng Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 There's a book in stores for a few years now, The 100 Worst Aircraft of All Time, or something like that. Would make good source material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssculptor Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Sorry guys, my favorite twin engine bomber is the Heyford. I do not consider that to be ugly at all. In fact, I consider it to be rather handsome. Besides, they actually looped the thing in 1933 and it survived. Thats my kind of aeroplane! I am sore tempted to scratch build one in 1/32 scale I like it so much. I know that Vulgaria had a float version in it's fleet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted January 16, 2008 Author Share Posted January 16, 2008 Stephen, i think you're right about your statement that there is no ugly aircraft, only "interesting", but i think that is just the way i would eventually put it as well. A group build of weird looking contraptions, strange looking aircraft, out-of-the-ordinary flying machines, you name it..... Just have a look at Frank Mitchel's scratchbuilt models........as an example.. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Hi Ugly aircraft are out there. I have always thought the F-4 Phantom was so ugly that it was good looking if that makes any sense. It's one of my favorite aircraft Texas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johng Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Mine too. Wouldn't call it ugly. Mean maybe, but not ugly. The more tanks, missiles and ordnance you hang on it, the better it looks. Fully loaded it looks like it's saying "I'm comin' to get you, sucka!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOTR Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 What's the definition of an ugly aircraft or what would be allowed? As already stated, beauty is in the eye of the beholder For me, I'd take part with either a Fairey Gannet, a Yak-15 Feather or a Fouga Magister would take the pole position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted January 16, 2008 Author Share Posted January 16, 2008 Well, you're all right at certain points, it is a grey area between really ugly and strange/weird, so would it be safe to get a group build based on these values? Or maybe the GB would have to change its objective/name, like "strange/weird/fancy" aircraft? Just a thought... Jack. P.s.: i agree the Phantom F4 would qualify in every aspect, being an aircraft put together like a model in haste.... (no offence, i have several in my stash..) As a matter of fact the Grumman Mohawk could be considered a very, very ugly weird looking aircraft............ .............!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssculptor Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 I think the problem is we really have to define the word "ugly" before we could go on to a GB with it as the defining word. The F-4 , to me, was meant to be a slugger, a hard hitting fighter. Are heavyweight prize fighters ugly? I don't think the work ugly could even apply to them they are muscular and have battered features but their function is not to win a beauty contest, it is to beat the other guy senseless. In other words, the "form follows the function" and the "beauty" is in how well it does just that. The A-10 is not a beautiful craft but it does what it is supposed to do quite well. Personally, in terms of well balanced, almost lyrical design, I rate the early World War Two Japanese airplanes as the most beautiful. The Val, the Kate and the Pete are really very well balanced designs. Along with the Spitfire, of course. But, again, we have to define the term "beauty" as well as "ugly" before we can discuss them with any level of rationality. Then again, different people have different senses of what is beauty and ugliness. As much as I would love to discuss this further, it is an endless discussion because we are dealing not only with various definitions of the words but we are dealing with human emotions and irrational perceptions. We cannot argue which is the most ugly airplane, it would be like a person saying his favorite color is blue and someone else saying "No, you are wrong." We can vote on it , of course, but that would be a bit slanted because some of the ugliest (to me, anyway) planes were the flying rectangular boxes of the early 1930's, like the Bloch 200 with the weird glass work in front. But there are no models in 1/32 scale of these double ugly planes. Maybe in 1/72 scale, some in 1/48 scale but none in 1/32. Not even in vacuform. Besides, the Ju-87 Stuka is sort of a pinnacle of WW2 ugly. Do we all want to build the Stuka a GB? OK by me but I would build the Vulgarian version, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted January 16, 2008 Author Share Posted January 16, 2008 Stephen, you're a real philosopher, i like that, and i think we might have to change this "name" into "THE GROUP BUILD CONCERNING VERY STRANGE LOOKING AND WEIRDLY CONCEPTIONAL OUT OF THE ORDINARY STRANGE LOOKING AIR VEHICLES"..... Now what do you all say, ....let's start building or what??? J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveJ Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 This is a fun thread.... To me, the Stuka is like the Phantom; very mean looking and very cool! The Yak 18? Let's just say the name does it justice perfectly. As in 'So ugly it made me Yak 18 times' Let's not even get started on some of the more 'unique' designs that took to the skies wearing RAF colors post-war! Then again I used to think that P-47s were nothing but flying tanks and I love 'em now... Truly in the eye of the beholder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Kevin Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 There's a book in stores for a few years now, The 100 Worst Aircraft of All Time, or something like that. Would make good source material. I have that book! At least, I have one called The World's Worst Aircraft - could there be more than one? It's a small, fat thing (ahem). My wife gave it to me for a birthday present. Kev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now