WW11 the most aesthetically attractive aircraft.

[Laurie]

For me it is the Vickers Wellington.

Designed in the 1930.s and served through out the war years.

A just beautiful aircraft. The lines are just made for the air. Smooth and in flight it just looks for me to belong. The nose is so strong but graceful. Chunky as a bomber but compact with all detail just beautifully integrated into the air frame. In looks it is 20 years ahead of the competition.

Designed by Rex Pierson with a heavy influence from Barnes Wallace in the detail including the geodetic framework. A between the new and old influence with a doped fabric exterior.

Like all model making construction of an aircraft is appreciated and I found this a very impressive aircraft to make into a model.

The Spitfire is just a beauty and comes close for me but is beaten by the Wellington "Wimpy".

Some may say what about the Lancaster but despite its might and achievements it is not aesthetically a very attractive machine. Not surprising as it was butchered in design and modified.

My second would be the Mosquito and so close to the Wellington in great looks. A lovely looking aircraft and with so much interest in the design features. Plus it could deliver man for man of the crew more than the Lancaster and more accurately.

So which what is your favourite ? And the most important part why is it your favourite. What reason for your choice. Mine basically is the pleasing look of the aircraft for the job it was designed for. I look at all the aircraft I have fashioned in model form and every time it is the Wellington that makes the grade. It is just a very graceful aircraft.

Laurie

View attachment 88286

View attachment 88288

For me it is the Vickers Wellington.
Laurie

View attachment 88287

 

[Ian M]

As you must guess mine is the Spitfire. The form and the sound are to me the ultimate in aircraft design.

Not only a beauty, but also a long lived lady which saw service well into the post war years.

The Mossie a close second.

Ian M

 

[Laurie]

Interesting but why in detail Ian ?

Laurie

 

[dubster72]

For me, it's the P-51D Mustang. If any aircraft sitting on the ground looked like it couldn't wait to get into the air, this is the one.

The combination of the laminar flow wing airframe & the Packard/Merlin engine gave it unbeatable performance

& the ability to escort heavy bombers into Germany.

It also fought in the Korean war, a testament to its innovative design.

 

[spanner570]

Supermarine Walrus.

Probably the most beautiful aircraft ever built...Ask any WW2 airman swimming in the sea when this waddled along and saved their lives.

 

[Peej]

I love the Lanc, probably because I live about 5 miles from Coningsby and I'm lucky enough to see it flying around on a regular basis. Just the sound makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

 

[PaulTRose]

i would say spitfire too..graceful looks, adaptive design and a beautiful sound

 

[steve scan]

This is a difficult one for me but I would have to say the B17 it always looked like a large fighter to me.

 

[Laurie]

Supermarine Walrus.Probably the most beautiful aircraft ever built...Ask any WW2 airman swimming in the sea when this waddled along and saved their lives.

Ron that is my next on the list. I have it waiting in the cupboard. An ugly duckling but I think she is a very friendly looking machine.

Laurie

 

[stona]

The Walrus! You've got to be kidding! It would be near the top of my list of ugliest aircraft ever built. Nonetheless a very useful machine, it did what it was supposed to do and Ron's initial comment about the gratitude of downed airmen is entirely valid.

For fighters it's between a Spitfire Mk 1 and a Bf 109 F. For me these were the cleanest and most beautiful version of these aircraft, both of which suffered as they aged from the addition of all sorts of bits and pieces which did nothing for their looks.

For bombers I have an 'almost'. The Supermarine B.12/36. A Merlin powered version would have carried a bomb load close to a Lancaster's at 30,000ft nearly as fast as a Spitfire! An amazing piece of work by Mitchell which George Edwards, who went on to be Vickers chief designer post war and is one of the great figures in Britain's aviation history, described as 'an incredible design'.

In the 'others' category I'd put the Fw 200 'Condor'. Very advanced looking and ahead of its time.

The ultimate winner, every time and every day of the week is the Spitfire Mk 1.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Laurie]

The Walrus! You've got to be kidding! It would be near the top of my list of ugliest aircraft ever built. Nonetheless a very useful machine, it did what it was supposed to do and Ron's initial comment about the gratitude of downed airmen is entirely valid.For fighters it's between a Spitfire Mk 1 and a Bf 109 F. For me these were the cleanest and most beautiful version of these aircraft, both of which suffered as they aged from the addition of all sorts of bits and pieces which did nothing for their looks.

For bombers I have an 'almost'. The Supermarine B.12/36. A Merlin powered version would have carried a bomb load close to a Lancaster's at 30,000ft nearly as fast as a Spitfire! An amazing piece of work by Mitchell which George Edwards, who went on to be Vickers chief designer post war and is one of the great figures in Britain's aviation history, described as 'an incredible design'.

In the 'others' category I'd put the Fw 200 'Condor'. Very advanced looking and ahead of its time.

The ultimate winner, every time and every day of the week is the Spitfire Mk 1.

Cheers

Steve

Thought you may have a word on the Walrus Steve. Agree it is quite an ugly duckling but since I came across it a few months ago it I like it more and more. Somebody must have had lots of guts to design and build it ! :rolleyes: Although it did limited sea rescue the North Sea as very few days where it could be put down with out smashing itself to pieces. Amazing you mention the Spitfire Mk1 (I think this was the best looking of all the Spitfires) designed by Mitchell. Guess who designed the Walrus ? :D

Laurie

 

[phikoleoputra]

Mustang all the way......

 

[stona]

Mustang all the way......

How about an aeroplane described as looking like 'a cross between a Mustang and a V-2 rocket', the Martin-Baker M.B.5 ?



As for looking fast when parked you'd go a long way to find something to out do the Napier-Heston racer, designed to bring back the World Speed Record set by the Germans (Fritz Wendel in an Me 209) in April 1936. The war got in the way so we'll never know if it would have done it.



Cheers

Steve

 

[Laurie]

One thing i do rely on for looks. Airborn.

It is very difficult to assess an aircraft on the ground. Some look not very pretty on their landing gear.

A Harrier just looks to me magnificent in the air especially with a shot looking down on those handsome wings.

Views make a difference. I have a picture "Hunter's Moon" of a Hurricane by the artist Gerald Coulson with the aircraft just to the left front facing and this Hurricane just looks a magnificent aircraft.

Laurie

 

[Doug Hughes]

This is a really fascinating thread - perhaps proving that aesthetic appeal is definitely in the eye of the beholder. For example, though I love the Wellington I'd never have thought of it as attractive. Taking aesthetically appealing in the sense of 'beautiful', my own nomination would be the Spitfire, the Mk.IX being my particular favourite.

An interesting sideline on this would be whether WW2 aircraft have any sort of common national characteristics. For example, to me German aircraft seem angular, rather ugly and functional, rarely beautiful (the Me262 being an exception, and maybe the FW190 when airborne). American aircraft (or is it just the fighters?) are often the airborne equivalents of big flashy cars (P-47, P-38, P-51). British aircraft can be very beautiful (Spitfire, Mosquito), but a pragmatic approach to design usually prevails (Hurricane, Halifax, Lancaster). Of course, with a few selective examples you can prove anything, but I've often wondered.

 

[Peej]

Got to update my earlier post. It's still the Lanc. Just had them both fly over my house together. Fantastic sight and sound

 

[stona]

I don't see much difference in the design principles and overall look of the various European aircraft, including of course the RAF and Luftwaffe's. All the designers were familiar with each others work if they didn't know each other personally. For example Beverly Shenstone of Supermarine and Spitfire fame had worked in Germany with Alexander Lippisch and for Junkers. Lippisch very nearly came to work at Supermarine as late as 1938. Instead he went on to design the Me 163.

Form follows function which is why the Spitfire and Bf 109 are both small aircraft fitted with the most powerful engine available, substantial armament (for the time) and of limited range.

American aircraft were different. Fighters were much bigger and some had the benefit of a few more years development before being committed to the fray. The two principle 'heavy' bombers were designed on somewhat different principles to our Halifax and Lancaster (the Germans hardly did four engine strategic bombers) and as a result looked different and carried a fraction of the bomb load.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Reelo]

For me it's the Bf 109G-2

Just something about the looks...

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[Laurie]

I would agree with you Doug. I have always categorized aircraft like cars. This is an the aesthetic appeal.

German very BMW austere and no frills hard lines.

British a rather like an E Type Jag soft lines.

American. Ford Mustang. Very stated in its purpose.

Not an expert by any means but German Machines were it seems very follow each other. Whereas British machines seem to diversify. Mosquito with its Balsa Sandwich shoot a bit away and it all held together. Swordfish with material and dope as the Hurricane. Spitfire with the countersunk rivets. Wellington with geodetic framework,shoot a bit away and it still has integrity.

That has inevitably opened up another can of big worms. Good fun and interesting.

Laurie

 

[Willi262]

The Me-262.

With the jet engines and tricycle landing gear it was years ahead of anything else in the skies (with the possible exception of the Meteor).

Like the Titanic, she just has nice lines and is easy to look at.