Ha Haaa! Mad dog, I see you disagreed with my assessment of the Attacker and the Hastings! Gonna stick to my guns mate, the Attacker's a short fat thing and the Hastings with its nose in the air looks ungainly, but that's the fun of this, its all in the eye of the beholder...
Most Unattractive Aircraft of WW2
- Thread starter Glider
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Well, the Attacker is not at all ugly, it actually looks quite sleek compared to many of the contemporary early jets:
And the Hastings was not too bad either, on par with American products of the day:
Yes, both were tail-draggers, but they were elegant in flight.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
As an aside, if you put a prop on the nose of the Attacker, you would have either an Me509 (Messerschmitt) or an R2Y (Yokosuka).
Thanks for the heads-up on the Me 509 Dave - haven't heard of that one before. But yeah, it could look like the R2Y - if ya squint...
wingnuts
Airman 1st Class
Mitchell did do another design before the Spitfire, the Type 224 but it turned out to be a big disappointment (and ugly), so he had a rethink and came up with the Spitfire... thank goodness!
Attachments
Shoot this thing and you got a beer shower, cockpit open if possible.
Hmmm, a pig with wings? We'll just hafta disagree!
If you're complaining about "short and fat", I think maybe you're getting the Attacker confused with the Saab Tunnan?
Or Maybe the MiG-9?
I do have a soft spot for the tubby Tunnan, but the Attacker looks better. But, if you have a hatred for tail-draggers, surely the uglier Yak-15 should be your target
:It's probably a very good thing the Type 224 was let down by the Rolls-Royce Goshawk engine and its evaporative cooling system, otherwise the RAF would have bought Type 224s instead of the Gloster Gladiator, and that could have kept Supermarine too busy to develop the Spitfire before 1940.
GregP
Major
A LOT of people laugh at the SAAB J-29 Tunan ... until they try to fight one with almost any other contemporary jet fighter. It would give an F-86 everything it could handle and maybe a bit more.
GregP
Major
An interesting question, Milosh ... I had never thought about that, but I see where you are coming from. Hmmmm ...
Last edited:
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,956
- Jun 25, 2013
According to Wikipedia (I know, I know....), SAAB received some design drawings from Messerschmitt.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Saab's J-29 looks a great deal like Messerschmitt's P.1092/4 design.
Was it's performance due to smaller lighter and shorter legged or aerodynamics/ motor?
GregP
Major
Actually BiffF15, I have not tried to analyze the J.29 before.
A quick check tells me ... I am assuming combat weight of about 16,000 pounds for both.
J.29 level speed is maybe 30 mph slower than best speed for an F-86F at best altitude, but it is faster at some altitudes.
J.29 has a higher service ceiling than F-86 by some 2,800 feet ... 50,853 vs 48,000.
J.29 has an afterburner (or reheat, as appropriate). With A/B, J.29 has a slightly better thrust to weight (.39 vs. .37.). .31 without A/B, but better fuel consumption.
Wing loadings are close, with F-86 slightly lower.
J.29 has four 20 mm cannons va. six 50-cal MG. Armament WAY in favor of J.29.
J.29 initial rate of climb: 6.320 fpm. F-86F initial rate of climb: 8,100 fpm. But ... J.29 has higher service ceiling so, at some point, J.29 ROC is better. I assume it evens out at 35 - 40,000 feet.
Range: Combat radius: F-86: 463 miles, Ferry: 1,525 miles. J.29 range: 685 miles, but no mention of combat radius or ferry. They DID fit drop tanks.
J.29 was considered as VERY agile against all potential adversaries.
J.29F had more thrust and better takeoff and climb.
Weights are very similar.
The J.29 appears to have been MUCH better than it gets credit for. We all KNOW the F-86 was a good one.
They never met as foes. J.29 got into combat very late in it's career in Africa, mostly in ground attack. None were lost in combat. One was lost when a senior officer aborted a takeoff too late to stop in the runway. Three were burned rather than fly them back to Sweden since they were then being phased out (1970s) and the cost to return them home was more than the worth of the aircraft ... at least to Sweden.
A quick check tells me ... I am assuming combat weight of about 16,000 pounds for both.
J.29 level speed is maybe 30 mph slower than best speed for an F-86F at best altitude, but it is faster at some altitudes.
J.29 has a higher service ceiling than F-86 by some 2,800 feet ... 50,853 vs 48,000.
J.29 has an afterburner (or reheat, as appropriate). With A/B, J.29 has a slightly better thrust to weight (.39 vs. .37.). .31 without A/B, but better fuel consumption.
Wing loadings are close, with F-86 slightly lower.
J.29 has four 20 mm cannons va. six 50-cal MG. Armament WAY in favor of J.29.
J.29 initial rate of climb: 6.320 fpm. F-86F initial rate of climb: 8,100 fpm. But ... J.29 has higher service ceiling so, at some point, J.29 ROC is better. I assume it evens out at 35 - 40,000 feet.
Range: Combat radius: F-86: 463 miles, Ferry: 1,525 miles. J.29 range: 685 miles, but no mention of combat radius or ferry. They DID fit drop tanks.
J.29 was considered as VERY agile against all potential adversaries.
J.29F had more thrust and better takeoff and climb.
Weights are very similar.
The J.29 appears to have been MUCH better than it gets credit for. We all KNOW the F-86 was a good one.
They never met as foes. J.29 got into combat very late in it's career in Africa, mostly in ground attack. None were lost in combat. One was lost when a senior officer aborted a takeoff too late to stop in the runway. Three were burned rather than fly them back to Sweden since they were then being phased out (1970s) and the cost to return them home was more than the worth of the aircraft ... at least to Sweden.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Here's the afore-mentioned Messerschmitt P.1092/4 for comparison.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
No one in their right mind would ever call the Hellcat graceful but on the other hand it certainly isn't ugly....
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Another airplane that has mixed reviews concerning its looks is the Macchi MC.200 Saetta. It looks pretty sweet from certain angles but is questionable in others IMHO.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
