The most beautiful aeroplane
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Digressing slightly and regarding the Whirlwind (the 1st one) there's a fantastic book by Harald Penrose, he was Westlands most notable test pilot. The stories about the Whirlwind's sleek lines and the extent to which Teddy Petter went to keep the machine as drag free as possible, regardless of structural cost, make for very interesting reading. According to Penrose, Westland were the first to pressurise an aircraft. Flight testing of the Wyvern, both piston and turbo prop, is also an interesting read. Forget what the title is.
FEBA
FEBA
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The edge
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally Thunderbird-esque or what? And like all true beauties she died a mysterious and untimely death.
Chris.....it apparently means "Many greetings".......if you're Norwegian
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle,
I take it then that you have not seen its even uglier descendant Nimrod 2012, or whatever it is now.
......and definitely not that utterly pig ugly version of the Comet which chases pretend submarines!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really amazed it's taken to the bottom of Page 2 to hear it for the F4 - Phantom. Beautiful lines, awesomely powerful, crap turning and even crappier vis out of the cockpit, but what a warbird. In fact, is there a jet in the world today that has more combat experience (Vietnam, obviously, but also Israel v Syria/Egypt. Have a friend who worked in an Israeli hospital during '73 Yom Kippur, used to take sundowners on the balcony of his hotel watching the IAF Phantoms pounding up the Bekka Valley).
Would also be willing to go into bat for the Lightning, but only in plan form when departing vertical after takeoff.
Would also be willing to go into bat for the Lightning, but only in plan form when departing vertical after takeoff.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Biggleswade
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a beautiful aircraft thread, that's why the F4's missing.
I understood our american colleagues were going for the ugly duckling prize when they produced the F4, but lost it to the Bucaneer.......or so the publicity said in he 60's.
I understood our american colleagues were going for the ugly duckling prize when they produced the F4, but lost it to the Bucaneer.......or so the publicity said in he 60's.
Even though I flew it, I never thought of the F4 as being in any way 'beautiful'. Even the Buccaneer looked better..
XB-70A was indeed an amazing aircraft and the fatal mid-air collision which detroyed one of them was totally avoidable. Back when I was at school we visited Chivenor and saw a copy of a film about testing the XB-70A - quite astonishing! Originally designed to run on some exotic 'zip fuel' and with huge wingtips which folded downwards to generate 'compression lift' at high Mach No. Much faster than Concorde, it was designed to cruise at Mach 3.0 at 72 000ft. And remember, all this was almost 40 years ago when aviation was far bolder and more cutting edge than today. The Valkyrie was flying at Mach 3 in 1965...
And what is BWoS' current contribution to modern aviation? The absurd Nimrod 2000, err, 2001, no 2002, err, make that 2003....or 2004?
XB-70A was indeed an amazing aircraft and the fatal mid-air collision which detroyed one of them was totally avoidable. Back when I was at school we visited Chivenor and saw a copy of a film about testing the XB-70A - quite astonishing! Originally designed to run on some exotic 'zip fuel' and with huge wingtips which folded downwards to generate 'compression lift' at high Mach No. Much faster than Concorde, it was designed to cruise at Mach 3.0 at 72 000ft. And remember, all this was almost 40 years ago when aviation was far bolder and more cutting edge than today. The Valkyrie was flying at Mach 3 in 1965...
And what is BWoS' current contribution to modern aviation? The absurd Nimrod 2000, err, 2001, no 2002, err, make that 2003....or 2004?
Last edited by BEagle; 14th Feb 2004 at 15:56.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear God Gents (& Ladies), beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder. As a sprog at Coningsby in the late 60s, early 70s I have very fond memories of many happy days at the "crash gates" watching them go by. The sight, followed by the almost instantaneous whumpff sound of an F4 breaking over the airfield before turning downwind will live with me till I go. The Bucc is good looking flying at 50' ASL but on the ground's an ugly duckling with a pregnant underbelly. The F4 stands tall, straight and proud on the ground but is in it's element when airborne. Enough.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: A small corner of the Belgian Empire
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My top ten?
1. Anything designed by Stelio Frati
2. Anything designed by Stelio Frati
3. Anything designed by Stelio Frati
4. Anything designed by Stelio Frati
5. Anything designed by Stelio Frati
6. Anything designed by Stelio Frati
7. Anything designed by Stelio Frati
8. Anything designed by Stelio Frati
9. Anything designed by Stelio Frati
Oh, and...
10. Lockheed Starliner
2. Anything designed by Stelio Frati
3. Anything designed by Stelio Frati
4. Anything designed by Stelio Frati
5. Anything designed by Stelio Frati
6. Anything designed by Stelio Frati
7. Anything designed by Stelio Frati
8. Anything designed by Stelio Frati
9. Anything designed by Stelio Frati
Oh, and...
10. Lockheed Starliner
