Looks right, flies wrong.

[001]

There is a much used saying, 'If it looks right, it will fly right'.

 

But, I think there are a few full size aircraft (and plenty of models, but I am not including them) that look 'right', 'elegant' , 'pretty' or 'handsome'  that flew badly or had serious mechanical or structural problems.

 

I would not include those that were passed by for political reasons, or those where the role that they were designed for just evaporated. (Saro Princess for example.)

How about...

Civil, De Havilland Comet 1. (And D.H. 91 Albatross, surely the prettiest airliner ever!)

 

The military ones that I thought of are:-

Douglas Skyshark,

Heinkel He 177 Grief.

Saro S-36 Lerwick.

Early examples of the Hawker Typhoon.

There must be many others.

 

[Mowerman]

Add the Seamew. Apparantly a pig to fly and some scale models were the same.

[001]

I agree, I remember whan it first came out!  Not a beautiful aircraft but it did look as if it would do the job it was designed to do.

 I didn't realise its performance was so poor until I looked its history up today.

[Reno Racer]

F-4 Phantom, looks great, sounds awesome, flys like a brick, glide ratio of an evern bigger brick.

 

Blackburn Buccaneer, not exactly pretty, but seriously well engineering and was praised by its pilots. I have a soft spot for the Buc, if only more ARTFs or kits could be of these models, rather than endless Spitfires, Edges or Yaks.

 

twin 70 - 90mm EDF Buccanner. mmmmmmm. Sadly I suspect that since it was only used by the RAF/RN and the South Africans, it not sexy to Americans.

 

 

[Chris Channon]

Hi Christian,

 

I really wish a company would produce a twin I/C ducted fan of the E E Lightning, a nice model jet that is affordable.

 

O/S still produce d/fan engines and Irvine produce one and a lot of heli engines work well with a d/fan unit..

 

Perhaps one day ..........

 

regards

 

Chris.

[Erfolg]

In many respects the answer to the question is unfathomable. Most aircraft are surrounded by myth, politics and time frame.

 

Such as the F104G. Designed for a EE lighting role and became?

 

Shorts Skyvan, an USAF pilot said it was seriously underpowered to me. Was it how they used it?

 

Certainly the Hawker Typhoon could not  achieve its designed requirements, as a high level fighter. Excelled doing other things.

 

I remember being told that the RAF Phantom, had a lower top speed than the USA version. Although it had more power. Yet you would scarcely gather that from the UK PR.

 

Yep politics and PR do colour the reputation of many aircraft.

 

[Tim Mackey]

Posted by Chris Channon on 06/08/2010 16:45:26:

Hi Christian,

 

I really wish a company would produce a twin I/C ducted fan of the E E Lightning, a nice model jet that is affordable.

 

O/S still produce d/fan engines and Irvine produce one and a lot of heli engines work well with a d/fan unit..

 

Perhaps one day ..........

 

regards

 

Chris.

 

Oh yes,that would definitely be on my wish list -  if it was electric! !

[Reno Racer]

Well thats at least 3 for the lightning; i suspect Dutsy may make 4.

Come on Fly Fly!!

2 x Midi fans with LED afterburners, would look very nice!!

P.S seen anything about the 90mm Fly Fly Hunter yet?

[Lee Smalley]

the dh comet fly very well the windows being square were its downfall, 

 

as for

Douglas Skyshark,  just looked odd

Heinkel He 177 Grief.  looked to have too little fin area, but the engines were the downfall

Saro S-36 Lerwick. 

 

none looked great to me

 

typhoon always looked right and after the dorsal fin was added it flew fine , (as long as the tail stayed on)  it was rubbish as an high altitude fighter due to the engine and thick, and (my god its thick) wing  

 

 

[Lee Smalley]

Posted by Erfolg on 06/08/2010 17:07:03:

 

I remember being told that the RAF Phantom, had a lower top speed than the USA version. Although it had more power. Yet you would scarcely gather that from the UK PR.

 

well that was down to our daft politicians we wanted rr spey engines in our phantoms despite the fact they were heavier and larger so by the time we had modified the airframes we ended up with the following 

 

A phantom that was larger, heavier, had more drag, cost far more, had a worse fuel consumption and was slower than if we had just bought std USAF configeration

 

such is the utter stupidity of our goverment at that time, still happens though (see the chinook saga)   utter bonkers 

 

[Reno Racer]

How about the later generation of Russian fighters, SU-27, MIG 29 et al. Look good, but always seem to be crashing, see here

Or does too much pre-flight Vodka count as pilot error?