discussion WW11 the most aesthetically attractive aircraft.

[Guest]

The grumman duck or the short Sunderland bother quirky but beautiful planes (sorry just call me mad ken, or kp is nuts)

 

[Guest]

The old Dakota must be up their, a classic aircraft, flew for decades in both military and civilian service, beautiful simple lines. Derek

 

[Guest]

I agree with you Derek. The amazing thing about this aircraft is that it was a transporter and came within a division of its own. Neither fighter nor bomber.

Even to day 80 years later it still looks the part.

Laurie

 

[Ian M]

Been thinking about this over the day and there are a good few ideas as to what is "Aesthetically pleasing". Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. (or beer holder as my dear old dad used to say).

Personally I cant see that ANY bomber is a thing of beauty, many are more pleasing to the eye than others. Purposeful? The Lancaster is a great looking, purposeful machine, but is it beautiful?

Someone called the Walrus. which actually I find quite easy on the eye. Is beauty and aesthetics the same thing...?

So in an attempt to clarify why I like the Spitfire:

It has good proportions, the lines are sleek and graceful and the original design was still clear in its genes right though to the last version/mark.

Ian M

 

[Guest]

Good enough for me Ian. The description of aesthetical : the qualities in a person or thing that as a whole give pleasure to the senses.

Beauty is not necessarily part of that as the Walrus is not beautiful but certainly gives pleasure (to me). An elephant or a meir cat are not beautiful but my god they do please the senses.

Spitfire although not my first choice has all the things you mention. I just love the wings and that big projecting nose for the Rolls. It is the ultimate fighting machine of its time (as is to me the Harrier Sea Jet).

Thursday it is over Jersey with the two Lancasters and all landing at the airport. Plus the Arrows. They stay over night and I know why ! For instance within 500 yds of our flat there are 45 restaurants (includes KFC ).

I also add to my list the Typhoon as that looks just what it was the ultimate tank buster. Big and watch me I am in charge.

Next week Fleet Air Arm Museum so that may affect my judgement again. What ever camera ready plus my aesthetical senses.

Laurie

 

[eddiesolo]

For me there is something pleasing to the eye in looking at the He-111, the elliptical wings and rounded soft lines. I know it was obsolete in the middle and latter stages of the war, but still it looks graceful.

Si

 

[Guest]

Si we agree mentioned the aircraft yesterday.

Think it is all that glass. One thing i would have hated being on the wrong side of it.

Laurie

 

[dave]

Having followed this thread for a while it is probably time to add my tuppence worth. But the choice of aesthetically pleasing aircraft in WWII is wide, many of the contenders have already been mentioned: Spitfire, He III, Mosquito, Fw 200 Condor, Dakota.

I think there are a few others that deserve a mention, the Boeing B29 superfortress, Bristol Beaufighter and the later variants of the Blenheim and lastly the Arado Ar234 Blitz.

Having said all that my heart says Spitfire, there is just something about them in flight.

 

[rickoshea52]

So what about post-war aircraft?

Comet/Nimrod, Lightning, Buccaneer, Phantom to get the ball rolling!

 

[Guest]

So what about post-war aircraft?Comet/Nimrod, Lightning, Buccaneer, Phantom to get the ball rolling!

Lightning, Lightning, Lightning, in that order, a completely original game changer. Derek

 

[Guest]

I also add to my list the Typhoon as that looks just what it was the ultimate tank buster.

Laurie

I'd love to know what information you base that opinion on Laurie! Tank plinking scores were vastly exaggerated by Allied pilots in the ETO.

For instance, at the Falaise Gap, less than 15% of German AFV losses were due to air attack. For tankbusting, the Hurricane IID with it's 40mm cannon & the Stuka G-1/2 reign supreme.

 

[ojays]

Just to throw my tuppence in.

For me it has always been the Me 110.

Just love it's lines and the various colour schemes it appeared in.

View attachment 88513


Gregg

View attachment 201536

 

[Guest]

Now no body has mentioned the Swordfish. Just an out of place aircraft in WW11 but you have to love it for what it was plus you cannot divorce that form its achievements against all odds.

Could be put in the ugly bin I suppose. I cannot think of another aircraft in WW11 where you have 3 airman in open cockpits.

Laurie

 

[stona]

So in an attempt to clarify why I like the Spitfire:

It has good proportions, the lines are sleek and graceful and the original design was still clear in its genes right though to the last version/mark.

Ian M

I think that is down to the wing which was unchanged (at least superficially looking from the outside) until the very last versions and even then it looked vey similar. There's also the often overlooked and yet distinctive wing fillet.

They could bolt on bigger fins and bigger engines and even make a 'low back' version but without losing the essential 'look' of the aeroplane.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Guest]

I'd love to know what information you base that opinion on Laurie!

Apologies Patrick I have been so busy. It is retirement I am afraid. There is more to do than you would ever have thought.

The question you posed,, not sure why as you gave no indication where yours came from, “where did I get my information”. Quite frankly in detail I do not know, It was all collected over a very long period.

Big question. Long answer.

At the age of about 13 about 1951 I began to read and collect personal accounts of WW11. These accounts were from Army Navy and Air Force. I continued this pursuit with more interest and eventually accrued over 800 books. Unfortunately due to accommodation downsizing I had to relinquish my ownership of about 750. I kept those precious to me as I do the information gleaned form 800 personal accounts.

The larger numbers were from RAF Officers. I assume this is, as their role in aircombat, that they are in general very individualistic whereas Navy and Army are very much flock type.

All of these accounts, or ay least most, were written close to the event when memory was large and therefore not be-delved by grey areas of the imagination. Most, I assume, read a book once. I am lucky and find I am able to re-read and extract, to my enjoyment, many facets and sides which complement or disagree with other books.

So these books are my strength of knowledge personal accounts from British American and Germany. A few from Russia on which I am weak in knowledge.

I have read historians with great interest but I am very sceptical. Historians extract from numerous sources especially those which seem interesting. Then another comes along and reads all pieces by historians gathers from these and writes a book. The greatest of recipes for disaster. Good historians will read the personal accounts as that is where the truth of the matter lies.

The Falklands war is a great example of the twists. Read Sharkey War and his twist on the Vulcan raids a waste of time and energy he says with venom. But read on many accounts and you get the full picture.

The internet. Whoops a whole new load of information. Written by many who gather info and record it on the internet but do not have the in depth knowledge. Never take one answer from on line I treat it with suspicion. I go back to my personal accounts. Not a ministry report, a historians screed and not on line. Personal accounts in the main.

Hope that answers your question Patrick. In general I make that about 62 years of reading the history of WW11.

Laurie

 

[Guest]

Heres an extract from Ian Goodesons 'Air Power at the Battlefront'

Sorry the tables haven't formatted correctly, but it supports my point.

The claims made by

the Allied fighter-bomber pilots for the period 7 - 10 August are

impressive, and are shown below:

ALLIED FIGHTER-BOMBER CLAIMS, 7 - 10 AUGUST 1944

Probably

Armour Destroyed Destroyed Damaged Total

2nd TAF 8 35 21 140

9th AF 69 8 35 112

Motor Ttansport

2nd TAF 54 19 39 112

9th AF 94 1 21 116

Yet these claims are misleading and cannot be substantiated. During

12 - 20 August the Mortain battle area was examined by two separate

British ORS teams; No. 2 ORS and ORS 2nd TAF. No German vehicles were

missed by the investigation as the areas was not extensive; moreover

the area was examined from an observation aircraft at low level with

no further vehicles discovered. The destruction attributed to various

weapons can be tabulated as shown in the following table, which is a

compilation of both the RAF and Army reports:

DESTRUCTION ATTRIBUTED TO VARIOUS WEAPONS,

MORTAIN AREA, AUGUST 1944

FORM OF DESTRUCTION OR NEUTRALISATION

Cannon/ Aband.

TYPE Rockets MG Bomb intact Crew US Army Unknown Total

Panther 5 - 1 6 4 14 3 33

Mk IV 2 - 1 1 - 5 1 10

SP Guns - - - - - 1 2 3

Arm.Troop Carr. 7 4 - 1 - 3 8 23

Arm.Cars 1 - - 1 - 5 1 8

Arm Recov.Veh. - - - - - 1 - 1

88 mm Guns - - - - - 1 1 2

75 mm Guns - - - - - 1 - 1

50 mm Guns - - - 1 - - - 1

Cars 2 2 - - - 4 3 11

Lorries - 6 - 1 1 2 20 30

Ambulances - 2 - 2 - - 1 5

Motor Cycles - - - 1 1 1 2 4

_____________________________________________________________________

Totals 17 14 2 14 5 38 42 132

This shows that a total of only 46 German tanks and self-propelled

guns were actually found in the battle area, and of these only nine

were considered to have been destroyed by air weapons.

 

[BarryW]

For me it has to be the Spitfire. Mind you, the Ki 84 Frank has very pleasing lines with a very businesslike appearance and should be a candidate.