[HN Gopher] Ugliest Airplane Ever Built Predicted the Future
___________________________________________________________________
Ugliest Airplane Ever Built Predicted the Future
Author : prostoalex
Score : 53 points
Date : 2022-10-07 01:54 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (hackaday.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (hackaday.com)
| pier25 wrote:
| Honestly I think it's actually kinda cute. Would totally work in
| a Ghibli film.
| krisoft wrote:
| Based on the title I was so sure it will be about the Northrop
| Tacit Blue.
|
| Ugliest airplane (in my opinion): check. Predicted the future (by
| being a fore-runner of modern low observeability stealth planes):
| check.
| pedalpete wrote:
| For reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Tacit_Blue
| [deleted]
| theteapot wrote:
| Ugly?! I quite like it. The mig15's stouter big brother.
| rosywoozlechan wrote:
| I agree, it's not ugly at all. Looks super cool.
| bitwize wrote:
| Some guy on YouTube builds model planes propelled by power tools.
| This one reminds me of the plane he built with a leaf blower as
| its propulsion system:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBC6AZY_O80
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| The Stipa-Caproni was certainly odd, but I wouldn't call it ugly.
| Imho, the ugliest plane ever made was the M-15 Belphegor, which
| has the unusual distinction of being a _jet powered_ crop dusting
| biplane.
| [deleted]
| capableweb wrote:
| Hey now, I think the M-15 Belphegor is not that ugly, just
| unique :)
|
| The Boeing Phalcon 707 however, is a really ugly airplane.
| Something with its look just make me wanna look away in shame.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| > Boeing Phalcon 707
|
| I'm not sure what's worse, the nosecone or the name.
| orthoxerox wrote:
| The whole thread makes me want to rewatch Dastardly and
| Muttley in Their Flying Machines.
| 867-5309 wrote:
| Charlie Brown would like a word..
| northwest65 wrote:
| Now that is ugly, I'm dying to see if somebody can one up
| that one!
| tomcam wrote:
| Even better... a jet-powered _biplane_ crop duster. And boy is
| that some ugly shit.
| p_l wrote:
| The name Belphegor reflects some of the feelings about how it
| looked, I guess, as it is one of the devils/demons in
| Christian apocrypha
| WalterBright wrote:
| > the Stipa-Caproni was the direct predecessor of the turbofan
| engine
|
| That's a bit of a stretch. The axial flow turbojet design's
| compressor evolved in stages into the turbofan.
| p1mrx wrote:
| Looks like the old Google App Engine logo:
| https://imgur.com/a/h1S7Nop
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Given that it's apparently extremely stable in flight and the
| takeoff/landing are the main issues (largely because pilots
| literally couldn't see what they were doing), I wonder if this
| design will make a comeback for unmanned drones? it seems ideal
| for low power applications where agility isn't the top
| consideration.
| mannykannot wrote:
| The design appears to have an exit nozzle area at least equal to
| that of the inlet. If so, this is sub-optimal from a propulsive
| efficiency point of view. The cross-sectional area inside is
| clearly less (mainly due to the engine nacelle), making this a
| convergent-divergent nozzle, which is desirable only when the
| flow goes supersonic. For subsonic conditions, a convergent
| nozzle, with its exit narrower than its intake, is better.
|
| See de Piolenc, 'Ducted Fan Design vol. 1.', 2001
| kulor wrote:
| Reminds me of the sleek F6 which looks like someone simply added
| a cockpit and wings to a jet engine:
| https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/collections/british-ai....
| vehgtuft wrote:
| dingaling wrote:
| Same principle later implemented by Willard Custer but using wing
| channelling rather than the fuselage
|
| https://www.historynet.com/custers-channel-wing/
| vehgtuftg wrote:
| This isn't convincing. The turbofan is a good idea because the
| propulsive efficiency is better than a turbojet.
|
| The Stipa is a ducted fan, but the resemblance to a turbofan is
| superficial.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan#Principles
| Retric wrote:
| You can also stick a propeller on a turbojet to increase
| efficiency without the need for extra ducting though at a cost
| of cabin noise. That saves weight, but copying this design is a
| net gain at high speeds.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propfan
|
| It includes an interesting chart where Turbofan is only better
| above about a Mach 0.75.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| I absolutely love the Caproni C22J in Microsoft flight simulator.
| He wasn't just building weird planes, this one is amazing.
| hodgesrm wrote:
| I came here expecting to see something about the A380. Completely
| wrong but not disappointed! The Stipa Caproni is definitely in a
| class of its own!
|
| p.s., A380s are nice inside but the outside hardly makes the
| heart sing. They remind me of the Spruce Goose. [0]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules
| chasil wrote:
| A380s were a big bet that does not appear to have worked out.
|
| A few exponential increases in aircraft travelers could prove
| this wrong, and restart production, but that does not seem a
| near-term future.
|
| It was a noble effort, though.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| The major issue is increased open skies agreements and better
| twin engine planes totally obviating a lot of hub-to-hub
| travel.
|
| The only real hubs with enough traffic to support a double
| deck plane are the massive Middle Eastern ones.
|
| Also, unlike the 747, the A380 is too heavy to be a
| freighter.
| chasil wrote:
| Interesting.
|
| I did not know that it wasn't designed with this
| flexibility. This seems short-sighted.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| The 747 was actually designed with this in mind from the
| get-go (hence the raised jumbo hump to allow front-nose
| loading), because the expectation was that they would not
| be in service very long until supersonic transports
| became the norm.
|
| The A380 is just too heavy when empty to carry much
| freight. It was already a struggle to find engines that
| could fly the thing, and for airports to upgrade runways
| to deal with its weight.
| nawgz wrote:
| I think the weight constraint must make it incredibly hard to
| fly outside of select routes; it is not trivial to build a
| runway which you can land and takeoff those bad boys from
|
| I can't see a world they ever build more of them in
| csours wrote:
| The airplanes of the late 1920s through the late 1930s are
| absolutely wild. Engines were starting to become more capable,
| designers had more of a clue, people were willing to spend money
| on things... but the designers didn't have the whole clue yet, so
| you get some really amazing things like open top monoplanes that
| flew at 10k feet.
|
| This YouTube channel covers some really interesting stuff from
| that time frame:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0g8HiAbNAE
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uFNOtsucKE
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwa9unx9mpQ
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Qz6c38sGk
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVnxQCa4ieM
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DNGBIqiOaw
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD0SYy-stt4
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2v5MvgAkaI
|
| Oh, and the Stipa Caproni herself:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3K0QPfmznY
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-09 23:00 UTC)