Why did the French design such ugly planes prior to and into WWII?

[Learstang]

On 18/09/2020 at 02:05, Floggerman said:

what we are talking about?

 

Ilyushin Il-20

Ah yes, the Il-20, the love-child of the Il-10 and the Short Seamew!

 

Regards,

 

Jason

[Space Ranger]

7 hours ago, occa said:

What about this ?

 

 

 

It has an interesting history:

http://flyingmachines.ru/Site2/Crafts/Craft29118.htm

https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lists/2016/03/11-ugliest-aircraft-ever-built/

 

That would be something for @Moa

 

That's just plain bizarre! But not ugly.

[Aardvark]

8 hours ago, Lord Riot said:

How about this monstrosity; it looks like a pug having a poo:

 

 

Or this evil alien swan:

 

 

Fortunately they never entered service so didn't inflict their ugliness on us for very long. This thing, however ...

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Vlad said:

..while we were busy ruining the good looks of the original German project for the Eurofighter. 😈

 

 

But this topic in WW2 thematic!

This:

and this:

more suitable!

😉😁

But because my thematic jet fighter, my absolute favourites:

b.w. La-200B is a typical example of how to make a ugly out of a simatic plane La-200

to please the military......and eventually lose!

 

2 hours ago, Truro Model Builder said:

Marcel Bloch changed his name after the war to Marcel Dassault.

 

And if I was responsible for the Bloch MB.200 I would have changed my name as well.

Firstly I laughed....but then I remembered that most of the planes were not designed by him, but by the designers who worked for him.  Of course, projects were brought to him for approval, but the main part was done by others.  In the world of aviation, this is a widespread practice, as an example of the Yak-3 was actually made by Oleg Antonov and not Yakovlev, La-7 Alekseev

 

and not Lavochkin, etc.

B.w. after war Alekseev maked this

(handsome, isn't that so?):

Lavochkin this:

(what  a....???):

😉

2 hours ago, Black Knight said:

Marcel Bloch was a member of the French Resistance during the German occupation of France. 

His code name was 'Char D'assault'. The long-winded French name for a tank

After WW2 M. Bloch assumed the latter part of his code name as his new personal moniker

Almost....

"In October 1940, Bloch refused to collaborate with the Germans occupiers at Bordeaux-Aéronautique and was imprisoned by the Vichy government. In 1944 the Nazis deported Bloch to the Buchenwald concentration camp, as punishment for refusing to co-operate with their regime. He was tortured and beaten and held in solitary confinement. In the meantime his wife was interned near Paris. Bloch was detained at Buchenwald until it was liberated on 11 April 1945."

Of course, there were resistance cells in the Nazi concentration camps, but they physically could not provide strong resistance to the Nazis, like partisan units in France or Yugoslavia, and the level of the partisan movement (which were actually structured regular sabotage armies controlled and supplied by the NKVD and army intelligence from front line)

in Belarussia or Central Ukraine is not even worth comparing. 

About changing name:

"After the war he changed his name from Bloch to Bloch-Dassault and in 1949 to Dassault. Dassault was the nom de guerre used by his brother, General Darius Paul Bloch, when he served in the French resistance"

18 hours ago, mike romeo said:

Me 262

😉😁

If seriously, compare the design of the Me-262 with the design of the Alekseev I-211 in the photo above!  And by the way:

(Important: The posted photo is historical. I am not promoting Nazi symbols, but only illustrating the ugly of this aircraft!)

tell us that this is a beautiful plane? 🤢

 

B.R.

Serge

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Aardvark

[Aardvark]

2 hours ago, Learstang said:

Il-20, the love-child

I think IL-20 it's a child process

love military and pilot who wanted a good view of the battlefield,

from one side and  brain designer, who wanted defense orders, from other side!

Nothing else!

😉😁

B.R.

Serge

[Vlad]

22 minutes ago, Aardvark said:

I don't know, those 3 aren't that bad. The last one looks better than the baseline Jug... I'll go take cover now 😳

 

I agree early jets are almost universally hideous though.

 

And it's easy to find ugly planes that are experimental or otherwise outlandish, then there are things like this:

 

[Aardvark]

49 minutes ago, Vlad said:

I don't know, those 3 aren't that bad.

Come on!

Wood design this:

and this wood design:

Come on, again!

How from  this:

do it this:

???

How???

49 minutes ago, Vlad said:

The last one looks better than the baseline Jug... I'll go take cover now

this is generally a separate script for horror movies:

!!!

😉😁

B.R.

Serge

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Aardvark

[Truro Model Builder]

14 hours ago, Aardvark said:

 

Almost....

"In October 1940, Bloch refused to collaborate with the Germans occupiers at Bordeaux-Aéronautique and was imprisoned by the Vichy government. In 1944 the Nazis deported Bloch to the Buchenwald concentration camp, as punishment for refusing to co-operate with their regime. He was tortured and beaten and held in solitary confinement. In the meantime his wife was interned near Paris. Bloch was detained at Buchenwald until it was liberated on 11 April 1945."

 

"After the war he changed his name from Bloch to Bloch-Dassault and in 1949 to Dassault. Dassault was the nom de guerre used by his brother, General Darius Paul Bloch, when he served in the French resistance"

 

 

 

I knew somebody would pick me up. I'm well aware of the reason he changed his name and, believe me, my respect and admiration for Marcel Dassault could not be greater.

 

But I still like my idea. 

[Aardvark]

8 minutes ago, Truro Model Builder said:

I knew somebody would pick me up.

Again, in the topic contest, your joke is really funny and I liked it .... and I even put a "smile" , but then my mind prevailed over my emotions and I removed the "smiley".  But again, I have absolutely no complaints and "pick You up". 

In addition, my quote You have highlighted refers to a posting Black Knight, but not to Your posting!

🤝

 

B.R.

Serge

 

[alt-92]

13 hours ago, Aardvark said:

How from  this:

do it this:

???

How???

Simples.

One substitutes a radial engine with an inline V12, but forgets to take into account the (at that time) large turbo-supercharger bolted on the back of the engine & larger fuel consumption so everything office-related is shifted backwards.

Does wonders for speed, not so much for usability - at the same time, many racers, even the unlimited class today, tend to follow that layout.
The already mentioned CR.714 is an example of a racer converted to emergency lightweight fighter.

 

Incidentally, that huge turbo-supercharger assembly is the reason why the P-47's layout you linked to was picked. 
 

Also: ever seen what happened to the F-4U?

Prototype, no wing armament, fueltanks in the wings.

 

 

 

Redesigned with wing guns, no room for wing fuel tanks therefore moved to fuselage to stay in center of gravity:

 

[Vlad]

Sure as hell is a huge improvement in looks for the F4U!

 

Maybe I'm just weird, but I really like long noses on my single engine prop fighters. I do have a limit, but even those exagerrated "racer-like" ones, I would not single them out as especially unattractive (actual usability aside).

 

Short stubby radial birds I don't like... 😝

Edited September 20, 2020 by Vlad

[Aardvark]

7 hours ago, alt-92 said:

Simples.

One substitutes a radial engine with an inline V12, but forgets to take into account the (at that time) large turbo-supercharger bolted on the back of the engine & larger fuel consumption so everything office-related is shifted backwards.

Does wonders for speed, not so much for usability - at the same time, many racers, even the unlimited class today, tend to follow that layout.

Now compare this with Sukhoi's design solution to the same problem with the V12 engine and turbocharger:

Yes, it did not take off, partly because of the turbocharger, which was not designed in the USSR until the end of the war, partly because of the intrigues of both Sukhoi and against Sukhoi (  I already wrote about this on BM):

Special spices is the fact that Sukhoi was in the United States before the war, where he studied American aircraft technology.  By the way, Marcel Bloch studied in the same year at the Breguet school with Gurevich, the one who has the letter "G" in the abbreviation of the MiG...

B.w. about MiG.

All the same components V-12 and turbocharger:

 

of course compares not correct with XP-37, most correct with P-40Q:

but we remember how ugly the P-40Q was at the very beginning:

😉😁

However, the winner in ugliness among high-altitude fighters will probably be this:

(about the demonstration of the swastika, on photo B.V.155 below,

my position has not changed, see my commentary on the photo of the Me-262 prototype in this topic)

as for my!

😁

4 hours ago, Vlad said:

Maybe I'm just weird, but I really like long noses on my single engine prop fighters. I do have a limit, but even those exagerrated "racer-like" ones, I would not single them out as especially unattractive (actual usability aside).

 

Short stubby radial birds I don't like... 😝

Oh, probably I know type You favorite aircraft:

😉😁

B.R.

Serge

 

[alt-92]

6 minutes ago, Aardvark said:

V12 engine and turbocharger:

Turbo-Supercharger. Basically, both a turbocharger and a (single or two-stage) supercharger chained.

 

For some engineering-level chitchat:

 

[-Ian-]

One upon a time a young Lysander met a handsome Lancaster and they loved each other very much...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[At Sea]

21 hours ago, Aardvark said:

this is generally a separate script for horror movies:

!!!

😉😁

B.R.

Serge

 

Is that the turbocharger and engine from a P-47?  If so I have never seen it all out like that.  Marvellous.

[Aardvark]

15 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

Turbo-Supercharger. Basically, both a turbocharger and a (single or two-stage) supercharger chained.

It's excusable

for my!  I am an dilettante

in matters of piston engines!😎😁  I collect jet fighters!  But thanks

19 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

For some engineering-level chitchat:

for the link!

🤝

14 minutes ago, -Ian- said:

 

And (finally almost returned to the French!  😁)

who was the plagiarist from this trio's ?

22 minutes ago, -Ian- said:

One upon a time a young Lysander met a handsome Lancaster and they loved each other very much

But Lancaster this is him, Lysander this is him also .... how could they have children?

😲😁

8 minutes ago, At Sea said:

Is that the turbocharger and engine from a P-47?  

Yeah, turbocharger and engine from a P-47 own person!

😁

8 minutes ago, At Sea said:

I have never seen it all out like that

Live with it now!  😁😁

 

B.R.

Serge

[MilneBay]

On 9/18/2020 at 11:21 PM, Hook said:

Or, even shorter: Hawker Hunter. 😎

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

 

Years ago I read an article by a British aviation journalist who had worked in the Hawker design office. His name escapes me but he said that he suggested to Sydney Camm that the Hunter would have been a more aesthetically pleasing aircraft if the fuselage section ahead of the intakes had been about 2 feet longer. He went on to suggest (tongue in cheek) that this was the reason why his design career at Hawker didn't prosper.

 

When I read the article it struck me that this was why I never found the Hunter to be as aesthetically pleasing as others claim. It has a slight "no neck" appearance to me. To me it's a good looking aircraft but not quite the beauty that is claimed.  

[Black Knight]

I think this thread has strayed too far from the original question

[Aardvark]

8 hours ago, MilneBay said:

Years ago I read an article by a British aviation journalist who had worked in the Hawker design office. His name escapes me but he said that he suggested to Sydney Camm that the Hunter would have been a more aesthetically pleasing aircraft if the fuselage section ahead of the intakes had been about 2 feet longer. He went on to suggest (tongue in cheek) that this was the reason why his design career at Hawker didn't prosper.

 

When I read the article it struck me that this was why I never found the Hunter to be as aesthetically pleasing as others claim. It has a slight "no neck" appearance to me. To me it's a good looking aircraft but not quite the beauty that is claimed.  

In the memoirs of Adler (he was a designer at Yakovlev) there is such a interesting moment, when Yakovlev examined the Yak-50

under construction, he said not beautiful enough, too long (!) and ordered to remove the section between the cockpit and the wing!  😁Which once again proves - everyone has their own concepts of the ratio of beauty and length!😉

8 hours ago, Black Knight said:

I think this thread has strayed too far from the original question

This topic was originally for Chat, because how many people have so many opinions about beauty and aesthetics.

 History with Hunter & Yak-50 as fresh example!

 Some people like the shape of the T-bolt, some think it is a disgusting ugly.

O.К., on the fourth page 😁 I will try to formulate my understanding of the answer to the main question of the topic "why the French?"

Although it was shown throughout all four pages of this topic that ugly planes built (and are building!) Everything ... but the French really had more of them.

First of all, what causes the aesthetic feelings of harmony and tranquility in the majority?  Soft lines, ovals, circles!  What causes discomfort?  Hard straight lines, edges!  Subconsciously, many people perceive circles and ovals better than squares and rectangles, and this is natural because there are almost no straight lines in nature!  But technically, it's cheaper and easier to build a cube than a sphere! After the First World War, despite the fact that it was among the victors, France was in a no rich state*, because the war was fought on its territory**. 

But the planes had to be built, the planes needed a lot, especially the bombers (the Douai doctrine, you know, was in vogue then), speed was not the main thing for the bomber, the main thing was a lot of bombers that could carry a lot of bombs.

In addition, at that time, the French aviation industry was the leader and in fact they dictated fashion and an example to follow.

That’s why all these barn-like bombers came about, I think.

But the emergence of the concept of a high-speed bomber (a bright representative of the SB), which was faster than fighters (at some point in its biography), broke the established stereotypes and planes had to be made more streamlined, high-speed, but also more expensive and less technological.

Someone accepted the new conditions of the game, someone still played according to the old ones due to various reasons - imperfect technologies, limited resources and dogmas of engineering education.

This is my personal opinion about main question topic.

 

______________

* - France has not been a rich country for a long time, just remember where the first revolution in the world took place?  In France!  Why?  Ordinary people had nothing to eat.  Of course, we can say that this is the mismanagement of the French kings, but nevertheless ... It can also be noted that already in modern times, due to lack of funds, a number of ambitious programs were abandoned, for example, the Mirage 4000.

** - Yes, the First World War was going on in most of Europe, but the same Germany began to revive its aviation only in the 30s, the USSR also recovered from the consequences of the First World War and the Civil War only by the 30s, and many of those countries on whose territory  the war was fought its own aviation industry either did not take place or was in its infancy.

 

 

B.R.

Serge

 

[Vlad]

11 hours ago, MilneBay said:

When I read the article it struck me that this was why I never found the Hunter to be as aesthetically pleasing as others claim. It has a slight "no neck" appearance to me. To me it's a good looking aircraft but not quite the beauty that is claimed.  

 

I have a similar feeling about the Spitfire, particularly early marks. The Griffon engine improves the look a lot for me. Same for the Bf 109E > F, Fw 190A > D. The Hunter of course never had a need for a nose job.😉

 

1 hour ago, Aardvark said:

But the planes had to be built, the planes needed a lot, especially the bombers (the Douai doctrine, you know, was in vogue then), speed was not the main thing for the bomber, the main thing was a lot of bombers that could carry a lot of bomb

 

That explains it. All the examples in the first post are bombers.

 

I know it was already mentioned, but when the French decided to make a "modern" fighter in the 1930s, the result was, as you say, quite "harmonious":

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Vlad

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello Vlad

I could not have agreed more with your comment on D.520. However, perhaps it would be better to insert the photo of D.520 C.1 Blue 2 as a link. Guys and girls on Airliners.net can be very particular about such posts. Cheers

Jure

[Aardvark]

36 minutes ago, Vlad said:

That explains it. All the examples in the first post are bombers.

But not without exceptions!  Still, the long tradition of designing ugly  made itself felt:

😉😁

37 minutes ago, Vlad said:

know it was already mentioned, but when the French decided to make a "modern" fighter in the 1930s, the result was, as you say, quite "harmonious":

Prototype was similar on Spitfire in some view:

but D.520 not my "harmonious" hero, because his cockpit is unnecessarily shifted back.

15 minutes ago, Jure Miljevic said:

Guys and girls on Airliners.net can be very particular about such posts.

Best  take a photo from:

http://www.airwar.ru/fighterww2.html

http://www.airwar.ru/main.html

 

B.R.

Serge

 

[Mike]

Glad to see this back on topic before we had to use the emoji

 

You know what's most annoying about this thread?  The fact that none of these monstrosities will be available in 1:48. 😭 You know how I love the weird and ugly

[dragonlanceHR]

Why, Mike, the 1/48 Barra has been available for ages 😂😂😂

[Aardvark]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

You know how I love the weird and ugly

I suggested that GB should be made! 😉 GB needs to be planned for 2025, as I think, because it will take about 5 years to discuss which planes are ugly and which are not! 😁

 

B.R.

Serge

 

P.S.

B.w. One of my friends (unfortunately now deceased), when he was young, did not like the Hunter ... just then the Hunter FROG F.1 made such a strong impression on him, which was very noticeable and consisted of 17 parts that he simply ceased to perceive this plane aesthetically  how beautiful!  Of course, when he became an adult, he somewhat changed his mind by buying the Hunter from the Academy in 1/48, but part of the mental trauma inflicted on him in childhood by the FROG model in relation to the Hunter remained with him until the end of his life ...

It's funny, but my attitude to D.520 is also based on childhood impressions of the FROG model, which is the most erroneous, inaccurate and possibly the worst in accuracy model made by FROG. Of course I see latter Heller (Smer), Hasegawa, AZ models (?) D.520 in 72nd scale and Tamiya in 48th scale which are more accurate ... but those first impressions of D.520 made in childhood based on the FROG model ...probably, if I'm not alone, need to create an association "Victims of FROG D.520"?

😁

[Mike]

1 hour ago, dragonlanceHR said:

Why, Mike, the 1/48 Barra has been available for ages 😂😂😂

I'm shocked and stunned that you could even countenance the thought that I wouldn't have one!