Ugliest airplane in your logbook

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roger, Roger
  • Start date Start date
coa787 said:
It looks ridiculous. Where are the missiles and external fuel tanks and airborne laser systems?
Click to expand...
Ok I'll compromise... slap twin tail booms, rocket pods, and another engine facing the wrong way on and then you can't question it's badassness.
 
My whole logbook is a bunch of 172R and S models that were all in pretty good condition, nothing ugly so far.

I'm sure there are Skywest guys on JC who have flown 284YV. That thing looks like it sat in the desert for 30 years then was suddenly put in service. Smells like it too.
 
JordanD said:
Ok I'll compromise... slap twin tail booms, rocket pods, and another engine facing the wrong way on and then you can't question it's badassness.
Click to expand...

Put that engine on the top and attach a six-blade rotor system to it, and that will, unquestionably, be the most bad-ass piece of machinery to ever grace the sky.
 
I would say this would be the ugliest in my logbook. Short little nose, bubbly cabin, and a little tail. I didn't fly THIS one but one painted, similarly.
0186830.jpg
 
Probably this one:

Photo Courtesy of FlightAware.com

I've been in a number of ugly Cessnas, but this one is probably the first one that I had some reservations about flying it just based on its appearance. It doesn't look bad from that angle, but get closer up and you can see evidence of where the fiberglass has been patched up, cracked/peeling paint, duct tape holding interior panels together, carpet is loose (I had to pull the pilot's side out to keep it from jamming under the rudder pedals!), seats are pretty ratty, etc...

Despite all that, it actually flew well and was in good shape mechanically/electrically.
 
It's not an airplane per se but still awfully ugly:

2574-a.jpg


It had been stripped for paint then the paint booth somehow broke and developed a five month backlog. During the interim we flew it around looking like that. I always got a kick out of the looks/comments we got when we showed up for fuel at an MCAS, NAS, or AFB. It really speaks volumes as to the pride that Army Aviation has in itself.
 
I have a few hours from my PPL training in this thing, but always preferred the 152 instead. A year or two later my flight school sold "Tweety" and replaced it with a newer 152. Coincidently, CK has some time in this thing as well, which I discovered through one of his photo threads on here.
33003_1180575700.jpg


Runner-up goes to this one, but my first lesson ever was in this thing back in 2001, so she holds a special place in my heart. I think it's been through a few owners since my flight school sold it.
44391_1076147383.jpg
 
Ollie said:
It really speaks volumes as to the pride that Army Aviation has in itself.
Click to expand...

Or, alternately, it speaks about how the military is more about mission than it is how things look.

In this case, the paintjob doesn't keep the craft from performing the mission.
 
Hacker15e said:
I've never heard of a "T-41P".
Click to expand...
There isn't one. It's just a plain ol' 172M that the egotistical warbird guy (think worst warbird guy stereotype) painted that way so he'd feel awesome when not flying an L-39.
 
I win in the ugly and yet not cool category:

SF-25C the one I flew was D-KAGJ in Konstanz (EDTZ)

1099747893.jpg


Its a Wing-dragger ;-)

Cheers
George
 
These were gone from ORD by the time I finished ground school and headed to ORD in 1995, but we got to get checked out on it on the cabin trainer in DFW in school.

Ugly as sin, loved like no other by the crews.

1257222.jpg
 
Malibu Stacy Warrior!
159586.jpg


Here's a video of her, and WTF did they do to the backside of that wing!?!? Check out at about 2:50, some weird orange black scheme.
[YT]LVwkzWBV4-U[/YT]

She was ugly, but boy did she fly well!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top