Most Beautiful Aircraft

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
Always gobsmacked to think that the first Lancaster flight to the first Vulcan was 11 years !

mach 1 to Apollo 11 was 22 years.
 

Durandal1

Old-Salt
dover.jpg
 
Armstrong Whitworth made some good looking aircraft, but most seemed to be underpowered.
Case in point being the Ensign with a miserable 210mph top speed.
Armstrong_Whitworth_AW.27_Ensign_I_G-ADSR_%2816138273911%29.jpg

77-1.jpg
Looking at that second picture, it looks like the depth of aerofoil section condemned it to a low cruse speed regardless of how much power Armstrong’s bolted on.
( they cottoned on by the time they built the Whitley, sadly not a contender for this thread.!)
 

RBMK

LE
Book Reviewer
Looking at that second picture, it looks like the depth of aerofoil section condemned it to a low cruse speed regardless of how much power Armstrong’s bolted on.
( they cottoned on by the time they built the Whitley, sadly not a contender for this thread.!)
AW used quite thick wings, but so did many other aircraft of the time. 40 seats was 40 luxury seats, there was no thought of tattooed and spray tanned women flying to Ibiza in those days! Air travel was for the rich and famous.

The main issue with AW was that they set their wings at a strange angle to give better take off, which significantly increased drag. If you see a Whitley in flight you will see that it has a pronounced nose-down attitude, same with the Ensign, but it didn't help that the Ensign was somewhat underpowered given the size.
 
Another one that looked right but was actually rubbish was the Miles / Handley Page Marathon. It was underpowered, tail heavy and unreliable. In particular, the landing gear seems to have been weak.
Derby_Aviation_Marathon_1956.jpg

Even replacing the 4x Gipsy Queens with 2x turboprops didn't save it.
miles-m69-marathon-ii-g-ahxu-later-vx231-9900555.jpg

TBQH, I'm not seeing the looks right part of that statement.
 
AW used quite thick wings, but so did many other aircraft of the time. 40 seats was 40 luxury seats, there was no thought of tattooed and spray tanned women flying to Ibiza in those days! Air travel was for the rich and famous.

The main issue with AW was that they set their wings at a strange angle to give better take off, which significantly increased drag. If you see a Whitley in flight you will see that it has a pronounced nose-down attitude, same with the Ensign, but it didn't help that the Ensign was somewhat underpowered given the size.
an aircraft that can carry barely more than a Dakota and drinks a considerable amount of fuel and oil and is essentially bespoke is hardly going to pay for it's development and ongoing future. A DC-4 was more useful.
 
an aircraft that can carry barely more than a Dakota and drinks a considerable amount of fuel and oil and is essentially bespoke is hardly going to pay for it's development and ongoing future. A DC-4 was more useful.
Depends which was built first, The Americans monopolised the post war airline industry
 
Published by: Daren Chase, the RAF Coningsby
Spotters Group, via Facebook, on 28 September 2021.

.

.

.

.

.
.

Facebook
.
Facebook
.
 
Last edited:

chrismcd

Old-Salt
Looking at that second picture, it looks like the depth of aerofoil section condemned it to a low cruse speed regardless of how much power Armstrong’s bolted on.
I think you are right. The AW Tiger was a rubbish engine. Draggy, heavy, low in power and unreliable. The Whitley only came good with Merlins and the Ensigns were re-engined with Wright Cyclones.
 
Top