I was lucky enough as a young child to see one of these working a high country farm - it was operating off a sloped runway and I was convinced it was going to crash as it landed uphill, then convinced it was going to crash after it took off after reloading due to how slowly it climbed - I can't find a definitive number, but I vaguely recall it had a take off speed that lurked around 50kt...<p>On the subject of top-dressers... ...I was privileged to see a turboprop equipped Fletcher FU-24 in action a couple of weeks ago, those pilots are very darn good at flying very low in hill country. Very loud and notable engine sound.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher_FU-24" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher_FU-24</a>
50 knots rotation is perfectly fine for a plane that size. A Cessna Skyhawk is certified to rotate at 55 knots fully loaded (and since the stall speed is around 40knots, for specialty take-offs like soft fields it's much lower, 50knots is more than enough).
> airtruk<p>You got to love that even its name is utilitarian.<p>This is such a cool story. Airplanes seem such a complex, standardized, full of red tape and elitist thing that such stories of hackers starting to pull random beams together and you get a thing that flies are pretty inspiring... And yet it also sound quite well thought. As usual, there is more than meets the eye
> Airplanes seem such a complex, standardized, full of red tape and elitist thing that such stories of hackers starting to pull random beams together and you get a thing that flies are pretty inspiring...<p>As a kid, I was introduced to the concept of ultralight[0] aircraft when me and a couple of friends stumbled upon a wreck of one in a field. Our parents realized it had to have come from the local place a few miles away. If your aircraft qualifies as ultralight, you do not need a license to fly it. A family friend of my parents had one that he'd roll out to the street, attach the wings, and take off, and then land back on the street, remove the wings, and roll it back into his garage.<p>These things were essentially go-karts with wings.<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aviation" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aviation</a>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_M-15_Belphegor" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_M-15_Belphegor</a><p>The M-15 is still uglier. Also intended as a cropduster, though unlike the AirTruk it was really bad at that job in every way.
I'll raise you the Blackburn B-54 [0] and the Fairey Gannet [1].<p>0: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_B-54" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_B-54</a><p>1: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Gannet" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Gannet</a>
The fairy gannet looks like two smaller airplanes clipping into each other. It looks like an AI from ten years ago generated an image of an airplane. It looks like they hired engineers who got their degrees in Kerbal Space Program and then paid them by the hour. "Even if it's broke, it doesn't have enough features yet."<p>The Belphegor is still uglier though.
Now that I googled more pictures of it, I agree, the one in Wikipedia is obviously it's most flattering angle, looks almost... Rutanesque.<p>This photo though, I see what you mean.<p><a href="https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/z3envi/the_pzl_m15_belphegor_noisy_demon_was_a_large/" rel="nofollow">https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/z3envi/the_pzl_m1...</a>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Gannet_AEW.3" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Gannet_AEW.3</a><p>The AEW version looks ok
here is a great video documentary on the m-15<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlyO9cJ8hiQ" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlyO9cJ8hiQ</a> (Alexander the ok: PZL Mielec M-15: One of the Aircraft of All Time)
That image made me smile. Yeah, it would be bad at being a plane with poles attached to it like that. I'll see myself out now
Steve Death does sound like a Mad Max name.
From all the examples in the comments, I'm learning that the most reliable way to make an extremely ugly aircraft is a stubby look where the body is tall and the rear half seems to just end early.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transavia_PL-12_Airtruk" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transavia_PL-12_Airtruk</a><p>aussie plane makes me think of the aussie flyer in the road warrior. (not even the same, but spiritually)
Did anyone else think the first photo was AI-generated at first, due to how unusual it looked?
"He started with a large, steel, barrel-shaped tank and began adding."<p>I thought everybody used aluminum?
It was designed to carry to operate from very rough "airstrips" which is a very optimistic term for "a paddock that the farmer hopefully mowed recently and if you're lucky, they also removed most of the bigger stones".<p>I also imagine in the postwar WW2 antipodes, steel was a lot easier and cheaper to access, as well as work.
That was a prototype.<p>Update: I guess the final design also used steel.<p>> The pilot is above both the engine and the load, and is surrounded by a steel tube truss for maximum safety.
Steel alloys have better fatigue properties than aluminum. Many of us in aerospace would happily use a corrosion-resistant steel if not for the weight.
It looks kinda cute if you ask me
I like it
…can I still get one?
(2021)
I actually think the Super Guppy[0] is the ugliest, hotly contested by the Optica[1]<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Spacelines_Super_Guppy" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Spacelines_Super_Guppy</a><p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgley_Optica" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgley_Optica</a>