8 ms·

Ugliest Airplane Ever Built Predicted the Future

159 points by lxm 4y ago

GekkePrutser 4y ago
I absolutely love the Caproni C22J in Microsoft flight simulator. He wasn't just building weird planes, this one is amazing.
dingaling 4y ago
Same principle later implemented by Willard Custer but using wing channelling rather than the fuselage https://www.historynet.com/custers-channel-wing/ https://www.historynet.com/custers-channel-wing/
MichaelCollins 4y ago
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.
- tomcam 4y ago
  Even better… a jet-powered biplane crop duster. And boy is that some ugly shit.
  - p_l 4y ago
    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
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- capableweb 4y ago
  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.
  - northwest65 4y ago
    Now that is ugly, I'm dying to see if somebody can one up that one!
  - orthoxerox 4y ago
    The whole thread makes me want to rewatch Dastardly and Muttley in Their Flying Machines.
  - 867-5309 4y ago
    Charlie Brown would like a word..
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    > Boeing Phalcon 707 I'm not sure what's worse, the nosecone or the name.
  - arethuza 4y ago
    The Phalcon actually looks like a prettier version of the AEW Nimrod: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_Nimrod_AEW3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_Nimrod_AEW3 I once saw an unhappy looking AEW Nimrod sitting near the edge of RAF Kinloss (as it was at the time) - pictures don't really do it justice as to how ugly it was.
bitwize 4y ago
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBC6AZY_O80
p1mrx 4y ago
Looks like the old Google App Engine logo: https://imgur.com/a/h1S7Nop https://imgur.com/a/h1S7Nop
kulor 4y ago
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-aircraft-corporation-lightning-f6/ https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/collections/british-ai....
- gerdesj 4y ago
  I can just about remember those beasties. They were silver all over and looked like missiles. They were equally mad looking as "Star Fighters". Quite a few of my formative years were spent in West Germany in the 70s/80s (BAOR - Army brat). The sound of a pair of flights of Phantoms all firing up their ABs at low level and going up rather quickly is quite impressive. Over built up areas (times and regs were different then). I recall seeing five Harriers (why five?) at an air day (RAF Wildenrath) farting around - spinning on the spot at 10 feet, nodding, bobbing and bouncing and all sorts of daft things. Jaguars, Buccaneers, Star Fighters and later on Tornadoes. On the ground I saw a Chieftain tank (60 tonne MBT) race a car from a traffic light near Hohne. The tank has rather a lot of traction but huge inertia. The car was a Mk 1 Ford Fiesta (driven by a squaddie - obviously). Cars are much lighter and only have a bit of rubber on the road. The roads around there were concrete cast slab with tar to fill in the gaps for obvious reasons, given the sorts of vehicles on the roads. Same around Soltau too. Both vehicles were revving their engines (the car started it) When the lights changed, both vehicles floored it. The tank belched huge amounts of diesel fumes and with a mighty roar launched off the blocks. The car made a rather sad whine and made a desultory hop into the race and carreened down the road. The tank led for a while until the car eventually overtook it. The MK1 Chieftain was woefully underpowered - you should see what a modern MBT can do these days! Back in the air, for rotary wing we originally had Siouxs (bubble n fan), then Gazelles and Lynx, Chinooks and more. I now, 40 odd years later, live in Yeovil and used to work in the local chopper factory, 20 years ago. Sorry: ... I attached an onion to my belt ...
  - kulor 4y ago
    Thanks for your story, incredible how emotive engineering can be
krisoft 4y ago
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 4y ago
  For reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Tacit_Blue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Tacit_Blue
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- yarg 4y ago
  It looks like a rendering bug.
  - krisoft 4y ago
    True. Or as if it was cast and then someone forgot to clean the "flash" from the mould parting line.
theteapot 4y ago
Ugly?! I quite like it. The mig15's stouter big brother.
- rosywoozlechan 4y ago
  I agree, it's not ugly at all. Looks super cool.
vehgtuft 4y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan#Principles
vehgtuftg 4y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan#Principles
- Retric 4y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propfan It includes an interesting chart where Turbofan is only better above about a Mach 0.75.
  - owosjjr 4y ago
    There are a few points here: First, the various claims made by Stipa that jet engines were inspired by this aircraft are not credible. He even thought the V1 missile (pulsejet-powered) was derived from his concept. "Stipa later claimed the Germans stole his patented ideas when they developed their V-1 flying bomb, although the pulsejet engine actually bears little relationship to his intubed propeller." "Luigi Stipa died in 1992, embittered at not being recognized as the true inventor of the jet engine." https://web.archive.org/web/20220306183856/https://www.historynet.com/caproni-flying-barrel/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220306183856/https://www.histo... So it's a sad story for Stipa, but his indignation doesn't mean anyone stole ideas from him. Secondly, the turbojet and turboprop were first patented in 1930 (Whittle) and 1929 (Jendrassik). These patents predate the Stipa-Caproni, which doesn't involve the Brayton cycle (obviously) so isn't really in the running for first jet propulsion. Now, you might argue that the ducted fan is a "jet" technology, but the absence of turbomachinery makes Stipa's invention very distant from either turbojet or turboprop. Thirdly, you seem to be misreading the diagram comparing turbojet, turbofan and turboprop. It is the turboprop (not the turbojet, as you seem to imply) that is more efficient than the turbofan up to Mach 0.75. The propfan is exotic, anachronistic as far as the Stipa discussion goes, and is best thought of a high speed development of the turboprop. Early turboprops were prevented from developing into propfans by technological constraints back then. Finally, when you "stick a propeller on a turbojet", making a turboprop or propfan, you largely give up jet propulsion. The exhaust of the turbine produces only a small amount of residual thrust. The Stipa-Caproni, being piston-engined, didn't have exhaust thrust. So why are there no ducted turboprops? That (not the turbofan) would be the logical adaptation of the Stipa design. Well, these sort-of exist (https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/34919/at-what-point-is-a-turbine-powered-ducted-propeller-considered-a-turbofan https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/34919/at-what-p...). Stipa wasn't working with the Brayton cycle or with turbomachinery. His claims that the idea for early jet engines (even the V1!?) were stolen from him seem really unlikely to have merit. On the contrary, the turbofan principle is suggested by the formula for propulsive efficiency of a turbojet. It's not a configuration, like the Stipa-Caproni, but a theoretical insight about jet engines that could be taken advantage of by adding a bypass. I don't see anyone claiming that Stipa saw this. A turbojet with a fan and bypass is not a copy of Stipa's annular duct. It is a lot more complex, and the devil is in the details. The fact that Stipa went to his grave convinced that he deserved the credit for the jet engine is regrettable, but it would be a big surprise if he was vindicated. We all know people like him.
hodgesrm 4y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules
- chasil 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      Interesting. I did not know that it wasn't designed with this flexibility. This seems short-sighted.
      - bobthepanda 4y ago
        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.
pier25 4y ago
Honestly I think it's actually kinda cute. Would totally work in a Ghibli film.
- mackatap 4y ago
  Agreed! It looks like a cartoon plane, quite cute. Just imagine baby Yoda sticking his head out of that thing, people would love it.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    And for everyone else that didn't read any of the text... "We couldn’t help but think that the Stipa-Caproni looks like something you’d see in a cartoon, perhaps flown by an animal character."
- Onewildgamer 4y ago
  Instantly I thought, how can they call it 'the ugliest'? it is such a bubbly and a cute plane, I would totally have it in my garage.
- Absor 4y ago
  Too bad it wasn't in The Wind Rises, some other model are though [1]. The studio's name is also inspired by Caproni Ca.309 'Ghibli' [2]. [1] https://ghibli.fandom.com/wiki/Caproni https://ghibli.fandom.com/wiki/Caproni [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.309 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.309
anigbrowl 4y ago
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.
- LordHeini 4y ago
  Probably not. That tube has drag like a normal airfoil but its shape is highly impractical to store stuff like batteries. An modern flight controls can overcome basically any instability in the design and there is no reason to make any aircraft less agile. The gains having a slightly more efficient prop at very certain airspeeds do not offset the impracticality and drag. The "best" design is probably a flying wing with wingtip props.
mannykannot 4y ago
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
- aidenn0 4y ago
  Given the era it was from, it also almost certainly did not have aerofoil-shaped blades; axial-flow compressors from this era were terribly inefficient.
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    It appears to be a conventional propeller, which had an airfoil cross-section and were fairly efficient by then, but current ducted fans for low-speed use typically have 6 or 8 broader and shorter blades.
- kqr 4y ago
  > used a prop to draw air through a venturi tube "Venturi" is your clue that it was convergent--divergent by design! Whether that's a good idea is a different question...
WalterBright 4y ago
> 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.
csours 4y ago
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=b0g8HiAbNAE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uFNOtsucKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uFNOtsucKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwa9unx9mpQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwa9unx9mpQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Qz6c38sGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Qz6c38sGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVnxQCa4ieM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVnxQCa4ieM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DNGBIqiOaw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DNGBIqiOaw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD0SYy-stt4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD0SYy-stt4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2v5MvgAkaI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2v5MvgAkaI Oh, and the Stipa Caproni herself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3K0QPfmznY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3K0QPfmznY
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  I love those "eras" when people only half knew what the hell they were doing. The early space/rocketry research era was crazy like that. Inflatable satellites, blowing up a tank of water in the upper atmosphere (and, hey, nuclear bombs too), dragging wires through orbit, dropping metallic chaff in orbit.... When people don't quite know what's going on a lot of crazy ideas can seem legit. I suspect it is sort of the fun part of the era as well — before sobering reality, data and formulas start to encroach on everyone's good time.
  - poszlem 4y ago
    > When people don't quite know what's going on a lot of crazy ideas can seem legit. Kind of makes you sentimental when you realise you've lived through something like that by being a software developer in the 90s.
    - lambdasquirrel 4y ago
Stamp01 4y ago
I know Earthworm Jim's pocket rocket when I see it!
- 6stringmerc 4y ago
  YaaaahooooOoooooOoooo
11thEarlOfMar 4y ago
"...in the days when inventors were experimenting with many different ways to improve aircraft utility and performance." Lovingly lampooned in 1965's Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO7-_fGqGTg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO7-_fGqGTg
tus666 4y ago
> was the direct predecessor of the turbofan engine Looks like it was a turbofan engine, maybe the first.
Animats 4y ago
The ugliest locomotive. the ALCO RS-1 (1941), changed railroading.[1] This introduced the basic design of a narrow central section with railed walkways and a cab offset from one end. Worked equally well going in either direction. Good maintenance access from the walkways, where doors opened on the equipment. Could be used for both switching and road trips. No attempt to make it look cool, or impressive. Just useful. General Motors Electro-Motive Division introduced the GP7 in 1949, which was a solid product of which thousands were built. Looked much like the RS-1 After that, most Diesel-electric freight locomotives followed the same pattern, and still do. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALCO_RS-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALCO_RS-1
m463 4y ago
There's a park in silicon valley, baylands park, where people flew R/C aircraft all the time. I remember one guy would fly this ridiculous plane, which seemed to be a rectangular board with an engine on top. It was the aerodynamic equivalent of a flounder (which has aesthetics by comparison), or maybe a cafeteria tray without the lip. lol
praveen9920 4y ago
Ugly/pretty is function of general familiarity. If we are looking more familiar with this kind of planes, we probably would have called Airbus or concord ugly.
aliswe 4y ago
Looks like the villains airplan in Disneys Tailspin?
bullen 4y ago
Tunnan = Barrel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_29_Tunnan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_29_Tunnan
- smcl 4y ago
  Wow that's a surprisingly modern looking fighter, despite being developed in the '40s
roydivision 4y ago
Not ugly at all, cute! I'd love to build a replica model, initial searches haven't thrown up anything. If anyone has any links I'd appreciate it.
lefrancais 4y ago
Reminds me of this french prototype developped during the 50's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNECMA_Col%C3%A9opt%C3%A8re https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNECMA_Col%C3%A9opt%C3%A8re

159 points by lxm 4y ago

I absolutely love the Caproni C22J in Microsoft flight simulator. He wasn't just building weird planes, this one is amazing.

dingaling 4y ago

Same principle later implemented by Willard Custer but using wing channelling rather than the fuselage https://www.historynet.com/custers-channel-wing/ https://www.historynet.com/custers-channel-wing/

MichaelCollins 4y ago

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.

tomcam 4y ago
Even better… a jet-powered biplane crop duster. And boy is that some ugly shit.
- p_l 4y ago
  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
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
capableweb 4y ago
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.
- northwest65 4y ago
  Now that is ugly, I'm dying to see if somebody can one up that one!
- orthoxerox 4y ago
  The whole thread makes me want to rewatch Dastardly and Muttley in Their Flying Machines.
- 867-5309 4y ago
  Charlie Brown would like a word..
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  > Boeing Phalcon 707 I'm not sure what's worse, the nosecone or the name.
- arethuza 4y ago
  The Phalcon actually looks like a prettier version of the AEW Nimrod: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_Nimrod_AEW3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_Nimrod_AEW3 I once saw an unhappy looking AEW Nimrod sitting near the edge of RAF Kinloss (as it was at the time) - pictures don't really do it justice as to how ugly it was.

bitwize 4y ago

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBC6AZY_O80

p1mrx 4y ago

Looks like the old Google App Engine logo: https://imgur.com/a/h1S7Nop https://imgur.com/a/h1S7Nop

kulor 4y ago

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-aircraft-corporation-lightning-f6/ https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/collections/british-ai....

gerdesj 4y ago
I can just about remember those beasties. They were silver all over and looked like missiles. They were equally mad looking as "Star Fighters". Quite a few of my formative years were spent in West Germany in the 70s/80s (BAOR - Army brat). The sound of a pair of flights of Phantoms all firing up their ABs at low level and going up rather quickly is quite impressive. Over built up areas (times and regs were different then). I recall seeing five Harriers (why five?) at an air day (RAF Wildenrath) farting around - spinning on the spot at 10 feet, nodding, bobbing and bouncing and all sorts of daft things. Jaguars, Buccaneers, Star Fighters and later on Tornadoes. On the ground I saw a Chieftain tank (60 tonne MBT) race a car from a traffic light near Hohne. The tank has rather a lot of traction but huge inertia. The car was a Mk 1 Ford Fiesta (driven by a squaddie - obviously). Cars are much lighter and only have a bit of rubber on the road. The roads around there were concrete cast slab with tar to fill in the gaps for obvious reasons, given the sorts of vehicles on the roads. Same around Soltau too. Both vehicles were revving their engines (the car started it) When the lights changed, both vehicles floored it. The tank belched huge amounts of diesel fumes and with a mighty roar launched off the blocks. The car made a rather sad whine and made a desultory hop into the race and carreened down the road. The tank led for a while until the car eventually overtook it. The MK1 Chieftain was woefully underpowered - you should see what a modern MBT can do these days! Back in the air, for rotary wing we originally had Siouxs (bubble n fan), then Gazelles and Lynx, Chinooks and more. I now, 40 odd years later, live in Yeovil and used to work in the local chopper factory, 20 years ago. Sorry: ... I attached an onion to my belt ...
- kulor 4y ago
  Thanks for your story, incredible how emotive engineering can be

krisoft 4y ago

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 4y ago
For reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Tacit_Blue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Tacit_Blue
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yarg 4y ago
It looks like a rendering bug.
- krisoft 4y ago
  True. Or as if it was cast and then someone forgot to clean the "flash" from the mould parting line.

theteapot 4y ago

Ugly?! I quite like it. The mig15's stouter big brother.

rosywoozlechan 4y ago
I agree, it's not ugly at all. Looks super cool.

vehgtuft 4y ago

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan#Principles

vehgtuftg 4y ago

Retric 4y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propfan It includes an interesting chart where Turbofan is only better above about a Mach 0.75.
- owosjjr 4y ago
  There are a few points here: First, the various claims made by Stipa that jet engines were inspired by this aircraft are not credible. He even thought the V1 missile (pulsejet-powered) was derived from his concept. "Stipa later claimed the Germans stole his patented ideas when they developed their V-1 flying bomb, although the pulsejet engine actually bears little relationship to his intubed propeller." "Luigi Stipa died in 1992, embittered at not being recognized as the true inventor of the jet engine." https://web.archive.org/web/20220306183856/https://www.historynet.com/caproni-flying-barrel/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220306183856/https://www.histo... So it's a sad story for Stipa, but his indignation doesn't mean anyone stole ideas from him. Secondly, the turbojet and turboprop were first patented in 1930 (Whittle) and 1929 (Jendrassik). These patents predate the Stipa-Caproni, which doesn't involve the Brayton cycle (obviously) so isn't really in the running for first jet propulsion. Now, you might argue that the ducted fan is a "jet" technology, but the absence of turbomachinery makes Stipa's invention very distant from either turbojet or turboprop. Thirdly, you seem to be misreading the diagram comparing turbojet, turbofan and turboprop. It is the turboprop (not the turbojet, as you seem to imply) that is more efficient than the turbofan up to Mach 0.75. The propfan is exotic, anachronistic as far as the Stipa discussion goes, and is best thought of a high speed development of the turboprop. Early turboprops were prevented from developing into propfans by technological constraints back then. Finally, when you "stick a propeller on a turbojet", making a turboprop or propfan, you largely give up jet propulsion. The exhaust of the turbine produces only a small amount of residual thrust. The Stipa-Caproni, being piston-engined, didn't have exhaust thrust. So why are there no ducted turboprops? That (not the turbofan) would be the logical adaptation of the Stipa design. Well, these sort-of exist (https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/34919/at-what-point-is-a-turbine-powered-ducted-propeller-considered-a-turbofan https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/34919/at-what-p...). Stipa wasn't working with the Brayton cycle or with turbomachinery. His claims that the idea for early jet engines (even the V1!?) were stolen from him seem really unlikely to have merit. On the contrary, the turbofan principle is suggested by the formula for propulsive efficiency of a turbojet. It's not a configuration, like the Stipa-Caproni, but a theoretical insight about jet engines that could be taken advantage of by adding a bypass. I don't see anyone claiming that Stipa saw this. A turbojet with a fan and bypass is not a copy of Stipa's annular duct. It is a lot more complex, and the devil is in the details. The fact that Stipa went to his grave convinced that he deserved the credit for the jet engine is regrettable, but it would be a big surprise if he was vindicated. We all know people like him.

hodgesrm 4y ago

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules

chasil 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    Interesting. I did not know that it wasn't designed with this flexibility. This seems short-sighted.
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      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.

pier25 4y ago

Honestly I think it's actually kinda cute. Would totally work in a Ghibli film.

mackatap 4y ago
Agreed! It looks like a cartoon plane, quite cute. Just imagine baby Yoda sticking his head out of that thing, people would love it.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  And for everyone else that didn't read any of the text... "We couldn’t help but think that the Stipa-Caproni looks like something you’d see in a cartoon, perhaps flown by an animal character."
Onewildgamer 4y ago
Instantly I thought, how can they call it 'the ugliest'? it is such a bubbly and a cute plane, I would totally have it in my garage.
Absor 4y ago
Too bad it wasn't in The Wind Rises, some other model are though [1]. The studio's name is also inspired by Caproni Ca.309 'Ghibli' [2]. [1] https://ghibli.fandom.com/wiki/Caproni https://ghibli.fandom.com/wiki/Caproni [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.309 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.309

anigbrowl 4y ago

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.

LordHeini 4y ago
Probably not. That tube has drag like a normal airfoil but its shape is highly impractical to store stuff like batteries. An modern flight controls can overcome basically any instability in the design and there is no reason to make any aircraft less agile. The gains having a slightly more efficient prop at very certain airspeeds do not offset the impracticality and drag. The "best" design is probably a flying wing with wingtip props.

mannykannot 4y ago

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

aidenn0 4y ago
Given the era it was from, it also almost certainly did not have aerofoil-shaped blades; axial-flow compressors from this era were terribly inefficient.
- mannykannot 4y ago
  It appears to be a conventional propeller, which had an airfoil cross-section and were fairly efficient by then, but current ducted fans for low-speed use typically have 6 or 8 broader and shorter blades.
kqr 4y ago
> used a prop to draw air through a venturi tube "Venturi" is your clue that it was convergent--divergent by design! Whether that's a good idea is a different question...

WalterBright 4y ago

> 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.

csours 4y ago

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=b0g8HiAbNAE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uFNOtsucKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uFNOtsucKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwa9unx9mpQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwa9unx9mpQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Qz6c38sGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Qz6c38sGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVnxQCa4ieM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVnxQCa4ieM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DNGBIqiOaw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DNGBIqiOaw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD0SYy-stt4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD0SYy-stt4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2v5MvgAkaI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2v5MvgAkaI Oh, and the Stipa Caproni herself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3K0QPfmznY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3K0QPfmznY

JKCalhoun 4y ago
I love those "eras" when people only half knew what the hell they were doing. The early space/rocketry research era was crazy like that. Inflatable satellites, blowing up a tank of water in the upper atmosphere (and, hey, nuclear bombs too), dragging wires through orbit, dropping metallic chaff in orbit.... When people don't quite know what's going on a lot of crazy ideas can seem legit. I suspect it is sort of the fun part of the era as well — before sobering reality, data and formulas start to encroach on everyone's good time.
- poszlem 4y ago
  > When people don't quite know what's going on a lot of crazy ideas can seem legit. Kind of makes you sentimental when you realise you've lived through something like that by being a software developer in the 90s.
  - lambdasquirrel 4y ago

Stamp01 4y ago

I know Earthworm Jim's pocket rocket when I see it!

6stringmerc 4y ago
YaaaahooooOoooooOoooo

11thEarlOfMar 4y ago

"...in the days when inventors were experimenting with many different ways to improve aircraft utility and performance." Lovingly lampooned in 1965's Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO7-_fGqGTg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO7-_fGqGTg

tus666 4y ago

> was the direct predecessor of the turbofan engine Looks like it was a turbofan engine, maybe the first.

Animats 4y ago

The ugliest locomotive. the ALCO RS-1 (1941), changed railroading.[1] This introduced the basic design of a narrow central section with railed walkways and a cab offset from one end. Worked equally well going in either direction. Good maintenance access from the walkways, where doors opened on the equipment. Could be used for both switching and road trips. No attempt to make it look cool, or impressive. Just useful. General Motors Electro-Motive Division introduced the GP7 in 1949, which was a solid product of which thousands were built. Looked much like the RS-1 After that, most Diesel-electric freight locomotives followed the same pattern, and still do. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALCO_RS-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALCO_RS-1

m463 4y ago

There's a park in silicon valley, baylands park, where people flew R/C aircraft all the time. I remember one guy would fly this ridiculous plane, which seemed to be a rectangular board with an engine on top. It was the aerodynamic equivalent of a flounder (which has aesthetics by comparison), or maybe a cafeteria tray without the lip. lol

praveen9920 4y ago

Ugly/pretty is function of general familiarity. If we are looking more familiar with this kind of planes, we probably would have called Airbus or concord ugly.

aliswe 4y ago

Looks like the villains airplan in Disneys Tailspin?

bullen 4y ago

Tunnan = Barrel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_29_Tunnan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_29_Tunnan

smcl 4y ago
Wow that's a surprisingly modern looking fighter, despite being developed in the '40s

roydivision 4y ago

Not ugly at all, cute! I'd love to build a replica model, initial searches haven't thrown up anything. If anyone has any links I'd appreciate it.

lefrancais 4y ago

Reminds me of this french prototype developped during the 50's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNECMA_Col%C3%A9opt%C3%A8re https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNECMA_Col%C3%A9opt%C3%A8re