UK Aircraft, Spacecraft and Missiles: Aesthetics

[Jonfliesgoats]

British planes, rockets, missiles and satellites always seemed to have very unique aesthetics for better or worse.  What's the oddest looking British equipment you can think of?

---

My photos won't load.  I was going to point out the Fairet Gannet, Blowpipe and Prospero Satellite.

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Jonfliesgoats
Removed video

[LN400]

Not sure about the oddest I ever saw but a classic oddity is the straight-out-of-a-Donald-Duck-comics Westland Scout

 

EDIT: Although this is not on topic, being a land vehicle, I still find the Vickers-Carden-Loyd tractor hilarious

Edited December 20, 2016 by LN400

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, LN400 said:

Not sure about the oddest I ever saw but a classic oddity is the straight-out-of-a-Donald-Duck-comics Westland Scout

 

EDIT: Although this is not on topic, being a land vehicle, I still find the Vickers-Carden-Loyd tractor hilarious

Only weird with the helicopter as I see it is the open engine. 
The tractor was weird, is it for indoor use? Add an armored cab and you have tank support for room to room fighting. 
 

[LN400]

Just now, magnemoe said:

Only weird with the helicopter as I see it is the open engine. 
 

Let's just say the studies of aerodynamics and drag and fuel efficiency was done by a group of 3rd graders.

[magnemoe]

38 minutes ago, LN400 said:

Let's just say the studies of aerodynamics and drag and fuel efficiency was done by a group of 3rd graders.

Yes as I said open engine. And yes the front window
The engine distracted me, why just why, they are actually curved but not much. Also why the open engine? why not an cover over it you will fly at 200 km/h after all. 

Finaly:
The cockpit ergonomics were less than perfect. An example of this was the cabin heater switch being mounted next to the fuel cock. Unfortunately, this led to the loss of at least four aircraft when the pilot inadvertently closed the fuel cock instead of switching off the cabin heater, causing the engine to shut down. 

[LN400]

A spledid example of British ingenuity and design, and this time it really is, partially, an aircraft: The Hafner Rotabuggy

[Jonfliesgoats]

The Jetstream 31 and Jet Provost has some ergonomics and systems idiosyncrasies.

[mrfox]

2 hours ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

The Jetstream 31 and Jet Provost has some ergonomics and systems idiosyncrasies.

Ergonomics and british aircraft do not belong in the same sentence. The most famous example being the double hand switch required on the supermarine spitfire during takeoff.

[Jonfliesgoats]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Rotodyne

[mrfox]

 

The british 747

They forgot to unpack the airplane from the crate it came it.

Edited December 21, 2016 by mrfox

[justidutch]

I love this...

 

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, mrfox said:

Ergonomics and british aircraft do not belong in the same sentence. The most famous example being the double hand switch required on the supermarine spitfire during takeoff.

Do you have more information. 
I think an design who let you turn of fuel rather than cabin heat by mistake should beat most. 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Also why the open engine?

Loads of free air cooling as you travel.

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, magnemoe said:

The tractor was weird, is it for indoor use?

It's a prototype of Kerbal Mun Tractor. Compact and tough.

It supports TweakScale mod

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Took a look in ru.wiki, a cute untranslatable pun for those who reads Russian.
In technical documentation of 1930s this thing was named "гусеничный пулемётовоз" (something like "track-based machine-gun-hauler" but  more dieselpunk-stylish).

 

8 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Only weird with the helicopter as I see it is the open engine. 

Designed with KSP heat overlay. When open, gets cooler.

[mrfox]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

Do you have more information. 
I think an design who let you turn of fuel rather than cabin heat by mistake should beat most. 

For takeoff - your left hand controls the throttle, your right hand on control stick. But the gear lever is on the right side of the cockpit. So as you lift off, your left hand needs to comes off the throttle and onto the control stick, while your right hand goes to retract the gear. In case you don't know, big WWII single engine prop planes are a real handful on takeoff, as the giant prop out front is trying its hardest to flip you upside down from reaction, aero, and gyro forces. This, coupled with very poor visibility from the long nose, and the gear lever hand dance, makes for some 'interesting' gyrations very close to the ground.

And if that is not interesting enough, did I mention that the gear lever is also next to the fuel cutoff lever?

Edited December 21, 2016 by mrfox

[Jonfliesgoats]

I remember sitting in the cockpit of a Jet Provost and noticing now primary flight instruments were scattered all over the instrument panel.  Granted, it wasn't until the 80s before a the six-pack of instruments that pilots are familiar with became standardized (replaced by CRT and LCD screens only a decade later).  To be fair, the Provost I got to play around with was a restoration project, so the instruments in production Provosts may have been placed better.  Also, the airplane was a joy to fly, what little I got of it.

The Jetstream 31/32, a popular commuter airliner from the 80s, had all its important, pilot accessible circuit breakers on the doorframe of the bulkhead behind the cockpit.  That was done to save space, but it made seeing a which breaker had tripped little bit more challenging.  Smoke and smells moved forward toward the crew rather than aft as well.  

Edited December 21, 2016 by Jonfliesgoats

[Jonfliesgoats]

MY iPad is having trouble loading photos.  Here is a link to the Provost cockpit photo.  

The instructor and student share primary flight instruments while radio panels are isolated and allocated to each individual pilot.  Having the instructor crane his head to assist an instrument candidate is routine in the US, but most planes have been designed so the pilot commanding has attitude and pitot-static information directly in front of him.  In the Provost, both pilots are looking just a little bit to the side.  Still, the plane was a successful trainer and made many good aviators, so I may be nitpicking.  I will link up contemporary Western jet trainers for comparison.

Aesthetically, I thought the Provost looked decent, even nicer than a T-37.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK-Air-Force/Hunting-P-84-Jet-Provost-T3/2288966

For comparison's sake, here's the cockpit of another jet trainer which was designed BEFORE the Provost: the T-33.  Imortant stuff regarding flying the airplane is right in front of the pilot.  Less important stuff, like radios are between the pilots knees and systems management stuff are by the pilot's right knee.  Because the T33 has tandem seating, I'll also link up a cockpit from a T-37 to compare side by side instrument panels.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:T-33_Cockpit.JPG

[Jonfliesgoats]

Here's a t37 from the instructor's seat.  The student has a full instrument panel in front of him, and instructor has attitude and air data as well.  Engine instruments and radio tuning stuff is between the pilots for easy access.  Return to the Provost cockpit to compare, if you like.

http://m.imgur.com/gallery/YYVnNGz

Finally, so I don't get too US-centric in my cockpit ergonomics rant wrt British planes, here's an L29.  Even the Czechs had it figured out.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia-Air-Force/Aero-L-29-Delfin/1240771

It is worth mentioning that light airplanes in the US all had wildly different instrument panels in the post war years as part of a branding effort.  Cessna went through a period of having centrally mounted gyro-horizons, piano-key switches, where down was on and up was off, etc.  We had some ergonomic challenges of our own.

[Jonfliesgoats]

The Argosy was a gem of aesthetics.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Armstrong_Whitworth_AW-660_Argosy_T2,_UK_-_Air_Force_AN2230786.jpg

The cockpit, however, see,s like it was pretty well set up:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Elan-Overnight-Delivery-System/Armstrong-Whitworth-AW-650-Argosy-101/630032

 

Edited December 21, 2016 by Jonfliesgoats

[Wjolcz]

No Boulton Paul Defiant in this thread?

There was also a very slender-looking bomber from WW2. Don't remember the name though. EDIT: It's Handley Page Hampden.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Veeltch

[LN400]

KSP is real in the form of the Libellula

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, mrfox said:

For takeoff - your left hand controls the throttle, your right hand on control stick. But the gear lever is on the right side of the cockpit. So as you lift off, your left hand needs to comes off the throttle and onto the control stick, while your right hand goes to retract the gear. In case you don't know, big WWII single engine prop planes are a real handful on takeoff, as the giant prop out front is trying its hardest to flip you upside down from reaction, aero, and gyro forces. This, coupled with very poor visibility from the long nose, and the gear lever hand dance, makes for some 'interesting' gyrations very close to the ground.

And if that is not interesting enough, did I mention that the gear lever is also next to the fuel cutoff lever?

Solution for pilot here would be to wait with raising the wheels until you are climbing steady, its not an time critical operation, just more drag. 
However putting it on the left side would be better, you want to hold the stick while using it. Its also don't have to be so large its hydraulic and just up or down, neither does it need an central placement as you only use it twice. 
The fuel cock handle is far worse, easy see you pull both or pull the wrong while coming in for landing. Going slow and low is not the time you want the engine to cut out. 
Why do you need an quick access fuel switch anyway? fires? that was also an issue on the helicopter liked above. 

Regarding pulling up the wheels fast, one Russian fighter pilot held the raise wheel button in or had it pinned down to raise wheels at once he left ground, the wheels will not retract if its load on them anyway so this works. However plane must have hit an gust or bump on runway as plane must have done an small jump causing the wheel to retract before he took of so plane fell down on runway. 
He was lucky he was not carrying drop tanks and took of with afterburner even if it had looked more impressive, perhaps some missiles for effect. 

[mrfox]

59 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Solution for pilot here would be to wait with raising the wheels until you are climbing steady, its not an time critical operation, just more drag. 
 

The gear goes up quickly because the gear speed limit is quite low - around 150 kts - and it takes a good 15 seconds to retract. Remember this was a fighter/interceptor - you don't want to take too long to go up, otherwise you might not have a base to land back at.

[Jonfliesgoats]

There was an evolution in gear safety systems.  It took a while to get something as simple as wheel-shaped knobs for gear handles and flap shaped knobs for flap handles into cockpits.  There are good reasons to get the gear up pretty quickly after takeoff, especially in multiengine airplanes and reasons to wait too.  

Bristol Brabazon: ugh!

[Nibb31]

What do you mean strange aesthetics ?

 

French aviation tycoon Marcel Dassault once said "a beautiful plane is a plane that flies well" (and french planes do usually look pretty).

On the other hand, the british did give us the Spitfire and (half of) Concorde, which are probably the two most elegant aircraft ever, so that pretty much excuses them of everything else.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Nibb31