
What is the most ridiculous aircraft design? - anigbrowl
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-most-ridiculous-aircraft-design-that-people-have-ever-seen?share=1
======
ykl
One of the aircraft named is the Kalinin K-7 [1], which is a favorite
ridiculous aircraft of mine. It's the most literally "flying fortress" looking
aircraft ever made. The design process for the K-7 was "add engines until it
flies".

Basically, the Kalinin K-7 was an attempt to build an extremely heavy, high
capacity aircraft before the jet engine was introduced. As a result, the
entire plane is prop-driven, and the plane has a crap-ton of engines. There's
6 on the leading edges of the wings, but when it turned out 6 wasn't enough,
they just started adding engines anywhere they could until the thing flew. By
the end, there were the 6 original engines on the leads of the wings, plus 4
more engines on top of the wings and two more on each side of the
cockpit/cabin.

For some more reading/pictures, see [2][3].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinin_K-7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinin_K-7)

[2] [https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-
news/serio...](https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-
news/seriously-the-kalinin-k-7-bomber-actually-took-to-the-air.html)

[3]
[http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Kalinin-K7.html](http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Kalinin-K7.html)

~~~
cstross
Shades of the Convair B-36 Peacemaker, the predecessor to the B-52. "Six
turning, four burning" because it had six piston-powered pusher propellers and
four jet engines in underwing pods for take-off boost and high speed bombing
runs:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker)

They also experimented with tracked landing gear:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_can...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/B-36_tracked_gear)

A parasite fighter for bomber defense (the XF-85 Goblin):

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin)

And as a test bed for nuclear aircraft propulsion:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_NB-36H](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_NB-36H)

~~~
protomyth
I would say the NB-36H because it actually flew and because "The original crew
and avionics cabin was replaced by a massive lead and rubber lined 11 ton crew
section for a pilot, copilot, flight engineer and two nuclear engineers. Even
the small windows had 10-12 inch thick lead glass."

The thought that the X-6[1] and WS-125[2] would be good ideas further lead me
to nominate the NB-36H.

1)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6)

2)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WS-125](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WS-125)

~~~
TylerE
Sort of flew. It flew, yes, but the nuke was never used to actually generate
power.

~~~
protomyth
Yes, the didn't power the airplane with it, but my point is the thought it was
a good idea to put a nuclear reactor in a plane.

As my Dad said to me a few too many times in my youth: "I'm amazed and
appalled - amazed you thought of it and appalled you actually did it"

~~~
pjc50
If any of the various ""intrinsically safe"" small reactor systems get into
production, no doubt someone will propose this again. Or the Lockheed Martin
vapourware fusion reactor. [http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-
fusion.htm...](http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html)

------
cc438
I know of one plane so crazy that it has to make this list even though it
never left the drawing board, the Lippisch P.13A.

We all know the Nazis had crazy ideas, we know that had overambitious ideas,
this is one of those crazy AND overambitious ideas that kinda, sorta made
sense. It was a delta winged, pyramid shaped, supersonic interceptor powered
by a coal-fueled ramjet:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lippisch_P.13a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lippisch_P.13a)

It was basically an amalgamation of half-baked construction and propulsion
ideas but the aerodynamic principles were fundamentally sound and incredibly
advanced for their time. The aero research and data from this program was used
with great effect by the US and USSR. It was basically the common ancestor
from which all future delta-wing designs evolved.

~~~
smegel
...coal?

~~~
Tuna-Fish
Coal has a reasonable enough energy density to be used as aircraft fuel. The
reason it isn't, and liquid fuels are used instead, is that solid fuels
require very laborous processing and complex systems to produce the kind of
even continuous combustion that liquid fuels can do with just a pump.

In peacetime, with oil as cheap as it is on the world market, it would never
make sense to produce a coal-powered aircraft. At war, with no oil imports
coming in, and in desperate need of operable aircraft, the investment of
processing coal into even granules to burn in a ramjet might.

------
TheOtherHobbes
I'll vote for the Lippisch Aerodyne. Picture here:

[http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--
BN7-YDzh...](http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--
BN7-YDzh--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18ca58wblfns3jpg.jpg)

Arguably an update of the Stipa-Caproni from the 1930s:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipa-
Caproni](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipa-Caproni)

~~~
asanagi
Well, that's one way to maximize thrust to mass ratio.

------
tim333
Not super ridiculous but I thought the x32 which was Boeings competitor for
the F35 was a bit silly looking. Also it came close to being the trillion
dollar everyone must have it project if it had beat the F35 in testing.

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/USAF_X32...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/USAF_X32B_250.jpg)

~~~
vacri
My contender for silly-loking plane is the Caribou. The article has sillier
planes, but this one needs to be added to the pot.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-4_Cari...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-4_Caribou)

------
georgerobinson
If you look at the Super Guppy with it's loading bay open [1] you can't help
but wonder where they put all the wiring and hydraulics between the cockpit
and the rest of the plane?

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Spacelines_Super_Guppy#/m...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Spacelines_Super_Guppy#/media/File:LoadingSuperGuppy.jpg)

~~~
Pinckney
They had to be disconnected, reconnected, and recalibrated every time the nose
was opened and shut.

[https://books.google.com/books?id=l4fSx5HoZWAC&pg=PA94&lpg=P...](https://books.google.com/books?id=l4fSx5HoZWAC&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=super+guppy+hydraulics&source=bl&ots=zNg-9717qd&sig=IsRD0SqSrLXAr2XTcyl1Uxt1kdY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAjgKahUKEwjOgv6J_uTGAhVJNYgKHSrMDmY#v=onepage&q=super%20guppy%20hydraulics&f=false)

------
WalterBright
The asymmetric designs were to counteract the torque from the single engine.

~~~
ControlledBurn
Yep, I was a bit annoyed to find stuff like the Boomerang in here. Most people
don't realize that losing the critical engine on a multi can be much more
dangerous that losing both. Burt's Boomerang is probably one of the least
ridiculous designs out there, as the asymmetric design of the wings is there
to negate the adverse effects of a critical engine failure.

------
SAI_Peregrinus
The Custer Channel Wing is one of the strangest looking.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer_Channel_Wing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer_Channel_Wing)

------
darkhorn
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_airplane](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_airplane)
Airplane with no wings.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Model version (only models it seems have flown) seen here -
[http://youtu.be/Ra8y6gGotwY](http://youtu.be/Ra8y6gGotwY).

------
tfigment
My favorite is the Flettner aeroplane since it uses the Magnus effect [1][2]
as it generates lift without a wing. Screenshot linked in the original post
[3].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_effect)
[2] [https://youtu.be/2OSrvzNW9FE](https://youtu.be/2OSrvzNW9FE) [3]
[https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-most-ridiculous-aircraft-
des...](https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-most-ridiculous-aircraft-design-that-
people-have-ever-seen/answer/Nick-Spooner-2)

~~~
lifeisstillgood
[http://youtu.be/Ra8y6gGotwY](http://youtu.be/Ra8y6gGotwY)

For me this is the final proof we live in the Matrix and flight is achieved by
an unholy ugly hack in a perl script. Jumbo Jets just don't look like they
belong and that thing ... That whatever is just the machines taking the p __s

------
hamiltonians
Spruce Goose, although the design conventional, was an oddity both for its
size, very limited use, and backstory.

------
dkraft
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTF5hGFJ3p4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTF5hGFJ3p4)

EVERY NOW AND then a new aircraft design comes along that just makes you shake
your head, wondering where to start. The Oliver Hexplane is one of those
designs.

[http://www.wired.com/2012/01/hexplane-oliver-
vtol/](http://www.wired.com/2012/01/hexplane-oliver-vtol/)

------
Shivetya
I always was fascinated by the X-29 simply because it could not be flown
without computers to make up to forty adjustments a second to keep it
airborne. Hence the limitations imposed by the programming kept it from being
as agile as many had hoped.

I have to wonder, if in drone form where crashing would not result in a pilot
death could it live up to its supposed hype because its programming
restrictions could be lifted to the point of it being always in near crash

------
akamaka
I would add the 1930s Gee Bee Racer. It won many races, but it was essentially
like strapping the pilot onto a big engine, with barely any wings and tiny
control surfaces, and it frequently crashed.

[http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/GeeBee-
Racer/IMAGES/Ge...](http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/GeeBee-
Racer/IMAGES/Gee-Bee-Racer-Lowflight.jpg)

------
glabifrons
I'm surprised the Pond Racer [0] isn't in there. With its (relatively) huge
engine nacelles way out front dragging the tiny cockpit way in the back, I
swear it's got to be the inspiration for the "pod racers" in Star Wars.

I'm also surprised to see the Proteus and X29 in the list. The Proteus was
quite a ground-breaker and doesn't look too strange if you've seen a few
gliders. I remember seeing the X29 on the front cover of (I think) Popular
Science back in the day, and thought it was a beautiful design. Highly
efficient, highly maneuverable, and I think this was the one with a vertical
canard (under the pilot, not visible in most pictures) that allowed it to
corner flat (for improved visibility during dogfights).

I think the Edgley Optica looks like something from Lexx, the Bartini Beriev
VVA-14 belongs in a video game and the Handley-Page Victor belongs in Agents
of Shield!

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p7iNuTe3w0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p7iNuTe3w0)

------
wahsd
It's amazing that with all that "experimental" stuff, the design of planes
really has not changed much. I am sure there are certain things that were
learned, but I also cannot get past the notion that there is a more
appropriate method for initiating and supporting research.

I get that people's common refrain is "you never know what comes out of
research", but I think that is also too easily used as an excuse to not apply
some diligence and rigor. There are both real and virtual hangars chocked full
of research that should never have been funded for a while host or reasons. I
guarantee that a society that figures out how to more deliberately direct R&D
funding will surpass the USA in technological advancement.

Does anyone know of any efforts to quantify the rate of return on R&D? I
suspect that an honest calculation would invoke "abysmal" and "atrocious".

~~~
TylerE
Are you kidding? Just because they don't _look_ much different at a glance
doesn't mean there haven't been huge gains.

------
digikata
My favorite is the Vought V-173 (and XF5U). Also known as the flying pancake
(or flying flapjack).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_V-173](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_V-173)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_XF5U](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_XF5U)

[https://youtu.be/LfpTDOAfj7Y](https://youtu.be/LfpTDOAfj7Y)

Simple structurally, awkward looking on the ground, slow takeoff/landing
speeds. Because of takeoff/landing dynamics I wonder if it would have been a
safer platform for small civil aircraft. Though who knows how it would handle
losing an engine.

------
aaron695
I find it incredibly sad that anyone would think these planes are ridiculous.
Very fkn cool would be my thoughts.

But I'll switch my brain to thinking people are just using this poorly worded
question bagging out hackers as a springboard for cool things people have
tried (And some of them successful)

Back on topic always remember flying cars have been around or almost 100
years, it's not a technical problem -

[http://jeffwise.net/2010/07/28/flying-cars-a-very-old-
dream/](http://jeffwise.net/2010/07/28/flying-cars-a-very-old-dream/)

------
7952
I wonder if we will ever see more use of rockets in aircraft design? With
improvements in manufacturing (like 3d printed parts), simulation, cleaner
fuels and better control (SpaceX) it could open up new possibilities.

~~~
lmm
What possibilities? Carrying your own oxidiser is always going to be wasteful
when there's a plentiful supply of oxygen around already. If anything the
opposite technology is more interesting - a space launch vehicle using air-
breathing engines (i.e. SABRE). Where aircraft have used rockets it's been
similar to use of afterburners - for emergency short-term extra thrust (e.g.
JATO).

------
hliyan
VTOL/STOL section is missing the _Grumman Nutcracker_ :

[1]
[http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6...](http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=64011&d=1106120782)

[2]
[https://books.google.lk/books?id=GQEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA68&redir_...](https://books.google.lk/books?id=GQEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA68&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)

------
danmaz74
There's a short documentary on the Martini Beriev VVA-14 on youtube:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZgWjxYTJS8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZgWjxYTJS8)

At least here we can see the wings, which aren't shown in the wikipedia
article!

------
tzs
Cracked.com put together a pretty good list here:
[http://www.cracked.com/article_18839_7-planes-perfectly-
desi...](http://www.cracked.com/article_18839_7-planes-perfectly-designed-to-
kill-people-flying-them.html)

------
kinofcain
Not surprising to see Burt Rutan/Scaled Composites highly represented.

[http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/design-by-
rutan-1333...](http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/design-by-
rutan-133347555/)

------
dangerboysteve
OMG: 14) De Lackner HZ-1 Aerocycle flying platform, designed to carry one
soldier to reconnaissance missions (1954).

So you are basically standing on top of a large blender.

------
kumarski
Ekranoplans are the most unusual looking ones.

------
ChuckMcM
And here I thought it was going to be the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter :-)

------
dylanrw
It's a veritable KSP gallery in there.

------
enraged_camel
At first I thought this was going to be a joke about the F-35.

Then I remembered Hacker News hates jokes.

~~~
engi_nerd
Aren't there enough people with little knowledge of the F-35 posting invective
about it?

I, for one, don't hate jokes. But HN is still a place where it's possible to
have a substantive interaction without devolving into tangential silliness. I
hope it stays that way.

