I think Breda Ba65 while being useless honouring it's name would also fit in the "Ugliest Planes" topic...I think it goes for a record...
The 65 wasn't so much bad as obsolescent. There is a huge difference between aircraft that were true failures and ones that were simply kept in service long after they should have been.
I just remembered that we still haven't settled the debate about whether the Vickers Valiant was a failure or a sucess story. Opinions, anyone?
Donno...i know it's not as beautifull as the Ba-88 Lince but to call it plain ugly :roll: It looks just right to me ...
Succes absolutly maybe not only as a bomber (as it went only once into combat) but it was the first of the V bombers and was essential in developing tactics for the latter.... It was also used as a tanker and were highly valued for that! IIRC they were retired because of significant stress fractures/metal fatigue zand there was no need in refurbishing them (as the other V's were in service and it was to costly)
So that's why it was retired! Stress and metal fatigue! Now I get it. So the Valiant was a bit of both sides.
what about the H-4? flew only once and only 75 feet in the air, and never flew again http://www.sprucegoose.org/aircraft_art ... s/HK-1.htm
Have you heard of YB-40? It was a special escort edition of B-17 with 30 machineguns which was finally retired from active service after 9 missions.
There were a few conversions to the YB-40 standard, it was supposed to be an escort "fighter" carrying no bombs but boosting the firepower of the formation. Unfortunately the additional weaponary made it so slow that on the return trip the bombers had to slow down so that their escort could keep up!