I’m not surprised very often but this offering from those wacky yet lovable French really caught me off guard.
…obviously a Flying Flea derivative gone wild
Added later:
You've got to love the faux paint between the um…main, main gear and the main yet not totally main gear.
wait umm what...im not really...uh...sure whats happening here
Airplane?
"We got a problem in the cockpit."
"The cockpit? What is it?"
"It's the small room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits. But that's not important right now."
...
You've officially been hijacked.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
The love child of a 2CV and a Zepplin ?
The difference between a regular landing and a belly landing is about 3" by the looks of it...
is it just me or does it look like something a 3rd grader constructed out of styrofoam?
In reply to RX Reven':
RX Reven, throw us a bone here, what's the link or context. This is so bizarre I just must have more details. At least we've found something that make the 'Mercedes special' look slightly less appalling
Looks like they took a bunch of perfectly good airplane parts (too many of them) and screwed them up by assembling them that way.
That's the ugliest plane I can remember seeing.
I think it's for skydiving. Folks actaully WANT to jump out of that in mid air. The hard part would be getting them in for the ascent I think.
Looks like someone started a kit, had a few, lost the plans, and built it anyway.
Definite Grassroots Aerosports material.
RX Reven' wrote: …obviously a Flying Flea derivative gone wild
The first thing that popped into my brain (before I got to the bottom of your post) was "Looks like the love child of a Flying Flea and a Fairchild 24"...
Q: what do you make of this?
A: hat, a broach, a pterodactyl!!
Splashes water on his face..."I have a drinking problem"
gold, comedy gold
It is a Croses B-EC9 based in France... according to www.airport-data.com.
"And don't call me Shirley!"
Almost looks like the love child of a Shorts and Danny Devito. "whats this hole for?"
Good luck, and we're all counting on you.
"Over Macho Grande?"
"I'll never be over Macho Grande."
Warning: potentially overly technical aerodynamic question ---
Is the rear wing on that thing a lift wing? It looks like it has to be (based on what looks to be the center of mass). If so, I would guess the incidence angle would need to be a lot higher then the front to avoid a rear wing stall (very bad). Of course this might explain why the flying flee (same configuration) is generally know as a very dangerous airplane. It would seem to also imply a lot of drag at speed. What exactly where they hoping to gain with this configuration?
As a note: in "typical" configuration airplanes the horizontal stabilizer (little rear wing) actually pushes the tail down, thus insuring any stalling on any surface with cause the nose to drop (sort of self correcting).
aircooled wrote: Warning: potentially overly technical aerodynamic question --- Is the rear wing on that thing a lift wing? It looks like it has to be (based on what looks to be the center of mass). If so, I would guess the incidence angle would need to be a lot higher then the front to avoid a rear wing stall (very bad). Of course this might explain why the flying flee (same configuration) is generally know as a very dangerous airplane. It would seem to also imply a lot of drag at speed. What exactly where they hoping to gain with this configuration? As a note: in "typical" configuration airplanes the horizontal stabilizer (little rear wing) actually pushes the tail down, thus insuring any stalling on any surface with cause the nose to drop (sort of self correcting).
OK, yeah, so apparently it's a recreation of a 1930s aircraft. I like the original! It's cheap and probably more reliable than the Cessna I learned to fly in (Happymeal as we all lovingly called it).
With that big door it's gotta be for skydiving, no more speedstar lines to go out the door, they just all go out together. That thing scares me, I want no part of flying it.
Damn that's an ugly airplane. And I think A-10s are sexy.
To answer the above question, tandem wing have a very large CG range, since all horizontal surfaces are providing lift. The original Fleas were labeled dangerous because they were built by rank amateurs, with no over site. Safety wire? Just use some bailing wire. There are a lot of Fleas that are built to contemporary standards that are flying safe.
To call that airplane (if that's really what it is) ugly is an insult to any other ugly airplanes in the world. That contraption is way past ugly; I'm not even sure that the English language has a word to describe it..
The other reason that Fleas got deemed unsafe is that the control system actually warped the wings instead of operating control surfaces set into them. So this system A) didn't necessarily operate well, and B) led to stress failures in some very amateur-built versions.
Duke wrote: ...the control system actually warped the wings
Just like the Wright Flyer...
you think thats dumb, you should have been at Oshkosh air show and seen some home builts, last weekend.
lots of real cool planes also
So, it's a parasol wing in the front..
No horizontal stab at all.
And a second, conventional (looking) wing on the fuselage, neither wing would quilify as a canard.
I smell some photoshop skullduggery here.
Sorry, NOTHING is uglier than a Shorts Skyvan: 
At least you don't have to take it out of the packing crate to fly it.
Shawn
ronbros wrote: you think thats dumb, you should have been at Oshkosh air show and seen some home builts, last weekend. lots of real cool planes also
Really? I saw nothing but cool. Then again, I wasn't look too hard. Care to out the offenders?
You'll need to log in to post.
