I don't know anything about old airliners, so I can't judge whether that DH is the prettiest ever . . . . but what an odd duck. It looks like it shouldn't be pretty, if you know what I mean. It's got a snub nose, odd bi-wings . . . but the impression overall really is pleasing.
Any 'plane with Spats is ok by me. 1944 is slightly post-Deco but it's still very streamlined - like a Whitney Wolverine - Raymond Lowey would be proud.
Oh, I'm increasingly coming to think DHC just totally rocked. Beavers and Otters are still going strong up here. Some with turbine conversions, some I'm sure with hardly anything original save the nameplate. But gosh they're well loved.
Oh, a Constellation has heartbreakingly beautiful lines, but there's just something so... so... I don't know... So wistful, so faerie-like about the Dragon Rapide.
I don't think that kind of beauty can be achieved with stressed skin and rivets.
Frankly, I think the spats/non-RG is the only thing wrong with its looks. If they had made the gear swing up behind the engine, it would be a lot better looking, even if the tire protruded a bit. The spats just ruin the proportions, in my opinion.
I saw that DeHavilland in Richard III (possibly the best adaptation of the old classic I've ever seen), and I would have sworn that the airplane was made up and phony; that such a thing of odd beauty had never been built and would never fly, and why were the wings all cucumber-tapered like that. But then here you go and post that picture.
I suppose you'll link to Youtube footage of the Yeti and Tinkerbell driving around in a hovercar with a copy of yesterday's USAToday in the backseat.
12 comments:
That's such a cool site. The pics of the 747's landing in St. Maarten are amazing.
Neat site.
I don't know anything about old airliners, so I can't judge whether that DH is the prettiest ever . . . . but what an odd duck. It looks like it shouldn't be pretty, if you know what I mean. It's got a snub nose, odd bi-wings . . . but the impression overall really is pleasing.
I just don't know why.
Very art deco. I think it's art deco.
I know nothing about art, or interior decoration, or architecture, for for some reason that plane makes me think 'art deco.'
It had a bit part in the art deco/fascist remake of Richard III
I was always partial to the deHavilland Comet, with the twin jet engines right at each wing root.
Damn shame they had a habit of falling out of the air...
Any 'plane with Spats is ok by me.
1944 is slightly post-Deco but it's still very streamlined - like a Whitney Wolverine - Raymond Lowey would be proud.
Oh, I'm increasingly coming to think DHC just totally rocked. Beavers and Otters are still going strong up here. Some with turbine conversions, some I'm sure with hardly anything original save the nameplate. But gosh they're well loved.
I want one. :)
I think I'll go with the Lockheed Constellation for prettiest airliner ever. The Electra wasn't too ugly either.
Oh, a Constellation has heartbreakingly beautiful lines, but there's just something so... so... I don't know... So wistful, so faerie-like about the Dragon Rapide.
I don't think that kind of beauty can be achieved with stressed skin and rivets.
Was that one of Nevil Shute's?
Frankly, I think the spats/non-RG is the only thing wrong with its looks. If they had made the gear swing up behind the engine, it would be a lot better looking, even if the tire protruded a bit. The spats just ruin the proportions, in my opinion.
I saw that DeHavilland in Richard III (possibly the best adaptation of the old classic I've ever seen), and I would have sworn that the airplane was made up and phony; that such a thing of odd beauty had never been built and would never fly, and why were the wings all cucumber-tapered like that. But then here you go and post that picture.
I suppose you'll link to Youtube footage of the Yeti and Tinkerbell driving around in a hovercar with a copy of yesterday's USAToday in the backseat.
gvi
Post a Comment