The Most Beautiful Car Ever

The Most Beautiful Car Ever Made

  • Lancia Fulvia

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • Alpha Romeo 8C

    Votes: 3 13.0%
  • Ferrari 458 Italia

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • McLaren LM F1

    Votes: 3 13.0%
  • Lancia Stratos

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • Lamborghini Gallardo Balboni

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • Ferrari F40

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • Lamborghini Reventon

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • Aston Martin DB9

    Votes: 6 26.1%
  • Jaguar E-Type

    Votes: 2 8.7%

  • Total voters
    23
Nice choices captain. The Gumman Tigercat and the De Havilland Mosquito are neck-and-neck in my book and the SR-71 get a point taken off for the puddles of JP-6 it leaves on the ground, but solid aesthetics.

Well despite that its a thing of beauty :)

How about spitfire?

I think LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado is worth having a look as well.

This about not the beauty but the money ...... if you can afford such an expensive luxury i.e. Airbus A380

Talking of Concorde: i remember it was a ruskie plane which exceeded Mach 2 before Concorde i.e. Tupolev TU- 144.
 
My first though would be of This Engine just because of the sheer impressiveness of a W16.

As for the Train theme this is what I Think of.

For the air it can only be what could have been the most advance aircraft of its time the Avro Arrow if only it wasn't cancelled...

Epic power? Nuff said.

Some might not think This Car looks nice but its beautiful in its own unique way.

And thats all for now I think.
 
And if I have to name very ugly plane i'd say Airbus's Beluga ! God its one ugly beast.
Yeah well, Boeing had as ugly, but way sooner. (Note the propellors) http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2008-1/21/9620.jpg
For the air it can only be what could have been the most advance aircraft of its time the Avro Arrow if only it wasn't cancelled...
I going to go with the Avro Vulcan http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...er_RAF.JPEG/800px-Avro_Vulcan_Bomber_RAF.JPEG It'a a bunch more "science fictioney", but yet I remain committed to comparing Avros to Avros.
 
Well despite that its a thing of beauty :)
How about spitfire?.

Except for the ogival wing not to different from it's contemporaries. The P-51D/K was probably a better all round fighter. From an ability and viewing standpoint respectively the Yakovlev Yak-3 and the Martin-Baker MB.5 are probably better candidates

This about not the beauty but the money ...... if you can afford such an expensive luxury i.e. Airbus A380.

Sorry- It's a bus with wings......a very large aluminium cylinder. Kitted out as a VIP transport would be great from the inside but from the outside it ain't no Hustler y'know what I'm saying?

Talking of Concorde: i remember it was a ruskie plane which exceeded Mach 2 before Concorde i.e. Tupolev TU- 144.

And here's the plane that the Tu-144 was based upon- the Sukhoi T-4 . The Soviets answer to the North American XB-70 Valkyrie (and no more successful)
 
I soon as I saw the contra rotating propellers on the Martin Baker, the phrase "cost overrun" popped into my head.

The Yak 3 sort of blends the look of a early model Mustang (P-51B) and a P-40, but the scoop is quite spiffy
 
I soon as I saw the contra rotating propellers on the Martin Baker, the phrase "cost overrun" popped into my head.

The Yak 3 sort of blends the look of a early model Mustang (P-51B) and a P-40, but the scoop is quite spiffy

Unfortunately the MB.5 was another that got killed off by politics. It was a great design for it's day, neutral handing (no torque) and was designed around the Rolls-Royce Griffon rather than having the engine shoehorned into the space that the Merlin occupied (Spitfire).
I think some of the Yak's styling came from the Bell P-39 as that was used extensively by the Soviets (and well regarded too) although they'd probably deny it- although they had the cut down rear fusalage/bubble canopy before the P-51D and P-47D ever did.
 
And here's the plane that the Tu-144 was based upon- the Sukhoi T-4 . The Soviets answer to the North American XB-70 Valkyrie (and no more successful)
Believe it or not, there were actually early versions of the SR-71 that were intended to be equipped with weapons to intercept perceived threats such as this plane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12
I think some of the Yak's styling came from the Bell P-39 as that was used extensively by the Soviets (and well regarded too) although they'd probably deny it- although they had the cut down rear fusalage/bubble canopy before the P-51D and P-47D ever did.
It was the tricycle landing that gear made the P-39 and P-63 unique for single engined fighters in their time. You could actually see where you were going at takeoff. Love the doors too.
 
W16 is a beautiful engine so is the car although its mind blowingly expensive and despite that its not that impractical supercar either if you are not worried about boot space :)
 
Believe it or not, there were actually early versions of the SR-71 that were intended to be equipped with weapons to intercept perceived threats such as this plane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12

I read somewhere that the SR-71 needs regular flights at Mach 2.8+ to relieve stress buildup in the airframe and on flights out of Vandenberg AFB it's turning circle around the air base is so large it cannot keep within the boundaries of the state.


If NcNabb gets traded to the Raiders then he would have something in common with the SR-71!.....sorry, I lost money on the choke job against the Cowboys.
 
Somehow we left out Mustang ...... its relatively good looking especially when you consider it was designed and built in just what 3 and bit months.
 
Somehow we left out Mustang ...... its relatively good looking especially when you consider it was designed and built in just what 3 and bit months.

No we didn't. Check the last post on page 4 for the P-51D/K (Mustang)
The legendary 3 months timescale is often misinterpreted as meaning from the British Purchasing Commission approving the design drawings from North American Aviation to the aircraft's first roll out (or first flight). This is incorrect as the British request was made in April 1940, the preliminary design was approved on 4 May and the RAF order was placed 29 May. First flight took place 186 days later on 26 Oct (prototype NA-73X, FAA number NX19998) with the first production aircraft (RAF serial AG345) flying on 1 May 1941.
 
I read somewhere that the SR-71 needs regular flights at Mach 2.8+ to relieve stress buildup in the airframe and on flights out of Vandenberg AFB it's turning circle around the air base is so large it cannot keep within the boundaries of the state.
The SR-71 actually grows in length by about 6 inches, and one supposes that because of the fuselage chines, flies itself straight in the process.

As to the "can't keep it in the state" from Vandenburg, this is likely true, but also a worthless conclusion, since Vandenburg AFB is only about 2 miles from the coast, and the Pacific Ocean is, well, technically, "out of state". In the approach the SR-71 is hovering above 200Kts IAS, so yeah, it probably leaves the state in a big, big, hurry.

An SR-71 stationed at Vandenburg, would almost have no practical mission involving overflight of the US. In air refueling after launch (it's not really practical or safe to try and leave with "a full tank of gas"), would be over the ocean anyway.

The more the sweep back of the wing of any aircraft, the harder it is to get it turned around, and the less effective the rudder becomes, since roll yaw coupling decreases dramatically, and is aggravated by low dihedral angles.

This is the only annoyance of watching the Blue Angels or the Thunderbirds, as after a high speed pass, they necessarily have to fly out of sight to get turned around. With the Blue Angels this is offset by the magic, smoke, and noise of a twelve afterburner, full power blast off!

Fun facts: JP-7 is solid at 86F, and the aircraft has no fuel bladders. So, the top and bottom of the tanks are the skin of the aircraft. Hence the leaks. Nitrogen is pumped in as the fuel is burned off, logically to prevent the skin of the aircraft from igniting it at flight temperatures

The SR-71 rotates for takeoff at about 210 Kts, and touches down at around 155 Kts. Zero to 210 Kts occurs in about 20 seconds.

Somehow we left out Mustang ...... its relatively good looking especially when you consider it was designed and built in just what 3 and bit months.
Well, that's not anywhere true. The Mustang was developed from the existing A-36, which in itself looks as though it was the product of industrial espionage relative to the P-40 "Warhawk. The early Mustangs delivered to Britain, actually created a bunch of bad feelings, and were called the "Castrated Mustangs", since the Allison engine lacked the high altitude possibilities of the Spits and others. The early Mustangs were thus often utilized in a ground attack role. Luckily, Great Britain had a bunch of RR "Merlins" laying around, and the rest is history.

I don't know if it's true of all Mustangs, but the "D" model brought a "laminar flow" airfoil to the fighter arena. It contributed to range and maximum speed. This because of a reduction in drag. This is so because the air boundary layer is "laminated" to the wing across the full chord. The flow in more standard airfoils separates at the rear and creates turbulence, thereby inducing drag. Laminar flow airfoils peak thickness occurs @ 40% or greater of wing chord vs. 25 % or so in ordinary "normal" airfoils. And that boys and girls, (plus the drop tanks), is how they flew fighter escort all the way to Berlin. And looked good doing it!
 
Good info cap.
The laminar airflow airfoil was introduced in the XP-78 which were renamed XP-51B-so for intents and purposes the airfoil and blended wing was in effect from the P-51B. There's a school of thought that the blended wing root was "appropriated" from the Curtiss XP-46 -probably a little difficult to ascertain the truth there, as in most things Glenn Curtiss related.

I think the Vandenberg flights are mainly training (SR-71C) and the problem they had with the aircraft is that it's turning circle took it over Nevada (!) and inversion layers (I think) made it hard to keep track of on radar.
 
I think the Vandenberg flights are mainly training (SR-71C) and the problem they had with the aircraft is that it's turning circle took it over Nevada (!) and inversion layers (I think) made it hard to keep track of on radar.
The "B" model is the trainer, or twin pilot if you will. There is/was only 1 "C" model,it was built from the spare parts of a wrecked "B". I suppose that it could be, or was used used as a trainer also.

Even during a training mission, it would be hard to imagine not taking a Blackbird past Mach, perhaps they were just trying to hide the (illegal) sonic boom. Mabye it was one of those things that happened in Las Vegas and stayed in Las Vegas.

And speaking of Nevada:

At an airshow (McGuire AFB NJ) a couple of years back, I spoke with a B-52G bombardier, who explained that their last bombing mission was in Utah. I inquired as to why George W. Bush had declared war on Utah. If I had it to do over, I would have deadpanned, "really, you wouldn't think that the polygamy was that much of a problem, much less being worthy of initiating an air strike".

Hmm, Curtiss XP-46 huh, it kinda looks familiar; http://images.google.com/imgres?img...el=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&um=1 Well, save for the laminar airfoil.
 
SR-71B it is- I stand corrected. The old memory not quite up to snuff...Probably imbibed little too much during the Vikings/Saints game.

I think the Curtiss was an effort to keep the P-40 Hawk series going- a basic scaled down model in the hope that Curtiss would be able to keep a lot of the jigs and tooling from the Hawk 87/P-40
 
i would like to give another honorable mention to this i.e. Hughes H-1 Racer (Silver Bullet).

Howard Hughes set a three-kilometer speed record of 352 mph one-off try in this H-1, or his preference - the Racer.

Hughes’ creation was a melange of old and new—wooden wings, fabric-covered control surfaces and tail skid co-existing with an all-metal flush-riveted monocoque, drooping ailerons (which act as flaps at low speed), split flaps, a fire-suppression system, and hydraulically operated landing gear. Streamlining was a paramount design criteria resulting in "one of the cleanest and most elegant aircraft designs ever built".

Conceptually, it went back to the time-honored formula of shoehorning a big engine in a small airframe. Therefore, it was fitted with a Pratt & Whitney R-1535 twin-row 14-cylinder radial engine of 25.2 liters, which although originally rated at 700 hp, was tuned to put out over 1,000 horsepower

In late 1990s Jim Wright started to build a replica of this plane and finished it few years later.
 
Yes thats true.

With regard to your earlier comment, well I guess for the sake of argument its bit like Miura, i.e. conceptually it was fantastically beautiful but as a car well pretty dismal to put it mildly, whereas probably its reverse for that lol.
 
Reverting back to our discussion about cars, having gone through you and captain's postings; I was thinking if i had to come up with a car which can be termed as 'greatest'; despite spending hours I am unable to find anything which comes even close to Lancia Delta Intergrale ..... It was reasonably stylish in its own way, luxurious but very practical with impeccable road manners, but capable of a blistering 0–100 km/h (0–62 mph) acceleration in just 6.6 seconds and a maximum speed of 133 mph (214 km/h) (later models had better engine/power).

The way it dominated the World Rally Championships in the late 1980s (won six in a row 1987-92); no other car has done that. If i could afford one i'd like to have one because despite the fact that it is about 20 years old it will still give good run for the money to so many of today's super cars in corners :)
 
At least its a close race, 2 votes to almost any of the cars and it takes the lead.
 
yes that is very true.

But i think it will be more fun to be in stratos ..... because it can be fantastic and ridiculous at the same time ..... know what i mean ;)
 
I'll go ahead and admit, I didn't feel like reading all this... but this got under my skin.
The American automobile had a manifold design objective, (highlights to follow).

1. To have fins higher than last year's American car

2. To rust out in 5 years tops

3. To have a large enough back seat to accommodate a Roman orgy.

4. And last but not least, to be able to burn all the tread off the rear tires with one press of the accelerator.

Now I ask you, how would cornering ability factor into any of that?

I have a problem with this... 2 actually.

I am assuming number 1 was meant for when... ya know... American car manufacturers were still building cars with fins.

Number 2... We've still got a 1971 Demon that has very little rust. If taken care of, they will not rust as you seem to claim is guaranteed.

3.You're right, they were really made for more and more room, no contest, unless you are talking about a HP car.

4. Yeah, to a point.

On the cornering aspect... here in the US, our roads and driveways aren't as sharp and small as in Japan and other countries who are so tightly built. They didn't need the tight cornering radius and to be able to take turns at 60 and 80 mph. Though I know my dad has, and can. He's done it in a 68 Barracuda, a car said to have major under-steer.

It's the driver. Sure, they might not take them as easily, nor as fast, as the newer japs/exotics, but they can take them if done right.
 
Back