N941WR
Legacy Member
Watching the discussion on the RV-4A really brought this saying to the forefront.
Every time I look at a Skyhawk I wonder if we would think it was a good looking plane, if it wasn't so common. (Ok, "good looking" might be the wrong term for the 172 but it isn't ugly.)
The RV lineage is good looking, just not gorgeous, with one exception, in my eye. This is saying a lot when you consider they are mostly straight lines. Other airplanes of similar design and construction material don't pull it off, say the Zenair 601/650 for example.
The side-by-side RV's all look good as either a tail dragger or with a nosewheel.
However, add a nosewheel to an RV-8 and all I can think of is (sorry folks):
In my humble opinion, the best looking homebuilt ever designed (I'm not talking about performance, just looks.) is:
Out of curiosity, what do you consider the best and worst looking homebuilts? (There are plenty of ugly and gorgeous production planes but for this exercise, let's leave those out.)
Every time I look at a Skyhawk I wonder if we would think it was a good looking plane, if it wasn't so common. (Ok, "good looking" might be the wrong term for the 172 but it isn't ugly.)
The RV lineage is good looking, just not gorgeous, with one exception, in my eye. This is saying a lot when you consider they are mostly straight lines. Other airplanes of similar design and construction material don't pull it off, say the Zenair 601/650 for example.
The side-by-side RV's all look good as either a tail dragger or with a nosewheel.
However, add a nosewheel to an RV-8 and all I can think of is (sorry folks):
In my humble opinion, the best looking homebuilt ever designed (I'm not talking about performance, just looks.) is:
Out of curiosity, what do you consider the best and worst looking homebuilts? (There are plenty of ugly and gorgeous production planes but for this exercise, let's leave those out.)
