In the Air...On the Air...Whatever. It's Still Not as Ugly as Joan Rivers.

Donovan over at Argghhh! is collecting ugly aircraft. He's building quite a rogues' gallery of bad planes.

My nominee is the Barling Bomber, pictured above. Not only is it ugly, but it was a terrible plane in every other way, as well. It took a train to Wright Airbase in Ohio for assembly, and was at that time the largest single object ever moved by rail. It weighed 32,000 pounds, but its six engines delivered only 2,400 horsepower. It cruised at a comedic 61 miles per hour and, though it was built as a long-range bomber, could travel only 170 miles with a full bomb load.

In the end, the Barling didn't meet a single one of its design specifications. Plus it was really ugly.

Comments

[Randy Nowlan]

I know I am unusually blind, but I can only see four engines in this picture. The specs at other sites also say it was powered by 6 420 hp engines. I don't suppose missing two engines would affect its flight characteristics any.

[Tom Sullivan]

I have an acquaintance who has a propeller from the Barling Bomber. Her Husband now deceased purchased it in Ohio many years ago. I am trying to document the propeller as the photo in the book show a larger propeller than the one I remember. Can you provide me with information as to the length of the prop or a source where I might find it.

It will be offered for sale as the current owner is clearing out the clutter in her life and her family has no interested in the prop.

The prop is laminated and the leading edge is protected by a copper cover secured to the wood by screws (I believe) Condition is very good as I remember. If interested I will try to procure some photos. But before I claim it to be authentic I need to get the specifications of the prop. (Length).

Tom Sullivan
805 566 0193

[Manticore]

I believe the inboard engines are actually a pair - one pulling & one pushing.

[You cannot increase muscle without decreasing brain - Edgar Wallace]