Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pen!kallis
From: kallis@pen.DEC
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: \"Was It Something I Said\", et al.
Message-ID: <2737@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Jun-85 16:41:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.2737
Posted: Mon Jun 17 16:41:32 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Jun-85 03:10:59 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 13

On the subject of "most beautiful aircraft," I can think of only
one *family* of aircraft that this applies to from an aesthetic
standpoint: the Northrop Flying Wings.  There were several technical
reasons these aircraft didn't "take hold," but looking at them in 
flight, they were beautiful (perhaps the only readily available footage
worth seeing's buried in the 1950s-timeframe science fiction movie, _War
of the Worlds_, where a YB49 was used to drop a nuclear weapon (unsuccess-
fully) on the invading Martians).  there are aircraft I have a greater
emotional attachment to, such as the DC-3, or my beloved PA28-151, but
for sheer beauty (and a sort of timelessness: the basic configuration is as
ancient/modern as an eagle), you can't touch a Flying Wing, in my opinion.

Steve Kallis, Jr.