Dylan,

I spent some time flying in the tropics and never thought the
Trislander was ugly. The basic Islander was stubby and pudgy and so I
thought the longer tri-motor version of it looked much sleeker.
However, the airplane didn't work out because the builders forgot
about the target market...people flying in awful conditions but with a
simple airplane they could fix when things broke. With the Trislander
you couldn't get to the tail engine without a scaffold and so when
something minor happened to it while you were in West Bumfolded, you
were hosed because you couldn't fix it. As a result, it didn't last
long. The twin engine Islanders, ugly as they are, have soldiered on
and continue to do so.

All the best,
Rick

Dylan Smith wrote in message ...
In article , Rick Durden wrote:
You'll have to do some research. A number of magazines printed
pictures of the airplane when it was being tested, back in the late
'60s, maybe early '70s. Looked like a small Ju-52 with flat engines
and a nosewheel.

If you want to see an ugly plane, look out for the Britten Norman
Trislander. A high wing triple, with the centre engine mounted on
the vertical stabilizer! Fixed gear, too.