In article , Mitchell Holman
says...

Miloch wrote in
:

In article , Mitchell
Holman says...

Miloch wrote in
:




I am always amazed that the country that
made the beautiful Spitfire could also make
planes as ugly and this and the Blackburn II


With a name like Mitchell, it's understandable you'd be partial to the
Spitfire!


And the B-25........

My father flew them in the 50s and early 60s just to get in his flight time for
flight pay...he hated them! Said they were too noisy and left his ears ringing
long afterwards. As a 10,000 hour pilot, he had hearing loss all his life due
to flying....

https://hearinghealthmatters.org/hea...-loss-part-ii/

....."In terms of the noise generated by the airplane itself, Little (2018)
indicates that the noise exposure question is more complex than it first
appears. In his description of the noise in these planes he suggests that the
aircraft noise to which a crewman was exposed would depend their distance from
the engine noise. He indicates that the noisiest places would have been those
that were the closest to the tips of the propeller blades. (The B-25 might have
had the loudest cockpit of any American bomber, because the tips of the spinning
propellers were only about a foot from the pilots canopy.)

On the B-17 and the B-24, the crewmen who were the closest to the propeller tips
would have been the pilot, copilot, flight-engineer/top-turret gunner, and, on
the B-24, the radio operator. By contrast, I suspect that the tail-gunners
would have been exposed to the least noise, simply because they were the
farthest from the tips of the propeller blades.








But ya!...I've always wondered if it's a matter of budget and being
practical or one of aeronautical design skills.

It almost seems like lack of streamlining is part of British
aeronautical DNA.


*